|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to Catholic Scientist:
In addition to what Larni said, I don't think infrared vision would be a greater advantage (towards better reporduction) than evolving sleep. Having a time of rest increases the lifetime of the species. I have seen repeatedly that we are the result of our genetics. There are people who can, for example, operate at full speed all day long, 18 hrs per day without being tired. Other people physically wear out after 8-12 hours of work and have to take a break. Their bodies can't break down waste products from muscle activity as well as other people's etc. There are 95 year old people with such failing bodies that doctors are amazed they are alive. And there are 35 year old perfectly healthy people who die for no apparent reason, and autopsies reveal nothing. I believe very strongly that we are the product of God's creation - meaning we are the product of the genetic code He created. As such, there is a reason why we sleep that is mandated by God. I do not believe there is an evolutionary reason why beings that "evolved sleep" would've had any advantage. In fact, were a being able to get by with less sleep, even if it was somewhat less intelligent or productive in its single-source activities (such as on average one hunt might yield less food), the fact that it can hunt 24/7 means it will be more successful over all. Evolution does not align with reason in terms of why species are the way they are, and specifically why they specifically are the way they are. Intelligent Design makes far more sense, and when you couple it to the realities portrayed in the Christian Bible, that of Jesus (the truth) - which are evident beyond reproach for those who will not stand on pride or arrogance and hear such things, even being truthful to themselves - then it all begins to make sense. God created everything here on this Earth to operate in harmony. He blessed it, saying "be fruitful and multiply." And that is what we are seeing. Our attempts to genetically modify life result in catastrophic failures and sterile offspring. God has this nailed as it is His purview, His domain. It will likely come to the fact that man will eventually be able to use God's resources (the information contained in genetic code) to create artificial forms of life. However, we do not have a handle on life, nor on death. We have theories, beliefs, etc., and it is still the purview of God. These are my beliefs. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I am just stating what I believe - and trying to do so in a matter-of-fact way.
This may be part of the problem. When you accept an idea based on the evidence, you often have little problem modifying that idea as the evidence changes and improves. When you believe something it is often difficult to modify that belief as it is not necessarily based on evidence. Or, as Heinlein noted:
quote: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Good point. We also have a dire need to sleep (humans, that is) and constant activity would have been a hinderance to resting and refuel the old hypocampus and amygdala ATP levels. As we are today we have that need for sleep. There is no reason to accept the fact that evolution created a biological need for sleep. In fact, rather the reverse. In such a system where certain species were going to sleep, other ones would be able to feed on them as prey and wipe them out while giving themselves greater advantage for reproduction. I believe the need to sleep comes from our spiritual connection with God. When we are asleep we are not conscious and we don't know what happens to "our soul" or any other component of our existence as God created us (possibly those parts we haen't yet understood or been told about as there are still things that have not been revealed to us - according to the Christian Bible). - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
I suspect the real answer lies in the nature of the infrared sensing pits. As you noted, snakes don't "see" infrared with their eyes, but with specialised organs. Why is that? I think there are two likely reasons: 1. Thermoreceptors need a system of cooling; putting such a system into the retina would considerably degrade visual quality. 2. Photoreceptors work via certain pigments that are modified (bleached) by incoming photons. I'd hazard a guess that the lower energy levels of infrared photons aren't high enough for this method to function efficiently. There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. We would not have to look like we do today, and if evolution were truly at work it seems very unlikely that we would look like we do today. At the cellular level, there is such an artwork of machinery in operation. I refuse to accept the fact that it came from something like evolution. We are intelligently designed, and in my belief it is by the Christian God. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I do not believe there is an evolutionary reason why beings that "evolved sleep" would've had any advantage. There's plenty of information available the advantages. If you want to learn about it then you can just Google it.
the fact that it can hunt 24/7 means it will be more successful over all. This alludes to a common misconception about evolution that you seem to have. Its not about being a strong survivor, its about surving long enough to reproduce.
Evolution does not align with reason in terms of why species are the way they are, and specifically why they specifically are the way they are. Sure it does. In Message 15 you wrote:
We don't need infrared because he provided us with a place to live and everything we needed to survive here. We didn't evolve through an environment that promoted infrared vision, ergo we don't have it.
