|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
If an animal originally 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. Or it means its morphology hadn't yet evolved the ability to lie flat which, from that point forward it could now do and is of benefit.
You're talking about mutation, I'm talking about evolution. Mutation is the only component of evolution that allows something over time to change. The only other possibility is programmed information change, which implies a creator as the original code is continuously programmed to develop into the next best thing. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Rick.
So, I haven't read much past the message I'm responding to now (Message 75), but, judging by the sharp turn you took at Message 80, and all the responses that that generated, I'm going to assume that nobody has said what I'm about to say. Sorry if I repeat anything. -----
Rick writes: 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. ToE stipulates random mutations, remember? Random mutations. Not useful mutations. Having a need or a use for a certain mutation doesn't mean it's going to show up for you. If it does show up... well, that's wonderful: it means you stand a better chance of surviving! But, if it doesn't show up... well, you'll just have to deal with that. Organisms do not have any control over the mutations that happen to them. -----
RickCHodgin writes: I believe ToE would state a mutation which allowed cells to "see" infrared would come about in a single generation. RickCHodgin writes: 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. I would like to know what you think a mutation is, and how it is caused. Please be specific. Also, consider the issue of pace: What happens when your mutation-producing machinery makes too many mutations, too fast?And, what happens when you mutation-producing machinery makes too few mutations, too slowly? I think you think mutations are a lot more dramatic and rapid than they really are. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
ToE stipulates random mutations, remember? Random mutations. Not useful mutations. Yup.
Having a need or a use for a certain mutation doesn't mean it's going to show up for you. If it does show up... well, that's wonderful: it means you stand a better chance of surviving! But, if it doesn't show up... well, you'll just have to deal with that. Organisms do not have any control over the mutations that happen to them. We see in red. Infrared is not that much further away in the spectrum, meaning only slight mutations would be required. Other, more advanced species which were already much more specialized (fish and snakes) have developed the ability, so we know it is possible. Through the many random mutations that should've occurred early on when lifeforms were reproducing every few hours or days, it should've happened at some point. However, if the evolutionist is going to say "it's random, it may have happened, or it may not" then ... that's just a cop out - a way to deny extreme probability in favor of shutting down a possibility.
I would like to know what you think a mutation is, and how it is caused. Please be specific Mutations are changes in genetic code, resulting in modified protein generation. To be passed on to offspring, mutations must occur in reproductive components (sperm, eggs).
What happens when your mutation-producing machinery makes too many mutations, too fast? Unknown. Presumably since all mutations I've ever heard about are unviable, sterility or death - though I don't believe that has to be the case. It depends on the severity of mutations. If the "mutation-producing machinery" were a programmed gene splicer designed to take amoeba DNA and convert it in successive generations to human DNA, then such a mutation-producing machine would be doing its job and would be beneficial. If it were radiation from the sun or Chernobyl, maybe not so much.
[qs]And, what happens when you mutation-producing machinery makes too few mutations, too slowly? Unknown. Depends on the environment. In some cases, potentially nothing. In other cases, potentially extinction.
I think you think mutations are a lot more dramatic and rapid than they really are. I think the idea of an evolutionary system sorting everything out over million and billions of years is beyond ridiculous. We have over one billion nucleotides (about 20,000 genes) - according to a previous poster, and the idea of arranging all of those nucleotides in sequence in the 1.5 billion years science tells us life has existed on Earth ... that's almost a 1:1 ratio. It's 1.5:1 ratio, meaning that every year one of them would've had to have been put in sequence. In order for that to have happened, that means that many countless other thousands per year would've failed. Random mutations cannot account for the correct answer without also producing a significantly greater number of failed organisms, and I'm talking like ten million to one. For every viable mutation, there would have be ten million or more unviable ones. It's not possible that we evolved based on the math alone. And evolutionists always fall back on the concept of "millions and millions of years." According to evolutionary branches I've seen, less than 10 million years ago some common ancestor between us and apes/monkeys existed. And we are supposed to believe that in only 10 million years (say a 2 year average reproduction cycle (from mother to child), that's 5 million generations max, that this proto creature evolved specifically and directly from what it was to what we see today without not only countless intermediate steps and forms, but rather also the other tens of millions of versions that were unviable and died off. It's not evidenced by nature as we see today, fossil records, anything. We are what we are, and we reproduce what we are with only the very smallest number of changes. To think that man in the past 50,000 years has changed any, or even 350,000 years ... is ridiculous - even from the evolutionist's point of view. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. No. There are agressor species, and yet you live.
