Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

Hey RickCHodgin, welcome to the fray. I predicted that this thread would cause a lot of replies, because it is a typical creationist misunderstanding of both evolution and logic. You don't understand evolution at all. You seem to think that it is some kind of designer that develops a feature just because it would be convenient.Here are a couple of resources for you to learn the reality behind evolution: what it really is, what the evidence shows, what the science says about the diversity of life and the evolution of species: Berkeley: Introduction to Evolution 101, with Definitions
Berkeley: the Table of Contents for the Evolution 101 series of articles
Umich: Speciation and the definition of Evolution
UMich: Evolution and Natural Selection
Darwin on-line: On the Origin of SpeciesDoes not mean that evolution is false, just your understanding of it. Evolution is opportunistic and responsive to changes in ecology, it is not directed other than to survive and breed. See above references. You don't understand logic at all. 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. 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? 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 does this very same reasoning not apply to evolution, where organisms are adapted to their ecology by taking advantage of variations and selection for fitness by survival and reproduction? So now your "design requirements" include A/C piping and eyes on retractable stalks?Seems to me your designer is totally failing to keep up with your ad hoc arguments.You fail to realize that every argument you make from a design perspective is (a) not a contradiction for evolution and (b) IS an argument against your designer. So again, why does your designer not provide this feature? You claimed that he provided "everything we needed to survive here" - except infra-red eyes? Curiously, nature, biology, evolution are not limited by your opinion and your lack of knowledge. Organisms continue to evolve, generation by generation, selecting between variations caused by mutations by the process of survival and reproduction, and your opinion can not stop it. And you are free to believe anything you want. However if you wish to talk about evolution without appearing to be a silly PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) it would behoove you to learn about the subject.I predict that you won't learn from your mistakes, but plow on, convinced you know more than all the biologists in the world. So you are closed minded, ignorant, and proud of it? Again, your opinion is worth Jack. It has no effect on reality. It's 3 billion base pairs. Genes are made up of varying numbers of base pairs.Do you know how similar your single cell eukaryote organism is to a single cell in a human? These cells are not completely re-invented, they are adapted. What you missed entirely in your calculation is what the starting point was, and without that base point your calculation is meaningless.Many mutations also involve multiple base pairs being added, moved or deleted at once. Some involve whole copies of genes, one of which can then be adapted to some other benefit. Thus a single base pair calculation is also meaningless. LOL. How do failed species change other species? Not surprising, seeing as where you are looking is full of falsehoods, misperceptions, poor logic, and denial of reality. Perhaps he is not the only one.Again, you need to explain why you think evolution should accomplish (according to your poor understanding of evolution) something that you don't require your god to accomplish?One logical alternative is that we evolved "the way we needed to be" to fit our ecology. Interestingly, this is what real evolution suggests.If your version of evolution is disproved by your argument then all you have done is shown that your version of evolution is false.We'll call it "Hodginution" and we can both agree that this is a totally false concept. We can consider it invalidated without further ado, adieu.Now we can discuss what biological evolution really is, according to the science of biological evolution, as taught by evolutionary biologists, in universities giving degrees in biological evolution.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) • • •

