Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

That's not how things work around here. RAZD is probably you best chance to learn something new while you are here. he is knowledgeable, patient (Much more patient then me), and quite willing to take the time to write high qulity posts. Why would you want to exclude him from the this forum?

What? if the IR light is invisible for the receptors, how do the receptors see it?

Of course it was put here, evolution IS a science issue, not a religious one. The fact that some religious types have a problem with it doesn't matter, it's still science.

---

I hunt for the truth

According to the list you quote he did, it's covered by #7.Edited by Parasomnium, : Added "covered by"

Why is it orange or red?
Thermal radiation - WikipediaWe can see thermal radiation, it's just that the object has to be hot enough to emit within the range we can see. Our range is apparently 380-750nm (what we call visible light). UV radiation is from 10nm to 400nm. Infrared is from 750nm to 1000um. So it is just on the lower bound of what we can see. Of course, heat something up enough and it emits thermal radiation into the visible spectrum (like an incandescent light bulb).Rick is talking about being able to see heat, which is generally in the infrared segment. Trouble for him, is, we can see heat.

Ever wondered why we see in that range?The answer is that it's a range that is largely unabsorbed by the atmosphere. As you move into the infrared or the ultraviolet, you rapidly start getting into regions of much higher absorbtion. In fact, the IR detection of snakes isn't the "near"-IR but two windows someway distant at frequencies about 6-10 and 20-30 times lower which are also able to travel through the atmosphere.

Hey fallacycop, As pointed out it is #7 in the list.But why stop with eyes? As long as we are going to make a "wish-list" and then accuse evolution of not providing it to suit our convenience, why not other things as well?

• The ability of owls to look behind you
• The hearing ability of owls
• The echo location hearing of bats
• Extended range of hearing to hear the rumbles of elephants and the squeeks of bats
• The electrical sensors of manatees
• A back that doesn't "go out"
• Shoulders that don't get pulled out of socket
• Universal joint elbows
• Webbed feet for swimming
• Wings
• a stomach that can process rocks

The list is endless, and according to RickCHodgin, each one proves evolution wrong because his god would not provide it to make us perfectly adapted to our world while evolution must provide to make us perfectly adapted to our world.This is not evolution, it is wishtolution. The fact that this is false means wishtolution is false.The reality is that animals that have IR sensors are (a) coldblooded, and (b) don't use their eyes to sense heat, but some other feature.Pit viper are called pit vipers because of the sensory pits that detect heat, not because they "see" in infra-red frequencies.Mosquitoes and other bugs use their antennae.RickCHodgin doesn't understand evolution and his argument uses fake 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) • • •

Hi Rick.You've made it pretty clear that you do not beleive evolution takes place in the world today and many people here have challenged you about your position.It's pretty clear that ToE is the only accepted theory for the mechanism of evolution (creationsim does not stipulate a mechanism for the act of creation).It seems you disagree for the reasons you have given.Given this, how do you account for the almost universal acceptance of ToE in the scientific and religious world. Don't forget that the Pope recognised ToE as not contadicting the existance of his (and I would hazard) your god?I guess I'm wondering why you believe you are right and His Holyness the Pope is wrong.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Hi again RickCHodgin, I see you are still at it.You haven't learned yet have you. I notice that you have posted 43 messages on this topic alone, and yet you have not supported your position with anything other than your own opinion and your beliefs.Your opinion is worthless. Science doesn't use opinion, they use facts, tests, theories that make predictions, and testing of those predictions. Then you haven't done the research. Most mutations are neutral - they do not affect the Phenotype of the organisms, so they are not subject to selection. Most deleterious mutations affect the fetal development of organisms, and are rejected. Most early in the process before much has developed.Mutations can also become of a benefit later, when the ecology changes or when a second mutation uses the first to develop a beneficial trait.This was shown in the lab using e. coli over several decades, where a second mutation took advantage of a neutral mutation to create a beneficial mutation. The experiment started with a single organism, and neither of these mutations existed in the original. Again you are engaging in wishtolution, not in evolution. What we see in reality is variations on existing features. It includes variations in color, but those variations are subject to selection before being passed on to the population. Absolutely and unequivocally false. As noted, you do not understand evolution, you have a false idea, and this means any conclusion you reach based on that false idea is invalid.Ignorance can be cured, but you have to be willing to learn.Basing your arguments on creationist information, because you like it, is called confirmation bias. Ignoring contradictory information and evidence, because you don't like it, is called cognitive dissonance. Delusion is thinking that confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are a basis for rational thought. Except that this is not evolution, it is Hodginution. We have already agreed that Hodginution is false, so why do you keep bringing it up? It's falsified, invalid, kaput, void, does not pass go.Evolution does not produce sudden new species, it gradually changes existing populations of species, it responds to changes in ecology, and different populations in different ecologies will select different variations in order to adapt to their ecologies. Different evolution in different populations of the same species will make the populations different if they are reproductively isolated and thus do not share genes. This is where new species come from, not "saltation birth" - and curiously, if you had studied the links I provided on evolution you would know this.Please stop posting rubbish.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : is false

