Blind salamanders - any creationists up to a challenge?

by sir82 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Interesting article on Slate.com:

  http://www.slate.com/id/2195683/

  Any creationists out there up to a challenge?

  Can anyone answer these questions:

  Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?

  Might be good to read the whole article first, of course.

  Fire away!
• 

  metatron

  Simple question: do these salamanders breed without eyes in lighted conditions?

  metatron
• 

  digderidoo

  May be the ancestors of the salamanders that had eyes went towards the light and a couple of ones with deformities in their eyes didn't.

  They are still salamanders just blind, they haven't changed species, they haven't become frogs, lizards, fish, elephants or monkeys.

  Paul
• 

  sir82

  They are still salamanders just blind, they haven't changed species, they haven't become frogs, lizards, fish, elephants or monkeys.

  That's a rather odd definition of evolution, isn't it? I'm not aware of anyone who defines "evolution" as "the process by which salamanders become elephants".

  Try again. Re-read this quote:

  Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution.

  A rather crude, but essentially true, definition of evolution is "genetic changes over time". There are 500+ different species of salamander. Did God create 500 different species of salamander? If so,

  Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?

  If the answer is "no, he didn't create 500+ species of salamander"....watch your step! You have just become an "evolutionist".
• 

  M.J.

  Okay. You, and the author of this article have to understand that some creationists back the idea of "micro-evolution" as opposed to "macro-evolution".
  
  In other words, existing genetic functions/features (i.e., eyes) can be refined and optimized through natural selection. But there is a world of difference between optimizing existing functions and the "authoring" of completely new functions.
  
  By analogy, "micro evolution" would be like a computer simulation set up to optimize parameters established by the programmer, while "macro evolution" would be a computer model which can add new algorithms / features to itself. There have been attempts at the latter..but no true success at demonstrating that new algorithms (analogous to genes) can self-generate in a closed system.
  
  As a matter of fact, there is a prize set up for anyone who can set up a computer simulation that can accomplish this: http://www.evolutionprize.net/
  
  Also see:
  http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm
  
  
  While the paradigm just mentioned counters the idea that new genes/features can self-generate, it does allow for existing features to be DELETED. They could gradually disappear through the natural selection process, in that the function of the eyes served no benefit in propagating the species.
• 

  digderidoo

  That's a rather odd definition of evolution, isn't it? I'm not aware of anyone who defines "evolution" as "the process by which salamanders become elephants".

  Ok that was a touch of sarcasm. However what i have pointed out is that it hasn't changed species.

  Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution .

  That may not be evolution is my point. If there were two ancestors that had the same characteristics in that they were blind, this could be passed on through the generations. There are different definations of evolution, for me survival of the fittest or poorest in this case, can harmonise with a creationist's view.

  A rather crude, but essentially true, definition of evolution is "genetic changes over time". There are 500+ different species of salamander. Did God create 500 different species of salamander? If so,

  Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?

  As i have pointed out there are different definitions of evolution. Did God create 500 different species of salamander? This is the essential question we debate.

  If the answer is "no, he didn't create 500+ species of salamander"....watch your step! You have just become an "evolutionist".

  In your view.

  Take the canary for instance. In the wild the only variety you get is green. From these green varieties man has interbred them to produce all the different varieties we see in a pet shop. Does this mean the canary has evolved? Of course not, it is still a canary.

  Paul
• 

  digderidoo

  Thanks MJ. That's a better way of wording it than i have.

  Paul
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Why did God make the poor little buggers blind?
• 

  snowbird

  Are they really blind? Or is it since they live underground or in caves, they have no need of sight?

  This sounds like economy, adaptation, and acclimatization to me.

  Sylvia
• 

  M.J.

  bttt