|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5565 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. So very close...
It's ridiculous, and it's not seen today. And yet, as ever, so very far...
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. Would not a better conclusion be... "given that all the scientists of the world do not come to this conclusion, perhaps, just perhaps, my ideas of what evolution predicts are deeply flawed?" You know, the conclusion that has a smidgeon of honesty and humility, and not the one above that reeks of bone-headed arrogance? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey dronester
Indeed, it seems, after cataract surgery, humans can see "near-" UV light. There is also a rare condition where women in families with color-blindness can see four "primary" colors (and have a much richer sense of color than us mere mortals). The reason has to do with double "X" genes and one shifted vision gene on one that results in the color-blindness in males. http://www.physorg.com/news1035.html
quote: One wonders what RickCHodgin thinks of the evolutionary benefit of seeing ripe fruit in vegetation where we can clearly see that this is a result of mutation of the color cones. And then we have the rich and sharp vision of birds: rattlesnake.com is for sale | www.oxley.com
quote: Many animals also have one or more "nictitating membranes" that offer additional protection for the eye, and benefit to vision in a number of ways, from sunglasses to windshield wipers to underwater adaptation. There is another way that human vision could be improved, if one were going to design it: the octopus has a fixed lens and focus their vision by moving their retina (also without nerves, veins and arteries between the lens and the receptors, as well as having receptors pointed towards the light rather than away from it) while humans change the shape of the lens to bring the image into focus on a fixed retina. One could combine these two systems into one vision system, and with the ability to alter both distance between lens and receptor AND the focal length of the lens to bring any distance object into focus on that movable retina, you would have telephoto to macro vision. This would also provide the ability to focus underwater. So if a designer were going to design an optimum human eye:
Any designer worthy of sacrifice should be able to do this. Assuming he/she/it wanted to fully "trickout" humans. I wonder how RickCHodgin can explain why his designer is so incompetent. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : underwater vision 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
Well, I take it you are aware of pit vipers and boas, right?Take a look through this article: Infrared sensing in snakes - Wikipedia. Other organisms able to sense in the infrared include the common vampire bat, some jewel beetles, two butterflies, and possibly a parasite. And hey, guess what. You know that stuff that is burning orange and red in this photo:File:Hot metalwork.jpg - Wikipedia That's the "visible" part of the infrared spectrum that we can pick up. 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.
As others have mentioned, there's this little thing called natural selection that acts as a filter. We do actually witness this spectrum of mutation, but as you hinted, many mutations are harmful, few beneficial, and most harmless. But as regards those harmful mutations, natural selection weeds them out. The organism dies before it can reproduce, or it is not able to reproduce as successfully as its peers, and thus the mutation is slowly crowded out. If you want to see induced mutations, I recommend taking a look through fruit fly genetic experiments (Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia will get you started).
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. 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.
