untitled (page 2)

distraff

Oh, thanks!! I will make sure to include that in my evolution-of-the-eye series.

Any other living examples?

ShadesofGrey

Vestigial eyes support the type of evolution that Young Earth Creationists believe in.

http://creation.com/let-the-blind-see

The results fit very comfortably in a framework of biblical creation history. This is not just because they highlight the devolutionary change involved in getting blind cave fish in the first place. It is also because the possibility of such a reconstruction would get progressively less likely, the more time that has elapsed since the fish were originally confined to their underworld existence.
Talk of ‘evolution’ in relation to blind cave fish that descended from sighted ancestors is not appropriate if by that they mean the sort of change that can turn microbes into motor mechanics. Cave fish have arisen by processes that in fact demonstrate the opposite—deterioration of function, consistent with the ‘natural’ direction of genetic change in a fallen world.

We still have not proven that mutations result in an addition to the information in a genome. Mutations can turn switches on or off, they can delete genetic information, they can result in redundancies that are usually detrimental... So what we have so far is further evidence of genetic information that is only sorted, deleted, turned off... but not new.

distraff

"We still have not proven that mutations result in an addition to the information in a genome. Mutations can turn switches on or off, they can delete genetic information, they can result in redundancies that are usually detrimental... So what we have so far is further evidence of genetic information that is only sorted, deleted, turned off... but not new."

How are you defining information here? Is information extra DNA? Is information DNA that codes for a new function or trait? Is information the new trait or function itself? Does that trait have to be a complex system or simply an adaptation?

"Vestigial eyes support the type of evolution that Young Earth Creationists believe in.

http://creation.com/let-the-blind-see

The results fit very comfortably in a framework of biblical creation history. This is not just because they highlight the devolutionary change involved in getting blind cave fish in the first place. It is also because the possibility of such a reconstruction would get progressively less likely, the more time that has elapsed since the fish were originally confined to their underworld existence.
Talk of ‘evolution’ in relation to blind cave fish that descended from sighted ancestors is not appropriate if by that they mean the sort of change that can turn microbes into motor mechanics. Cave fish have arisen by processes that in fact demonstrate the opposite—deterioration of function, consistent with the ‘natural’ direction of genetic change in a fallen world."

Vestitical eyes can be accomodated by the Hebrew creation myth correct, just like the exact force of gravity predicted by Newton's theory can be accomadated by the religious idea that God makes everything move instead of gravity.

However, these vestigital eyes are still confirmations of the predictions of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Losing eyes is not devolution. For an animal in a cave, all the eye is, is a useless wet, disease risky piece of tissue on the face. Losing this eye or covering it up is evolution because it improves the design of the animal, not devolution. What if cats had a giant tumor-like bony weight at the end of their tails that used to serve a function but no longer do? Would you call it devolution if they lost this monstrocity so they could move faster?

james_woods

What purpose for the human appendix is there except to kill you from appendicitis?

I am not aware of any proven medical theory of its worth...

BTW - did everyone know that famous U.S. auto designer Harry C. Stutz died in the 1930s of a ruptured appendix?

distraff

What purpose for the human appendix is there except to kill you from appendicitis?

I am not aware of any proven medical theory of its worth...

BTW - did everyone know that famous U.S. auto designer Harry C. Stutz died in the 1930s of a ruptured appendix?

It is obvious that the appendix is a vestigial organ that is sometimes harmful. However, I don't know how we can say it is functionless.

ShadesofGrey

The appendix does indeed have a use. It has to do with storage of beneficial bacteria.

My point in my first post was simply this: The evidence for factual evolution presented in the OP in no way adds support for the full range of details included in the Theory of Evolution. It in no way contradicts the biblical account and it in no way weakens the credibility of scientists who do not accept the full range of details in the Theory of Evolution.

distraff

"The appendix does indeed have a use. It has to do with storage of beneficial bacteria."

That is right. However, that function is minor. Indeed, many people have their appendix removed if it gets infected. People have not been able to discern much of a negative effect of not having an appendix removed, except of course any problems involved with surgery.

"It is not clear if the appendix has an important role in the body in older children and adults. There are no major, long-term health problems resulting from removing the appendix although a slight increase in some diseases has been noted, for example, Crohn's disease."

http://www.medicinenet.com/appendectomy/page6.htm It is only strongly suspected that it has function as seen in these articles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/appendix3.htm However, its function does not seem to be very major. People can live without it pretty easily. Here is the definition of "vestigital": "Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution." The appendix has lost most of its original function. It used to be the caecum which was a major component in the digestion of plants. The appendix is evidence for evolution.

"My point in my first post was simply this: The evidence for factual evolution presented in the OP in no way adds support for the full range of details included in the Theory of Evolution. It in no way contradicts the biblical account and it in no way weakens the credibility of scientists who do not accept the full range of details in the Theory of Evolution."

Of course it doesn't. It is only a piece of evidence for evolution. I never claimed that because there is evidence for the loss of eyes in some animals, therefore evolution is true. I only claimed it is a piece of evidence for evolution.

Another interesting fact is that there are species with functional eyes that are very simmilar to ones without functional eyes. That is evidence for speciation.

Also this evidence shows how vestigality can be a product of evolution.

distraff

Found Sheep

> Welcome distraff!!!

cantleave

> Great first post.

> You are absolutely right, evidence for the evolution of the eye abounds in nature.

> I also find that the eye has evolved numerous times and created different configurations each time is fascinating.

Thanks for the responses!

untitled

Share this