Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 265 (495277)
01-21-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 10:34 PM


RickCHodgin Running from reality? Already?
RickCHodgin,
RAZD, I have no desire to communicate with you.
Curiously whether you like it or not, your posts are full of blatant errors in logic and falsehoods.
Of course you don't give a reason for this desire: perhaps it is your difficulty in dealing with the issues that are raised.
If you don't like my responding to these things, then stop posting rubbish. If you don't like the answers that demonstrate that your posts are full of blatant error in logic and falsehoods then stop posting rubbish.
Message 87
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.
One, you are not basing your position on the ToE, but a fantasy version that is your own belief. We can agree that this fantasy version, Hodginution, is false and move one.
This is also the logical fallacy of special pleading. It means you don't require the same test for your argument that you require of others.
Why do you think your argument is special?
If "God gave us what we *NEEDED* to get by here on Earth" then why doesn't evolution give us "what we *NEEDED* to get by here on Earth" - particularly when this is what evolution (the real kind, not your false straw man) says should occur: organisms adapt to their ecology by mutation and natural selection. Those that are better fit to survive and breed in a given ecology will survive and breed better than those who are less fit: result - adaptation to the ecology.
Evolution does NOT say that, because you happen to think that a specific feature is desirable to keep you from bumping your shin in the dark, that it must occur. That just is not so. It is rubbish.
Please stop responding to my posts.
Stop posting rubbish, and then I won't need to show you it is rubbish.
quote:
Message 71
Message 1 ... suggests evolution did not happen, but rather by design we were created this way for the express purposes of God's will.
... 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.
Message 15
Life is designed (by God, by the way ) to accommodate such things.
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?
We don't need infrared because he provided us with a place to live and everything we needed to survive here.
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 do you think your argument is special?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 10:34 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 92 of 265 (495278)
01-21-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2009 9:33 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
Though apparently he didn't love us enough to give us infra-red vision.
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.
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?
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.
And there was I thinking it was pride and arrogance that separated creationists from science.
Oh, and ignorance, of course.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2009 11:04 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 102 by subbie, posted 01-21-2009 11:49 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 265 (495280)
01-21-2009 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 10:55 PM


Answer the Question
Hey RickCHodgin, plowing on I see.
He gave us everything we need to find Him.
So if he didn't give us infra-red vision, why should we need infra-red vision.
If we don't need infra-red vision, then why should infra-red vision evolve?
It's a simple question, based on logic.
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.
Do you understand the term "circular reasoning"?
You say we don't need infra-red vision.
And that this is why god didn't give us infra-red vision.
But if we don't need infra-red vision, then why should infra-red vision evolve?
It's a simple question, based on logic.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : finished

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 10:55 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 94 of 265 (495281)
01-21-2009 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by subbie
01-21-2009 10:51 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
You need to explain why we would need infra red vision if the ToE is true...
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.
and why we don't need it if we were created.
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).
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.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by subbie, posted 01-21-2009 10:51 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2009 11:35 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:37 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 01-21-2009 11:45 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2009 11:59 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 265 (495284)
01-21-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 10:30 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
Subbie, my position is this: *IF* ToE was true, it would've produced evolution.
And it has.
It hasn't provided you with infra-red vision, but then apparently we can survive and reproduce perfectly well without it.
Have you noticed that humans are diurnal?
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.
But evolution will also only give us what we "need to get by", it won't supply us with gadgets and toys that would merely be fun to have. Have you heard of "natural selection"? Does the phrase "cost/benefit" mean anything to you?
I don't think we should have IR vision. I am only saying that if ToE is true, we should have.
But you have failed to make your case.
Tell me this --- if you think IR vision would be so darn useful --- have you bought yourself a pair of night-vision goggles?
I haven't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 10:30 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 265 (495285)
01-21-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:19 PM


Apologetics
You are offering us religious apologetics, not scientifically-backed evidence.
But this is the Science Forum. Perhaps you should be on a thread in another section of the website?
And please note tagline below:

