Ongoing Blindness on "Evolution of Sight"

Mouth of a lamprey, and amazingly, the hagfish is even uglier!
*********************************
News Scientist breathlessly proclaims that a study of lampreys and the even nastier hagfish have shed light on the evolution of vertebrate eyesight. Instead, all they have done is demonstrate once again that the evolutionary scientists are themselves blind to what the evidence is telling them. They simply cannot see what evidence is saying outside of one narrow interpretation.

A scientist did a study of hagfish and lamprey DNA. The expected result was that the deep-dwelling hagfish was an offshoot of lampreys. The actual result did not show that. Nor did it show that the lamprey was an evolutionary offshoot of the hagfish. Instead, it shows what the evidence almost invariably shows (except when comparing creatures within the same genus)- neither group is derived from the other. They are "sister" groups.

This is the latest example of a pattern that has been continuing for years. Once evolutionists found out how to analyze DNA they thought they would have a field day finding "mother" groups and "daughter" groups which descended from some small offshoot of the mother group. The evidence has repeatedly and consistently falsified that assumption. They find almost exclusively "sisters". Neither group descended from the other. At that point they simply ASSUME that there is an unknown common ancestor of both groups and ask for more funding. This has been going on for years.

The fact that the evidence falsifies their assumptions does not seem to phase the scientists. Their thinking continues right along in the confines of macro-evolutionary theory blissfully undisturbed by the facts that their research uncovers. Much easier to hold on to funding that way.

In this case, the hagfish eye is a much simpler and less effective organ than that of the lamprey (understandable, since there is little light at the depths of the hagfishs' habitat). Back when they thought the hagfish was a "daughter group" of the lamprey, they thought this simpler eye was an example of de-evolution. The organ was degraded over time.

Now if they had found that lampreys were the daughter group, they might have evidence to support the idea that the more complex lamprey eye evolved from the simple hagfish eye. Of course they did not find that, but they are claiming it anyway. Their idea is that, since macro-evolution must be true, if hagfish and lampreys did not come from each other, then they must have come from an unknown common ancestor. And since this ancestor would be more primitive than either living group, its eye would be more like that of the hagfish. Therefore the hagfish eye represents not a degraded lamprey eye, but the eye of the unknown common ancestor. Seriously. That is what they think the study shows. The actual research showed that neither group descended from the other, but based on the ASSUMPTION that "evolution must be true" they STILL spin this study into "evidence" for evolution.