Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

My statement wasn't whether or not evolution is working. My statement was that whether or not evolution is working, whatever evolution IS is wholly dependent upon our universe being the way our universe is.Were our universe different, evolution (in whatever form it is believed to be) would also be different - by definition.

---

- Rick

I didn't say that. I said (essentially) that arguing over evolution is a waste of time. That time would be better spent being nice to a cubicle neighbor at work, your co-worker on the assembly line, your mother, or to whomever is around you. I've spent probably 1.5 hours today in writing these responses. I happen to have an online job, so it's not that big of a stretch for me to be here. But, in my evening times I would choose not to be here. That's all I'm saying. The universe is different every minimum-finitely-divisible-unit-of-time. But, the laws the universe are based upon do not change. If they do, they're not laws.

---

- Rick

In response to Huntard: I would argue that your statement is ridiculous. By definition, evolution is whatever evolution is in this universe, and it is that way because of the way this universe is. Were anything changed - even in the smallest degree - the resulting new (or alternate) universe would have a different version of evolution. And while the new/alternate universe might ultimately produce something which is even identical to that which evolution would in this universe, it would, by definition, still be different. It would be parallel, similar, congruent, etc. - but it would be different.That's my point.Edited by RickCHodgin, : Clarifying.Edited by RickCHodgin, : Adding intended.

---

- Rick

I have found your posts to be somewhat demeaning in tone, and I believe unjustifiably so. As such, I desire not to converse with you.

---

- Rick

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

---

- Rick

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

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

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 newsThe 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, 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

RAZD, I have no desire to communicate with you. Please stop responding to my posts.Edited by RickCHodgin, : Removed topic

---

- Rick

He gave us everything we need to find Him. The Bible describes that as Christ was raised from the dead incorruptible, so shall we be - for when we see Him, we shall be like Him. Ever read the book of Job? What God has done is what needed to be done. For man to challenge the reason of God is for 2D flatlanders to approach a 3D being and school him on what it means to have an existence.God sees so far beyond what we can see. All information in the universe came from Him. Every physics law, every math principle, everything. It's all perfect, it's all reflective of God - Psalm 19. Science is what science is. It is man's attempt to understand the universe. Creationists are not prideful or arrogant, nor ignorant, when they choose to accept by faith that what God has revealed to man through the Holy Bible is accurate. I went to college majoring in physics and math. I loved science, still do. But God has revealed something to me which I accept on faith.It may appear to us, our science, and even our reason that a particular event indicates a 4.5 billion year old Earth, or that evolution occurred, or that we know where the stars are or how the moon orbits. We may be able to come up with formulas that describe everything, models which predict and mimic real-world observations, and we can approach perfection in what we see. But, that still doesn't make us right.The Bible teaches that this world is fallen, that the sin of man is in the world. This means that everything here is false, is not of God, is in fact dead. That is why we needed Jesus to come here and offer Himself as a sacrifice, to take away that sin.For whatever purpose it is of God's, that event some 2000 years ago has set in motion a series of events which, according to the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation, must happen. These things are being played out right now, as Matthew 24 advises along with some of the Pauline epistles.The reality is that a person of faith, accepting on faith that God created the Heavens (plural) and the Earth in six days, and on the seventh day he rested, does not preclude an understanding of what man believes, what his theories are, or the ability to use man's reasoning prowess to figure things out. It simply means that we accept, on faith, that what God has said is true. Essentially, we are putting our flesh aside, our mind aside, our eyes aside, the things that exist in this fallen, sinful world aside, and we are trusting in Him and His perfection. We do this because He loves us, and we love Him.True Christians may be able to understand and follow the reasoning of every evolutionist argument that exists, even being able to correct evolutionists on where their ideas are going astray from man's reason ... but that doesn't change the fact that through faith they choose to deny all of that and embrace God.It is what I choose to do. And where I am wrong in my current understanding of the evolutionist's position, I am not wrong because I am willfully ignorant, prideful or arrogant. It is because at some point I accepted Christ and His sacrifice and since that time the theories and explanations used to portray the evolutionist's position have changed, been renewed, refreshed, updated with modern logic and observations.If the exercise is for me to go through and understand everything evolutionists do so that I might be able to fully assimilate their meaning, then I could do that. I could learn all that is learnable, applying the mental faculties God gave me toward perfecting the theory of the system ... but that would not change the fact that I still accept on faith what God has said.I believe in Him because He has believed in me. He has revealed Himself to me and I have seen His love, His truth, His perfection - insomuch as I can understand it - and it is the very call of my being. It is what resonates inside of me with unending vigor.I came here to propose an idea. I believe several people have no understood the disparity of my comment, meaning that I do not believe we should have IR and that God did not give it because he failed in some way, but rather only if ToE was true, we would have IR. Since we don't, that tells me that ToE is false. In addition, because we are here in this way, it is the way we needed to be to be here. God made us this way for His purposes, and that is sufficient for me.

