|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Eyelids Evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Are you open to consider that any of those things were designed by a supreme being? Of course. If such a supreme being can be proven to exist, with evidence, I will believe in it. But as of right now, no convincing evidence has been put forward that proves a supreme being was necessary to form, say, eyelids.
PS: In number 3, it SOUNDS as if you are making randomness have intelligence; I know that's not what you were saying or implying, but that's where we see the ID stuff. I realize it looks like intelligence. But then, so does the water cycle that produces rain - we need rain, right? Clearly there must have been a designer for such a complex process so that we could have rain! This is called putting the cart before the horse - we would not have evolved as we did if rain did not exist, we would have evolved in a way suited to a rain-less environment. Eyelids were not "created" becasue we "needed" them. Those who evolved the precursors to eyelids had a slight advantage over their peers and out-reproduced them, as did every step until modern mammalian eyelids. Those organisms for which eyelids are not really beneficial (fish, for example, who have water washing off their eyes constantly)never evolved them, because such a mutation would have conferred no advantage (meaning if a fish did have the mutation, it would not have out-reproduced its peers, and the mutation would have been irrelevant). The human brain is very adept at seeing patterns even where they do not exist (ie, cloud shapes). The appearance of an intelligent guiding force doesn't mean one actually exists, especially in light of some of the design flaws inherent in the human form. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Topic.
In case you missed it is: " Did Eyelids Evolve?" Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Animals tend to have an even number of limbs because it's more conducive to locomotion and balance. unless you're a starfish. or any other radially symmetric animal (like corals), in which even/odd limb numbering is somewhat randomly evo-devo. i think you even find the occasional odd-numbered cephalopod. now, what you're getting basically confused about is that all land animals evolved from tetrapods, animals with four feet. this is by far not majority of life on the planet. and if we start counting tails as limbs (especially prehensile ones) you'll find that a lot of land animals actually have an odd number of limbs. ...because, you know, that fifth limb actually aids a lot in locomotion and balance. generally more that the front two -- just ask t. rex. i think you'll also find that faily advanced animals (such as yourself) lack duplications for various rather important internal organs, such as the heart and brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Let's take eyelids. Is it the EVO position that early humans may not have had eyelids, but after millions of years the body started saying to its babies "form something over your eyes to keep foreign objects out" or "form something over the eyes that will help us rest for 8 hours"? If no, what do EVO's believe on human evolution as it relates to the eyelid? i think you'll find that the earliest primitive photo-sensitive organs were all sub-dermal. ie: they started out covered by skin. but we're talking flatworms here, and long, long before the complex eyeball. of course, the path from something like that to the human occular system comprises several hundred million years of evolutionary history, and it's rather convoluted. the simplest answer to your initial quandry is "we got our eyelids from our ancestors, who also had eyelids." indeed, you will have to go pretty far down the evolutionary scale to find an animal anywhere near our path that does not have eyelids. to the fish, i believe. and even then, some of them (such as sharks) have similar structures, as has already been pointed out. and sharks are very primitive fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
unless you're a starfish. or any other radially symmetric animal (like corals), in which even/odd limb numbering is somewhat randomly evo-devo. i think you even find the occasional odd-numbered cephalopod. now, what you're getting basically confused about is that all land animals evolved from tetrapods, animals with four feet. this is by far not majority of life on the planet. and if we start counting tails as limbs (especially prehensile ones) you'll find that a lot of land animals actually have an odd number of limbs. ...because, you know, that fifth limb actually aids a lot in locomotion and balance. generally more that the front two -- just ask t. rex. Certainly. I only said "tend to," and I'm trying to keep it very simple...partially becasue I've drifted from the topic enough in my explanations as it is
i think you'll also find that faily advanced animals (such as yourself) lack duplications for various rather important internal organs, such as the heart and brain. Of course. Also, the lack of a separate tube for breathing and consumption which leads to potential choking, etc. An adaptation being beneficial doesn't mean that the lack of the adaptation is necessarily life-imperiling. Would a creature with two hearts have an advantage over a creature with one? Sure...but a possible benefit doesn't mean there is an imperative to develop the benefit, only that the new feature will stick around if it ever appears. Again, I'm just trying to keep it simple so that TheDarin will understand what evolution really means a little better. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
TheDarin
Are you open to consider that any of those things were designed by a supreme being? That would be fair if you would be open to considering that a supreme being would also need a designer if complexity is what you consider to be the evidence implying a designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Again, I'm just trying to keep it simple so that TheDarin will understand what evolution really means a little better. ...well, here i am caring about accuracy again lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Please explain "ability to withdraw the eyes for protection and the like evolved first." The withdrawing of eyes for protection is briefly explained in Message 3. When I say it evolved first I mean that it evolved at an earlier time than eyelids as we know them today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5690 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
You are making the Boeing 747 argument vs the watchmaker...I see that. The thing is...a creationist does not try to concoct "something from nothing." We throw our hands up and say "it appears we lack the chip in our brains that can process such a thing."
On the other hand, the EVOs argue that you have that answer; you cannot comprehend that you cannot comprehend something. I applaud you for trying, and even encourage you to keep at it. Perhaps you'll figure it out someday...I'm not beyond that... what I cannot see or even come close to seeing is that random, unintelligent mutations resulted in the human reproductive system...or the eyelid. You can use as many big words as you wish, and point to observed mutations and specialization. Those things do not exclude ID. Someone in here implied that I was an AnswersinGenesis guy; that I've been taught a false EVO doctrine. I have been to an AIG seminar many years ago. But they are not preaching an EVO doctrine beyond the mutation those of you in here have described. I have heard nothing new in your responses. I was hoping I would. I want you to think...really think...could random mutations that have zero intelligence create the human sexual reproductive system????????????? Edited by TheDarin, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5690 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
You say prove a supreme being exist. I didn't ask you to prove that one existed. I asked if you would consider that a supreme being was behind the intelligence you see in, say DNA? Not prove it.
