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:
Infrared sensing in snakes - Wikipedia.
Other organisms able to sense in the infrared include the common vampire bat, some jewel beetles, two butterflies, and possibly a parasite.
And hey, guess what. You know that stuff that is burning orange and red in this photo:
File:Hot metalwork.jpg - WikipediaThat's the "visible" part of the infrared spectrum that we can pick up.
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 (
Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia 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.
™ Version 4.2