Sight to the Blind (Fish)
On February 04, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
Over the years, Evolutionists have offered example after example of poor-design in nature, and evidence that Creation is not really Creation, but merely the product of billions of years of trial-and-error.
One of the prides of Evolutionists have been Blind Cave fish. The story goes that a moderate population of fish swam down into a cave and got trapped. The fish might have often bumped their eyes on rocks, creating the opportunity for infection to rule, and kill them. Any mutation that halted, or completely did away with, the development of eyes would serve as a benefit in that environment, since no eyes could be bumped and torn in any way.
So in theory, millions of years passed, and the fish lost their eyes. They are still classified as the same species as their surface-dwelling kin. There’s absolutely no evidence that this transition took millions of years, but we are told to believe it anyway.
Eventually, the population switched from seeing-eyes, to visually-impaired. Or did it?
Today I strolled over to LiveScience where I found an article by the title “Blind Fish Still Able to ‘See’“. It’s a pretty interesting read, if anybody is bored. Basically, Scientists found that these fish were able to sense shadows (inadvertently demonstrating their ability to sense light). When a shadow passed over the top of the water, the fish instinctively swam up towards the surface.
Baffled by this, the Scientists began exploring the anatomy of the fish and found that they still contained their pineal gland. When this gland was removed from the fish, they failed to sense the shadows any longer. This gland is sensitive to light in amphibians and reptiles, but not in mammals - probably due to the fact that our skulls are thicker, and light couldn’t reach it anyway.
So the fish didn’t lose their sight altogether. The Scientists theorize that perhaps they retained the ability to sense light because caves are not always dark. But wasn’t it speculated that they lost their site because the caves were dark to begin with? Now they have it because the caves aren’t always dark? It could be that there wasn’t a large enough selective advantage to removing the pineal gland, and doing so may have been extremely detrimental seeing how melatonin (which is produced by the pineal gland) has possible ties to things like infertility, depression and cancer.
In another study by researchers at the University of Maryland, Scientists replaced the lenses of blind fish with their surface-dwelling kin. Eight days later the sightless-fish began developing eyes. The researchers go on to say, “After two months, the cave fish had grown a large restored eye with a distinct pupil, cornea and iris. In addition, the retina of the restored eye showed rod photoreceptor cells, which are rare in the degenerate cave fish eye.”
Dr. Carl Wieland of AnswersInGenesis concludes in ‘New eyes for blind cave fish?‘, “This indicates that the mutation by which the fish initially became ‘eyeless’ did not somehow ‘delete’ all of the ‘eye information’, but just interfered with the process leading to the eye’s development.”
To shed more light on the subject, Rachel Courtland wrote in Nature Magazine on January 7th, 2008 that “Two blind fish can make sighted offspring.” The paper, “Blind Cave Fish See The Light” goes on to describe research that demonstrated the ability to breed sighted-offspring from two distinct populations of blind fish. This indicates that the two populations lost their ability to see in different ways.
In the end, while this is a terrific demonstration of Natural Selection, it doesn’t however demonstrate a mechanism for microbes to become monkeys, mice, or magnolias.
Link Summary
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Cave_Fish
- http://www.livescience.com/animals/080128-blindfish-notblind.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000728082041.htm
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp
- http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080107/full/news.2008.414.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection
Ok, so let me ask you, how much of evolution do you believe in?
Get the obvious things out of the way, you don’t believe all life forms came from a cell, you don’t believe a dog is related to a banana, you don’t believe people evolved from apes. Fine.
You do believe the same “kind” of animal are related. Ok. So is natural selection true after this demonstration? If so, are you admitting “survival of fittest” is how NS is done? (saying how it’s done is no indication it’s how we should act).
No intelligent Evolutionist claims it’s “Survival of the fittest”. That’s an old cliche - it’s “Survival of whomever can live long enough to pass on his/her genes.”
There is no definition of “fittest”. In one environment, a big strong animal may be the “Fittest” because it can out-muscle the others. In the same environment, a small quick animal might be the fittest, because it can out-run the predators.
