Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5545 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 106 of 265 (495299)
01-22-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Granny Magda
01-21-2009 11:45 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
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?
No. However, I believe the fact that we have numerous cases of bonafide precognition indicates there is a creator, and that He really is in control - guiding and directing.
Our best science today concludes that time travel is impossible. That doesn't mean it is, but the ability to see into the infrared spectrum when we can already see into the red spectrum is not such a significant difference. It is only a mutation away in evolutionary terms.
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.
I have considered that very point at length before. It was one of the things I wrestled with in my early faith. Over time I came to see the beauty in the Bible and in Jesus, and I concluded that it was a loving God who created everything rather than some trickster who used the common, observable world around us to enslave us through a fabricated belief system. I believe it is the work of God as the entire book conveys a single author (the Holy Spirit - truth), through many man writers.
Are you saying that slime molds are proponents of special creation?
Everything that exists evidences creation, and a loving God.
How do you know that they know?
Psalm 19: Psalm 19; NIV - Psalm 19 - For the director of music. A - Bible Gateway
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?
We are His creation. But the truth is, while He does guide the way of the sparrow, and the direction of the wind, and the clamoring of the sea, and everything that there is, He has given us free will. We have the opportunity now to accept His love, or reject it; to see Him as He has revealed Himself to all of His creation, or to put on blinders and go our own way.
We are unique in His creation in that regard. And I can show you love, and kindness, and consideration and I can do everything He has asked me to do to the best of my ability, and yet I will not be as He is. Even if someone appeared to you as the nicest, kindest, most loving person you've ever met, they do not hold a candle to God because we are still in this flesh.
The Bible says that right now we only see in part, but then (after we die and cast off this flesh) we will know in full. Nothing will be withheld for those who believe.
But for now, because Adam sinned, and because we are all in this flesh because of Adam's sin (and are mortal in this flesh, destined to die), we cannot know everything. It is God's plan to allow each of us to choose if we will love Him, choose Him, choose truth and life, or if we will go our own way and choose death.
It might sound harsh, but all of us are without excuse because that still small voice, when the TV is off, and there are no conversations being had, and we are there alone only with our thoughts, He is there speaking to us in ways we know on the inside. His voice is not silent, but it requires that we hear it.
That is how we know He is real, and that we are His.
Save it for the Faith and Belief forum. This is a science forum.
I did not move this thread here. I posted a thread in the are where new threads are posted. Someone else moved it here. That does not change my belief, my ability to answer, what I consider relevant or anything else. I am here explaining my beliefs on this issue, even in the areas of things that I do not believe are true, but am able to explain my reasoning about them - such as evolutionary concepts.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 01-21-2009 11:45 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 01-22-2009 12:06 AM RickCHodgin has replied

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


Message 107 of 265 (495300)
01-22-2009 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by RickCHodgin
01-22-2009 12:01 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
Ah! We're learning more about the nature of your problem.
quote:
I believe the fact that we have numerous cases of bonafide precognition indicates there is a creator, and that He really is in control - guiding and directing.
There has never, ever, been one single, verified instance of precognition.

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 106 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:01 AM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:16 AM subbie has not replied

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


Message 108 of 265 (495301)
01-22-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2009 11:51 PM


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.
Infrared cameras operate when warm, cold or hot. They do not cease to function because they are in a warm environment. They simply record the radiation in that spectrum regardless of the temperature of the lens, the sensor, the box, etc.
Infrared thermometers are not affected by temperature either. When it's 20F outside they can read the temperature of a hot water pipe, or the frozen ground, or the engine block. Same as when it's 100F outside.
They simply use materials which are invisible to infrared light for their receptors. The same would be true in an evolutionary adaption for warm blooded mammals. Silicon is invisible to infrared light. It's how modern day semiconductor manufacturers are able to observe circuits in operation without disassembling them or adding debug ports. They literally use laser probes in the infrared spectrum which "see" right through the silicon to the individual copper wires beneath. They can analyze current flow because each time an electron moves in copper it changes energy state and emits an infrared photon. The more photons, the more electricity.
I personally visited Intel's debug lab in Oregon in November, 2007. TGDaily – More than the news
This is why, in endotherms, all adaptations to nocturnalism involve making better use of visible light (and other cues, such as smell).
I disagree with that statement. We use those abilities today because of the way God made us, not because of evolution.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by fallacycop, posted 01-22-2009 3:06 AM RickCHodgin has not replied

