Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

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

---

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

---

See Message 18 of Posting TipsEdited by RAZD, : redirected

Hi Brad H.I suggest you pick one topic and work on that until you are familiar with the way this forum operates and what is expected in the way of evidence to support a position (at least in the science threads).Percy has given you a couple of options for information issues (Message 240).The issue of what a "kind" is can be enough to rag on for ages without any real resolution (see Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) for an example), before even getting to the issue of fossil chains.The issue of fossil chains an be addressed independently (and perhaps more easily) if instead we focus on the degree of change you want to see as a result. A fox and a cat are different kinds, yet they share so may characteristics that it is not difficult to envisage a few minor changes in their evolutionary history to end up with one or the other. If you want to pursue this issue further, I could suggest Dogs will be Dogs will be ???.Again, please chose one topic and start simply. Laying down a barrage as you have in this post will just encourage may divergent replies and topic drift.Pick your best issue, state it simple, and we can be off to a good start.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : link

---

Hi again OLEGDEI,Your post is also completely off topic for this thread.Please reply to my Message 93 on What does 'The Gospel' mean to you - in 200 words or less. I saw very little on your website about evolution, but a lot about hate, a trait that drips from your posts as well. Do you think you can discuss a topic like an adult and leave the childish insults in the playground?Enjoy.

---

See Message 18 of Posting TipsEdited by RAZD, : redirected

So what thread are you going to move to?

Perhaps the topic should be closed for terminal topic drift.