Yes, I accept Natural Selection, Speciation, Mutations, Genetic-drift, basically, I accept Science (Things we observe, test, and demonstrate). I don’t necessarily accept peoples imaginations about the history of our biosphere with baseless assertions and silly ideas.
Ok, so there’s nothing wrong with the belief and acceptance of “natural selection” , you’d criticize Dr. Dino for pointing out Eric Harris wore a t-shirt with the words on it as evidence they were evolutionists or the theory was responsible for their violent behavior?
Yes, “survival of fittest” is really just one word - “survival”. It’s tautology and it’s true, it’s not a normative moral standard nor is it useless, it is simply a description. Agreed?
Natural Selection, unlike the idea that Men, Mice, and Microbes evolved from some primordial mucus, is backed by observation and operational Science. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, scientifically speaking.
The shirt was one of many factors demonstrating the religious-dedication to Evolution those boys had. They explained how they would remove the jaw that evolution had given a fellow student.
Dare I say, it’s not entirely inconsistent either. Fortunately the vast majority of Evolutionists have a moderate view of the theory, and don’t go around battling males for mates, and killing the offspring of others to secure their progeny’s future.
After all, that IS what happens in Nature, is it not?
See, this is where the fallacy comes in. It is not “fortunate” that evolutionists are moderate, no more than it is “fortunate” Christians don’t preach to people 24/7 or act like Fred Phelps. People act like people, they treat others like they’d like to be treated, this goes generally the same for people of all races, religions and countries.
Evolutionists don’t believe that’s how people should act, like I said, it’s a description of nature, not prescriptive morality. To say evolutionists believe battling for mates is right because nature does it would be like saying jumping off a building is good because gravity dominates motion. Or better yet, everything dies in nature, therefore we should kill ourselves.
You need to understand the difference between “it is this way” and “we should be this way”. History has shown people kill each other for religious, racial, greed and simply hatred, this does not mean “we should be this way”.
Evolutionists and atheists are not fatalists, quite the opposite most I know believe in free will and responsibility. Unlike you who lets Christ pay for your sins, we’re willing to go to hell because we did what we did.
See, this is where the fallacy comes in.
What fallacy, Josh? Doesn’t Nature show us that it’s natural for the stronger to often times defeat the weaker? Yes or no? I’m glad that Evolutionists don’t put this into practice, because it would ruin society. I never said “Evolutionists believe battling for a mate is ‘right’”. I simply said this IS what happens in Nature.
Where is my error?
we’re willing to go to hell because we did what we did…
No you’re not. You don’t even believe Hell exists, so how could you be willing to go there for your actions?
No it doesn’t. Strong often defeat the weaker is not nature, it’s defintion. Fittest is not strong, fittest is whatever survives (taughtological definition that communicates nothing and certainly isn’t prescribing morality). Nature shows eating animals and heterosexuality, which we all practice.
Yes, so the fact it happens in nature does not mean people should do it. But yes, people in human society DO compete for mates, just not the same level of violence.
Your error is to take what happens (descriptive) as prescribing it is how people should act. Nature shows objects fall and animals die, that doesn’t mean we should practice falling and dying, does it?
Do you not know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive?
Ok, so you understand me, I don’t believe hell exists, but I am willing to accept it if it does.
Your error is to take what happens (descriptive) as prescribing it is how people should act.
There you go again, not listening. When I did I say people should act the same way animals do? When? All I said is IF somebody does, you cannot complain, because we are all, after all, just animals.
People SHOULD NOT go around killing each other for mates. But IF somebody does, isn’t it consistent?
You said evolutionists don’t believe it to the point they would practice it, which implies if not says, that evolutionists must believe it is right or believe that is an “ought”.
Nobody said we are “just animals” either, no evolutionist I’ve read says that, EVER. So killing each other for mates is ok, killing people for other things like money, racism, religion is not ok, right? Since animals don’t do those things, if you insist on this analogy.
