Cave fish lost their sight through the well documented process of random genetic variations which happen in every individual in every generation filtered through natural selection. When the original sighted population began living in darkness some of the fish had mutations which slightly reduced their vision, an effect which also provided more energy for other biological functions. The fish with this small extra energy produced more offspring than those without so the mutation spread throughout the population. Repeat this process with each generation slowly losing more visual function until the population produced nothing but completely sightless fish.
Bluff called, r_speir is on the hot seat for his explanation of why in his hypothesis the genetic changes took place over many generations.
Oh this is much too general of an explanation. Please tell us in specific how this occurred at the random level of nature. Try again to answer the question.
Oh yeah, really easy. The brain just casually sends “mutational signals” to the gametes, which somehow manage to specifically target genes involved with eye development.
I think you missed the step where you provide the slightest bit of evidence for this mechanism rather than pulling it out of thin air!
Alright, it sounds like we are on the playground fighting. So let’s address your limited knowledge as well as mine.
They identified 15 mutations in the species of fish under discussion. Do you know what those are and can you tell us which ones possibly are pertinent to this discussion? All I know is that when the visual sensory portion of the species’ brain stopped firing, healthy signals to the DNA were diminished and ultimately those signals were lost completely, resulting in mutations.being passed on to subsequent generations.
Now, offer your view of things. If you don’t know how this fish devolved, then please say so. But do not blame me for being evasive when you are possibly doing the same. Tell us what you know and give us an idea of how this species ended up eyeless.
The topic is YOUR brain–>think–>POOF hypothesis, not standard evolutionary theory.
Why did the change happen slowly and not all at once since as you claim the DNA changes are under brain control?
It’s obvious you have no explanation, just as you have no explanation for how the brain physically causes the DNA changes. Looks like your hypothesis is falsified. Try something new.
Then I submit to the moderators that this individual does not know how this species of fish lost its eyes. Further, he cannot even make a good guess. Still further, does that mean standard evolutionary theory has failed in this particular case?
Perhaps there is an appeal to epigenetics after all?
The topic is YOUR brain–>think–>POOF hypothesis, not standard evolutionary theory.
Why did the change happen slowly and not all at once since as you claim the DNA changes are under brain control?
It’s pretty funny to watch you try and change the subject to get away from questions about your hypothesis you can’t answer. Of course by running and dodging you’re telling the world you know your idea is caca.
If dodging questions you have no explanation for is the best of your ability then I accept your admission your brain–>think–>POOF hypothesis has been falsified.
Note this is a false statement as I provided a high level version of the scientific explanation in post 120.
My scientific explanation actually explained why the mutations and morphological changes happened slowly over many generations. Yours didn’t. Your hypothesis failed.
You need to put a “@“ before it. What do you want from the @moderators? Seems like this is just another off topic, low information, back and forth. What are we missing?
I’m not a moderator, but I will say that AFAICT you haven’t even attempted to answer the basic question of why the change happened slowly and not all at once.