Science is the not truth. Think of a word right now. Got it? OK, now prove to me that you thought that word. Wouldn't it be frustrating for someone to tell you that you did not have that thought in your head. You KNOW you did. But science has no instrument to prove such a thing existed. What I am getting at is this. The word in your head is proof that science should not be the ONLY measure of truth. You see the intelligence. Step out of your test tube and take a stab at creation. I can tell you it's beautiful world outside of your box. YOU are not just a mutation. And you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Rahvin's question is perfectly reasonable.
Prove god.
Think of a word right now. Got it? OK, now prove to me that you thought that word. Wouldn't it be frustrating for someone to tell you that you did not have that thought in your head. You KNOW you did. But science has no instrument to prove such a thing existed. Wrong. It is very easy, as a matter of fact. An fMRI would show the appropriate area of the brain lighting up in response to the thought. Since I don't expect you to know what an fMRI is: "Functional magnetic resonance imaging". It is a neuroimaging technique used to study activity in the brain. It shows which structures are active during particular mental operations. Now. Will you please answer Rahvin's question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I want you to think...really think...could random mutations that have zero intelligence create the human sexual reproductive system????????????? Ah. The mark of a truly rational debate. 13 question marks. Please stick to the topic. You have been asked repeatedly to discuss eyelids. No limbs. No sexual reproduction. No organs. Eyelids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5690 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
Can it prove the word you were thinking of?
You and your test tubes. Still afraid to come out of the box. Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
You say prove a supreme being exist. I didn't ask you to prove that one existed. I asked if you would consider that a supreme being was behind the intelligence you see in, say DNA? Not prove it. Word games, and a trick question. I see no intelligence in DNA, TheDarin, any more than I see intelligence in the formation of a snowflake. I see the result of natural processes compounding on each other's results for a few million years. I will consider a supreme being's existence when I see a reason to do so. Much like I won't consider that there may be a leprechaun behind me until I have a reason to do so. I didn;t demand that you prove anything. I simply responded to your question with a rational condition. Or do you also think that I should concern myself with the leprechaun? I see just as much evidence of him as I do of a supreme being. The differentiating factor between that which we rationally consider to exist and that which we do not is evidence. A reason to assume somethign exists out of the infinite possibilities contained int he human imagination. Is it possible a deity exists? Certainly. But I don't see any reason to think so.
Science is the not truth. It never claimed to be. They teach you that in your very first science class. Science deals with objective observation and experimentation of natural processes using the five senses. It deals with accuracy. No scientist believes they posses "absolute truth," simply a highly accurate model of the natural processes we observe.
Think of a word right now. Got it? OK, now prove to me that you thought that word. Wouldn't it be frustrating for someone to tell you that you did not have that thought in your head. You KNOW you did. But science has no instrument to prove such a thing existed. What I am getting at is this. The word in your head is proof that science should not be the ONLY measure of truth. molbiogirl's example of the MRI was a good response - remember that we are not at the summit of technology, and it is entirely possible (even probable) that we will some day be able to read the precise word from a person's mind, not just that a word has been thought of. But again, science doesn't deal with that which cannot yet be detected. Science used the five senses to investigate the natural world. If a thing is unfalsifiable, science will not investigate it until such time as we have the capability to make a hypothesis falsifiable. Science is a method of determining accurate models of natural processes. Not determining "truth." It deals in facts and observations and makes testable predictions based on them.
You see the intelligence. No, I dont.
Step out of your test tube and take a stab at creation. I can tell you it's beautiful world outside of your box. I am bound only by that which is observable. I'm sure it's quite wonderful outside of objectivity and rational thought, out there with ghosts and gods and monsters under the bed, but I'd rather stick with what I can verify.
YOU are not just a mutation. And you know it. No, I'm the result of several million mutations guided by natural selection, as are you, and eyelids. Please stop with the "you know it" nonsense. Christians like to believe that deep down, everyone "knows" god exists. It's not true, TheDarin, and the rest of us find it highly annoying when someone insists it is. Could we please get back to eyelids now? You haven't told us yet what specific problems you have with the explanations we've already given you, and we're drifting pretty far afield. Further drift is likely to get one or more of us suspended, so let's get back to eyelids, shall we? If you'd like to discuss the scientific method further, or broaden the discussion to helping you understand the Theory of Evolution better, please start a new thread. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5690 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
Ahhh the mark of the stumped...avoid the question.
The stalling is being done by those of you who think the question is about eyelids and just about eyelids. Geesh you people and eyelids. Do you think you have me beat on the eyelids. No. Absolutely not - My eyelid question has not been settled. I need to know more so that I digest the EVO POV. I am asking, so that I can better understand YOUR position, how the same mutations could have produced the male and female reproductive system. Now that I've brought eyelids back into the question. Can YOU please stop stalling and answer the question. There have been no observed mutations, or tests, that can explain how it is even remotely possible that an unintelligent mutation could come up with something such as the Human Reproductive system. If you can't handle the question, then don't nag me about eyelids. I am in search of answers and truth - not sarcastic insults.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024