Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?

[Baltazorg]

Some fish that live in caves have rudimentary eyes or no eyes at all. The eyes that some cave dwelling fish have are barely functioning at all, this could imply that they are vestigial organs left over from some form of convergent evolution. This wouldn't bother me that much if the fish didn't have specific places where their eyes would normally and clearly be. Do these fish and other fauna that live in the caves provide conclusive evidence that evolution is a true scientific fact? The implications are somewhat disturbing to me as a Christian and has raised certain doubts on the creation story as a whole. If anyone could respond to this question it would be a great help.

[Ivellious]

These types of examples are excellent examples of adaptation via evolution. The eyeless fish are intriguing because the change is not cosmetic at all, and in fact is a rather major physiological change. It doesn't "prove" evolution on its own, but they certainly contribute to the total collection of evidence.

[hughfarey]

I know what creationists (or "proponents of intelligent design") will say, so I'll say it for them. Fish, they will say, they're all fish. There's been no change of "kind," just a variation within a kind. Same as the evolution of bacteria "is all bacteria." No change of "kind." (see my concluding comment to the Evolution Vs God thread earlier). Sadly, whereas evolutionists can manage quite a precise definition of what they mean by a "kind" in which ever way they would like to use it, from kingdom to sub-species, creationists rarely can.
So given that the first fish were spontaneously created with eyes, it turns out that it is indeed a masterpiece of intelligent design to remove them when some "variations" moved into deep dark caves. Either that, or the offspring of successive generations of fish which directed more of their resources to reproductive capability and less to their now irrelevant light-detection apparatus tended to produce more offspring themselves than those which maintained the status quo, so that eventually no sighted fish remained to reproduce.

[Mallz]

I still don't understand what the problem with believing in evolution and God is. That God chose the path of evolution to create, is there something wrong with that?

[Silvertusk]

I still don't understand what the problem with believing in evolution and God is. That God chose the path of evolution to create, is there something wrong with that?

Nope.

[theophilus]

All organisms, including fish, are sometimes born with genetic defects. In normal circumstances a fish born with defective vision would find it harder to survive and reproduce tha a fish with normal vision. In an environment where there was no light defective vision wouldn't be a handicap and such a fish would be as likely as a sighted fish to reproduce and pass on his blindness to his offspring.

[jlay]

Some fish that live in caves have rudimentary eyes or no eyes at all. The eyes that some cave dwelling fish have are barely functioning at all, this could imply that they are vestigial organs left over from some form of convergent evolution. This wouldn't bother me that much if the fish didn't have specific places where their eyes would normally and clearly be. Do these fish and other fauna that live in the caves provide conclusive evidence that evolution is a true scientific fact? The implications are somewhat disturbing to me as a Christian and has raised certain doubts on the creation story as a whole. If anyone could respond to this question it would be a great help.

I'm sorry, what is the problem?

Examine the use of your own words.

"FUNCTIONING"
If the eye is barely functioning, or now is not functioning at all, then this indicates that the eye has a function. We can examine this fish and determine that there was a LOSS of FUNCTION. How does science account for any function? I can tell you why a pair of scissors function. Because the concept and design preceeded the actual scissors themselves. Why should an eye function at all? And why in connection with a myriad of other functioning systems?

Vestigial organs in no way disprove intelligent design. Nor do they support Darwinism. That itself is a myth, and a very poor one at that.

You are also falling into the trap of equivocating the use of the word evolution. You are assuming that "evolution" (change) is the same as "Evolution" Darwinism. This fallacy is so common it is rarely questioned. That is a sad indicator or where we are today. We don't even EXPECT people to think reasonably anymore.

You say, "conclusive evidence that evolution is a true scientific fact?" In this case, you have fallen prey to equivocating this word in the same reckless sense that the science community has for ages. The word "evolution" can have several meanings, the most simple of which, simply means, "change." Another meaning of the word "evolution," is to describe the theory of Evolution. (Darwinism) When I say, the NFL uniforms have evolved over time, what exactly am I saying? That they have changed, or that they have biologically adapted new information over millions and millions of years of beneficial mutations?

The loss of an eye or its function is not a gain. So, why is your starting position to assume such? Is that reasonable? Is it intelligent? I can tell you why that is your starting position. Because that is how you have been educated. Brainwashing 101. How does this atrophy account for a functioning eye in the first place? It doesn't.

[Thadeyus]

*Raises hand*

Um, while I have read this thread through from the beginning I must admit I've become a little lost as towards people's thinking on the matter of the 'Eyeless fish'.

I would have thought that the theory of evolution did a good job of making sense of eyeless fish?

I thought it was the Black Smokers found in the...um...Atlantic back in the 70's? Which caused one of the biggest rethinks on evolution and what is needed for life etc?

Much cheers to all.

[Baltazorg]

Mallz I see a profound problem with theistic evolution especially when it comes to the creation of Adam and Eve, are we supposed to interpret them as allegorical figures that never existed? The bible treats them as real people throughout the bible however evolution states that humanity originated from a few thousand, not two. Besides I don't see evolution being able to produce new genetic information but always a loss of it. Even if this is an example of evolution it is not a gain in genetic information but rather a step backward.

[neo-x]

There is a problem indeed Baltazorg. But I see it as trivial one.

[Baltazorg]

I see this problem as a serious one. We need answers to these questions if we are going to justify evolution in the Christian worldview. Another problem I see is that the bible says God rested on the 7th day, however evolution states animals never stop evolving if this is true I see no reason why evolution should suddenly stop at the creation of humanity.

[Ivellious]

Which problem is a big problem to you, the one about Adam and Eve or the one about evolution not being able to make anything? Both are solvable concerns, one through theology and one through science.

[Baltazorg]

What is your interpretation of Genesis then Ivellious?

[RickD]

If Adam is allegorical, and by his comparison to Christ, that means Christ is allegorical too. If Adam symbolizes humanity in some way, maybe Christ is just a symbol too. And sin is just a metaphor, and there's really no need for a savior.

[Thadeyus]

If Adam is allegorical, and by his comparison to Christ, that means Christ is allegorical too. If Adam symbolizes humanity in some way, maybe Christ is just a symbol too. And sin is just a metaphor, and there's really no need for a savior.

Works quite well for me.

While I am partly 'Tongue in cheek' in reply, there's a measure of honesty within as well.

Besides I don't see evolution being able to produce new genetic information but always a loss of it. Even if this is an example of evolution it is not a gain in genetic information but rather a step backward.

Except various kinds of coding errors can and do create 'new' information. Even if it's just an extra copy of an already existing gene set. Just a quick, off the top of my head idea/example.

Though, in the case of these fish, it's kind of something else which is happening.

Very much cheers to all.