---

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) • • •

The evolution of IR vision is a scientific topic. This is the correct place for it.You made claims about evolution -- that is a scientific topic. If you want to talk about faith then open another topic.

Hi, Rick.Thanks for your responses. This isn't necessarily true, though. The relative magnitude of the change doesn't necessarily translate directly into the relative magnitude of the mutation. A hammerhead shark's funny head may be the result of one mutation (I think they're still debating about this, though), while the color of a chicken's egg shell is the result of over a dozen mutations.And, once again, mutations are random: either they happen, or they don't, and there isn't anything that can be done to will them into place. Even slight mutations must obey this rule. When talking about the emergence of mutations, it's simply a game of chance. And, in regard to IR vision, we simply haven't "won the lottery" yet.----- Wonderful. Here's what drew me to ask if you know what a mutation is: This sounded a little like X-Men to me, where "mutation" means "wings," "laser eyes," "telepathy" or the like. I see now that I was mistaken about your understanding: I apologize if my comment insulted you.But, just a thought exercise, now.Do you think that a single mutation can cause gills, scales or a beak to develop in a creature whose parents do not have these things?
If not, wouldn’t you agree that producing a beak would require multiple, separate mutations?
And, doesn’t that mean that each one would have to be advantageous, and selected for, individually?
Can you imagine the chances of reproduction for a man that has the genes to partially create a beak? How is he ever going to pass on those bizarre genes?----- Where are you coming up with these numbers? Here’s a numbers game that I’d like to play now:1 bacterium
1 generation per week (50 generations per year)
1 mutation per generation (50 mutations per year)
Half a billion years until true animals evolve
=25 billion generations/mutations in one line of descent from one bacterium before animals even evolved! Plus, there could be as many as 2^(25 billion) different lines of descent.
So, (25,000,000,000)*(2^25,000,000,000) is the number of chances that evolution had to produce any particular genome that you want it to produce before animals even evolved.What do the odds look like now?----- Rick, those tens of millions of “unviable versions” are usually referred to as “stillbirths,” “spontaneous abortions,” “birth defects” and “handicapped.”Surely you aren’t arguing that tens of millions of these haven’t happened in the past 10 million years? Tens of millions of them happened in the past century alone! There are 200 different mutations that cause phenol-keto urea (PKU), all of which would have been wiped out by natural selection if we didn't have the knowledge and medicine to deal with it.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Yes, we can see thermal radiation, but that's not what you had said. You said Infrared radiation and thermal radiation are not synonyms. Infrared is a specific range of electomagnetic radiation (between 750nm and 1000m as you pointed out) defined that way mainly because of the human brain's need to organise its knowlege into neat little boxes. Thermal radiation is not restricted to any specific range, including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible,... etc. All the way to gamma rays (yes indeed).Red is the radiation with the smallest frequency (longest wavelength) that we can see. Infrared is just below red -- hence the name -- and is invisible by definition. If we could see it, it would be a new color. lets call it derum (just made that up). whatever invisible radiation whose frequency were to be just below derum's frequency range would be called infraderum. And RickCHodgin would be complained about the fact that (in his views) our inability to see infraderum should be taken as evidence against evolution. That shows how completely irelevant his point realy is. One could always find something else that we don't have or can't do. That is not evidence against evolution.Edited by fallacycop, : typo

#7 covers obstruction of light by intervening blood vessels and nerves. That's barely noticeable. I'm talking about the blind spot which is a bigger issue.

The blind spot is the logical consequence of the nerves lying on the wrong side of the retina. And why is the blind spot a bigger issue? The brain has found a way to compensate for it. Normally we don't notice the blind spot at all.On the other hand, I think we would notice the difference if the nerves were suddenly on the backside of the retina, because more photons would reach the retina and that would probably enhance night vision.

The retina does not cover 100% of the surface of the eyeball. The nervs could find their way around it. they don't. Sure. But it can be noticed. I doubt it. But may be you are right.