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. I still don't think you've got the point. You emit infra-red. A receptor which detected infra-red would detect you, as being the nearest source of infra-red.
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. The boot would seem to be on the other foot.
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. Good grief. And you say you studied physics. No, evolution cannot perform actual miracles. Activity has an energetic cost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Or it means its morphology hadn't yet evolved the ability to lie flat which, from that point forward it could now do and is of benefit. It would help if you could discuss some concrete example rather than something you're making up as you go along.
Mutation is the only component of evolution that allows something over time to change. Yes. And any mutation which is useless and costly, or which costs more than it's worth, will be flushed from the gene pool by natural selection. Mutation is the agent of change between individuals of different generations; it is mutation plus natural selection which allows the evolution of anything that's really interesting. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Activity has an energetic cost. The cost factor I'm saying I don't buy is that it could not be overcome through evolution - were evolution real. I'm saying there's nothing which prohibits a creature that has the ability to operate continuously without needing sleep, without getting tired, from then not operating continuously and conserving energy. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Mutation is the agent of change between individuals of different generations; it is evolution plus natural selection which allows the evolution of anything that's really interesting I understand this is the belief, and I say "hogwash." In order for there to be a beneficial mutation, it would have to be extremely specific. And in order for something specific to happen in an environment of "random mutations," there would have to be an enormous ratio of failed mutations (unviable mutations) to the one beneficial one. I estimated previously 10 million to 1. I don't see that happening today. I haven't seen one example of mutation on any level which would allow for, in another few hundred thousand years, to move from man or monkey to something nuvo-man or nuvo-monkey, with an additional split in the genetic tree to allow numo-monkey2 or nuvo-man2. It's an absolute absurdity to think it could happen in so few years, as our evolutionary charts show us today it happened from some proto-hominid about 4-10 million years ago. It's beyond ridiculous actually. The math doesn't add up. Edited by RickCHodgin, : Getting tired, had to fix grammar. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We see in red. Infrared is not that much further away in the spectrum, meaning only slight mutations would be required. Other, more advanced species which were already much more specialized (fish and snakes) Both of which are cold-blooded. Now there's a big non-surprise.
Presumably since all mutations I've ever heard about are unviable, sterility or death ... Good grief, the things you don't know.
In order for that to have happened, that means that many countless other thousands per year would've failed. For example, it is estimated that as many as 50% of embryos fail in the first week or two due to genetic defects. Is that the sort of thing you're thinking of?
Random mutations cannot account for the correct answer without also producing a significantly greater number of failed organisms, and I'm talking like ten million to one. For every viable mutation, there would have be ten million or more unviable ones. Show your working?
It's not possible that we evolved based on the math alone. And evolutionists always fall back on the concept of "millions and millions of years." According to evolutionary branches I've seen, less than 10 million years ago some common ancestor between us and apes/monkeys existed. And we are supposed to believe that in only 10 million years (say a 2 year average reproduction cycle (from mother to child), that's 5 million generations max, that this proto creature evolved specifically and directly from what it was to what we see today without not only countless intermediate steps and forms, but rather also the other tens of millions of versions that were unviable and died off. It's not evidenced by nature as we see today, fossil records, anything. We are what we are, and we reproduce what we are with only the very smallest number of changes. To think that man in the past 50,000 years has changed any, or even 350,000 years ... is ridiculous - even from the evolutionist's point of view. You have, evidently, not done the math. It can be found in the second and third sections of this article. If you wish to see that in "one paragraph or less", feel free to copy it, paste it, and then remove all the paragraph breaks. Though I think you will find it rather harder to read. --- I notice that you've gone without so much as a segue from claiming that evolution should produce utter perfection to claiming that it should barely be able to do anything at all. Might I suggest that the truth lies somewhere between these two utterly incompatible falsehoods?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I understand this is the belief, and I say "hogwash." In order for there to be a beneficial mutation, it would have to be extremely specific. And in order for something specific to happen in an environment of "random mutations," there would have to be an enormous ratio of failed mutations (unviable mutations) to the one beneficial one. I estimated previously 10 million to 1. Pulling numbers out of your ass is not an "estimate".