This, Rick, is what is known as a strawman argument. You define evolution how you want to, and then prove that your version of evolution does not occur, ergo, evolution is false. Now then, this may be what you honestly think evolution says, in which case you are simply ignorant. If you know what evolution says but still spout these falsehoods, then you are willfully ignorant or possibly malicious. There are numerous threads here on the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, what the Theory actually is, and RAZD has been kind enough to supply you with excellent links that describe what the Theory is and what is says. 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. You have a second strawman as well--you are using the colloquial 'theory', which differs greatly from the scientific use of the term. Note that we say the Theory of General Relativity, the Theory of Germ Disease, the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution. In science, a theory is essentially an explanation of what we observe. Theories explain facts. Gravity is a fact. Germ disease is a fact. The observations that led to GR are facts. Evolution (change in species over time) is a fact. Scientific theories are not guesses (that would be more like an hypothesis). When you start to debate what the Theory of Evolution actually says, and not some fantasy you have in your head that is disconnected from reality, I might take your criticisms o the theory more seriously. As it is, I and the rest here can only point out your misunderstanding of the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Hooray, it's the Argument from Undesign: * Evolution should have made us absolutely perfect ... because ... uh ... well, it just should, that's all. * We aren't absolutely perfect. * Therefore we were designed by a perfect, infallible, and all-powerful God (who, evidently, reallly screwed up). For my money, this is amongst the funniest creationist arguments. Especially as the premise comes from a bunch of people who spend much of the rest of their time pretending that evolution is a completely random process. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5565 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Would not a better conclusion be... "given that all the scientists of the world do not come to this conclusion, perhaps, just perhaps, my ideas of what evolution predicts are deeply flawed?" All of the scientists in the world do not come together on every conclusion. There are many scientists who do not believe in evolution. There are many Christians who believe that God operated via evolution. Science today shows us that it is impossible for Earth to be millions of years old, let alone billions (in anything resembling its present form). Atomic clocks were first activated and used in an official system in 1958. They were set upon two time methods (TAI and UT1) which were roughly in sync with each other at that time. Today some 50 years later, they are 32 seconds apart due to a slowing of the Earth's rotation. A rate of 32 seconds per 50 years yields a slowing of one hour every 5,625 years. Multiply that by 24 (hours per day) and you're sitting at 135,000 years before the Earth would've completely slowed down. Add in a margin of error of 500% and you're now sitting on a maximum of 675,000 years
TGDaily – More than the news The Earth has shown man that it is slowing down, and at what rate. There are no theories which state it will get faster over time (other than mild increases which last only days). In fact, every theory we have states that it will continue to slow down due to a loss of energy (much like an ice skater turning around and around slows down due to tiny movements of their body, as is true with the Earth's tide and rising/lowering sea waters). So, that blows the theory of "over a long period of time" out of the water. In addition, we have fossilized trees that run vertical through layers of solid rock - believed to be "millions of years old." The trees would not be able to exist between so many layers were the rocks deposited over millions of years. We have no examples whatsoever of any modern day advanced lifeform like fish, mammals or reptiles, producing offspring which are not like themselves. And yet, we are told species are vanishing from the face of the Earth at the rate of three per hour Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com. Science Daily reported in March, 2008 that 16,969 new species were discovered last year, a rate of 1 every 1.94 hours. This figure is comprised of species which already existed, but were unknown to our science because they had not yet been categorized No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080523163054.htm. What we have is what's here, and it's what was created on the Earth. It's dying off because we are abusing this world to no end. It will not continue much longer though because it cannot. We are poisoning our world - the water supply, the food (with genetic moficiations that are unnatural, such as the Monsanto GM cotton fiasco in India that is causing the wearer's skin to break out, men's testicles are turning blue along with many more harmful side effects relating to digestion and the immune system). And yet we [mankind] are going to sit here and believe that evolution brought us this far? And that we are continuing on an evolutionary journey? It's nuts. My original point was that ToE should've produced IR vision - something I believe very strongly given the fact that the world is dark about 50% of the time. The fact that we don't have it is my suggestion that ToE is wrong. I've also now cited additional evidence which backs up the claim that the timelines involved in evolution cannot be correct, including the rate of species loss and the lack of new species coming into existence, and not simply being discovered. Evolution did not bring us here. We are wonderfully and fearfully created beings, by a loving God. The only reason many of us won't see that is because we are wrapped up in ourselves. It's pride and arrogance which separates us from God. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: And several people here have pointed out that the implication of your argument is that your intelligent designer didn't create us with something that you think we should have. What does that say about your designer? For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
please, no gish gallop. If you don't get the reference, it's a tactic made famous by Gish, where he would introduce so many different topics that it would be impossible to refute his false claims in a single debate.
