They are not lost, they simply are unexpressed.
"we see only loss, never gain"
An argument brought up despite repeated debunking is the idea that evolution is impossible because all we see is loss.
Untrue. Evolution only produces more successful forms, since if they were less successful they would be outcompeted by their ancestors.
1) Snakes. Snakes have complex musculature and are nearly hyper-efficient at locomotion. They can go fast, climb trees, and swim, being formidable in
every environment they decide to "take". Indeed, they often predate upon their "superiors", the lizards, with little reciprocation. They often
produce powerful venom with proteins so complex it has humbled man's best efforts to reproduce them. They are truly a marvel of evolution; indeed,
the idea that they are "sinful" and "cast upon the ground" signifies appalling disrespect and ignorance.
2) Cave fish, and others that inhabit environments in which vision is useless. These animals have lost their eyes, but they have gained a
hyper-efficient pressure-sensory system, called the lateral line. They are capable of competing with similar eyed realtives in aquaria, and are not
handicapped in the least.
For a more extreme example, consider electric eels and catfish. These animals are nearly blind, but their lateral line, and a new sense,
electroreception, renders them formidable competitors. Electric freshwater fish are astounding creatures and dominate their particular habitat with a
weapon unfathomable to their competition: electric shocks, powerful enough bring down a large mammal.
3) Moray eels. I would be completely unsurprised if I was informed that these creatures are pound-for-pound the mightiest vertebrate on Earth. They
have lost all their fins except for the dorsal, caudal, and anal, and are nearly blind. In return, they have gained a strong sense of smell, and a
second set of jaws, believe it or not. The pharyngeal jaws.
Loss is an illusion in 99% of cases, and even if it weren't evolutionary theory would not be in jeopardy because we do not "rule" that the
transformation be to a form more complex.
: since I cannot find this quote.
God is impotent. This may seem unscientific since it is more philosophical: bear with me.
God cannot perform a task as mindless as proving his own existance, which I, or a speck of dust, can do rather easily; therefore, I can only conclude
that if God exists, that I am more powerful than him. Of course, this argument could be refuted by proving the existance of God, which has not been
done, nor, if current trends continue, ever will be.
So, because my typing enthusiasm is running thin, I can only conclude that
1) If the Flood is impossible, YEC is impossible since I cannot have a Trilobite in my fish tank, ie., if the Flood was all that stood between them
and surviving to modern days they would certainly have made the leap, and
2) YEC is impossible because there is no being mighty enough to accomplish it.