Do Blind Crustaceans Show Evolution?
It seems that proponents of goo-to-you evolution want things flexible. Evolution is presented as an irresistible force, and things will evolve; after all, R. Clinton Dawkins said that evolution has been observed, but not when it's happening. But if the fossil record show something allegedly millions of years old and its living descendants are unchanged, they call it "stasis" because they didn't have to evolve. I reckon it makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere.
Blind fish and certain crustaceans are supposed to be evidence of evolution. They lose abilities (including a bit of brain), and that is presented as evolution, which supposedly gains abilities and information. Glad I'm just a regular guy who doesn't have to pretend he understands such highfalutin "reasoning".
Three blind crustaceans, confined to cavernous darkness, have brains that are several nerve clusters short of an optic lobe. When it comes to a brain center for processing input from eyes they don’t have, they are lacking. But is this lack the same as loss? And if so, is it as the BBC reports an example of nearly 200 million years of “evolution in action”?If you see fit to finish the article (and I hope you do), click on "Blind Crustaceans Missing a Bit of Brain Said to Show Evolution in Action".
Blindness in cave-dwelling animals is often touted as a classic example of evolution, even though there is no gain of either function or information. Furthermore, loss of vision does not result in progress toward becoming a new kind of creature. Blind fish are still fish, and blind crustaceans are still crustaceans. Nevertheless, by discovering how much is missing in “The brain in three crustaceans from cavernous darkness,” authors of the study published in BMC Neuroscience believe they have glimpsed the evolutionary power of living without light.