Let's put it this way: atomic clocks have nothing to do with evolution, nor with the earth's rotation. And quite frankly, you've managed to screw up tidal acceleration (hint:it will take more than 4.5 billion years to lock the earth into a month-long day, and 620 mya the day was 22 hours long). Petrified trees have nothing to do with evolution, and your misinformation and misknowledge is quite stunning, to boot. Pollution does actually have something to do with evolution, but not in the way you're talking about it. You've claimed that evolution should have given us infrared vision, but you have not shown us how this would have developed, nor why it is a huge benefit. Further, you would have to show that evolution is directed towards a single goal, instead of working with what it has. You also seem to ignore that evolution has endowed certain organisms with infrared, and that we have extremely limited infrared vision. Your objections are based on misinformation, false information, and sheer ignorance, and so far, you have shown no capacity nor desire to learn what evolution says or predicts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Your creationist handlers are lying to you.
Science today shows us that it is impossible for Earth to be millions of years old, let alone billions (in anything resembling its present form). Atomic clocks were first activated and used in an official system in 1958. They were set upon two time methods (TAI and UT1) which were roughly in sync with each other at that time. Today some 50 years later, they are 32 seconds apart due to a slowing of the Earth's rotation. A rate of 32 seconds per 50 years yields a slowing of one hour every 5,625 years. Multiply that by 24 (hours per day) and you're sitting at 135,000 years before the Earth would've completely slowed down. Add in a margin of error of 500% and you're now sitting on a maximum of 675,000 years That particular lie was started by Walter Brown in the late 1970's. Actually, it was probably a case of his not understanding what a leap second is; this is supported by the fact that he no longer uses this claim, even though he does still use his rattlesnake-protein lie, albeit hidden in a footnote. This claim was exposed as false circa 1982 and yet creationists continue to peddle it and to deceive their audiences with it over 25 years later. You claim that the earth has slowed down by 32 seconds over the past 50 years? That's roughly equivalent to Walter Brown's one second/18 months. In truth, the rate at which the earth is slowing down is roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century (No webpage found at provided URL: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html). That is the rate that is directly observed and measured by the International Earth Rotation Service located at the US Naval Observatory (USNO). NIST, in conjunction with the USNO and its French counterpart, keep track of time and the earth's rotation and they are the ones who determine when a leap second is needed. For you to start to understand leap seconds, you should think of leap years. Every four years, we add a day to the calendar. Do you mean to tell us that that means that the period of time it takes the earth to go around the sun changes by one day every four years? Of course not! It means that the time it takes for the earth to go around the sun is not an even number of days. Instead, it's close to 365.2524 days. Whether we were to choose 365 or 366 days, we would very quickly find our calendars to be out of sync with the seasons (the very important reason to have a calendar). So we choose to have 365 days in most years and then have every fourth year be 366 days long to make up for that quarter day. Though even that's not quite right since that fractional day is not a perfect quarter, such that in 400 years we'd be adding three days too many. So we came up with the Gregorian Calendar to correct the Julian Calendar by not adding an extra day if the year is evenly divisible by 100, unless it's also evenly divisible by 400. Again, do we have leap years because the actual length of the year is changing? No, it's because there's a discrepancy between that and the length of our measurement of the year in days, such that we must periodically make a correction. That's what a leap second is for. The standard second was 1/86,400th of a day back around 1820, but because the earth has been gradually slowing down (1.4 ms/day/century) today's day is not exactly 86,400 standard seconds long. That creates a discrepancy which needs to be corrected periodically, which is why we occasionally add a leap second. Duh? Your rate for the slowing of the earth is inflated by thousands of times greater than the actual measured rate. Projecting the actual rate back billions of years gives us a day length that's (recalling off the top of my head) about 13 to 14 hours long; I don't see why that should be any problem, except for creationists wanting to spread their tired old lies. In fact, by examining the layers of fossil coral beds, we can determine how many days were in a year back when that coral had formed. Guess what? Extrapolating the true rate of rotational slowing back to that era yields a very close match with the number of days per year indicated by the fossil coral. Your creationist teachers are lying to you. Just as I'm sure that they had given you that "evolution should have given us IR vision" malarcky. PSHere's a link to the article that exposed Brown's false leap-second claim: "As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?" As the World Turns | National Center for Science Education. Hm, it was 1982. My memory's better than I thought it was. Share and enjoy! Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* off-topic nonsense snipped * If you wish to be wrong about the age of the Earth, you should really start another thread.
