This is a message for jfountain (different forum, long story),
happy now?
The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the leaders of all the respectable Christian sects accept evolution as "true beyond a reasonable doubt" (the closest that a scientific hypothesis can come to absolute truth). They acknowledge the Biblical account of creation as merely a poetic and useful collection of metaphors. It's only the people in the Religious Redneck Retard Revival who have a congenital inability to understand metaphor and are spearheading the campaign against science.I am a Christian but still believe in evolution...shocking I know.
The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the leaders of all the respectable Christian sects accept evolution as "true beyond a reasonable doubt" (the closest that a scientific hypothesis can come to absolute truth). They acknowledge the Biblical account of creation as merely a poetic and useful collection of metaphors. It's only the people in the Religious Redneck Retard Revival who have a congenital inability to understand metaphor and are spearheading the campaign against science.
Okay, so back to the main subject. How good is this argument as an argument for evolution? How good is it at questioning or denying creationism? How sound is the logic and information given?
Poor example for your argument as the car head light EVOLVED from earlier ones. To run off lower voltages from the battery they made the filament wire heaver - lower resistance to draw more current and thus keep the power higher.... For example, a car uses light bulbs, but that doesn't mean it evolved from the light bulb. Why would an engineer reinvent the light bulb for use in a car?...
I strongly doubt this is true. Can you give any reason or literature support? In general what is true about ALL the senses is exactly the opposite of what you state.... the army found out colorblindness very useful, they have always a colorblind person to look around they are very able to localized and tell their superiors about camouflaged people or equipment almost invisible for regular people ...
Yes, interesting. Thank you. I understand now why you thought that being color blind aided one to notice things that the normally sighted might not; but the reason this improved performance exists, in some rare cases, is the ADAPTATION that normally takes place when one is defective in any sense, not the color blindness itself.… I think you are going to find both article extremely interesting. …
I strongly doubt this is true. Can you give any reason or literature support?
Certainly as greenboy's second link illustrates it is possible to construct a quasi-random field of colored dots that form a word or number only for those who see two different colors as the same, but that would be idiotic form of "camouflage." What I doubted was not that this is possible to construct, but that partially defective vision ever directly improved visual performance in natural activities such as monkeys catching insects etc. I.e. I agreed that the ADAPTATION to a defect may will allow other senses (or preserved aspects of vision, such as contrast, motion detection, depth of field discrimination*) to become more sensitive and discriminating than in the normal individual.A simple example is a standard colorblindness test. Someone with normal vision will see the number 74 amongst the colored dots; someone with color blindness will see the number 21.
If you used that test as camouflage against a background of all 74's, the person with normal vision would see all 74's. The person with colorblindness would see the background 74's but would see 21's where the item being camouflaged was.
Certainly as greenboy's second link illustrates it is possible to construct a quasi-random field of colored dots that form a word or number only for those who see two different colors as the same, but that would be idiotic form of "camouflage."
What I doubted was not that this is possible to construct, but that partially defective vision ever directly improved visual performance in natural activities such as monkeys catching insects etc.
For camouflage, you want either a truly random field of dots or better still some masks like the surrounding terrain or a pattern of stripes, etc. that via high local contrast for all sighted humans distract you from noticing the true outline of the painted object.
Certainly as greenboy's second link illustrates it is possible to construct a quasi-random field of colored dots that form a word or number only for those who see two different colors as the same, but that would be idiotic form of "camouflage." What I doubted was not that this is possible to construct, but that partially defective vision ever directly improved visual performance in natural activities such as monkeys catching insects etc. I.e. I agreed that the ADAPTATION to a defect may will allow other senses (or preserved aspects of vision, such as contrast, motion detection, depth of field discrimination*) to become more sensitive and discriminating than in the normal individual.
For camouflage, you want either a truly random field of dots or better still some masks like the surrounding terrain or a pattern of stripes, etc. that via high local contrast for all sighted humans distract you from noticing the true outline of the painted object.
* I failed to mention this earlier but an insect sitting on a limb is perhaps 0.5 mm closer to the monkey than the nearby limb is. That small difference in separation at monkeys arm length may not be noticed by the non-enhanced-by-adaption visual system of the normal monkey.