MarcAC said:
Also, for the luminous one, are we so sure these "eye remnants" are really remnants of eyes? Again, I as an "ignorant Creationist" await some conclusive responses that will "illuminate my darkness".
What's the matter, couldn't you find it in answeringenesis? Here, I found it for you:
"However, Dr Coyne is on safe ground in assuming that blind cave creatures descended from ones that had eyes. There are cave fish, for instance, often the same species as 'seeing' ones above ground, who start to develop eyes as embryos. But then the process halts and they end up with scar tissue where their eyes were evidently meant to be (see aside below). But what does that have to do with what is usually meant by 'evolution'? Had he bothered to read the mainstream creationist literature, Coyne would have realized that we delight in using blind cave fish as examples of 'downhill' or 'information-losing' mutations causing 'devolution'. "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/eldredge.asp
Of course, we Evolutionists delight in letting poor Mr. Wieland in on the evidence that the lack of eyes is caused by an "uphill" or "information increasing" mutation. It is, in fact, a mutation that suppresses eye development that causes the fish not to have eyes, something the ancestors lacked.
"What all this is telling us is that the failure of the eye to form in the blind cavefish isn't the result of a passive loss of eye genes, but the expansion of expression of genes that actively oppose eye formation. Other work from the Jeffery lab suggests that the expanding genes are responsible for an increase in jaw size and the number of gustatory receptors. The enlargement of sensory and manipulatory structures isn't to compensate for the loss of eyes, as Darwin suggested, but may actually be the developmental cause of the organism's blindness."
http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/development_of_cavefish_eyes/
MarcAC said:
While the evolutionists search for supporting info regarding the "purposelessness" of the "eye remnants" I would also encourage them to give the following a perusal.
Certainly, let's take a look:
"According to evolutionary theory, organisms that possess identical morphologies (forms or structures) must share a common ancestry. Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have employed morphological systematics––the study of the relationships among organisms according to physical characteristics––when classifying species"
Of course, the problem is that Evolutionary theory states no such thing. Morphological systematics is taxonomy, not evolution. The assumption there is
generally that the more similar the morphology the more closely related but this is a general principle and not an absolute. But once again, we're talking Taxonomy and not Evolutionary theory.
Freaking anti-evolutionists can't even get their subjects straight much less present a coherent premise to an argument.
~Raithere