Well RickCHodgin, you've been having quite a time eh? The plain fact is that mammal ancestors did not develop infra-red vision because they did not need it to survive and breed. It is not about being the best, it is about being good enough.The plain fact is that we also do not have the ultra-violet vision that birds have, and that provides them with whole different kinds of "color" to see in. Some birds see 7 "primary" colors (dedicated receptors). They use these wavelengths to see patterns in prey vs background, just as we do.All seeing in infra-red would do is add color to the patterns we can see. The various wavelengths are on a continuum, and are not discrete different things.What we have developed is very high ability at pattern recognition. This does not depend on what colors we see, just that we see several.What we have is very well adapted to seeing ripe fruit and vegetation.Infra-red vision would be entirely useless for this.Not all prey is warm-blooded. Fish are not warm-blooded, and infra-red vision would be entirely useless for hunting cold-blooded prey.Now when we look at human ancestors, do we see fruit and vegetation eating primates, some that are occasional omnivorous predators and opportunistic meat eaters, or do we see obligate predators of only warm-blooded animals?The reality is that your concept of evolution is uniformed, your understanding of logical argument is poor, and your conclusion is unsupported by either.Added by edit Amusingly, infra-red vision would not have helped you at all. And anyone that has tried to use infra-red vision goggles to see the ground will know that it doesn't help at all.Interestingly, many mammals have adapted to hunt at night. Not one of them needs infra-red vision to survive and breed. What you do see, is adaptation of the existing eye to see more in dim light: large eyes, more rods, fewer cones (fewer colors: like dogs and cats). Let's agree for the sake of the argument that no existing warm-blooded animal has evolved this ability in the last 65 million years. Meanwhile bats and whale\dolphins etc develop radar\sonar. What does that suggest to you about the relative benefit of seeing in infra-red?Next let's consider two scenarios for a human hunter with infra-red vision (IR-man):(1) it is daytime, and a rabbit is hiding under a black rock that has been sitting in sunlight for hours. IR-man cannot see the rabbit because of the "white" rock in front of him, but normal vision Joe can. Joe spears the rabbit.(2) it is night, and the band lights a fire. IR-man is blinded, while Joe happily cooks his rabbit, he shares it with Jane, who shares some ripe berries she collected - later they mate.Evolution is about net benefit to survival and reproduction, about adapting existing features, by selection among variations caused by mutation. If the mutation does not exist it cannot be selected. Mutations don't happen because they would be convenient.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : jane

---

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) • • •

hey dronester There is also a rare condition where women in families with color-blindness can see four "primary" colors (and have a much richer sense of color than us mere mortals). The reason has to do with double "X" genes and one shifted vision gene on one that results in the color-blindness in males.http://www.physorg.com/news1035.html

quote:

---

The results of the study by Verrelli and Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland appear in the American Journal of Human Genetics . Their research focused on the gene that allows people to perceive the color red, a gene that is found only on the X chromosome. They found that the gene has maintained an unusual amount of variation that is about three times that of other genes.

​

“Normally, this degree of genetic variation is suppressed through natural selection,” Verrelli says. “In this case, nature is supporting a high degree of variation instead.”

​

Verrelli explains that variation in the red gene is created via the exchange of genetic material with a neighboring gene that detects green. The scientists speculate that enhanced color perception was important when women were the primary gatherers in the hunter-gatherer phase of human existence. It would have allowed them to better distinguish among fruits, foliage and insects. Therefore, nature supported the variation, despite some negative consequences to men.

​

Because women have two X chromosomes, women can receive one chromosome with the typical configuration of the red vision gene while the other chromosome receives a slight variation. It is the combination of a normal and variant gene, which occurs in about 40 percent of women, that may provide a broader spectrum of color vision in the red-orange range.

​

By contrast, men have one X chromosome, and any variation in the single red gene that they receive reduces their ability to distinguish between red and green. This accounts for the relatively high percentage of men ” 8 percent ” who have a color vision deficiency. It was this statistical aberration that first interested Verrelli in pursuing this research.

---

One wonders what RickCHodgin thinks of the evolutionary benefit of seeing ripe fruit in vegetation where we can clearly see that this is a result of mutation of the color cones.And then we have the rich and sharp vision of birds:rattlesnake.com is for sale | www.oxley.com

quote:

---

He added that `some types of birds have five types of cone'. I find it impossible to imagine such a bird's color vision. They see many more shades than we.

​

Blankenship provides more detail:

​

A bird's retina actually has three types of photoreceptors that `translate' light into nervous impulses:

• rods ” black & white vision in dim light
• cones ” color vision in bright light
• double cones ” color vision

Moreover, according to Blankenship's link,

​

... bird retinas, in contrast to human retinas, contain no blood vessels. This prevents shadows and light scattering, which cut down on human vision.

​

Many birds see more acutely than humans,

​

The denser that cone cells are, the sharper is the perceived image. The human eye has at most 200,000 cones per square millimeter, while House Sparrows have approximately twice that number. Hawks, who must spot small prey from the sky, possess about five times as many as humans! Songbirds and predators such as hawks are believed to have the sharpest vision among birds. They can see details at distances two to three times farther away than humans.