So the only thing keeping you from acting like an animal is your faith? SAD. Forget intelligence, benevolence, love, responsibility and morals.
Josh, again you have “responded” to points that I didn’t even make. This is childish and lazy on your part. I want you to copy/paste the statements I made that you are addressing here:
You said evolutionists don’t believe it to the point they would practice it, which implies if not says, that evolutionists must believe it is right or believe that is an “ought”.
Where did I say, or imply, that evolutionists believe it’s “right” (morally) to carry out any form of artificial selection? Copy/paste my statement, so I can tell you are actually reading what I write.
Nobody said we are “just animals” either…
Exactly, neither did I. So who are you arguing with here? I said we are animals - do you disagree? We’re in the Mammal group, we bear offspring, live in groups, etc. We ARE animals by every Scientific definition.
Again, copy/paste my words where I said we are “just animals”, giving the idea that we have no moral restrictions and can do whatever we feel like.
So killing each other for mates is ok, killing people for other things like money, racism, religion is not ok, right?
Who said that? If you think I did, again, copy/paste my words.
So the only thing keeping you from acting like an animal is your faith? SAD
Where did I say that? Again, copy/paste for me where I said Faith is what separates us from Animal behavior.
This is what you said
“Fortunately the vast majority of Evolutionists have a moderate view of the theory, and don’t go around battling males for mates, “
So according to you, the unfortunate situation is somewhat expected that evolutionists take a non-moderate view and consider killing and battling for mates norm or right.
This is where you said it
“All I said is IF somebody does, you cannot complain, because we are all, after all, just animals.”
Then you said
“People SHOULD NOT go around killing each other for mates. But IF somebody does, isn’t it consistent?”
In which I take it as saying if nature’s activity somewhat justifies human behavior (to whoever’s logic), nature has not set an example where animals kill for other reasons than survival, thus making humans unjustified in killing for reasons other than survival.
where I said Faith is what separates us from Animal behavior.
According to you, evolutionists believe we are “just animals” like I copied above, and obviously you don’t believe that, and I don’t believe that. So there’s something else separating us from animals, we may disagree what they are, but we agree evolution as either a theory or religion does not make us equivalent to animals morally.
I said, “All I said is IF somebody does [kill another human], you cannot complain, because we are all, after all, just animals.”
Sorry you didn’t see the sarcasm in that. I, obviously, view humans more than “just animals”. But we are, none-the-less, animals.
So according to you, the unfortunate situation is somewhat expected that evolutionists take a non-moderate view and consider killing and battling for mates norm or right.
I didn’t say it’s expected. I said it is consistent with what we see in nature. Yes, it would be unfortunate if everybody acted that way.
Tell me plainly why it is inconsistent for lions to battle, zebra to battle, giraffe’s to battle, dingos to battle, monkeys and apes to battle, but not humans?
…nature has not set an example where animals kill for other reasons than survival, thus making humans unjustified in killing for reasons other than survival.
Oh my, have you ever watched National Geographic or the Discovery Channel? You really think Animals ONLY kill for survival? You can read about infanticide all over the web. Here’s one place to start: http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm
There, now you see animals killing unjustly and NOT for their survival. How about this quote from The New York Times:
I did see the sarcasm, but I also thought you seriously accuse evolutionists for believing such nasty a claim.
If I said “after all the world is only 6,000 years old” I am being sarcastic in that I don’t believe it, but I said it to quote and assume you do believe it.
If the battle was for survival, it is acceptable, yes. As if that’s not how history has been, as if somebody who came to your house and wanted to kill you for no reason you’d not act in defense for survival. As if, theoretically there was limited food and mates you’d not kill somebody over it (or eat a person).
I wouldn’t accuse you of being a young-earth Creationist either, like you accused me of claiming we are “just animals”.
I’m curious about the infanticide though - you claimed animals only kill other animals for their survival - yet here we have examples of animals killing for numerous unrelated reasons.
Infanticide is simply cannabalism, which is simply murder, not all animals do it, certainly the alleged apes we are related to do not.