Intelligent Design makes far more sense, How much sense it makes doesn't effect the veracity. A lot of solid scientific principles are hard to comprehend and don't make much sense.
and when you couple it to the realities portrayed in the Christian Bible, that of Jesus (the truth) - which are evident beyond reproach for those who will not stand on pride or arrogance and hear such things, even being truthful to themselves - then it all begins to make sense. No, the pride and arrogance is from the camp that refuses to change their faithful beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. Shit... I gotta go. I'll get back to you later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
The additional ability (just the fact by itself, not considering possible "engineering" consequences as already pointed out by Larni) to have infrared vision would indeed be an advantage. But even acknowledging this, it doesn't follow that because of our lack of infrared vision evolution must be false. I grant this.
Evolution does not predict that organisms should be perfect. In fact, one of the consequences of evolution is that often an organism has to, metaphorically speaking, "row with the oars it has available" (is this English? ). Evolution has taken a certain path somewhere in the past, and as a consequence other paths which may have been followed by other organisms (branched off in the tree of life earlier in history), are simply not available to its own lineage. I understand this is a reality of the mechanics of evolution. However, I don't buy it. It results in too many direct and specific changes needing to have occurred for it to be real - even over extremely long periods of time. I have seen scientific reports which claim there are more than 1 billion genes in a human's DNA. In order for us to have gotten to where we are today over the (I believe) 1.5 billion years scientists claim life has existed on Earth in multi-cellular form, it would've required a direct change rate of nearly one gene change per year on average. If we assume an average reproductive lifespan of 24 hours from the early forms until much later ones, that means a maximum of 36 billion generations from single-celled life to us. It is not possible to generate the changes necessary to create us without having gone through literally trillions of failed species. And there is no evidence of the variations that should exist in us today which would allow us to continue to evolve. We are all pretty similar to one another, maybe a little better at breathing, or able to deal with cold better, etc., but nothing significant that would allow us to evolve over time. I just don't see any evidence. And that's me being completely honest. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In resposne to dwise1:
So then, Rick, because we don't have infra-red vision even though you think it'd be very useful you say that is evidence of intelligent design. No.
But your Intelligent Designer also failed to install those features that you believe we should have if we were properly designed. That means that you believe in an incompetent Fool of a Designer who can't get anything right. Why do you want to believe in such a god? I believe God designed us the way we needed to be designed. The fact that God didn't listen to my advice is indication (to me) that He knows far better than I do. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Hi Rick
There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. Gotta go home after this for today, but I wanted to point out again that this argument keeps puzzling me. The problem here is that you are assigning abilities and properties to evolutionary processes that are not part of our current concept of evolution (not anymore since Darwin even, probably). The combination of random mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms like genetic drift, sexual selection etc.) would most definitely NOT result in what you are envisioning. Or it would certainly be orders of magnitude more "unlikely" than the situation we do observe (which is why we don't see it, obviously ) The mechanisms as they are accepted currently, do much better explain than design why: - adaptations are often just "good enough" instead of anything close to perfect- the existence of different mechanisms/strategies to handle similar challenges (hibernation next to seasonal migration next to developing a thicker coat etc.) - the absence of combinations of traits, which exist in seperate species, that would seem to fit together perfectly (and seem to not exclude each other), because of historical reasons - ... Evolution is not teleologic (it is not working towards a goal, since the mechanism that shapes it, natural selection, can only respond to the current environment and doesn't have the ability to look ahead into the future), and it is also not strictly progressive, since that environment is not necessarilly stable (today's positive adaptation can become tomorrow's burden).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to NosyNed:
I don't see the point made that it doesn't matter at all if IR vision would be very useful to humans. There are lots of things that would cleary be more useful. It doesn't matter how useful something is if it simply never happens to arise through mutation. Natural selection works with what comes up. I would agree. In evolution, if something doesn't come up it would not be possible. However, how did we "evolve" cells which detected light in the visible spectrum? Visible light energies are of significantly lower energies than infrared. In addition, everything emits infrared constantly, visible light is only present when the Earth is facing the sun, and star light is of far lower in intensity.
