Loss of the Cavefish's Eyes an Evolutionary Development
loss of the cavefish’s eyes an evolutionary development?
Is the loss of the cavefish’s eyes an evolutionary development?!!! Before we begin, imagine that evolutionists think that losing an eye is an evolution and not a deterioration. Hahaha, we’re done laughing. Let’s begin. 😅
Researchers found that this fish can lose its eyes, so they said this is evidence of 😅
strange evolution. They examined the cavefish’s genome and did not find any abnormalities resulting from mutations, nor did they find any harmful mutations that led to disabling defects. Rather, what happened was an adaptation, and its eyes can be restored in future generations very quickly because the genome is intact and did not have any abnormalities or errors resulting from mutations. This is part of epigenetics, not genetic inheritance. For those who do not know what epigenetic inheritance is, it is a process of Methylation/Phosphorylation, meaning that marks are placed on the gene strand for activation and deactivation, all depending on environmental conditions. This means adaptation. Where is the evolution here?! I don’t know how long we’ll keep saying that what they assume is evolution, is an adaptation within the genetic diversity of the same organism the genes have been switched off by the addition of chemical tags called methyl groups…epigenetic rather than genetic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023768/
{Embed}
NIH researchers identify how eye loss occurs in blind cavefish
Study yields potential clues to understanding eye disease and blindness in people.
The biological clock, which evolutionists consider one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution, has been shown to be neither certain nor accurate 😁
. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/519139a
What’s funny is that evolutionary clocks are calibrated by the fossil record itself, so it’s no wonder some of them align with it. Using them as evidence for evolution because they align with the record is just circular reasoning… and yet they’re not accurate.
{
The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin phylogeny.