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


Message 109 of 265 (495302)
01-22-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:40 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
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.
Yes it does (broadly speaking, and ignoring minor changes due to genetic drift). Every structure comes with a cost. An unnecessary structure is disfavored by natural selection.
It will, necessarily, provide us with things that are no longer needed and are, therefore, now useless.
But it won't supply us with things that were useless when they were supplied.
It may supply features which lose their function (and which will then be degraded into vestigial features) but it will not supply us with features which start off being 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.
And the genes for those features would deteriorate through genetic drift, since they would no longer be conserved by natural selection. Resulting in the sort of vestigial features so commonly observed in nature.
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.
There is.
It's funny, most creationists take the route of denying that vestigial features are evidence for evolution. You admit that they are, but deny that they exist.
Have a look here and here for starters. Or see if you can find out why humans have a broken gene for producing vitamin C.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:40 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 110 of 265 (495304)
01-22-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2009 11:56 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
You don't?
Basically, for the same reason that my monitor powers down if I go long enough without using my computer.
Science today is creating artificial structures that do not require sleep. Nanoscopic electro-chemical-mechanical systems. They can operate continuously without sleep. And these are engineered clunky things compared to life.
It has been shown that even today there are people who can get by with 1hr of sleep per day. It would've been an evolutionary advantage to not sleep, and therefore it is something that should've evolved.
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.
IR is not impossible in endotherms. It's only impossible if you use materials which are not invisible to infrared light.
Costly activities are only "costly" because there are not adequate systems which keep everything in operation. Evolution should've sorted that out. If cells were not getting enough oxygen, then a better circulatory or respiratory system. If cells were not getting enough energy, then a better endocrine system or digestive system. If cells need to take a break, then have cells which switch off and work 50% of the time on some kind of duty cycle.
There are evolutionary answers to these questions, and not all of them are unviable.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 11:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 12:25 AM RickCHodgin has replied

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


Message 111 of 265 (495305)
01-22-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by subbie
01-22-2009 12:06 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
There has never, ever, been one single, verified instance of precognition.
Sure there have. Twins have known the other one was in an accident. Mother and child have had similar connections, even across continents. There have been countless instances of people knowing things before they had any natural way of knowing them.
There are cases of people walking into music stores for the first time ever, sitting down and playing Chopan or Bach flawlessly - having never touched an instrument before.
There are many cases that have been reported over the years.
My mother personally experienced one when my brother went to Russia in the 1990s. There was a train wreck when he was there, very mild and no one was hurt, but the train was damaged. She knew something was wrong and was freaking out for a long time before she finally heard from him.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 01-22-2009 12:06 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 12:22 AM RickCHodgin has replied

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


Message 112 of 265 (495308)
01-22-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RickCHodgin
01-22-2009 12:16 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
My mother personally experienced one when my brother went to Russia in the 1990s. There was a train wreck when he was there, very mild and no one was hurt, but the train was damaged. She knew something was wrong and was freaking out for a long time before she finally heard from him.
What makes you thing that has anything to do with deities in general and your favorite deity in particular?
What is the evidence?
I don't want to hear about belief; what is the evidence?
Or, as Heinlein put it:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:16 AM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:31 AM Coyote has replied

