Turns out, the original film is essentially monochromatic, and the differences in heat (or rather, black body radiation) are determined by changes in intensity.
Further, it seems that these pit receptors visualize the heat much like a pin-hole camera, and simulations show that the resolution is really quite bad. The contrast itself isn't too great either. Fortunately for the snakes with these, the image is sharpened along the way, but still, you're not going to get anything like what a false-color infrared camera will show you.
I believe infrared vision would be a significant benefit on a world where half of the day is dark. I believe evolution would've produced lifeforms with that ability - were it true.
Well, I take it you are aware of pit vipers and boas, right? Take a look through this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_sensing_in_snakes. Other organisms able to sense in the infrared include the common vampire bat, some jewel beetles, two butterflies, and possibly a parasite.
Regarding (1), I believe ToE would state a mutation which allowed cells to "see" infrared would come about in a single generation. That mutation would be passed on to its offspring whereby later mutations would be introduced which were passed on, improving upon the design.
Personally, I do not believe this happens because it is a ridiculous proposition. It depends on mutations occurring which would be of benefit. That necessarily means other mutations would also occur which would be harmful. As a result of the large number of mutations, there would be a tremendously wide array of mutations being introduced very often, the results of which would span the spectrum. Some offspring with better vision, some with worse, some with two sets, some with one, etc., etc., etc. It's ridiculous, and it's not seen today.
As others have mentioned, there's this little thing called natural selection that acts as a filter. We do actually witness this spectrum of mutation, but as you hinted, many mutations are harmful, few beneficial, and most harmless. But as regards those harmful mutations, natural selection weeds them out. The organism dies before it can reproduce, or it is not able to reproduce as successfully as its peers, and thus the mutation is slowly crowded out. If you want to see induced mutations, I recommend taking a look through fruit fly genetic experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster#History_of_use_in_genetic_analysis will get you started).
Each animal-level generational offspring today of every variety, dogs, cats, chipmunks, beavers, humans, horses, cows, sheep, goats, rats, prairie dogs, etc., all of them produce minor variations in their offspring - none of which prohibit the offspring from mating with the parent, and none of which are significant enough to spontaneously bring about new abilities, such as suddenly having an eye on the side of the head like a horse, the results of which might be that because that person could see a wider field of vision in today's world, he would survive and reproduce move often.
I would suggest that in an evolutionary world, one where evolution has brought everything to where it is today, the reality would be such that every generation would be a variable - a significant variable, meaning that a parent with X, Y and Z physical traits would produce offspring which may have X, Y or Z traits, but would also have all manner of other forms. We would have people giving birth to children with manes, gills, multiple rows of teeth, beaks, feathers, long body hair, short body hair, no body hair, scales, etc.
An evolutionary past would've required that any species desiring to survive evolution consistently throw at the world whatever combinations of life are possible - the best of which would survive and move over time.
I would suggest variations beyond anything seen today would have to be present in a world that was brought to the point it is today by evolution.
I don't see that in any way, shape or form ... so I conclude ToE is just that, a theory ... and due to lack of evidence it can be thrown out.
This, Rick, is what is known as a strawman argument. You define evolution how you want to, and then prove that your version of evolution does not occur, ergo, evolution is false. Now then, this may be what you honestly think evolution says, in which case you are simply ignorant. If you know what evolution says but still spout these falsehoods, then you are willfully ignorant or possibly malicious. There are numerous threads here on the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, what the Theory actually is, and RAZD has been kind enough to supply you with excellent links that describe what the Theory is and what is says.
You have a second strawman as well--you are using the colloquial 'theory', which differs greatly from the scientific use of the term. Note that we say the Theory of General Relativity, the Theory of Germ Disease, the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution. In science, a theory is essentially an explanation of what we observe. Theories explain facts. Gravity is a fact. Germ disease is a fact. The observations that led to GR are facts. Evolution (change in species over time) is a fact. Scientific theories are not guesses (that would be more like an hypothesis).
When you start to debate what the Theory of Evolution actually says, and not some fantasy you have in your head that is disconnected from reality, I might take your criticisms o the theory more seriously. As it is, I and the rest here can only point out your misunderstanding of the theory.
please, no gish gallop. If you don't get the reference, it's a tactic made famous by Gish, where he would introduce so many different topics that it would be impossible to refute his false claims in a single debate.
Let's put it this way: atomic clocks have nothing to do with evolution, nor with the earth's rotation. And quite frankly, you've managed to screw up tidal acceleration (hint:it will take more than 4.5 billion years to lock the earth into a month-long day, and 620 mya the day was 22 hours long).
Petrified trees have nothing to do with evolution, and your misinformation and misknowledge is quite stunning, to boot.
Pollution does actually have something to do with evolution, but not in the way you're talking about it.
You've claimed that evolution should have given us infrared vision, but you have not shown us how this would have developed, nor why it is a huge benefit. Further, you would have to show that evolution is directed towards a single goal, instead of working with what it has. You also seem to ignore that evolution has endowed certain organisms with infrared, and that we have extremely limited infrared vision.
Your objections are based on misinformation, false information, and sheer ignorance, and so far, you have shown no capacity nor desire to learn what evolution says or predicts.
Of course, you still have a slight problem in that just because you claim evolution should have given us something and it didn't does not mean its false.
You have presented nothing more than a strawman of evolution your whole time here. If I were to say that because God loves everyone he should give me a hundred dollars, and that because he doesn't, God doesn't exist, you would rightly say that I am misunderstanding what you state about God.
When you ask evolution to produce bird-dogs, or lizard-cats, or any other hopeful beast, or when you claim that evolution should give us infrared vision because you think it's potentially useful for us to have, and then claim that the absence of such is proof against evolution, you are creating a strawman (like I did regarding God).
That you wish to no longer deal with RAZD (who is really one of the most reasonable posters here--more so than I am), it really signifies that you have no desire to learn. And so you have chosen willful ignorance. Have fun wallowing in the poverty of your mind.
I'll let others deal with the other logic problems of your position.
We can see thermal radiation, it's just that the object has to be hot enough to emit within the range we can see. Our range is apparently 380-750nm (what we call visible light). UV radiation is from 10nm to 400nm. Infrared is from 750nm to 1000um. So it is just on the lower bound of what we can see. Of course, heat something up enough and it emits thermal radiation into the visible spectrum (like an incandescent light bulb).
Rick is talking about being able to see heat, which is generally in the infrared segment. Trouble for him, is, we can see heat.