Evolution did not bring us here. We are wonderfully and fearfully created beings, by a loving God. Though apparently he didn't love us enough to give us infra-red vision. Next time you're praying, could you register a complaint, and explain to him how evolution would have done so much better than he did?
The only reason many of us won't see that is because we are wrapped up in ourselves. It's pride and arrogance which separates us from God. And there was I thinking it was pride and arrogance that separated creationists from science. Oh, and ignorance, of course. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey RichCHodgin, welcome back
... (bunch of new concepts, many common creationist pap) ... I take it that your failure to address the serious mistakes in your previous posts, errors that have been pointed out by many people, and your failure to refute these posts, means that you agree that you were mistaken about what evolution says and what should result. Good.
It's pride and arrogance which separates us from God. Would that be your pride and arrogance that separates you from God and the reality that he created?
The Earth has shown man that it is slowing down, and at what rate. There are no theories which state it will get faster over time (other than mild increases which last only days). In fact, every theory we have states that it will continue to slow down due to a loss of energy (much like an ice skater turning around and around slows down due to tiny movements of their body, as is true with the Earth's tide and rising/lowering sea waters). So, that blows the theory of "over a long period of time" out of the water. Actually all it shows is that your understanding of the mechanism is incomplete, and that the information you use is from a questionable source. Curiously there are fossil corals that not only show annual growth rings but daily growth rings. We'll start with the annual ones, just to warm up: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html (1)
quote: Next we look at what actual astrophysics says about the earth-moon system and their calculations for spin in the past, and how that ties into coral growth rings. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html (2)
quote: I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg (3) This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago). Note that this correlates astronomy, physics and biology, with information provided from each source correlating with the others. The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data. Enjoy References:
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi, RickCHodgin, I wonder if you could answer this simple question:
quote: Why do you think your argument is special? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5565 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
And several people here have pointed out that the implication of your argument is that your intelligent designer didn't create us with something that you think we should have. What does that say about your designer? Subbie, my position is this: *IF* ToE was true, it would've produced evolution. Since I believe it is not true, and since I believe we were created by God, then God gave us what we *NEEDED* to get by here on Earth. It is not a failing that He did not provide us with IR vision. It is what is required for us to live the way He intended. You say "your argument is that your intelligent designer didn't create us with something that you think we should have." I don't think we should have IR vision. I am only saying that if ToE is true, we should have. But since ToE is not true, then what God gave us is what we should have. Hope that's clear. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5565 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
RAZD, I have no desire to communicate with you. Please stop responding to my posts.
Edited by RickCHodgin, : Removed topic - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It's not clear in the least. You need to explain why we would need infra red vision if the ToE is true and why we don't need it if we were created. There's only one planet, only one environment. Either we need it or we don't. How we got here is irrelevant to the question of what we need while we're here.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Of course, you still have a slight problem in that just because you claim evolution should have given us something and it didn't does not mean its false.
You have presented nothing more than a strawman of evolution your whole time here. If I were to say that because God loves everyone he should give me a hundred dollars, and that because he doesn't, God doesn't exist, you would rightly say that I am misunderstanding what you state about God. When you ask evolution to produce bird-dogs, or lizard-cats, or any other hopeful beast, or when you claim that evolution should give us infrared vision because you think it's potentially useful for us to have, and then claim that the absence of such is proof against evolution, you are creating a strawman (like I did regarding God). That you wish to no longer deal with RAZD (who is really one of the most reasonable posters here--more so than I am), it really signifies that you have no desire to learn. And so you have chosen willful ignorance. Have fun wallowing in the poverty of your mind. I'll let others deal with the other logic problems of your position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024