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


Message 113 of 265 (495309)
01-22-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by RickCHodgin
01-22-2009 12:13 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
Science today is creating artificial structures that do not require sleep. Nanoscopic electro-chemical-mechanical systems. They can operate continuously without sleep.
Yes. You, on the other hand, can't and don't need to. You can survive and reproduce just fine while also "powering down" eight hours out of twenty-four..
It has been shown that even today there are people who can get by with 1hr of sleep per day. It would've been an evolutionary advantage to not sleep, and therefore it is something that should've evolved.
No. It has an exorbitant metabolic cost with no concommitant benefit.
IR is not impossible in endotherms. It's only impossible if you use materials which are not invisible to infrared light.
Read through those two sentences again.
Costly activities are only "costly" because there are not adequate systems which keep everything in operation. Evolution should've sorted that out.
Your expectations that evolution should be omnipotent seem now to extend to demanding that evolution should have produced creatures that can defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Doing anything has an energetic cost. Except maybe falling off things.
Evolution should've sorted that out. If cells were not getting enough oxygen, then a better circulatory or respiratory system. If cells were not getting enough energy, then a better endocrine system or digestive system.
Well of course evolution has improved all these things. But not to the extent that we can violate the laws of physics.
If cells need to take a break, then have cells which switch off and work 50% of the time on some kind of duty cycle.
Thus we would operate all the time but at only half the power. I'm not sure that this would be an improvement. I wouldn't be able to stand up, but at least I could lie awake all night ... no, I really don't think I'd be better off.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:13 AM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:46 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 114 of 265 (495310)
01-22-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RickCHodgin
01-21-2009 11:40 PM


Re: What about the other guys?
Still mucking it up RickCHodgins,
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.
Curiously, what Dr. Adequate said is straight out of evolutionary biology as taught by evolutionary biologists in universities giving degrees in evolutionary biology. It also happens to be true, as the evidence shows.
It will, necessarily, provide us with things that are no longer needed and are, therefore, now useless.
Strangely that is not what Dr. Adequate said.
For example, suppose there was a particular type of airborne creature ... Now, the first lifeform which developed all of these whizz-bang defenses against the now dead creatures is carrying around useless abilities.
Interestingly this too is not what Dr. Adequate said.
There should also be evidence of this were evolution true.
Amusingly there is, tons of it. All one needs to do is look at cave organisms that no longer need eyes to avoid predators, but the eyes still grow, usually atrophied and unusable, but eyes. There are other similar features that we have inherited from an ancestral life.
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.
I didn't know "a volcanic eruption which released chemicals poisonous to it" was part of evolutionary systems ... how does an organism evolve a volcanic eruption to dispose of threats?
A simpler answer is that the predator\threat lost the "arms race" and became extinct. The surviving organisms then adapt to life without the predator\threat. Features that were developed to protect from the predator\threat can be adapted to new predator\threats or atrophy.
And amazingly, this still is not what Dr. Adequate was talking about, when he said we don't evolve gadgets and toys.
And you still have not answered the question:
If god didn't give us infra-red vision to be adapted to this planet, why should we need infra-red vision to be adapted to this planet?
If we don't need infra-red vision to be adapted to this planet, then why should infra-red vision evolve?
It's a simple question, based on logic.
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 98 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 11:40 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

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


Message 115 of 265 (495311)
01-22-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dr Adequate
01-22-2009 12:12 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
Yes it does (broadly speaking, and ignoring minor changes due to genetic drift). Every structure comes with a cost. An unnecessary structure is disfavored by natural selection.
There may not be a cost to the ability gained by fending off the flying creature. Maybe it was skin pigmentation, or an ability to lay flat. Those traits may not otherwise impede anything.
Over the course of billions of years and countless mutations and genetic drifts, there would be lots of evidence of things we don't need still around. They would not have all magically gone away simply because they weren't needed.
But it won't supply us with things that were useless when they were supplied.
By definition it will. It will supply us with a wide array of things which are useless. However, in a few generations those creatures with the useless (potentially costly or harmful) traits would've died off. That doesn't mean they won't come. And in a true evolutionary system, they should be coming constantly.
It may supply features which lose their function (and which will then be degraded into vestigial features) but it will not supply us with features which start off being useless.
As you say, there is a cost. If the cost is zero, then useless features will abound. They will be introduced into the creature and, if they don't hurt anything, will continue to exist. And, they don't have to be external. Internal genetic modifications which have no outward effect. In DNA there are portions which we believe today are useless. Evolution would introduce random static and trash into those unused portions if they had no cost in the outcome.
And the genes for those features would deteriorate through genetic drift, since they would no longer be conserved by natural selection. Resulting in the sort of vestigial features so commonly observed in nature.
I don't understand where people get the idea of features disappearing through genetic drift. This does not happen. There are no creatures today which are not already programmed with a wide array of abilities which, over time, will be weeded out of the genetic code (or active genetic code) by selective breeding or the "micro evolutionary process" which does actually exist (changes made from information already there).
I'm stating that evolution does not exist in the form that we came from pre-animate goo to where we are today. Micro-evolution does exist, and does allow dogs, over time, to be bred into taller dogs, fatter dogs, longer dogs, etc. But that does not mean a dog can produce a non-dog.
Features will not simply disappear if they are not needed. The natural variations within that organ's features, or within that gene's features, will allow whatever changes are possible for that thing over time to come out. But that does not mean it will go away. If the ability is already there encoded within it for it to go away, then it will go away. If it is not possible to take it away then it will not go away, it will simply move about into whatever ultimate form it happens on over time - per the evolutionist's theory.
t's funny, most creationists take the route of denying that vestigial features are evidence for evolution. You admit that they are, but deny that they exist.
There are no vestigial features. If something is there, it has a purpose. Rather than me following those links, sum up in a paragraph or less what you believe are vestigial features.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 12:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 12:37 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2009 9:29 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

