Unanswered questions

[Mystical]

You guys still don't get it. The mutation in this case make the plant less effencient. In essence the plants are in a sense devolving as they 'evolve' so as to modify themselves to fit the environments they now live in. If a plant could orginaly process 100w aday and now in a more modern form can only process 75w aday then the 'mutation' speaks against evolution especially since we are told by the same science the planet is getting warmer.

My question from the beginning that can not be explained by mutation is if the daily amount of solar input of a given species is 75w at full contact, then how is it possible that some of the oldest species of plant life can successfully process so much more solar energy when made available?

This could be one of many many reasons.. Only data can lead to conclusions. What plant are you referring to?
Also, looksie.

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.
It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

[Drich]

You guys still don't get it. The mutation in this case make the plant less effencient. In essence the plants are in a sense devolving as they 'evolve' so as to modify themselves to fit the environments they now live in. If a plant could orginaly process 100w aday and now in a more modern form can only process 75w aday then the 'mutation' speaks against evolution especially since we are told by the same science the planet is getting warmer.

My question from the beginning that can not be explained by mutation is if the daily amount of solar input of a given species is 75w at full contact, then how is it possible that some of the oldest species of plant life can successfully process so much more solar energy when made available?

This could be one of many many reasons.. Only data can lead to conclusions. What plant are you referring to?
Also, looksie.

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.
It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

I was going to wait and see who else commented or kudoed you on this before I said something, but decided to call you on it instead.
You do know... Evolution supposedly happens over the course of millions and millions of years right? It's not something that could have made the changes we are talking about since mans entry into the Industrial Age. So whether or not it was brighter in the 1950s or even at the turn of the 19th century it makes no difference to this particular discussion.

[Foxaèr]

Evolution supposedly happens over the course of millions and millions of years right?

Evolution can happen as quickly or as slowly as it pleases. There is no set standard for how long it takes for something to evolve from one stage to another.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ok, I really hate to get into evolution "debates".

But here are some facts that may be causing this confusion:

1. Mutation is just the change in genetic information that happens a) during DNA replication, b) radioactive/other damage to DNA. So since everything that we are is coded by our DNA, every phenotypic trait has a genetic component. The difference that I think you (Drich), may be caught up in, is whether the phenotype is caused by a single nucleotide mutation (look up SNP mutation), or if it has additive effects and is based on many many genes. Either way, as long as you agree that all phenotypic traits are coded by genes, and that change in genetic information qualifies as mutation, then every new trait that shows up in a population would qualify as a mutation.

2. Evolution doesn't stop happening. But the rate of evolution varies according to selection pressures, so if the pressure is strong (as it is now for many organisms), we do expect to see a higher rate of evolution, meaning faster changes. Few seasons of drought can dramatically change many organisms. I can grab my book and list off a few things for you, but I think that would be futile as I saw a few people have already given you examples.

Edit: the question about the plant. Without looking into it at all (and I won't be doing that, busy at the moment), my first guess would be the plant's ability to take up light is additive (density of chromosomes very likely), and it has more than is needed as a back up mechanism that is commonly seen in biology. Or, even more plausible, plants that are in places of low light have higher sensitivity and when placed somewhere that has more sunlight is able to take up all of it. OR MAYBE IT'S GOD.

[Esquilax]

My question from the beginning that can not be explained by mutation is if the daily amount of solar input of a given species is 75w at full contact, then how is it possible that some of the oldest species of plant life can successfully process so much more solar energy when made available?

And my answer, that you've continually ignored in favor of harping on the mutation thing, which I added as a possibility so I wasn't just picking holes, is that since evolution is in no way beholden to the environment, the amount of solar energy the plants can absorb in no way relates to the amount of solar energy available.

Once again, this isn't like Pokemon, where the environment you're in determines the type of thing that you are; animals routinely have traits that either make no sense given their environment, served some purpose at another time, or are even outright harmful, but don't directly kill the organism. The best example I can give are dolphins: aquatic mammals that still breathe air. Why? Because the environment that you are in has no bearing on how you're evolving, beyond killing those of your species with really harmful traits.

[Tonus]

You guys still don't get it. The mutation in this case make the plant less effencient. In essence the plants are in a sense devolving as they 'evolve' so as to modify themselves to fit the environments they now live in.

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or detrimental. It's still possible for a species to survive with a detrimental mutation, but its odds are not as good. A less efficient plant in a more forgiving environment may survive alongside the more efficient ones; it's simply at greater risk of becoming extinct if conditions change.

