Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

As a physicist I would like to point out that in fact the visible light energy range is higher then the infrared energy range.
Of course that is secondary to the point that is being made here that the lack of human infrared sight does not detrac from evolution theory either way. Evolution theory does not require that all posiible things will evolve (no matter how advantageous they are)

Hi Rick! Awwww... You make me feel bad, man, lol...Please reconsider. One thing you should keep in mind is the following: as someone else already pointed out, this is a science forum. If you look at the hierarchy of this forum-site, you will see that there is a "science" section next to "social and religous issues" and also a "coffeehouse". The forums under "science" have more or less strict rules that require you to substantiate your claims with evidence of some sort. It doesn't go well here (it's simply non-productive) to refer to the Bible or personal beliefs. Those are quite welcome in some of the other forums.So if you want to discuss evolution in this one, it's all about looking at the facts and observations, the evidence that we find out there and that support or would possibly rule out evolution as we understand it.Hope to see you around a bit longer, and work out the differences between what you currently think evolution says, and what it really is, and is based on.Take care and cool off,Annafan aka Joh

The topic of this thread is the evolution of IR eyesight.It is not the anthropic principle or the nature of this (or any universe). I will hide off topic posts.

So you admit that you set up a false strawman. And I trust that you do realize that the only reason for doing so is in order to deliberately deceive. What does Christian doctrine have to say about engaging in deliberate deception?You fault evolution for not having produced infra-red vision in humans, but you exonerate your Designer for not having done so because we don't need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If a particular trait wasn't needed at some point, evolution is very unlikely to have produced it, same as in your ad hoc exoneration of your Designer.IOW, we and other species have traits that were needed for survival and for the propagation of the species. You say that your Designer had arbitrarily given those traits to those species; we say that those traits evolved. You say that your Designer was intelligent enough to hand out traits that were needed; we say that a trait must have been needed at some point in order for it to have evolved. Both your Designer and evolution will produce the same results (somewhat), so when we see something useful, how can we tell which explanation applies? How can we tell the difference between the products of evolution and the products of an Intelligent Designer®?For one thing, a Designer can be arbitrary. You constrain Him to only create traits that are needed, but He is just as likely to create something useless. However, evolution can only produce something that's useful; if some trait is useless then it either will never be produced or, if already existing (ie, if it had been useful in another environment, but now the population is in a new environment), it will be either reduced or lost or it will change as it's put to a different use. A Designer can produce something useless, whereas evolution cannot.A Designer can create a trait arbitrarily, such that it is totally unique and unrelated to traits of other related species. For that matter, the very notion of species being related to each other makes no sense when it comes to a Designer. However, relatedness is an essential part of evolution and we will find that one species' traits are related to the traits of other species, even when those traits have been put to very different uses.The evidence we find is consistent with how it must be were evolution the case. The only way we can find that evidence to be consistent with your idea of an Intelligent Designer is if that Designer had arbitrarily chosen to make it appear as if the evidence were consistent with evolution.Now consider an analogy: Two designers are given the task of writing a complex computer program that must deal in real-time with complex real-world situations, situations that can change in ways which are unpredictable at design time. Furthermore, that program must operate independently for extended periods of time (years, decades, even centuries).One designer takes the approach of making the program operate ideally under the current situation, then gives it a lot of arbitrary rules for all the situations that the designer can think of that could ever arise.The other designer also makes the program operate ideally under the current situation. But then he also builds in the ability to learn and to change and to adapt to any new situation that comes along. Rather than give it rules for everything that it might possibly have to deal with, he gives it a set of general rules and ways for it to expand upon those rules, modify them, and even come up with its own new rules, all in response to changes in the situation.Which designer did a better job? Which is the better designer? The one who created a static unchanging program? Or the one who created a program that could change in response to changes in its environment? The one whose program could evolve?How intelligent could your Designer be if he's not smart enough to realize how incredibly powerful and useful a tool evolution is? Or rather, why do you think that he's not so smart?