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


Message 116 of 265 (495312)
01-22-2009 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
01-22-2009 12:22 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
What makes you thing that has anything to do with deities in general and your favorite deity in particular?
What is the evidence?
I don't want to hear about belief; what is the evidence?
There is no evidence except that which is accepted through faith. Through faith I have evidence written in the Bible many thousands of years ago. I can read it today and it verifies the events taking place today with remarkable accuracy.
Without faith, there is nothing I can point to except possibly the realization that these things typically happen unexpectedly, sporadically, and at certain times. The young child walking into the music store has never demonstrated any propensity toward playing music until such time as he/she sees the piano. And then, through an overwhelming desire that is not common in any other area of their life, they sit down and play.
In addition, the instances with twins are often during times of great distress, indicating an emotional struggle of some kind, and possibly a physical one as well.
There was a man I saw on TV whose twin brother worked with him as an electrician. His brother was electrocuted and died, and at that very instant the twin knew it. He got a phone call from his boss saying his brother had had an accident, and the alive twin said on the phone, "I know it. Bill is dead."
There is nothing I can point to where I can say to you "Look there, it's a 7 on that chart, and that 7 indicates it is deity."
BTW, God set it up that way ... we have to accept Him on faith, denying ourselves. Read Matthew 5: Matthew 5; NIV - Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount - Bible Gateway. It explains the humble, meek nature Christians are to assume on this Earth.
On a personal note I would like to say that it's very difficult confronting so many individuals on continuous posts like this.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 12:22 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 12:33 AM RickCHodgin has replied