I think that the poor understanding of evolution among theists is due in large part to how it is presented in many books and television shows, where we are often told (or it is implied) that a creature evolved a feature to better deal with its environment. That's not the case.

[Drich]

The arguement is not whether or not mutation happens.

The arguement is whether or not a given plant's ablity to process less sunlight than an older species is a mutation. The majority of the Mob's soap boxing on evolution believes that modern plants benfit from more uv exposure than older plants which in your minds establishes a sucession of mutation.

This however is not the case. Algae is one of the oldest forms of plant life and it has one of the highest capasities for processing solar energy. which suggests that modern plant life is mutating/evolving to a less effencient form. (to adapt itself to our sun.) which again means that the algae that performs better in higher UV conditions either was designed to do so, OR this algae did not mutate/evolve here under know solar conditions.

This is the arguement. I am asking you to solve for X, (X being the reason simple plant life is more 'evolved' to handel higher uv exposure than mutated/evolved modern plants.)

Algae is not the only plant life that benfits from increased solar output. All one needs to do to access a list of plants that benefit from higher UV output, is look up a hydroponics Growers table to see what plants benfit, from what type of UV exposure.

[Tonus]

This however is not the case. Algae is one of the oldest forms of plant life and it has one of the highest capasities for processing solar energy. which suggests that modern plant life is mutating/evolving to a less effencient form. (to adapt itself to our sun.)

This is what I mean. Evolution does not, in and of itself, "move" in any direction. It simply happens for better or worse, and those life forms that cannot survive, do not. A less-efficient plant that can still process the sunlight it needs in order to survive will continue to survive, and will likely evolve into other species of plant which may or may not be as efficient. Those that become inefficient enough will die out.

We know that many, many species of life have become extinct over the ages. Some scientists guess that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed have also ceased to exist. How does that point to a design from a divine intellect? The fact that so many species die out makes sense in a world where evolution happens in an unguided fashion and not in a linearly progressive form. Where does god fit into a scenario where the vast majority of lifeforms fail?

[Esquilax]

The arguement is whether or not a given plant's ablity to process less sunlight than an older species is a mutation. The majority of the Mob's soap boxing on evolution believes that modern plants benfit from more uv exposure than older plants which in your minds establishes a sucession of mutation.

Of course there's a succession of mutations, because all changes and variations that occur within an organism are mutations. If life didn't mutate, we'd just be cloning ourselves.

This however is not the case. Algae is one of the oldest forms of plant life and it has one of the highest capasities for processing solar energy. which suggests that modern plant life is mutating/evolving to a less effencient form. (to adapt itself to our sun.) which again means that the algae that performs better in higher UV conditions either was designed to do so, OR this algae did not mutate/evolve here under know solar conditions.

False dichotomy, and I find it amazing that, after earlier today telling you again that evolutionary changes aren't dependent on the environment, I have to do it a second time. Are you even reading my posts? Are you reading anything that has been written in this thread?

Let me tell you again: these plants are NOT adapting themselves to ANY kind of environmental stimuli, because evolution does not, can not, and never has been proposed to, respond to environmental issues. Do you understand, now?

[Drich]

Of course there's a succession of mutations, because all changes and variations that occur within an organism are mutations. If life didn't mutate, we'd just be cloning ourselves.
.

tonus seems to think differently. maybe you two figure out who is right, and present one. Otherwise people might start to think I have divided the oppsitions argument.

False dichotomy, and I find it amazing that, after earlier today telling you again that evolutionary changes aren't dependent on the environment, I have to do it a second time. Are you even reading my posts? Are you reading anything that has been written in this thread?

Let me tell you again: these plants are NOT adapting themselves to ANY kind of environmental stimuli, because evolution does not, can not, and never has been proposed to, respond to environmental issues. Do you understand, now?

Now it's my turn to ask have you been reading ANY of my threads?!?!

Because I have said over and over and over My argument states that the ablity to absorb more energy than the sun puts out is not a mutation!!! It is or rather it was the starting point of all plant life that existed at the time of creation!!!! That they were originally created to absorb this 'pure' or at least purer from of light that existed before the sun. That Plants since then have De-evolved and mutated to MAXIMIZE their ablity to process the current suns energy in varing degrees.

Your still arguing in the other direction. which means you still do not grasp the nature of the argument. which makes all of your points and analogies invalid for what is being discussed.