The other day while Google'ing for something else, I stumbled upon the "Divorcing God" companion site (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.divorcinggod.org/home.html) for the upcoming documentary film of the same name. Basically, its about Christians who have gone through divorce and how their encounters with their fellow Christians and their churches changed their faith (HINT: those encounters turned out to be very negative and many lost much if not all of their faith in the process).Several have shared their experiences on that site. The one that your post immediately brought to mind was a beautiful piece called "Defining Friendship" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.divorcinggod.org/stories/archives/15) and which repeatedly contrasting her Christian and non-Christian friends and how they acted and reacted when she left her husband. It ends with:

quote:

---

God forgive me if I’ve ever been a Christian friend.

---

Edited by dwise1, : added quote box

How was I being deceptive? Do you really want me to respond?

---

- Rick

{Non-topic blather hidden. Stop it. - Adminnemooseus)Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Hi, Rick.Welcome to EvC! I hope you decide to stay: this is a good place to learn.-----How do you think evolution works?Let’s assume that there is a certain advantageous trait, like IR vision, that is favored by evolution, and, let’s further assume that this advantageous trait emerges in one species of organism.What happens to those organisms that don’t have the trait?

​

• Do they have to die? Why? And, when?
• Do they automatically acquire the new trait? How? And, when?
• Do they stop having babies that don't have the new trait? Why? How? And, when?

If nothing happens to the other guys, why can't they keep going without IR vision?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

last warning -- thread will be closed next.

Regarding (1), they don't have to die. Many of them over time will likely die if the advantages afforded the IR-enabled creature are significant enough - because they will be better hunters, better able to see creatures hunting them so they can run and hide, evade, attack first, whatever, and they'll have better overall abilities which could give them advantage for navigation and general operation in their environment - all of which allows them to live longer and reproduce more than other creatures - if it is advantageous enough.Regarding (2), no they don't automatically acquire the traits. According to my understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, if one particular organism came into IR abilities, then if it had sufficient advantage and dominated over time, then those other species without that trait would've ended in extinction - and the new species would, over time, evolve from the ones which made it that far into the many species which come after.Regarding (3), obviously not. The complex system would be determined by many factors which, according to evolution, would yield the organisms which best adapted to their environment over time. Until then, everything would proceed forward with generations competing against each other in their environments.[On a sidenote, I do not believe this happens, by the way, but I believe this is what evolutionsists believe - since that is what you were asking.]Regarding (4), the other guys can keep going along as normal. We have animals today with all sorts of abilities, traits, tails, three toes, long noses, fur, skin, adapted for water, opposable thumbs, etc. All of these, through an evolutionist's eye, would've come from advantages which, in their environment, allowed them to succeed.Edited by RickCHodgin, : Fix grammar.

