Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Evidence for evolution: Cursed with blindness

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.
aubrey20042
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:31:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am of the same opinion as you concerning evolution, I just want to bring up another point.

It perturbs me when creationists resort to the "best of all possible worlds" argument. That is, the function and structure of the body operates so perfectly that there must have been a creator. This reasoning is flawed, because, as this is the only reality we know, it naturally appears perfect to us. We couldn't imagine something different.

However, as you point out, vestigial structures abound in the animal kingdom. If these creatures were created, then why do they possess useless vestigial structures? Why do humans have an appendix, then? Why do some snakes have the remnants of claws?

Just something similar I wanted to bring up prior to the evolution vs. creation debate that is sure to follow.
"The only truth is music" - Jack Kerouac
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 1:03:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.

As I said before, there are whole species that evolved to be sightless. So this is macro-evolution, evolution between species.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 1:11:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.

Micro-evolution refers to changes in allele frequencies in a population; this is an example of macro-evolution and not of micro-evolution. Vestigial structures have nothing to do with micro-evolution; they are a product of macro-evolution. In addition, micro-evolution is the driving force behind macro-evolution; believing in one should lead to the logical conclusion of believing in the other.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 1:03:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.

As I said before, there are whole species that evolved to be sightless. So this is macro-evolution, evolution between species.

As a creationist I believe this.

A higher power created said (let's say) salamander.

This salamander wandered into a cave and decides it likes it better there.

Without light the eyes atrophy and become the thing you described.

The salamander is still a salamander.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:33:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 3:32:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 1:03:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.

As I said before, there are whole species that evolved to be sightless. So this is macro-evolution, evolution between species.

As a creationist I believe this.

A higher power created said (let's say) salamander.

This salamander wandered into a cave and decides it likes it better there.

Without light the eyes atrophy and become the thing you described.

The salamander is still a salamander.

You do not understand micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Your "salamander" would be another species of salamander; this is something that you are not understanding.
Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:57:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not a creationist or an evolutionist but evolution lacks enough evidence.. almost 70 fossils to judge the whole race of humanity?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 4:00:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 3:33:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/2/2012 3:32:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 1:03:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:50:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/2/2012 12:26:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
There are many creatures with vestigial eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The blind mole also lives underground and has its eyes covered by skin making it blind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
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...
http://www2.sluh.org...
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...
http://cdn2.arkive.org...
The Texas blind salamander has no eyes only two black dots. It has eye sockets but no eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
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.

This is an example of micro-evolution which many creationists agree with. It is macro-evolution that we have problems with.

As I said before, there are whole species that evolved to be sightless. So this is macro-evolution, evolution between species.

As a creationist I believe this.

A higher power created said (let's say) salamander.

This salamander wandered into a cave and decides it likes it better there.

Without light the eyes atrophy and become the thing you described.

The salamander is still a salamander.

You do not understand micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Your "salamander" would be another species of salamander; this is something that you are not understanding.

Please do not insult me. I do understand that by your terms yes it is another species of salamander but to the creationist this fits with the original creation of a salamander.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 4:02:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I made a thread a little while ago that touched on this subject a lot. If I find it, I'll post some of it here; perhaps it'll add to the discussion.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 4:06:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wikipedia is such good evidence...even though I agree with your evidence
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 11:57:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 3:57:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
I am not a creationist or an evolutionist but evolution lacks enough evidence.. almost 70 fossils to judge the whole race of humanity?

You are wrong. It is not that evolution lacks evidence it is that you don't know enough about science to be aware of the evidence for evolution. Your argument seems to me to be the argument from ignorance. If I am wrong, then you can correct me.

If any of this offends you, I am sorry. I am just being candid.

There are thousands of fossils in the fossil record for human evolution and thousands more for other transitions. There is also genetic, morphological, and embryonic evidence for evolution. There is a good reason why 95% of scientists believe in evolution.