We do row with the oars we have as noted above. Maybe there happens to be no path from what we have to IR vision. Maybe that is a mechanical reality of evolutionary theory. How would snakes and fish get such an ability if we can't? It doesn't seem reasonable that they would "evolve" those abilities when we could not? Or, more to the point, it doesn't seem reasonable that some other species in our past would not evolve those abilities and then overtake others which did not have them. From everything I see and understand, creation is the only likely possibility - and this becomes even more true when you look at the inner workings of cells. They are an artwork of complexity and astounding abilities - in fact, it's almost beyond comprehension how much information there is in every cell. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to Coyote:
When you accept an idea based on the evidence, you often have little problem modifying that idea as the evidence changes and improves. What I believe is derived from evidence and reason. They are still my beliefs, however - just derived from those sources. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Just a quick one before I leave
It is not possible to generate the changes necessary to create us without having gone through literally trillions of failed species. What you must drop, is the idea that evolution is working towards a specific goal. The picture looks totally incomprehensibly unlikely if you start from the assumption that evolution was working towards something like Home Sapiens. But it isn't. If one would be able to rewind the process, things would look considerably different. A specific person winning the lottery is highly unlikely, but it's inevitable that *someone* will win the lottery. Evolution is closer to the latter than the former analogy.
And there is no evidence of the variations that should exist in us today which would allow us to continue to evolve. We are all pretty similar to one another, maybe a little better at breathing, or able to deal with cold better, etc., but nothing significant that would allow us to evolve over time. I'm sure somebody will tackle this...
I just don't see any evidence. And that's me being completely honest. I wouldn't doubt that for a second. But I hope you also understand and acknowledge that (a) there's a whole whole lot that you (and me) don't know, and (b) more often than not, reality doesn't depend on what we feel is likely or possible. Not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to Annafan:
The problem here is that you are assigning abilities and properties to evolutionary processes that are not part of our current concept of evolution (not anymore since Darwin even, probably). The combination of random mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms like genetic drift, sexual selection etc.) would most definitely NOT result in what you are envisioning. Or it would certainly be orders of magnitude more "unlikely" than the situation we do observe (which is why we don't see it, obviously ) The abilities I'm talking about (infrared vision) would not have evolved in human beings. They would've evolved in some very early mammal or even earlier creature. I believe this because it evolved eventually in later forms, like snakes and fish. The raw materials for those forms would've had to have some common ancestor, which means that other species - unless they just simply shed that genetic information (which, to my knowledge, science is showing us is not the case as genetic information is not lost, just no longer rendered active) would also have the same abilities to evolve those abilities.
The mechanisms as they are accepted currently, do much better explain than design why: (1)- adaptations are often just "good enough" instead of anything close to perfect(2)- the existence of different mechanisms/strategies to handle similar challenges (hibernation next to seasonal migration next to developing a thicker coat etc.) (3)- the absence of combinations of traits, which exist in seperate species, that would seem to fit together perfectly (and seem to not exclude each other), because of historical reasons These are all explanations as to why evolution could exist, or how it might mechanically come into being. But it doesn't make sense. Such a system would require the framework within which it exists to have the programmed purpose to yield benefits of design over time. It would include a filtration system to weed out things that are less valid or viable than other forms, and it would consistently feed in new information to the offspring's design in such a way that over time the better being would be created. Even if evolution occurred, it would require a system that was already in place which guides and directs it. And when you realize that, you're back at the same level as either choosing or not to believe in an Intelligent Designer. I don't see evolution as any viable solution. I see the mechanics of how it could work as they are explained as being sufficient-enough explanations that, on faith, we could accept it is possible. But it is still a walk of faith to get there. I walk of faith I choose to follow is the one that leads to a loving Lord, Jesus Christ. He has a purpose for us, He created us for His purposes, and the life that we have here is the result of our sin - that everything dies, everything disintegrates, everything decays over time. Nothing here lasts ... and yet the foundation of everything that is around us does last - meaning God is eternal. To me, it's not even close to reasonable to consider significantly the mechanics involved in arriving us to this place. It is a far, far better thing to consider that we are here, that we do have a purpose, that we are to love one another and help one another. I believe this will all of my being, and I try to present it in everything I do. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5544 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to AnnaFan:
