BLIND Cave Salamanders

by hamsterbait 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hamsterbait

  Salamanders whose eyes are not fully functioning use less food than those with fully functioning eyes, which burn more energy to produce retinal chemicals and electrical discharges.

  It only makes sense then, that over the few thousand years since the Noachian Flood, that the salamanders stranded who inherited defective eyes (ie -that burned less food) would survive longer than those with good eyes that used energy anyway.

  The non working eyes are an excellent example of the "vestigial organs" which the Witchtower claims do not exist.

  HB
• 

  snowbird

  There's another thread about them. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/162628/1.ashx

  Sylvia
• 

  WTWizard

  Shows that the Washtowel Slaveholdery consistently denies the existence of things that can be directly observed. And we still have to believe what the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger tells us anyway.
• 

  tijkmo

  someone should think about this as a solution to africa's famine problems
• 

  Shazard

  Most funny thing about this is that non-believers, atheists and other Darwinoids believe this is THE Evolution. If THIS is Evolution, then creacionists nor ID guys have any threat!
  
  Now for those who are capable of critical thinking and analisis follows some things!
  
  Darwinian evolution is pretty good at damaging allready functioning systems of organisms. But it is unable to create new - non existent functions there where they never been!
  
  What I am reffering is this:
  
  Originally Salamanders were with whole eyes and fully functional organisms. BUT we have random mutations in place, it is genetic noise which still functions in whole world and it is blind. So the noise can damage genes and it is not so rare event that the salamanders (and other organisms) sometimes give birth to defective children with damaged different organs. One or more genetic errors and you get lame small salamanders. In this set there is subset of blind salamanders! Everybody knows that sometimes organisms (animals and even humans) giv birth to children which ar blind due to defective genes which are responsible for sight systems! Now... if the salamanders live in normal sun-light places, the blind salamanders die out as they posses major disadvantage.
  BUT... if some event happens and such salamanders are cought in closed dark environment, THEN blind salamanders and salamanders with fully functional eyes are evened. Ones which are able to see are not in advangage compard to ones which are blind. BUT ofcourse, to gene-copy DNS code which is responsible for sight takes more energy and more organism resurse then coping DNS which has defected eye-system codons. In this second case organism have not to care about correct DNS coping, and errors and "noise" on sight-system DNS does not effect survivability of blind salamanders.
  
  And ofcourse in specific dark environment where eye-sight is not important, the organism with shorter DNS (original slamander minus eye-sight system) posses better chances to reproduce then able-to-see salamanders which STILL can produce blind salamanders due to Genetic Noise which still is present. So what you get is that defective salamander survives in defective narrow environment.
  
  If you call this evolution, then I guess as I stated - ID is secure - cos seems like even Darwinoid scientists does not understand the process if they use this example as proof of evolution!
• 

  Caedes

  Shazard

  Nice range of ad hominens throughout your post.

  But it is unable to create new - non existent functions there where they never been!

  http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

  So that would the evolution of the ability to metabolise an artificial substance. A substance that was only invented in the nineteen thirties? Care to admit you are wrong?
• 

  bobld

  Are you talking about the GB/FDS,shame on you

  Bob
• 

  Caedes

  Shazard,

  I guess you are conceding the point, that there is in fact solid evidence of new abilities evolving. Shame you don't have the courage to admit you are wrong.