Is there some nuance between using each one?
Could I use と in place of -ba form in
or in place of -ra form in
This is not meant as a rigorous translation template, but just a simplified illustration of the conceptual differences in your example:
In other words, (1) feels more strictly conditional, and (2) feels more temporal. In (3), your conviction in the inevitability between P and Q feels weaker, almost like you’re not really sure why or how P is causing Q. (This often resembles inductive reasoning, where you only know that “P results in Q” because of prior experiences.)
I guess the short answer is, sometimes they can be switched without a major shift in meaning, and sometimes not. Depends on what you're trying to convey.
To answer your question, No you can not use と in the first 2 sentences. To explain further, in Japanese, there are total 4 forms to explain the condition and its corresponding outcome. They are generally classified as follows:
Used to state natural consequences. In above example, getting dark is a natural consequence.
Used to explain the contextual conditions. In short, it gives an answer to the question "What you will do if this context occurs?"
Same as なら, but in formal way.
Used to explain past conditions, as past tense ends with たら/ったら。