ANSWERS IN GENESIS: A Careful analysis: Point 1. (quote, Biblical, evolution)

[rifleman]

Answers in Genesis: A point by Point Refutation of Their Arguments

Point 1.

Following is the first analysis in some of the “arguments” provided on this highly biased and seductive website. As you'll see, they engage in purposeful mis-definition, faulty reasoning, and outright mis-direction, but don’t take my word for it.

Here, I’ll directly copy and paste their text, and then offer up my own commentary, (in a nice ecologically GREEN font) on their various points, for your own conclusions. (I may also highlight (green underline) critical information they have written for your additional evaluation)

Here's the link to this very site:

Eyeless fish in caves

‘We read about fish that live in caves. They can’t see, and they have scars where most fish have eyes. Were they created like this?’

No. Mutation and selection have changed them from a state in which they had eyes to one in which they don’t. The following is almost certainly what happens in such situations.

("Scars"??? "Scars"??? misleading, right off the bat, but I'll let that one go for now. But note how how they slip in little errant thought starters?)

Thus, by this opening statement, they openly agree to the known and established functional mechanisms of Evolution. QED*.

A population of fish that have eyes begins to live in underground environments that have no light. Their eyes are then useless to them. However, organs do not ‘degenerate’ just because they are useless. The information to produce eyes is copied and passed on, generation after generation.

Through the reliable process of DNA replication via tRNA. So far, correct.

Even fish that live in light occasionally have copying ‘mistakes’ as this information is transmitted. These ‘mistakes’ are called mutations. They corrupt and damage the information.

Not always, of course. and not necessarily "mistakes" Here they start to "drift" the argument. They purposefully leave out information about when such mutations, which they previously agreed happen, might be beneficial.

When a fish living in a light environment has such a mutational defect which causes its offspring to have no eyes, this defect does not have very much chance of being passed on generation after generation.

Only if it's not beneficial! We're drifting here, slowly, and on purpose. You're not supposed to notice...

The reason is simple—a fish without eyes is normally at a tremendous disadvantage. Sight helps fish catch their food and avoid being caught for food themselves. Natural selection will thus tend to eliminate this defect.

It's called Evolution.

But what about those fish that have come to live in caves? Sooner or later, the same eyeless defect will occur here as well. Only this time, it does not give any disadvantage, so it is not eliminated. In fact, it gives advantage. The fish that have eyes can bump into things and injure their eyes, also they can get diseases of the eyes, both possibly leading to death. The fish that carry the eyeless (defective) information can’t get any of these problems. These eyeless fish thus have a greater chance of passing on their genetic information (carrying this defect) and so in time, natural selection will ensure that all the fish are eyeless.

Wait... I thought Creationists have always denounced Darwin's Natural Selection hypothesis, and all the subsequent work that has proved it.

Note that this is a ‘downhill’ change.

Aha. There it is! A definitive but erroneous statement. Why is it a 'downhill' change, if it affords an advantage to an organism?

Complex, functional information coding for eye manufacture has been corrupted or lost.

Or simply changed. Most of these fish, BTW, have, in fact, retained and improved their ability to detect simple presence of light, since that will usually signal the presence of insects or other digestable organisms in the water. Other surface-living fish do not have nor need this special ability.

This fact is ignored here. AiG leaves this information out, purposefully.

Such a decay process gives no evidence at all for the belief that complex organs have arisen by such processes—it only shows how this information can be lost in a fallen world.

There's the completely erroneous Jump-to-False-Conclusions Statement of supposed Fact, unsupported, and obviously erroneous, to prove a nonsense point.

It's not a 'decay process'; it's an adaptive process, by their own seleective admission, which is precisely what tRNA/DNA and mutations do to create a new, better adapted species. Of course bad mutations are weeded out, but good ones are accumulated. Obviously. It's Common Sense.

By our definition, not that of AiG, That's Evolution, folks. Plain and simple as the eyes (or not...) on your face.

But wait.. there's more. much more! I'll continue with Point 2 later.

*QED: Latin, short for "Thus it has been proven".

[kcferry]

Excellent post......

[Salt & Light]

AiG states:

The reason is simple—a fish without eyes is normally at a tremendous disadvantage. Sight helps fish catch their food and avoid being caught for food themselves. Natural selection will thus tend to eliminate this defect.

Rifleman states:

It's called Evolution.

The terms seem to be different depending upon how one wants to interpret the evidence to suite their particular view. What I find interesting is that Darwin himself would have most likely labeled this as natural selection but today Evolutionists consider any change, no mater how slight, Evolution.

Let’s listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist

(C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:

E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach mice?
E: Yes, isn’t it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.
E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don’t you think that’s a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?
C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms “evolution” and “natural selection.”
E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.
C: Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let’s take a closer look. There are two major questions to answer:

How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable phenomenon of natural selection?

Could this process cause the increase in genetic information necessary for molecules-to-man evolution?
Full text at AiG

Originally Posted by rifleman

Wait... I thought Creationists have always denounced Darwin's Natural Selection hypothesis, and all the subsequent work that has proved it.

This statement is absolutely false and has but one intended purpose, which is to deceive. It also demonstrates that he has a great deal of confidence in himself trusting that all the Evolutionists here would follow him in lock-step on this charade and that those with an authentic desire to understand the issues would not catch rifleman's attempt at subtle deceptions. Isn’t that what he accuses others of doing in his OP?

It appears that rifleman has limited knowledge of the views of his opponents. This being the case it is obvious that he is ill prepared to discuss the topic from an un-biased perspective which is necessary for honest inquiry while applying scientific method.

[sanspeur]

If you don't know, and I think you do, natural selection is the engine that drives evolution....They are basically one and the same.

Perhaps you should look for work at the AIG site...You have the talent.

[kdbrich]

It's still a fish, right?

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

It's still a fish, right?

Yup, it is still a fish, but you are not, even though your long ago ancestor lived in the sea.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Yup, it is still a fish, but you are not, even though your long ago ancestor lived in the sea.

unproven, but you can believe whatever fairy tales you want to.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

unproven, but you can believe whatever fairy tales you want to.

I'll take my "fairy tale" over yours any day...LOL

[Salt & Light]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

If you don't know, and I think you do, natural selection is the engine that drives evolution....They are basically one and the same.

Perhaps you should look for work at the AIG site...You have the talent.

What did I do to receive the honor of being removed from your “ignore list”?

[effie g-tad]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

What did I do to receive the honor of being removed from your “ignore list”?

guess it's sheer luck, because he has me there all the while, still ...