---

Many animals also have one or more "nictitating membranes" that offer additional protection for the eye, and benefit to vision in a number of ways, from sunglasses to windshield wipers to underwater adaptation.There is another way that human vision could be improved, if one were going to design it: the octopus has a fixed lens and focus their vision by moving their retina (also without nerves, veins and arteries between the lens and the receptors, as well as having receptors pointed towards the light rather than away from it) while humans change the shape of the lens to bring the image into focus on a fixed retina.One could combine these two systems into one vision system, and with the ability to alter both distance between lens and receptor AND the focal length of the lens to bring any distance object into focus on that movable retina, you would have telephoto to macro vision. This would also provide the ability to focus underwater.So if a designer were going to design an optimum human eye:

1. a broad spectrum of cone vision, from infra-red to ultra-violet,
2. many different kinds of cones, so that more colors would be seen
3. a dense array of cones and rods to make images sharper (similar to pixel resolution)
4. large eye lens to increase amount of light used in the dark
5. a large retina that acts like a large screen to also increase resolution in normal light
6. a nictating membrane or two to function as dark glasses
7. an unobstructed retina (nerves, veins and arteries behind the retina
8. a retina with photo-receptors facing the light
9. an adjustable location retina while keeping the adjustable lens - you could have a network of muscles on the backside with the nerves, veins and arteries,
10. a third eye, so you have multiple binary vision redundancy plus up\down acuity.

... for starters.Any designer worthy of sacrifice should be able to do this. Assuming he/she/it wanted to fully "trickout" humans.I wonder how RickCHodgin can explain why his designer is so incompetent.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : underwater vision

---

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) • • •

Hey RichCHodgin, welcome back I take it that your failure to address the serious mistakes in your previous posts, errors that have been pointed out by many people, and your failure to refute these posts, means that you agree that you were mistaken about what evolution says and what should result.Good. Would that be your pride and arrogance that separates you from God and the reality that he created? Actually all it shows is that your understanding of the mechanism is incomplete, and that the information you use is from a questionable source.Curiously there are fossil corals that not only show annual growth rings but daily growth rings. We'll start with the annual ones, just to warm up:http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html (1)

quote:

---

Some species of corals have stony skeletons, consisting almost entirely of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the term coral is often applied to the skeletons themselves.... There are three kinds of this skeletal material, i.e. plate-like, branching, and 'massive' The last is rounded and bulky and proves to be useful for estimating past sea-surface temperatures (SST) in tropical regions.

​

X-ray examination reveals that massive coral has layers of different density, due to seasonal variations, like the annual rings of tree trunks. Counting of the density layers in large colonies of coral provides annual dating of the layers for several hundreds of years. Massive coral cores of the Porites type on Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have been dated back to 1479 AD.

---

Next we look at what actual astrophysics says about the earth-moon system and their calculations for spin in the past, and how that ties into coral growth rings.http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html (2)

quote:

---

The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...

​

The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.

​

A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.

---

I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:

Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg (3)This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).Note that this correlates astronomy, physics and biology, with information provided from each source correlating with the others.The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data.Enjoy

---

References:

1. Geerts, B. and Linacre, E. "Estimating past sea-surface temperatures from corals" University of Wyoming Dept. of Atmospheric Science. Nov 1997. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html
2. Wells, John W. "Coral Growth and Geochronometry" Nature 197, 948 - 950 (09 March 1963); doi:10.1038/197948a0. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html
3. Wells, John W. - source of picture not known, found on website accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg
   

---

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, RickCHodgin, I wonder if you could answer this simple question:

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) • • •

RickCHodgin, 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. 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. 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) • • •

Hey RickCHodgin, plowing on I see. 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. 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.EnjoyEdited 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) • • •

Hi RickCHodgins, it's me again, pointing out the poor logic and false statements you are making ... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) • • •

Still mucking it up RickCHodgins, 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. Strangely that is not what Dr. Adequate said. Interestingly this too is not what Dr. Adequate said. 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. 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) • • •

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 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) • • •

Thanks Parasomnium, Yes, it is the "hole" in the retina for all these things to connect to the rest of the organism behind the retina. Here's a little test:

quote:

---

Not only that, but these nerves, veins and arteries all enter and leave the eye near the center of the retina in prime vision territory:

​

Close your right eye and look at the right side green spot, move in or out and you will find a point where the left side green spot disappears, but the grid is still visible - this is because your brain assumes continuity over the blind spot, but is blind to the reality.

