It is a challenge which the renowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins was unable to answer, as shown in the video From a Frog to a Prince (as well as refutation of Skeptic’s attack and refutation of Dawkins’ later response). To show such information arising from natural processes is the real challenge for evolution. The grand-scale theory of evolution-that microbes have become millipedes, magnolias, and microbiologists-demands that huge amounts of new information, of true genetic novelty, have arisen over millions of years. It is not showing us how the first stages of a new, complex adaptation could arise, it is merely showing us how complex information coding for great engineering design is being corrupted or lost. Those fish carrying the ‘eyeless’ genetic defect would have a greater chance of passing it on to the next generation, so it would not take many generations under such circumstances for all the fish to be of the ‘eyeless’ type.īut this classic example of mutation/selection causing adaptation to a new environment is also a classic example of a mutation causing a downhill change. The eyed fish would thus have a lesser chance of surviving to produce offspring. The delicate tissue of eyes is prone to injury, which would allow harmful bacteria to enter, leading to infection and often death. This is because, as fish bumped into rocks and cave walls in the darkness, the eyed ones would be likely to injure their eyes. Not only that, the eyeless ones even have an advantage over the others. The eyeless type no longer suffers this disadvantage compared to its compatriots. However, in the cave, it is a different matter. So for all practical purposes, we never see eyeless fish in the wild where there is sunlight. In a normal above-ground situation, such eyeless fish would probably never survive much past early infancy, because they would be so handicapped both in locating food and escaping predators. It is not hard to see how one of these could result in a gene that usually ‘switches on’ eye development being corrupted, or somehow ‘switched off’, via mutation. In fact, in a moderate-sized population, many of these errors occur in each generation. However, due to the effects of the Curse on all creation ( Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:20–22), genetic copying errors (mutations) arise in all living things. The fish’s DNA would have programmed into it the instructions on constructing eyes, and the code on the DNA does not ‘know’ that the eye is no longer needed, so it will keep on manufacturing eyes, generation after generation. Their eyes are completely useless here.īut eyes do not ‘disappear’ just because they are no longer needed. Imagine a situation in which a group of such ‘normal’ fish swim into a stream which enters an underground cave, and become trapped in this pitch-dark environment. Note that such fish often are, in all other respects, identical to the same species of fish living at the surface and having eyes. Nevertheless, I hope it will be clear from what follows that I find it exceedingly strange that some evolutionists would gloat about this as a ‘classic proof’ of evolution. I also agree with evolutionists about the fairly obvious mechanism by which they think this happened. In the quarter of a century in which I have written and spoken on creation issues, I have often raised the matter of eyeless fish to argue against evolution, despite the fact that I believe that these fish arose from ones that originally had eyes. A remarkable experiment leads to much evolutionary misinterpretationįish living in caves, in permanent darkness, are blind, with apparent ‘scars’ where their eyes should be.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |