Losing eyesight is hardly evolution. Although it may be beneficial to these fish not to have eyes, evolution must explain how eyes are created, not destroyed.
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.
- Coyne, 2009, p. 59: “Vestigial eyes are also common. Many animals, including burrowers and cave dwellers, live in complete darkness, but we know from constructing evolutioanry trees that they descended form species that lived aboveground and had functioning eyes. Like wings, eyes are a burden when you don’t need them. They take energy to build, and can be easily injured. So any mutations that favored their loss would clearly be advantageous when it’s just too dark to see. Alternatively, mutation that reduced vision could somply accumulate over time if they neither helped nor hurt the animal.” ↩