---

- Rick

Hey RickCHodgin, welcome to the fray. I predicted that this thread would cause a lot of replies, because it is a typical creationist misunderstanding of both evolution and logic. You don't understand evolution at all. You seem to think that it is some kind of designer that develops a feature just because it would be convenient.Here are a couple of resources for you to learn the reality behind evolution: what it really is, what the evidence shows, what the science says about the diversity of life and the evolution of species: Berkeley: Introduction to Evolution 101, with Definitions
Berkeley: the Table of Contents for the Evolution 101 series of articles
Umich: Speciation and the definition of Evolution
UMich: Evolution and Natural Selection
Darwin on-line: On the Origin of SpeciesDoes not mean that evolution is false, just your understanding of it. Evolution is opportunistic and responsive to changes in ecology, it is not directed other than to survive and breed. See above references. You don't understand logic at all. You list a bunch of design features, things that you think should be included in a more perfect human being, and then conclude that because those design features are not included, that we are the result of a designer.ROFLOL. Hilarious. Thank you. So then why do we NOT have infrared vision? You have argued that this is a desirable design feature, and you claim life is designed: why is this feature NOT included? So it's not a necessary design feature for our designated place, when you argue for a designer, but it is for evolution. This is known as the logical fallacy of special pleading.Why does this very same reasoning not apply to evolution, where organisms are adapted to their ecology by taking advantage of variations and selection for fitness by survival and reproduction? So now your "design requirements" include A/C piping and eyes on retractable stalks?Seems to me your designer is totally failing to keep up with your ad hoc arguments.You fail to realize that every argument you make from a design perspective is (a) not a contradiction for evolution and (b) IS an argument against your designer. So again, why does your designer not provide this feature? You claimed that he provided "everything we needed to survive here" - except infra-red eyes? Curiously, nature, biology, evolution are not limited by your opinion and your lack of knowledge. Organisms continue to evolve, generation by generation, selecting between variations caused by mutations by the process of survival and reproduction, and your opinion can not stop it. And you are free to believe anything you want. However if you wish to talk about evolution without appearing to be a silly PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) it would behoove you to learn about the subject.I predict that you won't learn from your mistakes, but plow on, convinced you know more than all the biologists in the world. So you are closed minded, ignorant, and proud of it? Again, your opinion is worth Jack. It has no effect on reality. It's 3 billion base pairs. Genes are made up of varying numbers of base pairs.Do you know how similar your single cell eukaryote organism is to a single cell in a human? These cells are not completely re-invented, they are adapted. What you missed entirely in your calculation is what the starting point was, and without that base point your calculation is meaningless.Many mutations also involve multiple base pairs being added, moved or deleted at once. Some involve whole copies of genes, one of which can then be adapted to some other benefit. Thus a single base pair calculation is also meaningless. LOL. How do failed species change other species? Not surprising, seeing as where you are looking is full of falsehoods, misperceptions, poor logic, and denial of reality. Perhaps he is not the only one.Again, you need to explain why you think evolution should accomplish (according to your poor understanding of evolution) something that you don't require your god to accomplish?One logical alternative is that we evolved "the way we needed to be" to fit our ecology. Interestingly, this is what real evolution suggests.If your version of evolution is disproved by your argument then all you have done is shown that your version of evolution is false.We'll call it "Hodginution" and we can both agree that this is a totally false concept. We can consider it invalidated without further ado, adieu.Now we can discuss what biological evolution really is, according to the science of biological evolution, as taught by evolutionary biologists, in universities giving degrees in biological evolution.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Well RickCHodgin, you've been having quite a time eh? The plain fact is that mammal ancestors did not develop infra-red vision because they did not need it to survive and breed. It is not about being the best, it is about being good enough.The plain fact is that we also do not have the ultra-violet vision that birds have, and that provides them with whole different kinds of "color" to see in. Some birds see 7 "primary" colors (dedicated receptors). They use these wavelengths to see patterns in prey vs background, just as we do.All seeing in infra-red would do is add color to the patterns we can see. The various wavelengths are on a continuum, and are not discrete different things.What we have developed is very high ability at pattern recognition. This does not depend on what colors we see, just that we see several.What we have is very well adapted to seeing ripe fruit and vegetation.Infra-red vision would be entirely useless for this.Not all prey is warm-blooded. Fish are not warm-blooded, and infra-red vision would be entirely useless for hunting cold-blooded prey.Now when we look at human ancestors, do we see fruit and vegetation eating primates, some that are occasional omnivorous predators and opportunistic meat eaters, or do we see obligate predators of only warm-blooded animals?The reality is that your concept of evolution is uniformed, your understanding of logical argument is poor, and your conclusion is unsupported by either.Added by edit Amusingly, infra-red vision would not have helped you at all. And anyone that has tried to use infra-red vision goggles to see the ground will know that it doesn't help at all.Interestingly, many mammals have adapted to hunt at night. Not one of them needs infra-red vision to survive and breed. What you do see, is adaptation of the existing eye to see more in dim light: large eyes, more rods, fewer cones (fewer colors: like dogs and cats). Let's agree for the sake of the argument that no existing warm-blooded animal has evolved this ability in the last 65 million years. Meanwhile bats and whale\dolphins etc develop radar\sonar. What does that suggest to you about the relative benefit of seeing in infra-red?Next let's consider two scenarios for a human hunter with infra-red vision (IR-man):(1) it is daytime, and a rabbit is hiding under a black rock that has been sitting in sunlight for hours. IR-man cannot see the rabbit because of the "white" rock in front of him, but normal vision Joe can. Joe spears the rabbit.(2) it is night, and the band lights a fire. IR-man is blinded, while Joe happily cooks his rabbit, he shares it with Jane, who shares some ripe berries she collected - later they mate.Evolution is about net benefit to survival and reproduction, about adapting existing features, by selection among variations caused by mutation. If the mutation does not exist it cannot be selected. Mutations don't happen because they would be convenient.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : jane