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:19 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 265 (495286)
01-21-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:19 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
(1) - Were evolution true, we should have IR because of its enormous advantages affording 50% more opportunity for breeding, feeding, foraging, etc.
When would we sleep?
We already have enough time to breed, sleep, and forage. Doing more of the same would be a bit of a waste of energy. Doing it in the absence of visible light would be a foolish waste of energy.
(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.
I still don't see why you think that the ramshackle, makeshift, make-do, trial-and-error processes of evolution should have produced a better result than a perfect creator.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:19 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 98 of 265 (495287)
01-21-2009 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
But evolution will also only give us what we "need to get by", it won't supply us with gadgets and toys that would merely be fun to have.
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.
Have you heard of "natural selection"? Does the phrase "cost/benefit" mean anything to you?
See above.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 12:12 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2009 12:25 AM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 99 of 265 (495288)
01-21-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coyote
01-21-2009 11:35 PM


Re: Apologetics
You are offering us religious apologetics, not scientifically-backed evidence.
I am offering scientifically-backed evidence as well.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2009 11:35 PM Coyote has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 100 of 265 (495290)
01-21-2009 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:19 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
Hi Rick,
quote:
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.
Being able to see into the future would also be an advantage, much more so than IR vision. Do you think that the ToE demands that we should develop precognition as well?
quote:
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.
Wow. Post hoc rationalisation, appeal to authority and special pleading, all in one argument.
Do you not think it more likely that the Bible simply employs a widespread metaphor for knowledge and ignorance? This kind of symbolism is common to nearly every culture in the world. It is a result of our inability to see in the dark, not the cause of it.
quote:
Everything knows it was created
Are you saying that slime molds are proponents of special creation?
quote:
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.
How do you know that they know?
quote:
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).
The Medieval god you describe is such a dictator, the ultimate control freak, that I would not wish to love him. According to your description, he is a tyrant who must even prescribe the flight of a sparrow. Rather petty for an omnibenevolent entity isn't it?
quote:
It is a commentary about the state of man...{continues in similar vein}
Save it for the Faith and Belief forum. This is a science forum.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Forgot to write "Mutate and Survive". Can't have that.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:19 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:01 AM Granny Magda has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 101 of 265 (495291)
01-21-2009 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2009 11:37 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
When would we sleep?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:56 PM RickCHodgin has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 102 of 265 (495293)
01-21-2009 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 10:55 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
quote:
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.
So, in essence, what you're saying is that no amount of evidence will ever convince you of anything that you think is inconsistent with what you think the bible says.
If in fact that is the case, there's really no reason for anyone here to engage you. People are here because they believe in science, and they believe in our ability to accurately perceive the world around us and come to rational conclusions about the world based on that evidence. Any discussion with you about science would make less sense than discussing music with a deaf person.
quote:
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.
Then I'm truly hard-pressed to understand what you're doing here. It's clear to anyone who knows anything about the ToE that you know nothing about it. You've loudly trumpeted your lack of interest in learning about it. All of this combines to create a perfect storm of us wasting our time.
Your creator gave you a mind for a reason, presumably. It seems to me that the best way for you to acknowledge that gift is to use it. But, certainly you know your god better than I do. If you think he's happy for you to run around in ignorance, nobody here is going to force feed you. However, I daresay there are very few other folk interested in a god whose purpose is, apparently, to lord over uneducated sheep.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 10:55 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 265 (495294)
01-21-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
01-20-2009 8:12 AM


