“Rapid Evolution” Method Found in Eyeless Fish

I thought for a moment you were proposing that an eyeless-fish evolved eyes, and it had been shown to be an example of convergent-evolution, in the positive (information-increasing).But typically examples of, "evolution" never involve real-life proof of novel morphology, in a positive manner except if the examples are moot in regards to new anatomy, such as our anti-freeze fish or a resistant bacteria.So I was ready to say that actually, if fish re-gained eyes, it would be because of gene-flow back into the split population, fish with eyes being reintroduced to the group without them.If one day it is shown that a simple eye can come about by evolution, which would match the extraordinary claims of what evolution supposedly done by creating every organism on earth, then I would certainly accept evolution as scientific fact. If, however it is shown that information is removed, alternated somehow or changed superficially then I remain highly unimpressed, because the claim of Goo-To-You-Via-The-Zoo incorporates that every eye evolved, so the removal of eyes is like proving that there is a human-superman, by showing a photograph of a man walking. ROFL!Attenborough, on his program, mentioned how some Lizards had turned pinkish in 5 million years. Seed-plants have also remained seed plants since diverging. Is it also reasonable, to suppose that in just 5 million years, apes became men? Somehow I don't think so, any more than if you shown me your large toe being extremely large, would I believe you were on your way to becoming an elephant. Attenborough was also very impressed with Finch-beaks becoming Finch beaks and them then reverting to their original archetype finch-beak, he opined how Darwin would have been delighted, ......one has to laugh.So when you said, "rapid evolution" I expected something that would impress me, and convince me that an eye can convergently evolve, which it clearly can't. But deep inside I knew that when I clicked on the topic, I really deep down new that there would be nothing, "new" to read, pertaining to the evolution-myth.Mikey out.

That is an ABYSMAL non-sequitur. taken from one percent of one percent of one percent of the total experiments of such examples, that would be required for your induction. Here is an EQUAL example: We find that Ted Bundy had milk in his fridge, and that mike also had milk in his fridge, so then mike is the same as Ted Bundy.What it actually shows is that information namely coded-instructions, are what is KEY in the design of all animals. So then the word, "eyes" might be expected to be used if the author talks about things that see.Now looking at that photograph and not marveling at the truth of the incredible Designer's imagination, now that is crazy, and beyond acceptable! Can I see the evidence please. The evidence I collect only shows flies preserved in amber, that unfortunately, don't look very mouse-like. But they do look exactly the same as their extant counter-parts! Indeed, all the way back, flies they are and flies they remain. That's a misleading thing to say, the gene told the eyes to start to develop.Why did I use the same words, "why did" in this sentence, as you did in your sentence? Does it now follow that this "shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species"?Or are you saying that the same author should use different words/language, for each book s/he writes?I'm not even sure of your example because of what I read here: This would indicate that the gene "told" the fly's eye to start to develop, the example would actually be very unremarkable, even though the outcome seems remarkable.I think the terms, "mouse" and "flies" are misleading to our human-imagination, what we are really dealing with is the same type of gene that is common and shared and unremarkable, in many species, so effectively, it is like me giving
you my pen and paper so you can write the words, "Why did". Is this really remarkable if we can both write those words?in the same way, is it really remarkable, that creatures with eyes, can develop eyes given the same instruction to "start to build"? Not really!Improbable evo devo - creation.comEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.