Did similar-looking blind cave fish swim across the world or did they evolve separately or was it something else? Two hypotheticals that deal with “what if” were being presented to the public as explanations.
In the BBC, they report…
“A study in PLoS One showed Madagascan and Australian cave fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor. Their forebears probably lived in caves on the prehistoric southern super-continent Gondwanaland. Then continental drift tore this family apart – transporting them to their current locations.”
Did the study really show that they fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor? If it did, then what is this…
“One possibility was that the cave fishes had evolved independently, from terrestrial counterparts. Species adapt to environmental challenges and opportunities and – through a process of natural selection – only the fittest survive (click here). When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions – a process known as convergent evolution.”
The previous post discussed “only the fittest survive” with another study on how a creature went unchanged for a supposed 500 million years in the evolutionary time frame and survived while a much more fancy creature with better traits went extinct. But the question remains, if the study “showed” inheritance through a common ancestor to explain why blind cave fish have similar characteristics but are 4000 miles apart then why are they including other speculation? Maybe it was shown after all!
Convergent evolution was also considered, “When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions — a process known as convergent evolution.”
Here is what the researchers came up with in their explanation. They believe two lands split 60 million years ago, leaving the two species of cave-dwellers 4,000 miles apart, no longer able to share a common gene pool. But where is the evidence of two lands splitting 60 million years ago to separate the species? Two lands splitting is a major phenomena, one of which cannot rest its evidence on two types of blind cave fish that are 4,000 miles apart!
Their explanation defies logic, first of all, blindness is degeneration (a loss of a trait) rather than evolution (new information gained). In the creationist model, variations within a species is acceptable and observable without adding new genetic information that evolution requires in this case.
Unlike the BBC press release, the authors admitted in their study that evolutionary theory is not confident in the seat of scientific explanation here:
“A major issue plaguing our understanding regarding the evolution of cave animals has been a lack of basic information regarding the assembly of these biotas, including mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin.”
Just basic information regarding assembly along with mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin is not understood in the story of evolution, then why are you trying to explain it then? Another thing that is illogical about their story, it doesn’t take 60 million years to go blind. A generation or two could do that! 60 million years is more time than the major transitions they claimed to have happened with mammals!
Also why would these blind cave fish go unchanged and remain in the same location for 60 million years being on opposite sides of the ocean looking more similar between each other than other gobies? Does that register as logic to you? The best explanation comes from the Biblical account where a global flood happened which is where creationists believe the flood had broke up the continents and spread them apart rapidly. Only pockets of fish populations would have survived which is why they were discovered where they are now rather than in places like India!