Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

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.

Demonstrate this.

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.

Pretty ironic that you've said this, considering you clearly haven't been reading a single thing we've said.

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?

The answer to all of these questions is that evolution isn't selecting for positive traits so much as against negative ones; these plants started out so efficient- insofar that I'll even accept a "start" to a gradual evolutionary process- is because the initial mutation that caused their photosynthetic response had a higher band of tolerances for extremes. Certain plants retained that efficiency because it wasn't a harmful trait, nor was it enough of an energy sink to select it out of the gene pool on its own. In other plants, they lost the efficiency because one of the many random mutations that generations of organisms go through reduced this trait, again without being sufficiently harmful to produce a negative selection pressure.

Evolution can just be parallel, you know.

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.

Oh my fucking god, are you listening at all? Evolution is not beholden to the environment. Traits can evolve without being required to survive in a given environment. One can evolve to use more sunlight without that light actually existing; after all, the sun has always existed. The purpose for those photosynthetic cells is the same at 125% capacity as it is at 100% capacity; absorbing sunlight for the purposes of obtaining energy. Your objection here is nonsensical!

Do you understand yet?

Do you?

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!!!

I'm about to have a fucking aneurysm, I'm sure...

[Bad Writer]

Plants weren't created; they evolved. This whole pure light bullshit is nonsense.

[Minimalist]

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.

You are trying to explain radar to your dog, Esq. He's incapable of getting it.

[Tonus]

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.

Is there a basis for the 125% and 100% numbers? What if those "original" plants were 101% more efficient than later plants? Or 100.25% more? What if they started out only 99% efficient and gradually became more efficient, thus hitting that magic 125% mark much later on?

Maybe Kent Hovind is right, and there was a "canopy of ice" that surrounded the Earth, and therefore the plants had to be 250,000,000% more efficient!!!

[Drich]

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.

Is there a basis for the 125% and 100% numbers? What if those "original" plants were 101% more efficient than later plants? Or 100.25% more? What if they started out only 99% efficient and gradually became more efficient, thus hitting that magic 125% mark much later on?

Maybe Kent Hovind is right, and there was a "canopy of ice" that surrounded the Earth, and therefore the plants had to be 250,000,000% more efficient!!!

The sun=100% of avaiable of solar energy currently avaiable for photosynthsis. The extra 25 to 50 % repersents how much more things like algae can process over and above the current max output of the sun.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

You are trying to explain radar to your dog, Esq. He's incapable of getting it.

Maybe, but most dogs get "smell". This one not even that, or else he wouldn't fart so much.

[Bad Writer]

You are trying to explain radar to your dog, Esq. He's incapable of getting it.

Maybe, but most dogs get "smell". This one not even that, or else he wouldn't fart so much.

Now now, the poor sot is limited by a single (flawed) tome. It's not his fault he can't understand ideas that are contrary to his fantasies.

Oh wait. It is.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Oh wow. No, the sun doesn't represent all the sunlight that's available for plants.

First you have to measure outside of the earth's atmosphere, and then the inside. Then you'll see that much is dependent upon the atmosphere.

Secondly, if the tilt of the earth is different, we can have spots on earth that receives direct sunlight all the time. Even more than the poles do during their summer. Obviously what is available to a plant or can possibly be available to a plant depends upon where the plant is, the season and the atmosphere.

But oh well, my posts are invisible to Drich.

[Mystical]

For the second time, Drich, please provide evidential support of your claim. You could be talking about a pretend plant for all I know.

[Bad Writer]

He's talking about pretend everything. He hasn't even demonstrated how the earth could exist before the sun.