Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

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.

First of all, I'm really not responsible for what tonus does or doesn't think, because he and I are different people. Secondly, I'm not exactly sure that anything he's said disagrees with my position here. Could you quote it for me?

I'm sure he could clear it up himself if he drops back in, too.

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

Better than you have been, apparently. Because your initial post, the one I was responding to here, and the question you asked, was this:

Some plants do better in almost twice the current intensity of sunlight than we currently get. Not just for a little while, but these plant can live extended lifecycles in this 2x sunlight. Again how is that possiable. How can a plant so over develop it photo reactive cells to the point where they can process twice the energy as everything else on the planet, but have Never been in a place, time or condition to have naturally (Bazillions of years appearently) these cells that will Never be used?

Regardless of what your actual objection was, this was what you posted as support for it. You asked this question, and I responded; more than that, I also pointed out that poking holes in evolution doesn't give your position any more credibility, and that this isn't a legitimate hole anyway.

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.

Ooh, positive claim. Evidence, please. I mean, I've already told you how your objection to the evolutionary answer makes no sense, so you're going to have to either provide something positive in support, or try a new negative tack... though that won't ever actually prove your claim.

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.

I answered the question from your post, that I quoted. That was all I set out to do, and that's the position I've been arguing from this whole time; there's a very definite evolutionary explanation of this phenomena, whether you understand it or not.

And the process is demonstrable, which already gives it a leg up on your creation nonsense.

[downbeatplumb]

All Drich is demonstrating is that he has no idea what evolution is or how it works.

[Bad Writer]

And proving that he has no desire to learn. Hell, based on his words he still thinks the Earth came before the sun, as his baseless story about how early plants subsisted on a "pure light" is his fallback claim.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Why is this plant thing so hard to understand for you? Drich, mind sharing where is the level of your biology education? It's easier for me to explain that way.

As for why plants lose the "ability" to process high amount of light. This is quite simple, it takes energy to maintain light sensitive cells, energy that may be better off expended elsewhere. There's a balance in everything, when it becomes too costly for a plant to maintain this level of capabilities the trait will be selected against until there is a balance.

Kind of like how even though speed is a great thing for a cheetah, they don't go supersonic. Because the energy is needed elsewhere.

[Faith No More]

I've found that one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution that theists have is that each of these traits evolve in a vacuum with no consequences on the rest of the organism.

[MindForgedManacle]

Exactly. To piggyback off PBB's cheetah example, there are also negative consequences of organism becoming too developed in a particular area. Cheetahs have become fast, but their stamina is quite low. They cannot maintain their speed for long, and must rest extensively after having hunted. There are downsides to overly-developed adaptations. We humans have massive brains that enable us to - given enough societal evolution and scientific development - perform wonders, but our brains themselves are resource hogs.

[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.

Whoops, I meant to say chloroplasts there.

[Tonus]

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.

As I understand it, Esq is saying that the evolution of organisms occurs as a result of numerous successive mutations. That's not at odds with what I am saying, which is that those mutations do not all have to be "positive" or beneficial and that changes that are not beneficial will not automatically lead to the extinction of a species. Or the immediate extinction, anyway.

[Esquilax]

As I understand it, Esq is saying that the evolution of organisms occurs as a result of numerous successive mutations. That's not at odds with what I am saying, which is that those mutations do not all have to be "positive" or beneficial and that changes that are not beneficial will not automatically lead to the extinction of a species. Or the immediate extinction, anyway.

Yes on the first count, and we've both been saying the second thing. Drich is just a little hard of understanding when it comes to things he doesn't want to be true.

Dishonest presuppositions will do that to a person.

[Drich]

As I understand it, Esq is saying that the evolution of organisms occurs as a result of numerous successive mutations. That's not at odds with what I am saying, which is that those mutations do not all have to be "positive" or beneficial and that changes that are not beneficial will not automatically lead to the extinction of a species. Or the immediate extinction, anyway.

Yes on the first count, and we've both been saying the second thing. Drich is just a little hard of understanding when it comes to things he doesn't want to be true.

Dishonest presuppositions will do that to a person.

I know and accept that not all mutations have to be positive!!! My WHOLE Arguement depends on it!!! I am saying these plants were created perfectly!!! To absorb a more energy rich light, And then had to de-evolve (mutate) to work under our yellow sun.

You people are like mindless pit bulls you see certain key words and latch on to what you think a theist position is, damn actual content or what is being communicated, and you can not let go. Because you only understand things from one angle when I oppose you. You assume i must be taking the angle that directly opposes you.

Again not the case. If plant life started out at 125% or more under a sun that produces less heat and less uv because green house gasses were much much lower than now, and the plants de-evolved to work at 100% or less of direct sun exposure, then why did they start out so effencient? that is the question being asked. As a follow up,
Why do certain plants retain this effency? And others do not? I know you want to default to the tonciles, apendixs, tail bones and little toe arguements, but may I remind you if you do then you are validating my assertion that at some point in earth's history this 125% or more greater light did indeed exist. (Or these plants did indeed originate some place where this light did exist.) fore every one of those items we no longer use did indeed have a purpose. As out environment at one point demanded it. In the same way if you default to a 'mutation' arguement you are validating that the greater/more pure light condition did indeed exist.

Do you understand yet?

If you truly do and still oppose what I have said then please start out be explaining my position as you see it and then address where it is wrong. Otherwise I am done with this arguement. Because nothing you nor anyone else has said directly addresses my points. All any of you has done is address key words and how they would be used in a typical atheist/Christian arguement. Which Does Not Apply Here!!!