---

Notice how the pattern suddenly "fills in" the grid where the spot was (is).And yes I intended that the blind spot was part of the interference with the retina. Perhaps sufficiently that RickCHodgin wouldn't bump his shin on the furniture at night pretending to be nocturnal.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) • • •

Hey RickCHodgin, perhaps I can help. If there is a net benefit to the trait for the organism to survive and breed (one that survives but doesn't breed is not going to pass on genes), then the trait will survive in following generations. As long as they do not affect survival and breeding, they will continue to exist in the population, however they will also be subject to variation and random changes as selection will no longer work to preserve the feature in it's original form. They may also become adapted to some new use, one that would not be possible without this preadaptation. Mutations do provide a wide array of variation in all species. This is what produces the variations you see in all populations of all species. Each specific variation is also mixed with other variations of other traits in the overall phenotype of each individual, and selection operates on the individual phenotype as a whole.But you seem to think, or imply, that there should be larger scale variations than we actually see. Changes from nails to claws in one generation, for instance, and this is just not the way it works. Yes, we call those neutral mutations, they don't affect the phenotype one way or the other, so selection does not eliminate or promote them. They spread through the populations by genetic drift.Any feature that had evolved in ancestor organisms, but which is not necessary now, and which are now phenotypically neutral, would be subjected to such mutations that don't affect selection, and thus the genetics for those features would "drift" in following generations. There would be no selection to maintain them in their previous form. Well, as you have previously demonstrated, your understanding is not much of a measure, especially for the validity of a process that has been observed.Cavefish - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The cavefishes (commonly: blindfishes, swampfishes) are found in caves and adapted to life in the dark, notably lacking fucntional eyes and pigmentation, as a result having a pale or whitish color. They are found only in the midwestern and south-eastern United States.[1] There are more than 80 known varieties of cavefish. Although some species have tiny, vestigial, eyes, three have no eyes at all. Cavefishes do, however, have rows of sensory papillae on their skin, which they use to help navigate their lightless environment. The majority of cave fish have little to no pigment in their skin.

---

The vestigial eyes are often buried under the skin where they couldn't function the way they originally did if there was light. This skin covering is due to genetic drift - mutation to cover the eyes and no selection mechanism to remove it from the population.There are also spiders and crickets that have evolved to live in caves without eyes. Curiously, your opinion once again proves incapable of preventing nature from proceeding according to evolution. Strangely the evidence that it does happen is not hard to come by. Organisms are not programmed. Biology is not programmed. Life is not programmed.Organisms today have the features that have been adapted by descent with modification and natural selection to enable them to live within their ecologies. Evolution is a response mechanism to ecology, changes in ecology, and the opportunity provided by variation and nearby ecologies. Those organisms that survive and breed, pass on hereditary traits to following generations. Some are more capable than others and thus contribute more to following generations.The next generation may face an entirely different ecology, with reverses the previous selections. There is no program, no direction, other than survival and reproduction. Again, this is your (ill-formed and ignorant) opinion, and it is incapable of altering reality. The fossil record is a reality, and - sadly for you - it shows a gradual progression of life on this planet from single cell life, to multicell life, to fishes, fishibians, amphibians, quadrupeds, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, often overlapping for long periods of time in multiple forms and in many different ecologies. All showing relationships in nested hierarchies. Man's ancestors, the various hominids, are late-comers to the party, a mere blink of the infra-red blind eye in geological time and the time-span of life on earth. What is the mechanism that makes it stop?Would it help you if I said microevolution is all that is needed in evolution? That once you have accepted that microevoluiotn occurs you have accepted that "macroevolution" occurs? All "macroevolution" amounts to is the record of the descent of new species from common ancestor species.Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, speciation is caused by evolution in reproductively isolated populations, causing divergence between the isolated populations that can result in reproductive failure should they meet later.Ring species show that very little difference is necessary to result in reproductive isolation:Greenish warblers

quote:

---

Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations.