I don't see that happening today. I haven't seen one example of mutation on any level which would allow for, in another few hundred thousand years, to move from man or monkey to something nuvo-man or nuvo-monkey, with an additional split in the genetic tree to allow numo-monkey2 or nuvo-man2. It's an absolute absurdity to think it could happen in so few years, as our evolutionary charts show us today it happened from some proto-hominid about 4-10 million years ago. It's beyond ridiculous actually. The math doesn't add up. You haven't done the math. I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5569 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Good grief, the things you don't know. I have never heard of any mutation which shown to benefit the offspring. Every textbook I've seen which talks about mutations shows something like the poor, battered fruit fly who, when bombarded with radiation, produces offspring with oval eyes, or curled wings or damaged legs. They include text like "Here we see an example of a mutation. This mutation is negative and will be weeded out through natural selection. Beneficial mutations are passed on to future generations, allowing evolution over time." They never show a single beneficial mutation, such as a before an after pictures of something that was observed to have a new benefit.
For example, it is estimated that as many as 50% of embryos fail in the first week or two due to genetic defects. Is that the sort of thing you're thinking of? No. I'm referring to mutations which produce blue skin, and red eyes, and thicker hair, denser bones, more teeth, clawlike finger nails, more digits, less digits, more jointed arms, etc. And if we go back to the original creatures evolution say existed at some point, the original mammal from which all others developed, then it should've had all kinds of abilities to generate all kinds of what we see today. It should've constantly been producing offspring with longer noses, longer ears, shorter noses, shorter ears, more toes, fewer toes, thick hair, unthick hair, long nails, thick nails, nails on only two fingers or toes, nails further up its fingers, thicker skin, thinner skin, more legs, more arms, longer necks, etc. Every possible trait should've been produced so that the offspring could go off and find their niche - were evolution true. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5545 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
So if a designer were going to design an optimum human eye:
I can't believe you did not mention the blind spot of the human eye cause by the neuron being bundled towards the inside of the eye(instead of the outside like any intelligent designer would have done) and then puncturing their way out of the eye (gots to get to the brain).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5545 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
And hey, guess what. You know that stuff that is burning orange and red in this photo:
No, kuresu. That burning orange and red stuff that we pick up in this photo is -- surprise -- orange and red (visible) light.
File:Hot metalwork.jpg - Wikipedia That's the "visible" part of the infrared spectrum that we can pick up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have never heard of any mutation which shown to benefit the offspring. Then maybe you should have spent five minutes researching the subject on which you wish to lecture us.
No. Er, yes it is. You specifically identified "failed" mutations as "unviable" ones. I quote:
In order for that to have happened, that means that many countless other thousands per year would've failed. Random mutations cannot account for the correct answer without also producing a significantly greater number of failed organisms, and I'm talking like ten million to one. For every viable mutation, there would have be ten million or more unviable ones. And if we go back to the original creatures evolution say existed at some point, the original mammal from which all others developed, then it should've had all kinds of abilities to generate all kinds of what we see today. No, what you're talking about now is the sort of saltation which the theory of evolution (the one in biology textbooks, not the one you've made up) deems impossible.
Every possible trait should've been produced so that the offspring could go off and find their niche - were evolution true. Ah, I see we're back to your idea that evolution should be perfect. Only now it should be instantly perfect. Couldn't you just get your two conflicting strawmen to fight it out while we sit back and eat popcorn? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5545 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Science today shows us that it is impossible for Earth to be millions of years old, let alone billions (in anything resembling its present form). Atomic clocks were first activated and used in an official system in 1958. They were set upon two time methods (TAI and UT1) which were roughly in sync with each other at that time. Today some 50 years later, they are 32 seconds apart due to a slowing of the Earth's rotation. A rate of 32 seconds per 50 years yields a slowing of one hour every 5,625 years. Multiply that by 24 (hours per day) and you're sitting at 135,000 years before the Earth would've completely slowed down. Add in a margin of error of 500% and you're now sitting on a maximum of 675,000 years
TGDaily – More than the news I'm curious. You gave us a link that states something entirely different then what you quoted. Did you even read your own link?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5545 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Subbie, my position is this: *IF* ToE was true, it would've produced evolution. And we are telling you this: Just because you think evolution ought to have given you IR vision doesn't mean evolution is wrong. There is another logical possibility you have ovelooked. Namely, You don't fully understand the theory. Have you considered this?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024