---

- Rick

The surface of the Earth is dark 50% of the time. If ToE were true, the advantages afforded by being able to see more than we can today in the dark would've been of benefit. And when I say "we" I don't mean modern humans, I mean lifeforms on Earth. At some point in the past when, according to ToE, single-celled organisms were evolving into multi-celled creatures with specialized cell groupings, some visual abilities afforded by infrared would've been of enormous benefit. And those benefits would not have diminished as the lifeforms continued to evolve because the surface of the Earth remains dark almost 50% of the time - even to this day. Being able to see better in that environment would've been such an enormous advantage, that any evolutionary system should have produced it. We were created for God's purposes. He, in His wisdom, decided to create us this way. If you want me to speak specifically about some of the Biblical context of what darkness means, and what lightness means, I can do that. But, suffice it to say that God limited our vision so that we would have a real-world example of what it means to walk around in the dark, versus walking around in the light.In the Bible, light is truth, and darkness is falsehood. When we walk without light, we stumble about. In the spiritual realm, when we walk without truth (in sin) we stumble about (engage in sin). I hope this clarifies it for you. There are two concepts here:(1) - Were evolution true, we should have IR because of its enormous advantages affording 50% more opportunity for breeding, feeding, foraging, etc.(2) - Because we don't have it, it doesn't mean we're missing something and God was a bad god because he didn't do it right. It only means that He did everything necessary to give us everything we need so that when we die and see Him, we will be without excuse.As I have said before, all of creation declares the glory of God. Everything knows it was created, everything knows who created it, but it is only man to whom He gave free will. And because of that, we can choose to embrace Him or not.And to answer the previous poster, yes the tree knows God. The earthen soil knows God. The rocks know God. The air knows God. The sea knows God. They know Him and they obey Him.He tells the sea, "You can go this far, and no further" when describing how water interacts with dry land. And the sea obeys. He tells the Earth, "this is who you will orbit the sun," and it obeys. He tells the birds, "this is how you will fly," and they do so.And then He turns to man, His greatest creation and says, "I have created you. I have created all of this to show you my glory. Love me." And we say "NO!" (well many of us do, I choose to love Him).It is a commentary about the state of man that we can exist in this universe, observing all of His perfection, seeing that everything everywhere always obeys exactly what He has said, and then we can look only to ourselves and say "we are not doing what even we know we should" (when we sin) and that "man is inherently evil and untrustworthy" and that "even a two year old knows how to lie."God has created everything that there is. He has put it all together, and all of it proclaims His glory. It is only our pride, our arrogance, or unwillingness to hear His call that keeps us from seeing Him and embracing Him and knowing His perfect love for us.And senseless debates over something that none of us are in any position to even claim knowledge of, let alone claim full knowledge of ... well, it all speaks to the fallen state of man.Anyway, I'm sure I'm rambling by now. Peace to all of you. And I will continue to answer your questions, defend my position, etc. But, only to the extent that there are parts which are not understood.

---

- Rick

This is a very false statement within the system of evolution. Evolution will supply what is needed to survive, but that does not mean it will only provide us with things that are needed. It will, necessarily, provide us with things that are no longer needed and are, therefore, now useless.For example, suppose there was a particular type of airborne creature that was killing another creature. That creature might evolve some ability which allows it to not become extinct. Over time, that creature might perfect that mechanism of defense so that the flying creature is no longer a threat to it.Some other creature may then develop some advantage which allows it to kill all of the flying creatures. Or maybe there was a volcanic eruption which released chemicals poisonous to it. Now, the first lifeform which developed all of these whizz-bang defenses against the now dead creatures is carrying around useless abilities.Evolution gave us what we needed to "get by" when the threat was there, but because evolution is a full-on system with many facets, another part of evolution removed the threat we previously had.There should also be evidence of this were evolution true. See above.

---

- Rick

I am offering scientifically-backed evidence as well.

---

- Rick

Your question pre-supposes there is a need for sleep. I see no reason why an evolved creature would have a need for sleep. Or, rather I should say, why possible initial needs for sleep or resting periods would not later be overcome by creatures who had lesser needs for the same, and eventually no needs for the same.Sleep is a huge liability because the bulk of beneficial attributes (thought processes derived from observation and stimuli) are completely disabled.I believe sleep is another argument against evolution. However, I also believe it is an argument for creationism as it relates to the light and dark aspects of falsehood and truth, explained previously.We sleep in the dark, which is what we do when we walk in falsehood (man's reason, not believing in God - being not yet awake, essentially asleep), and we walk in the light (being awake and aware).God set all of this up for this express purpose, to convey by example His glory.

---

- Rick