Animals don’t practice homosexuality, so I can look to that and see why it’s wrong. (obviously, I am trying to say we have similarities AND differences, to say we obvserve nature and find our behavior consistent or not as a measure of right or wrong is absurd).
So yes, I CAN complain when I see people act differently or similarly to animals. How we act is based on our judgment and instincts, nature gives us instincts, but not judgment and knowledge. It is oversimplication to say nature’s behavior is our moral guidance.
I wasn’t claiming you believed that, I was accusing you of straw manning the evolutionist view point. Which I am pointing out to you is misunderstanding and misrepresenting.
So look here, the fact there are 5 animals that practice cannabalism and 20 animals that do not, shouldn’t this difference tell you that despite the claim they are related, they don’t act the same, and therefore there’s no reason a person acting like or unlike some animals should be considered ok? Nature certainly shows us diversity too.
Infanticide is simply cannabalism…
Um…no. Infanticide is the act of killing children, or newborns. It exists both in the wild, and in human societies.
Cannibalism, on the other hand, is merely eating the flesh of your own kind. Sure, it requires Infanticide when you want to eat your children, or somebody elses children, but the two are not one in the same.
not all animals do it [Infanticide], certainly the alleged apes we are related to do not.
You sure about that?
Animals don’t practice homosexuality, so I can look to that and see why it’s wrong.
So animals are your moral authority?
Homosexuality in animals
It is oversimplication to say nature’s behavior is our moral guidance.
Oh, really? Let me paste in something else you just said, “Animals don’t practice homosexuality, so I can look to that and see why it’s wrong.” Did you not just say you that you are guided by what animals do and don’t do?
I was sarcastic when I said animals can tell me homosexuality is wrong, my point was that we have lots of similarities but also lots of differences.
Good for pointing out apes commit infanticide, doesn’t change me regardless of whether I believe in evolution. You certainly opened my eyes about homosexuality in animals, but again it doesn’t change my personal view, that probably means I’m not obeying nature, too bad.
But do you agree though, that we have lots of similarities and lots of differences, and regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, you shouldn’t let nature’s behavior be your guidance, nor should one say he/she is not surprised because it’s what happens in nature?
Why would I be shocked that there are similarities in nature?
Regarding infanticide in primates, does that demonstrate that if a human did the same thing, it wouldn’t be completely inconsistent, since its found in such closely-related species too? I mean, Evolutionists talk about behaviorism so much, and how similar humans and primates act, so would it be inconsistent (in the context of evolution) if a human did these acts, just as some primates also do?
If by “consistent” you mean “they are similar”, of course. But if by consistent you mean morally expected, acceptable and right, then no.
What your peers (neighbors, colleagues, community members) do doesn’t make it right to do.
What your father does doesn’t make it right for you to do.
What your grandfather did doesn’t make it right for you to do. What the American forefathers did doesn’t make it right, nor does the human history of people killing another for religious and racial hatred make it ok to do.
So what makes it ok by looking at animals if you considered this standard alone?
Again, I didn’t say it was “right” to do it simply because the animals do it. You’re failing to read my comments again, Josh. I said it was “consistent”, meaning there’s no scientific reason why it would be wrong for a human to do the same thing.
Now for a bit of sarcasm, why does it matter if you think something is morally wrong? Is it really fair to incriminate the actions of an animal based on some immaterial entity such as “morality”? I mean, we cannot see, touch, hear, taste, or smell morals - they don’t physically exist, scientifically speaking…so why invoke these magical elements on others?
So I asked you what consistent meant to you.
Since when did people ask what scientific reasons there are for morality?
Who said I ever said it matters if something is morally wrong? I don’t care what people do, but I defend myself and take responsibility for myself.
What do you mean, “What consistent meant to you”? Consistent has a set definition. If our ape-cousins kill each other to demonstrate their dominance or secure mates, then it’s not entirely inconsistent for a human to do it.
If you don’t care what others do, why are you voting for America’s next President? Seems like the actions of others (according to your own words in the videos you’ve linked) have driven you to pick Ron Paul as a positive change for America.