How would this be a benefit to warm blooded humans? The radiant heat from our heads would spoof the receptors. Imagine trying to see when your eyes are glowing like light bulbs.
I was just going to post this, and then I noticed you had.
---
Rick --- Larni is right. We're endotherms. Our eyes are kept constantly at body temperature. If we had IR vision, we still wouldn't be able to see warm-blooded animals at night, because we'd be blinded by the IR from our own eyeballs.
This is why, in endotherms, all adaptations to nocturnalism involve making better use of visible light (and other cues, such as smell).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:12 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 265 (495297)
01-21-2009 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:45 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
Your question pre-supposes there is a need for sleep. I see no reason why an evolved creature would have a need for sleep.
You don't?
Basically, for the same reason that my monitor powers down if I go long enough without using my computer.
Sleep is a huge liability because the bulk of beneficial attributes (thought processes derived from observation and stimuli) are completely disabled.
As are the bulk of costly activities. At a time when we couldn't use 'em well anyway. 'Cos of the absence of visible light, and the impossibility of IR vision in endotherms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:45 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 265 (495298)
01-21-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:19 PM


Still making erroneous conclusions.based on false premises
Hi RickCHodgins, it's me again, pointing out the poor logic and false statements you are making ...
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.
This is why we have nocturnal animals, ones that can see in the amount of light that exists at night. Ones with large eyes to gather more light. Ones that adapt to use hearing as well as vision.
Humans are not nocturnal. Humans also evolved from fruit and plant vegetarians, and thus we have evolved vision to see when fruit and vegetation is ripe.
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.
Curiously single cell life and many other life forms do respond to heat, but not many single cell life forms have eyes.
Strangely, the first multicellular life was in the sea, and involved cold-blooded organisms. As pointed out earlier, infra-red vision would be totally useless in this ecology, however vision based on the visible spectrum we (humans) see in would be of benefit.
And those benefits would not have diminished as the lifeforms continued to evolve ...
The problem is that the existing organisms that can't use infra-red vision would have selected against developing organs for using infra-red: it would have offered NO advantage for the first several billion years of life.
Those that evolve from those organisms, the multicellular forms that had eyes and organs developed for life in the sea among cold-blooded organisms, would not have them when they moved onto land.
They can adapt those features but they cannot re-create them. This is why we have backward facing retinas: some ancient ancestor had backward facing retinas, and evolution is not able to turn them around.
Being able to see better in that environment would've been such an enormous advantage, that any evolutionary system should have produced it.
So the fact that it hasn't proves that your argument is false. Of course, the reason it is false is because this is not how evolution works.
Instead, what we see is the development of nocturnal life forms, ones that are able to see in the dark sufficiently to survive and breed and fill the nocturnal animal niches.
They are also able to see the rest of the world, not just the hot-spots, and thus can avoid the cold-blooded predators, and the tripping and other hazards one encounters running around at night with infra-red goggles on.
You have been told about several organisms that are able to detect infra-red (whether they "see" with it is debatable, it could be more similar to how hearing is used). These organisms have not taken over their ecologies, nor driven out similar organisms that do not sense infra-red. Conclusion: it is not the big benefit you think it is.
Certainly it is not an advantage for diurnal organism, like humans. Certainly nocturnal organisms survive and breed without it.
We were created for God's purposes. He, in His wisdom, decided to create us this way.
So if we are fit for this world as we are, according to this opinion of yours, then why should evolution make us have infra-red vision?
If he didn't give us infra-red vision to be adapted to this world, why should we need infra-red vision to be adapted to this world.
If we don't need infra-red vision to be adapted to this world, then why should infra-red vision evolve?
It's a simple question, based on logic.
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.
No it doesn't clarify it at all. It's bad logic (the conclusion does not follow from the premises), it's a false representation of evolution, and it's still special pleading.
The only thing it clarifies is that you think rubbish is reason.
If he didn't give us infra-red vision to be adapted to this world, why should we need infra-red vision to be adapted to this world.
If we don't need infra-red vision to be adapted to this world, then why should infra-red vision evolve?
It's a simple question, based on logic.
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.
Then perhaps you should stop posting rubbish. Yes your knowledge of evolution is poor and misinformed at best, so I agree that it is senseless for you to post on the topic.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:19 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024