Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

If evolution were true, there would've been significant advantages to having infrared vision, since infrared is "always on," constantly emitting heat information about the temperature of objects.

* off-topic nonsense snipped *

Evolution did not bring us here. We are wonderfully and fearfully created beings, by a loving God.

The only reason many of us won't see that is because we are wrapped up in ourselves. It's pride and arrogance which separates us from God.

Subbie, my position is this: *IF* ToE was true, it would've produced evolution.

Since I believe it is not true, and since I believe we were created by God, then God gave us what we *NEEDED* to get by here on Earth.

I don't think we should have IR vision. I am only saying that if ToE is true, we should have.

(1) - Were evolution true, we should have IR because of its enormous advantages affording 50% more opportunity for breeding, feeding, foraging, etc.

(2) - Because we don't have it, it doesn't mean we're missing something and God was a bad god because he didn't do it right. It only means that He did everything necessary to give us everything we need so that when we die and see Him, we will be without excuse.

How would this be a benefit to warm blooded humans? The radiant heat from our heads would spoof the receptors. Imagine trying to see when your eyes are glowing like light bulbs.

Your question pre-supposes there is a need for sleep. I see no reason why an evolved creature would have a need for sleep.

Sleep is a huge liability because the bulk of beneficial attributes (thought processes derived from observation and stimuli) are completely disabled.

This is a very false statement within the system of evolution. Evolution will supply what is needed to survive, but that does not mean it will only provide us with things that are needed.

It will, necessarily, provide us with things that are no longer needed and are, therefore, now useless.

For example, suppose there was a particular type of airborne creature that was killing another creature. That creature might evolve some ability which allows it to not become extinct. Over time, that creature might perfect that mechanism of defense so that the flying creature is no longer a threat to it.Some other creature may then develop some advantage which allows it to kill all of the flying creatures. Or maybe there was a volcanic eruption which released chemicals poisonous to it. Now, the first lifeform which developed all of these whizz-bang defenses against the now dead creatures is carrying around useless abilities.

Evolution gave us what we needed to "get by" when the threat was there, but because evolution is a full-on system with many facets, another part of evolution removed the threat we previously had.There should also be evidence of this were evolution true.

Science today is creating artificial structures that do not require sleep. Nanoscopic electro-chemical-mechanical systems. They can operate continuously without sleep.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Mutation is the only component of evolution that allows something over time to change.

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)

Presumably since all mutations I've ever heard about are unviable, sterility or death ...

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.

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.

I have never heard of any mutation which shown to benefit the offspring.

No.

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.

Every possible trait should've been produced so that the offspring could go off and find their niche - were evolution true.

I totally agree with your message here. There would have had to be millions if not billions of positive random steps for life to have progressed to the extent of design which we observe today. There's just no random model to support this.

You appear to have some knowledge in the science arena.