Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

This may be part of the problem.When you accept an idea based on the evidence, you often have little problem modifying that idea as the evidence changes and improves.When you believe something it is often difficult to modify that belief as it is not necessarily based on evidence. Or, as Heinlein noted:

quote:

---

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

---

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

I would venture to guess that your "evidence and reason" will never stray very far from strict creationism.Your posts read more like religious apologetics than actual science, coming up with reasons that your beliefs must be true.Science, when properly applied according to the scientific method, works strictly from data to theory with no overriding goals or requirements to conform to a particular belief.Sorry, but I don't tend to see that in your posts.

---

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

You are welcome to your beliefs, and I have no problems with that at all.Where I have a problem is when folks confuse religious beliefs with scientific knowledge (hey, that might make a good tagline!).

---

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

You are offering us religious apologetics, not scientifically-backed evidence.But this is the Science Forum. Perhaps you should be on a thread in another section of the website?And please note tagline below:

---

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

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.

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.

Really? Not even natural selection?Here are two ways of looking at this:The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes1) The typical mathematician or creationist would be there for decades, rolling all 25 dice each time, never getting more than a few sixes. They would then tell you its impossible, the odds are just too high.2) A biologist or evolutionist would probably roll the 25 dice, and then reroll only those that weren't sixes! With several repetitions the whole thing would take just a few minutes.Lest you say that this doesn't apply to evolution, think again. You don't have to get all 25 dice right on the first try--neither did evolution. Natural selection builds on successes, while failures are discarded. You yourself are the product of millions of successes, coming one at a time and building upon the ones that came before. You are the product of millions of ancestors who each got it right and left descendants! But each came one at a time, building on the successes of the previous generation.There's a whole new way to look at "random" for you. Of course I expect you won't accept a word of this for religious reasons.

---

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

Its not all or nothing!I know that IDers are big on the "irreducible complexity" dodge, but that has been discredited in every example that Behe has proposed. If IC were accurate, then you would have to get it right with a single throw of the dice. But its not accurate.Rather, evolution builds on successes. Each success allows the population to build on that success.That's why the analogy of rolling 25 dice and keeping the sixes, then rolling the remaining dice is an accurate one. That is a better analogy for how evolution works, and the mathematicians who model evolution the other way are not producing an accurate model--just one that creationists like to taut.Creation "science" as usual, eh?

---

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

Selection pressure is what gives you the changes for the next roll of the dice.Look at it as those organisms that succeeded (the sixes) didn't get eaten (the other numbers).An analogy or a model is a simplification of a system; it does not purport to duplicate that system. It often isolates particular variables that they may be more readily studied. To nitpick the exact correspondence of the model to the system, as you seem to do when you disagree with the results of the model, is not very productive. Nor does it necessarily argue against the model.The whole point of the dice model I presented was to illustrate two different ways of looking at odds in biology. It seems you are unable or unwilling to see how this applies to mathematicians modeling evolution.

​

"Belief gets in the way of learning."

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

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

Or not! That's they key!

---

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

Those that die or fail to reproduce are weeded out. Those that survive pass on their characteristics.Go back and read the post I was responding to and it will all become clear.

---

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