I want Ron Paul for President for my selfish reasons believe it or not.
Consistent simply means similar, is it similar for humans to do what apes do? Some things yes. Is it inconsistent for humans to do some things apes don’t do, some things yes. This consistency communicates and demonstrates NOTHING.
You want Ron Paul to correct what others have done. It DOES bother you what others do, because it shapes the world (or in our case, Country) that we live in.
Consistent doesn’t mean similar. Which is why the question “Is it similar for humans to do what apes do?” doesn’t even make any sense.
I’ll repeat what I previously stated, and maybe this time you’ll answer my question, “If our ape-cousins kill each other to demonstrate their dominance or secure mates, then is it not entirely inconsistent for a human to do it too?”
“If our ape-cousins kill each other to demonstrate their dominance or secure mates, then is it not entirely inconsistent for a human to do it too?”
No it’s not entirely consistent, nor entirely inconsistent. This question makes no sense. Humans are never expected to act consistent in a way of animals.
No, I want Ron Paul to be President even IF our country was already perfect, even IF our country had nothing more for him to do.
No it’s not entirely consistent, nor entirely inconsistent. This question makes no sense. Humans are never expected to act consistent in a way of animals.
That’s where you’re wrong. Fields like Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavioral Ecology demonstrate that the Scientific community today addresses human behavior in light of evolutionary theory, and our place in the line of descent.
From wikipedia.org/wiki/human_behavioral_ecology
No, I want Ron Paul to be President even IF our country was already perfect, even IF our country had nothing more for him to do.
I’m not talking about hypothetical. Why don’t you just admit that the actions of others bothers you. If that wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t even vote. Obviously you favor Ron Paul’s declared actions more than those of the other candidates. In voting you demonstrate that you do care what others do.
Ok, so those fields rest on that assumption Does that mean I have to believe it? Do you follow it just because they call themselves science? Or are they actually a science? How successful is this field in finding consistency? (I hope you’re surprised I’m skeptical of their findings) Skepticism in derivatives of evolution, or skepticism in evolution is no grounds for believing in Creationism, by the way.
No, quite the opposite it is the fact most people know and think Ron Paul can’t win and I try my part anyway that I know I’m doing it not according to other people. I vote because I believe I myself can show my voice, knowing most Americans are stupid, asleep and don’t care about the harm done to themselves.
How about this, Josh - do you accept Evolutionary Theory as a Scientific Explanation of life on earth and its diversity? If so, what do you then say when the SAME Scientists formulate other areas of study like HBE which make sense if Evolution is true.
It would be very helpful if you didn’t make arguments that you yourself don’t believe to be true. Don’t say, “Humans are never expected to act consistent in a way of animals” and then say “Does that mean I have to believe it?” when I demonstrate that you are wrong.
…skepticism in evolution is no grounds for believing in Creationism, by the way.
I didn’t say it was. Why are you making more random claims again? We aren’t even talking about Creation Science - we’re talking about Evolution. Can you stick to the topic?
Regarding your claim that you don’t care about what others do (when you obviously do, or else you wouldn’t be voting), I’m just going to drop it - you are acting far too immature to debate this. If you cannot admit that other peoples actions are relevant to you, then I’m not going to waste my time talking about it.
“do you accept Evolutionary Theory as a Scientific Explanation of life on earth and its diversity? ” As one explanation, yes.
Whether the same scientists (or even the same person) makes the other theories, speculations, do not make them altogether right or wrong. Science means you must examine and test theories independently for each to be true on its own. Would it make sense if it were true? Yes. But that doesn’t mean if it makes sense, it’s true.
Ok, the last two things you said can be put to rest. I think I’ve made my point. If you can’t understand how I don’t vote in reaction, that’s fine, but to say I’m therefore immature, feel free to have your opinion.
This is a waste of time. I’ll let the entire pointless discussion serve as its own witness to who actually maintained a consistent argument through the duration of our exchanges.