esbo

Because it is not evolution, it is the same species it is just variation within the species, following your logic black man are a different species from white men, do you you seriously expect people to believe that?? It's also slightly racist. .

but not evolution!! I will go through the rest of the stuff later.

Well I have just provided that evidence in the recent posts here about butterfly's and viruses etc.. AS evolution is not proven the evidence is on those putting forward the theory to prove it. My evidence is your lack of credible evidence. I have just told you two parts which are wrong or lack sufficient scientific evidence. I mean you are basically asking me to give example of evolution and then disprove them, this is an unfair challenge for me because I have seen no valid conclusive evidence of evolution in the first place. You are asking me to prove evolution then disprove it, an unfair task!! The onus is on you to first prove it!!

That is not proof of evolution though is it? " Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration" this is an admission that that darker coloured moths existed, so no evolution actually took place what happened is the darker moths did better than their lighter cousins and grew in population. And off course the exact same thing happened in reverse. Darwin himself witnessed similar things and his theory was that the (mainly birds) evolved into different types, he speculated this was due to evolution but of course it was more likely IMO that it was a similar case of the moths above, the existing more suited breeds flourished and often a process of extinction happened. That is why it remains a theory IMO, when you study many examples of evolution critically (as opposed to just swallowing what you are told obediently, hook line and sinker). It has got to the stage where many are putting forward evolution as a fact or law (for more political than scientific reason when it fact it is a theory. It has got crazy really, you can't even talk about it without being muzzled by the science thought police. Lets face it if people are so confident of their theories they would not need to muzzle those who disagree with them. That muzzling in itself is a very unscientific, and true scientist would welcome having his theory challenged, and people should be very wary of the science thought police and censors, because that is what turns science into propaganda.

I am not sure the forum rules allow me to. However as we are intelligent and we are believed to have evolved then that intelligence must have been built into the process of evolution? Or are we to believe that that intelligence magiced out of nowhere? Similar to energy or mass for example, those thinks do no magic out of nowhere generally at least not in our experience. Although one may change into another it seems to be a zero sum game, ie we can't create any more than was initially present? If you see what I mean?

I am just sticking to the science which has been proven to me. Children tend to believe anything adult tell them unquestioningly, I am an adult and require proof before I accept something as fact. Seems to me your pinball machine is on tilt.

I have seen no evidence that flu evolves, if you want to make that claim it is up to you to prove it. What I can say is I know various flu viruses exist and when we become immune to one it seems other viruses take it's place. That does not mean those viruses evolved, or at least I have seen no proof of it, as there are already millions of viruses they have no need to evolve as there are plenty of spare ones knocking around. I see no evidence flu is evidence of evolution, that is speculation until proven. Well it is virtually nil in many cases, indeed it is nil in some I think. Before long it will be just us, the rats, and the cockroaches.

I never said they were all the same, there are many viruses out there, when one becomes extinct another one moves into it's territory. As there are millions of different viruses there is no need for the evolution of a new one.. Is it not more the case that you don't know what they mean? For example, here is a list of 10 scientific theories which turned out to be *wrong*. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Well the proof is in the fact that if it was a law it would be called a law, fact is it it called a theory. The the evidence is the wealth of literature which refers to the theory of evolution and the absence of literature (from respected sources) which call it a law. As there is no proof for evolution it is a theory not a law. If someone can in fact provide a proof for evolution then I am happy to stand corrected.

The odd thing today is that many people seem to think evolution is a God given fact when in fact it is only a theory, ie unproven.

I never asked why plants do not absorb all colours, I asked why they are green and that is question you need to answer.

I think we can all agree that most plants are green that is pretty much self evident. I don't think there is much mileage in an answer about the energy levels of chlorophyll, all that is doing is explaining the mechanics of the energy levels of chlorophyll, that is really not an answer, you have to explain why chlorophyll is used in the first place, otherwise the answer is null and void. As for algae, well they are not really plants, or at least not the plants I had in mind in my question, fair enough I did not specifically specify I was talking about land plants but for most people a plant is something which grows on land, unless you specifically specify sea plants (I didn't), Fortunately I have never cut myself under water but I will take your word for it. Books will not tell me why plants are green so I don't know what I will gain from reading them. I think the plants have vivid colours in fall is because the chlorophyll is breaking down, but that in itself does not explain why they are green. Bit of a coincidence in that I am growing tobacco and one of the problems is getting the leaves to turn from green to brown!!! Nobody can tell me anything Anyway science is not actually a person it's just a broad word to cover the things people think they know. Anyway the fact is the Darwin's musings are always refereed to as his theory of evolution, I don't think any respected scientist would use the phrases Darwin's Law of evolution. Worth adding here that neither Charles Darwin nor Richard Dawkins (despite their reputations) knows why plants are green but I do. So who is the better scientist?