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


Message 117 of 265 (495313)
01-22-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by RickCHodgin
01-22-2009 12:31 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
If you are dealing with faith, you're on the wrong thread.
You need to provide scientific evidence. Witnessing just doesn't do that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:31 AM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:47 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 118 of 265 (495314)
01-22-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by RickCHodgin
01-22-2009 12:26 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
There may not be a cost to the ability gained by fending off the flying creature. Maybe it was skin pigmentation, or an ability to lay flat. Those traits may not otherwise impede anything.
Skin pigmentation requires proteins to make the pigments out of which could otherwise be used for other purposes.
If an animal originall can't lie flat, presumably this means that its morphology is better adapted to doing something else. There are, to use an analogy, no tank/sports car combinations.
By definition it will. It will supply us with a wide array of things which are useless. However, in a few generations those creatures with the useless (potentially costly or harmful) traits would've died off. That doesn't mean they won't come. And in a true evolutionary system, they should be coming constantly.
You're talking about mutation, I'm talking about evolution.
As you say, there is a cost. If the cost is zero, then useless features will abound. They will be introduced into the creature and, if they don't hurt anything, will continue to exist. And, they don't have to be external. Internal genetic modifications which have no outward effect. In DNA there are portions which we believe today are useless. Evolution would introduce random static and trash into those unused portions if they had no cost in the outcome.
That's genetic drift, which I exempted.
I don't understand where people get the idea of features disappearing through genetic drift. This does not happen. There are no creatures today which are not already programmed with a wide array of abilities which, over time, will be weeded out of the genetic code (or active genetic code) by selective breeding or the "micro evolutionary process" which does actually exist (changes made from information already there).
I'm stating that evolution does not exist in the form that we came from pre-animate goo to where we are today. Micro-evolution does exist, and does allow dogs, over time, to be bred into taller dogs, fatter dogs, longer dogs, etc. But that does not mean a dog can produce a non-dog.
Features will not simply disappear if they are not needed. The natural variations within that organ's features, or within that gene's features, will allow whatever changes are possible for that thing over time to come out. But that does not mean it will go away. If the ability is already there encoded within it for it to go away, then it will go away. If it is not possible to take it away then it will not go away, it will simply move about into whatever ultimate form it happens on over time - per the evolutionist's theory.
That is not "the evolutionist's theory", that's something you've pulled out of your ass.
There are no vestigial features. If something is there, it has a purpose. Rather than me following those links, sum up in a paragraph or less what you believe are vestigial features.
Unfortunately, a paragraph is insufficient. That's why I supplied you with links.
And I don't see how what I wrote could be less than a paragraph unless I wrote nothing at all.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:26 AM RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-22-2009 12:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 119 of 265 (495316)
01-22-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dr Adequate
01-22-2009 12:25 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
Yes. You, on the other hand, can't and don't need to. You can survive and reproduce just fine while also "powering down" eight hours out of twenty-four.
Yes, and were an agressor species to come along I would be wiped out - which is what should've happened many millions of years ago according to evolutionary theories. The creature most adapatable to its environment would've won out ... specifically the one who could make more use out of the number of hours of each day (and the one that could see better via infrared).
Read through those two sentences again.
Reading: "IR is not impossible in endotherms."
Okay, IR is not impossible in endotherms (considering the sum total of all avaialble resources which could exist to support an IR organ).
Reading: "It's only impossible if you use materials which are not invisible to infrared light."
Okay, meaning if you assume the lens and materials between the lens and the receptor are visible to infrared, then it won't work. But if you use materials that are invisible to infrared light, then no matter what temperature they are infrared will pass right through it.
Your expectations that evolution should be omnipotent seem now to extend to demanding that evolution should have produced creatures that can defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Your inability to grasp the concept I'm explaining here relating to IR invisibilty components does not allow you to claim things about my level of understanding on anything.
Well of course evolution has improved all these things. But not to the extent that we can violate the laws of physics.
Were we to chop off the head of some athelete and hook him up to a computer which caused his muscles to move, heart to beat, lungs to operate, etc., so that his body could live, then we would not be able to make him go indefinitely. He would still require resting, recuperation, etc.
However, in an evolutionary system there should be no reason why that is necessary. I do not buy the cost factor of metabolism, and therefore the necessity of sleep, because in an evolutionary system all of those "costs" are just variables that could be overcome.
Sharks never stop swimming. Their bodies have been designed so that they can continue to operate continuously. So it is possible in living creatures.
In my belief, if evolution were true, that trait would've been introduced. The creatures that required less sleep would've been able to reproduce more often, hunt more often, etc. They would've won out over time. Same is true for creatures that could see better at night.
Nocturnal creature today have huge pupils. They adapted to their environments, from an evolutionst's point of view, using visible light entering from larger openings which let in more light. They can see better in the dark for that reason. They have an advantage and are able to move about.
Going back to the earliest creatures which should've existed in an evolutionary system, at some point the ability to see red should've given way to the ability to see infrared as well. A mutation or two would've taken them there. They did for much later creatures, so we know the mutation factor is possible. Given the variability of lifeforms with much more rapid lifecycles (reproducing every few hours or days), it should've happened a few times over a few hundred million years.
It didn't happen because evolution is not true.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 12:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2009 1:18 AM RickCHodgin has replied

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


Message 120 of 265 (495317)
01-22-2009 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coyote
01-22-2009 12:33 AM


If you are dealing with faith, you're on the wrong thread.
You need to provide scientific evidence. Witnessing just doesn't do that.
I didn't put the thread here. Someone else moved it here.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 12:33 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Huntard, posted 01-22-2009 4:07 AM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 145 by AdminNosy, posted 01-22-2009 10:14 AM 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