there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
> Welcome distraff!!!
> 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!
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
"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 homologouscharacters 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.
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
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.
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
"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
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?
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
Oh, thanks!! I will make sure to include that in my evolution-of-the-eye series.
Any other living examples?
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
"Hi distraff, welcome. Good start to your posting history, I look forward to more
Some vestigal features still have limited function or have been adapted to a new function like the whale's pelvis. Creationists like to use these examples to escape the obvious conclusion.
Your example is a good one."
Thanks for the info and the clarification of the definition of "vestigital." More people need to know this.
Do you know any moderators here?
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
It is very compelling. Thanks.
Is there any way I can change this thread to add a title? I forgot to do that when I made it. Would the moderators allow me to make a copy of this thread with a title? Do you know any moderators here? Thanks for any info you can provide.
there are many creatures with vestigial eyes.. .
the mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all.
they have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.. .
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Mole
The mole rat lived underground like the mole, so they do not need eyes at all. They have small eyes that are covered by skin making them blind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Mole
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olm
The Olm is a blind amphibian that lives in deep dark caves underwater and has eyes that are under-developed and are covered by skin. It is a close relative to salamanders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotto_Salamander
The Grotto salamander is a blind salamander. The blind salamanders have eyes with retinas and lenses, yet the eyelids grow over the eye, sealing them from outside light. They are also closely related to other salamanders.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/blindsal/
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_tetra
The blind cave Mexican tetra is also blind. When they are born, they have eyes, but as they grow older skin grows over them and their eyes degenerate, because there is no need for sight in the waters of a pitch-black cave. The eyes of the blind Mexican tetra has a lens, a degenerate retina, a degenerate optic nerve, and a sclera, even though the tetra cannot see.
It is a close relative of the Mexican Tetra which can see.
All this makes perfect sense in light of evolution. These species adapted to live in the dark and so did not need their eyes any more. Many of them lost their eyes, have degenerate eyes, and/or have their eyes covered up by skin. Since the eyes are useless in the dark, mutations that destroyed the eye function would not be selected against by natural selection.
Since these eyes are disease-prone exposed fleshy patches on the face, they were covered by skin to protect them. And that is why they look so similar to close relatives with eyes (e.g. Mexican Tetra). The ancestors of the blind Mexican tetra were related to the ancestor of the Tetra but evolved to lose their eyes. The same goes for the blind salamanders, and blind moles.
According to creationists, this would have to be an instance of speciation since these species did lose their eyes to evolution and developed independent species. This would be to admit that significant evolution is possible.
If creationists try to contend that God make them eyeless, the question is why? Why would God give them eyes at all if these eyes are never going to be used? Why make these creatures look as if they evolved to be eyeless? Is God trying to trick us?
This is evidence of evolution.