Actually you didn't, someone started making out I was an advocate of intelligent design or something like that so I just 'played along with it' for a while because it seems that is what they want, or rather they wanted some sort of excuse to avoid answering the question. Actually I am not too sure what "Dr Rocket" was on about, I am struggling with his 'green with envy bit'. However intelligent design is as good as any answer offered so far so a bit premature to rule it out. No the only motivation was way nobody else seems to know, that's all. Last time I look it up gravity was a law, if it has been down graded to a theory then nobody has told me!! Gravity has been proven evolution has not. We do not see many of these random mutations do we? We do not see many mutant humans, or at least not 'better humans' from mutations. That's one of the problems with evolution theory. All we witness is extinction, which is quite different from evolution.

"In beetles, mating released hormones needed to produce sperm in a male or eggs in a female and that had a negative effect on the immune system. Women produce the same number of eggs whether they mate or not, indeed if they mate they produce less eggs. so that theory does not hold up.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact!!

I think it is wrong to think that evolution is not intelligent, evolution is an intelligent design process.

Not sure how you evolved to think I am a troll, possibly something in the water. You have not supplied an answer to the question why are they green mere to why are they not black. Can you troll an answer to that?

Well I think when I ask a question as to how something evolved and the answer is "because that is how it evolved" or a rather round about way of saying it "because that is the most efficient" (even though it isn't!!) that I can refute such answers. You say try arguing with the science however as there is no science present to argue against that is rather difficult?!! The paper linked too goes into a lot of depth but still fails to explain why plants are green. It seems to contain a lot of unnecessary science. I do not think today pigments would tell you much about the development of the atmosphere no more than than we could explain dinosaurs from modern mammals. It's an interesting paper none the less but goes into a lot of detail about stuff which may be unimportant.

0=-0 Ad 0 to both sides 0+0=

I don't think the principle of calculus is too difficult to learn, it's a fairly simple concept. However as has been mentioned you don't have much to apply it to at that age as you are basically working with straight lines, where calculus is not really needed. If you have not done the maths of fancy curves, you have nowt to apply it to!! I would have loved to do it at that age though rather than mindless repetition of fractions or whatever i was being taught.

Yes see my thread about why plants are green. They would be more efficient if they absorbed the whole of the spectrum, as it is they reflect green. Solar panels are black to absorb the whole spectrum or at least they would be if they were maximumly efficient. No point in throwing any light away - unless you are a plant!!!

How can you sweepingly say it " they absorb those colors is because those colors are most efficient to absorb for most plants" clearly that is a very weak and flawed statement, it would be most efficient to absorb the whole of the spectrum. infact your statement is full of such vague and wooley statements. ie "probably because of random genetic mutations that have survived.". That is really not a good enough answer becasue you fail to explain why they survived, ie you omit to answer the question at all. You might as well say 'because that how it is". I am basically saying how did something evolve in such a way and you answer is "because that is how it evolved" - brilliant!! "However, down the evolutionary line, there was very little need (selection pressure) for the plants to evolve a completely different kind of molecule, to capture light better." that is just a sweeping statement plucked out of nowhere. That is a bit like saying there is very little need to plug holes in a petrol (gas) tank, as long as you fill it up a lot. You answer is a round about way of saying "because that is how it evolved", any question on evolution coudl be answered in such a manner.

Pilea repens Black-Leaf Panamiga Otherwise know as the plant which broke evolution!!!

Blackbirds. I think we can say that there are a range of wavelengths which can be used to extract energy. There are many ways to cook and egg. I don't think the mechanism is too important just that there is spare energy there which could be used. All the energy comes from the sun in a plant (and fertiliser) there are many chemical reactions in a plant, I can't believe that they are all based on a narrow band of wavelengths? OK so not black but why reflect just green, why not reflect red or blue? That is the question. Thanks to all for the recent replies by the way!!! (forgot to say earlier!!)

Have you tried electronic cigarettes? They are basically just nicotine which does not taste of much so they are flavoured, anything you like, coffee, bubble gum, apple orange etc.....