Study on Evolution of Vision Demonstrates Blindness of Evolutionary "Scientists"

...................The gene for the light-sensitive opsin exists in the hydra, and is expressed in the blue areas.
*********************************
"Oakley said that anti-evolutionists often argue that mutations, which are essential for evolution, can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features. He goes on to say, "Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong."
- from "Dawn of Animal Vision" article at Science Daily.

Professor Oakley is bluffing if he doesn't really believe his own baloney, or blinded by his own biases if he does. What his paper really does is say that hydras have the gene for opsin, and sponges do not. The rest is pure speculation based on naturalistic assumptions, not science.

What team Oakley did is measure for the light-sensitive protein opsin in a primitive life form called the hydra. He then tested for those same proteins in sponges and found them lacking. From that, he claims that he has "shown" that the dawn of vision was sometime around 600 million years ago. How did he get that date? That is when evolutionists speculate that sponges first evolved into cndarians like the hydra. He also maps out a proposed series of genetic alterations that might have occurred to go from no opsin to opsin.

When you remove the biased assumptions, you will notice that the man hasn't "shown" anything, other than hyrdas have this type of protein and sponges don't. He has not "shown" that hydras and sponges even evolved from a common ancestor, much less demonstrated that it happened 600 million years ago. He simply assumes that they evolved from a common ancestor and again assumes that his evolutionary time line is correct. He then proposes a series of genetic steps that would be needed to go from non-opsin to opsin. Then he assumes that happened too.

The fact is, we don't even know if the opsin in hydra's helps them respond to light or not. But even if it does, we have no evidence as to whether or not it uses pathways that are a precursor to animal vision.

It used to be in science that "showing" something meant that you replicated it in the laboratory or observed it in the field. For evolution, the new standard is that if you can imagine a way to connect any two facts with an evolutionary explanation then your imagined way must be accepted as "proof" that it did happen that way and any creationists who question your speculations are "simply wrong".

Dr. Oakley is "simply wrong" about what his paper actually demonstrates. Rather, his attitude demonstrates that a philosophy called naturalism, which makes an assumption that the universe can never be impacted by supernatural forces, that has high-jacked classical science. Classical science was willing to follow the evidence wherever it led. Naturalism posing as science rules out in advance any supernatural causes or effects. Since that is so, the most unproved natural causes are considered "proved" if the only alternative evokes a super-natural explanation. To a secular trained person, they read this and they go "of course, natural explanations only". That shows a blindness to reason.

Assumptions are not science. Science is a method of determining truth about the natural world by following an ordered series of steps called the scientific method. If Oakley has really wanted to make his point he should have observed in the field or replicated in the lab a sponge developing the opsin gene that is present in hyra. In fact, he really would need to establish by experiment or observation in the field that sponges can evolve into creatures like the hydra as well. He did none of that. He simply found that one creature has this gene and the other does not, then filled the rest in with unproved speculation. That's not science. Its faith.