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi, Rick.Thanks for your response. So, you agree that, according to the Theory of Evolution, these other species wouldn't have to develop IR vision?If so, why did you start out saying that ToE says the exact opposite?-----Here is a theme I found in your post: So, the process takes time? How much time do you think it would take?Enough time for the other species to evolve a compensatory mechanism? Why or why not?
Enough time for the other species to change its lifestyle to avoid the "stronger" species? Why or why not?Also, since you apparently agree that the Theory of Evolution does not require the changes to occur immediately, isn't it possible that we simply haven't evolved IR vision yet? Why not?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Hi RAZD, You are correct, but thought you might find this interesting . . .When I was researching IR photography, I came across some sites that seem to indicate humans DO have the potential for seeing UV, if not for the lens absorbing harmful UV light. Indeed, it seems, after cataract surgery, humans can see "near-" UV light.Cool!http://starklab.slu.edu/humanUV.htmregardsEdited by dronester, : edit for brevity

I believe infrared vision would be a significant benefit on a world where half of the day is dark. I believe evolution would've produced lifeforms with that ability - were it true. Regarding (1), I believe ToE would state a mutation which allowed cells to "see" infrared would come about in a single generation. That mutation would be passed on to its offspring whereby later mutations would be introduced which were passed on, improving upon the design.Personally, I do not believe this happens because it is a ridiculous proposition. It depends on mutations occurring which would be of benefit. That necessarily means other mutations would also occur which would be harmful. As a result of the large number of mutations, there would be a tremendously wide array of mutations being introduced very often, the results of which would span the spectrum. Some offspring with better vision, some with worse, some with two sets, some with one, etc., etc., etc. It's ridiculous, and it's not seen today.Regarding (2) ... same answer. In ToE, yes it's possible we haven't evolved it yet. However, I would submit the following:Each animal-level generational offspring today of every variety, dogs, cats, chipmunks, beavers, humans, horses, cows, sheep, goats, rats, prairie dogs, etc., all of them produce minor variations in their offspring - none of which prohibit the offspring from mating with the parent, and none of which are significant enough to spontaneously bring about new abilities, such as suddenly having an eye on the side of the head like a horse, the results of which might be that because that person could see a wider field of vision in today's world, he would survive and reproduce move often.I would suggest that in an evolutionary world, one where evolution has brought everything to where it is today, the reality would be such that every generation would be a variable - a significant variable, meaning that a parent with X, Y and Z physical traits would produce offspring which may have X, Y or Z traits, but would also have all manner of other forms. We would have people giving birth to children with manes, gills, multiple rows of teeth, beaks, feathers, long body hair, short body hair, no body hair, scales, etc.An evolutionary past would've required that any species desiring to survive evolution consistently throw at the world whatever combinations of life are possible - the best of which would survive and move over time.I would suggest variations beyond anything seen today would have to be present in a world that was brought to the point it is today by evolution.I don't see that in any way, shape or form ... so I conclude ToE is just that, a theory ... and due to lack of evidence it can be thrown out.

---

- Rick