Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

RE--Every Science discipline from molecular biology to genomics have proven Darwin correct period!--That's interesting OLEGDEI. Would you be willing to back that up by giving me at least one example of observed information being added to the chromosomal DNA of any organism in such a way as to improve that organisms ability to survive?Or how about just one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major kinds?It seems to me that if Darwin has been "proven" correct by so many scientific disciplines, that you would have no problem presenting at least one example of my above requests.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Would someone care to guide our newest member to existing topics that cover the above questions?Adminnemooseus

---

Hello Brad H, and welcome to the fray. He's been asked to substantiate his claims on another thread, and appears to have disappeared. What does 'The Gospel' mean to you - in 200 words or less, Message 93. Unfortunately this is not the topic of this thread, it, and there are several problems with your request (such as, it suffers from the lack of definition for "information" in a manner that can be quantified). If you want to pursue this you can follow up on anyone of several threads that do address it.Such as Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments. This is also off topic, and you are free to start a new one one it. Be prepared to define "kind" first and then what you mean by a finely graded chain between them.This topic is about infrared eyesight, and whether it would evolve in humans.The question, of course, indicates a poor understanding of how evolution works and why features develop.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

Hello RAZD, Thank you for your tips they were most helpful. As for my questions being off topic, I respectfully disagree. This thread is about rather or not evolution would've given us infrared eyesight. The type of evidence that we would need to see in order to conclude that any phenotype (including night vision, or infrared vision) could occur by evolutionary means, would be either observation of added information to the chromosomal DNA in a positive manner, or at least one finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major kinds. These are the only things that would conclusively demonstrate that the theory was even possible to any reasonably open minded skeptic. Also I would like you to note that I am prepared to define "information" in a manner that can be quantified upon request. I realize that I am very new to how things work here, but am I to understand that if topics overlap each other, that we can not pursue the outcome of the conversation within the confines of one thread?Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Those are indeed excellent reasons why scientists know that evolution is a fact. But they are not germane to the topic. If you need to be spoonfed basic information about genetics or the fossil record, start a new thread. Or, better still, read an old one. Or a biology textbook.

Hi Brad.The problem here is that this site likes to keep the focus on threads as tight as possible.The OP is asking why it has not happened that we (humans) do not have IR vision (although I suspect the OP meant thermographic vision).Not what would be required for it to happen e.g. a change in the spectral sensitivity of human eyes (or equivalent heat pits for thermographic vision).Two slightly different questions. EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: EvC Forum: Adding information to the genome.Hope this helps to point you in the right direction.

Hi again Brad H Topics are generally (though not always) limited to ~300 posts. This keeps the debate focused. In this case on why infra-red vision has not evolved.There is generally already a better topic for side topics that come up, and if not it is easy to create one. Several have been pointed out for you, however I wouldn't mind seeing a new one on"... or at least one finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major kinds."But as I've said you'll need to do some groundwork - what do you mean by "kind" and what do you mean by "between" are two problems that a new OP would have to define first.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Enjoy.

---

just a quibble: type [tid=13706] and it becomes: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:Not a good one for evolutionary chains. There are better, but I'd start a new thread. Adding information to the genome.Good choice.Enjoy

---

Where do we find that number?

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

It's the end of the url you posted: t=13706

Cool.I was thinking of the human skulls but you're probably right.

Topic overlap is fine, topic jumping is not. In this case the topic is in danger of jumping from infrared eyesight to information theory and evolution in general, as we see here your Message 226: If you can tie this into the infrared eyesight topic, fine, but if not then pursuing this really belongs in another thread.--Percy

Hi Dr Adequate, you seem pretty confident that the evidence I ask for exists. I would assert to you that you are deceived by one of evolution's best kept secrets. That being that there is NO fossil or biological evidence for evolution. Or at least not the kind of evolution that is conjured up in the minds of 95% of us laymen. I believe some sticklers prefer the terms abiogenesis and universal common decent. So if by "evolution" you just mean observed changes in a population over time, then yes evolution is a fact. But if you mean spontaneous generation of the first living cell and molecules to men transition over large expanses of time, then no, there is no evidence that such an absurd event could have ever taken place. So this should be fun. I will give a brief explanation here, and since I am new to these forums I'll let you direct me to which ever thread you feel to be the more appropriate with which we can carry on with our conversation.FOSSIL RECORD- In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. I am sure that you are aware that Darwin himself first brought up the problem. Origin of Species (1859) p.280 Note that Darwin fell back on the "imperfection" of the fossil record to explain the lack of intermediates. Some would argue that today (150+ years in to the future) the problem has been solved. So why then does one of today's most prominent geologists, Donald R. Prothero, continue to assert that there is still a problem by saying; "Creationists often assert that the fossil record is nearly Complete and should show the innumerable insensibly graded transitions that Darwin expected in 1859. Yeteven with nearly 200 years of collecting behind us, the fossil record is relatively complete only in certain areas as mentioned above. Fossilization is still a highly improbable event, and most creatures that have ever lived do not become fossils." "Evolution, what the fossils say and why it matters." p. 51 He made this statement less than three years ago, and is obviously falling back on Darwin's imperfection of the fossil record argument. Other scientists have affirmed this problem, like the late Stephan Gould who said, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." The Return of the Hopeful Monsters. Or like Ernst Mayr who said: "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance, 1982, p. 524. If you know of and can link me to at least one such finely graduated chain, I would bow in complete acceptance to the theory of evolution.INFORMATION- Richard Dawkins has been quoted as having once said that the DNA of a single celled amoeba has more information than a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. obviously in order for him to make such a claim, there must be a meaningful way to identify and measure information. Wikipedia says: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information." The article also explains that information can be measured by measuring "the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021" Therefore in DNA, information refers specifically to the measurable algorithmic patterns in which the nucleotides are arranged, and specifically the number of bits of the shortest program that computes that sequence. It is also important to note that it is not necessary for information (in this case) to be mentally received and appreciated by a receiver in order to be classified as information. Another example of information might be when scientists study the signals sent by a honey bee to others in the hive (by way of his dance), or those sent by a dolphin (with its movements and high pitches), they determine the complexity of the information in much the same way. SETI researchers likewise conclude that if a single string of prime numbers were to be detected being transmitted from deep space this would also be a much higher algorithmic measurement then regular space noise. So much so that they would deem such a transmission as being intelligent in origin. Likewise the information in DNA is considered more and more complex as the bits of computable data become higher and higher when computing the algorithm patterns of the nucleotides of the genes in the DNA of an organism. When we compare that information measured in DNA, with say the information found in one book like an Encyclopedia Britannica, we find it is truly much more complex. One thousand times more complex, according to Dawkins. This brings me back to my original question. In order to transition from fish to creatures with legs, there would have to be a tremendous adding to and building up of information in the chromosomal DNA of an organism. So in order to biologically prove this was even possible we would have to have at least one observed example of a mutation adding new information to the DNA. Not just "copies and repeats" but actual new information that forms a new and novel function. Again, I would bow in complete acceptance to the theory of evolution if someone could just give me one case of this being proven to occur.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

My sincere apology all. I don't mean to topic jump. I am fine with moving to any thread of a monitors suggestion. Thanks

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Concerning information I can suggest two threads:

• Adding information to the genome.
• Evolving New Information

--Percy