---

Dogs also show that small variations can accumulate rapidly in reproductively isolated populations when selective pressure is high - for that is all dog breeds are, populations isolated by humans while selecting for survival and reproduction based on some arbitrary human criteria. Perhaps you would like to participate in the dogs will be dogs thread.Of course the descendant of dogs will always be descendant from dogs, just as dogs will always be descendant of canis (wolf genus) and canis will always be descendant from canidae (descendants of canids) and canidae will always be carnivora, etc.Foxes are also canidae, genus vulpus instead of canis. Are foxes prevented somehow from developing the features of dogs (or something different)?What about squirrels and possums?The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas: Berkeley - evolution 101 (one of those links I posted for you initially):

quote:

---

​

However, these animals also have some key differences:

​

Sugar gliders live in Australia, and flying squirrels live in North America.

​

Sugar gliders have a pouch (like a kangaroo does), which provides shelter and safety for their tiny babies ” at birth, a baby sugar glider is smaller than a peanut! Flying squirrels, on the other hand, have much larger babies and no pouch.

​

By studying their genes and other traits, biologists have figured out that sugar gliders and flying squirrels are probably not very closely related. Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals and flying squirrels are placental mammals.

---

From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal. ROFLOL, you do keep them coming don't you? Now we have DNA programmed to self-destruct? The ID of undesign. Cue the mission impossible theme. If they are not needed then the feature will not be selected to be preserved. If there is a selective advantage to not preserving an unnecessary feature, selection will act to remove it, though this can occur in varying degrees - once the feature has been reduced to a neutral feature in the population it can remain as a vestige of it's former glory.Snakes have lost all evidence of legs, whales only have vestigial remnants. Some cave fish have no eyes at all, while others have eyes buried under skin. How about: "Features that are no longer used for their original purpose, but that may remain in diminished form due to secondary functions that evolved later to use part of the feature that (then) existed, or because they have become a neutral feature (neither beneficial nor harmful)."Or one can cite sources for what biologists call vestigial features and why:Vestigiality - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.

---

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/...1/IIIE5Adaptation.shtml

quote:

---

A vestigial structure is a feature that was an adaptation for the organism’s ancestor, but that evolved to be non-functional because the organism’s environment changed.

---

Now you can argue that the pelvis of a whale is still used for A function, but you cannot argue that it is used for walking, and you cannot argue that your definition is one used by science.Curiously when you use different definitions for things than the scientists do, then you suddenly stop talking about the science and start talking about your fantasies of what science involves.Humorously, vestigial structures and features are precisely what you were claiming should be plentiful at the start: They would become vestigial structures, no longer used for their original purpose.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity and grammarEdited by RAZD, : spEdited by RAZD, : punc

---

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) • • •

Hey fallacycop ANd we can correlate wavelength with temperature:Google Answers: Mapping Table from IR Wavelength to Temperature of source

quote:

---

The general formula for the peak wavelength of blackbody radiation
emitted by a warm body is as follows:

​

Lambda [microns] = 2900 / T [deg K],

​

where Lambda is the wavelength of the light in microns, and T is the
temperature in Kelvin. To convert from Kelvin to Celcius, Kelvin =
Celsius + 273.15, so the equation becomes

​

Lambda[microns] = 2900 / (T [celsius] + 273.15).

​

I generated an Excel spreadsheet to chug through the numbers and
create the following table:

Temperature   Peak Wavelength
(Celsius)          (Microns)
----------------------------
30.0                9.56622
...
35.0                9.41100
...
40.0                9.26074

---

35°C would be 95°F or roughly body temp.Color vision - Wikipedia

quote:

---

For humans, the visible spectrum ranges approximately from 380 to 740 nm, and there are normally three types of cones.

---

So you need to evolve from 740 nm (mx10^{^-9})up to ~9.4 μm (mx10^{^-6}), with (erm) no visible benefit in between. From 740 to 9,400 nm.AND block the infra-red coming off the arteries etc inside the eye (see Malcolm's excellent post Message 153) ...Yeah, evolution works like that.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) • • •

Bonjour, olivortex, and welcome to the fray. As long as you employ open-minded skepticism and try to recognize and eliminate confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance from affecting your pursuit of knowledge you will do fine. One does not need a PhD in biology to understand evolution or the geology of an old earth. A healthy understanding of logic helps.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) • • •