What you must drop, is the idea that evolution is working towards a specific goal. That is the nature of the framework of existence that everything is in. All matter, all atoms, all forms of energy, everything obeys laws. Those laws, through an evolutionary mechanism, would require that they be setup in such a way that over time benefits created by the random action of other mechanism at work (genetic drift, mutations, etc.) be weighed against other ones, resulting in a better adapted being for its environment. This reality requires that the framework itself have purpose. We look now deep into matter, space, time, and an understanding of the many universal constants and absolutely beautifully harmonious interactions of math in physics. It's breathtaking to view. These forms are the framework in which everything exists. There is nothing within that framework that can account for evolution without having a governing ability to decide what is better. And that means that even from an evolutionist's point of view there's a scale somewhere which determines what is better than the other thing. And those variables are information, and that information came from somewhere - even in an evolutionist's view of the universe. It's not possible to operate in this universe without acknowledging Intelligent Design. And if you can wrap your mind around that idea, that notion, that thought ... then you are faced with the ultimate choice -- are we here for the sake of some alien's creation? Or is it of God? God has revealed Himself to us in countless ways. The Bible says it beautifully in Psalm 19, which reads in part:"1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech;night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or languagewhere their voice is not heard." It is unbelievably true, even from an evolutionist's viewpoint. The system, the framework within which everything operates has information built in to it. That information had to come from somewhere, and this is what God is telling us: I did it. Is it less believable that God actually created us, and that everything we see with its infinite complexity and harmony came from God - than to believe we simply evolved from a bunch of pre-animate goo? Such a goo-to-man universe is not a place I would want to exist in. God has revealed what He has in store for us. If you will open your heart, your mind and receive it ... it is beyond glory, it is beyond imagination. He is a wonderful God, a loving Father, and He cares deeply about us - more so than we can know. He is calling out to each of us every single day with everything that we encounter, as it says in Psalm 19. "There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." To state it again, there is nothing that we can look at where God is not revealed. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RickCHodgin writes: If evolution were true, there would've been significant advantages to having infrared vision, since infrared is "always on," constantly emitting heat information about the temperature of objects. This makes a change. Normally, the intelligent design movement argues that evolution is incapable of producing systems of "specified complexity". Now, we have a bright spark claiming that the fact that evolution has not produced one such system is evidence that evolution (an observable phenomenon) is not true. Children, you can't have it both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The abilities I'm talking about (infrared vision) would not have evolved in human beings. They would've evolved in some very early mammal or even earlier creature. I believe this because it evolved eventually in later forms, like snakes and fish. Meh, snakes are still cold-blooded. We are of the later form, not them. But anyways, just because one later form evolves something doesn't mean that other later forms should. The genes have to be available and so does the selective pressure. Lacking either of those would prevent us from evolving the trait.
The raw materials for those forms would've had to have some common ancestor, which means that other species - unless they just simply shed that genetic information (which, to my knowledge, science is showing us is not the case as genetic information is not lost, just no longer rendered active) would also have the same abilities to evolve those abilities. Here is an interesting article on the evolution of viper's pits that says:
quote: These are all explanations as to why evolution could exist, or how it might mechanically come into being. But it doesn't make sense. Such a system would require the framework within which it exists to have the programmed purpose to yield benefits of design over time. Not necessarily. Its all about what the environment allows. Mutation gives a random battery of traits from which the environment selects.
It would include a filtration system to weed out things that are less valid or viable than other forms Yes, its call "Natural Selection".
and it would consistently feed in new information to the offspring's design Yes, its called "Random Mutation".
in such a way that over time the better being would be created No, not necessarily. If the environment selected for non-better beings, then they would be what evolved.
Even if evolution occurred, it would require a system that was already in place which guides and directs it. And when you realize that, you're back at the same level as either choosing or not to believe in an Intelligent Designer. Or they (evolution as well as scientific laws) could simply be inevitabilities of our Universe. You don't choose to not believe in an Intelligent Designer if you simply have a default of non-belief until evidence convinces otherwise. Lacking the convincing evidence of ID does not mean that someone chose to not believe it.
I don't see evolution as any viable solution. I see the mechanics of how it could work as they are explained as being sufficient-enough explanations that, on faith, we could accept it is possible. But it is still a walk of faith to get there. No, it isn't. I have faith in Jesus despite the lack of evidence. I accept evolution because of the positive evidence. When there's positive evidence, it is no longer faith. I'd also like to point out Theistic Evolution. That's the belief that god created the species by the mechanism of evolution. Evolution is not incompatible with a belief in god nor of god's creation. It is, however, incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But the Bible is clearly contradicted by reality in other claims it makes (i.e. the Flood), so we can see it is not to be taken literally before we even consider evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024