Did Eyelids Evolve?

Please see our perspective here, TheDarin. This thread is about eyelids. You insist that we haven't answered your issues regarding the evolution of eyelids...but rather than continuing to discuss it until we have answered all of your questions, you've asked us to describe the evolution of a completely different feature.Post counts at this site are limited to about 300, and so we try very hard to keep the topics narrowly defined so that some sort of resolution can possibly be made. Changing the topic of discussion every 20 posts will make us reach the end of the thread very quickly, and will nto answer your questions.Please, tell us what you still don't understand or believe regarding the evolution of eyelids so that we can continue in this thread, or create a new topic that addresses what you'd really like to discuss.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You do not see the intelligence? Well. Then that explains much.You are not bound by the unobservable? I could not observe the exact word in your thoughts. But it existed...I don't know...you tell me. I cannot observe your thoughts.You say you will not begin considering a deity until you have reason to consider it. You are in an Evolution Forum! Origin of man is obviously something you are passionate about. Why on earth wouldn't you consider your passion on this subject a good enough reason to a explore a supreme being's existence. It's not as if EVO has delivered all the answers.I still have not heard a credible response to mutations being responsible for the human reproductive system.A simple "Yes, I believe mutations created the human reproductive system 100% without a doubt" would do as a response if that's what you believe - I'm just trying to find out if the common EVO really believes that unintelligent random mutations created EYELIDS and the perfectly compatible male and female organs NECESSARY for human reproduction by sheer blobby gooey dribble that just happened to get lucky enough to create the system required to create eyelids and conceive and birth another human; without telling the other blobby gooey dribble what it needed to look like in order participate in the process.

Let's dispense with the subtle insults, shall we? I responded civilly to you because you seemed to want a genuine discussion. Please don't ruin that. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable response. Especially when the technology does not yet exist to allow you to know, one way or another. I'm passionate about finding a pot of gold, too. It doesn;t mean I'll seriously consider the existence of that leprechaun behind me.Besides that, I HAVE explored the existence of a deity. I was a Christian for 25 years - I stopped believing when I realized I had no reason to believe, and I could not differentiate faith in a deity from believing in Santa Claus.I dont expect the Theory of Evolution to answer all of my questions, TheDarin, only those questions relating tot he changes we observe in species over generations. I also don't expect science to answer all of my questions - only those related to the observable world that are testable. Becasue that's not the topic of this thread. There is a thread regarding that topic that is currently active, however, if you'd like to pose your question there. "Why are there two sexes?"Your mockery forces me to say "no." Yes, I believe the evidence shows that eyelids, and human sexuality, are evolved features. The process you mockingly described, however, has very little to do with evolution.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Don't get too cocky.We're getting closer.An fMRI investigation of covertly and overtly produced mono- and multisyllabic words
Brain and Language
Volume 93, Issue 1, April 2005, Pages 20-31Comparison of rhyming and word generation with fMRI
Human Brain Mapping
Volume 10, Issue 3 , Pages 99 - 106Processing Words with Emotional Connotation:
An fMRI Study of Time Course and Laterality in Rostral Frontal and Retrosplenial Cortices
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
2004, 16:167-177.

I'm not getting cocky. I asked a simple question.Please do not respond to this thread unless you have something to add about eyelids. Your post had nothing to do with eyelids.

Rahvin -Sorry for the subtle insult. I meant it innocently. The fact you do not see intelligence in life simply explains why you have the position you do. No offense intended. If you only see design in what you have observed being designed, then, really, we should not even be talking. You cannot relate to me.I am sorry to hear of your Christian experience. To tell you the truth, I myself am a Christian-Agnostic; meaning... "God created..." is a no-brainer for me, I guess you have figured that one out, but I have a hard time believing the whole Jesus thing, not from a historical perspective, that holds its own, but from an eternal perspective, I could easily go down the "God is Dead" road but I had an experience that was nothing short of an old-testament-style miracle (My personal "Evidence") that has pulled me back from my agnosticism MANY times. While I am extremely skeptical - I can't deny the Evidence that I PERSONALLY have...I have cocooned myself many times; gotten mad at God for not revealing himself in a way that folks like you can observe Him; or for not healing someone I prayed for...or for allowing children to suffer...But the Evidence keeps me coming back.I pray that you get your Evidence.I'll go away now. I'll check out the two-sexes thread.Thank you for responding to my questions.

I dearly hope this means you've decided to abide by Forum Guidelines.Which would mean no more OT business about words/sexual reproduction/limbs/organs.In Message 13, you abandoned discussion of eyelids. Since you've finally decided to return the discussion to eyelids, will you please do Rahvin the courtesy of responding to his post in Message 12?

What are "unintelligent random mutations"? Are you implying that there is an intelligence factor to mutations?Is your definition of evolution "a sheer blobby gooey dribble talking to other sheer blobby gooey dribbles"? What do sheer blobby gooey dribbles have to do with the development of eyelids or human reproductive systems? Maybe you are referring to semen.I assume that you are describing your erroneous definition of the evolutionary process in the most disgusting way you can think of as a way to prove some point. It does not. It just makes you sound ignorant.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

I've admitted my ignorance was the basis for beginning this thread. If you would like to rub that in, it's entirely up to you.The thing is, the eyelid mutation response sounds just as silly (especially when it is applied comes to the human sexual organs) as my dribble drabble language.

Why do write to me like you hate me?I stick to the relevance of ALL of my posts to the topic of Eyelids evolving.Eyelids did not evolve.

Yes they did.See how well bare assertions work?Why do you believe eyelids did not evolve? What specific problems do you have with the explanations already given to you?This is the best exercise you can undertake to really understand Evolution - take a single feature, and examine how it evolved and the evidence that shows it.So let's continue the discussion of eyelids, shall we?What should we see if eyelids evolved?One thing we could possibly expect to see would be vestigial remnants of eyelid precursors in creatures that now have eyelids (things like nictitating membranes, for instance). Guess what we find?From Wikipeida:

quote:

---

The plica semilunaris is small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is present in other animals such as birds, reptiles, and fishes. It is rare in mammals, mainly found in monotremes and marsupials.[12] Its associated muscles are also vestigial.[2] The plica semilunaris of Africans and Indigenous Australians have been said to have slightly larger than other peoples.[2] Only one species of primate -- the Calabar angwantibo -- is known to have a functioning nictitating membrane.[13]

---

So, humans have a small structure that is a remnant of the nictitating membrane found in a variety of other creatures.Just as a definition, a "vestigial" structure is one that has lost it's functionality through evolution. For instance, ostriches have vestigial wings - their ancestors had a use for wings, but the wings of ostriches are essentially useless. Humans have the appendix, which is a vestigial cecum - the cecum is used by herbivorous mammals to digest cellulose. The organ in humans has no function (though it seems to get infected pretty easily, and require removal, with no effect on the person it is removed from).Since we posses vestigial versions of the precursors to eyelids, this is evidence that eyelids did, in fact, evolve.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Do you understand why these two statements contradict each other?Do you know thyself?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Again. Message 12.Rahvin took the trouble to carefully rebut your assertions.Please specifically address the points he made."Huh-uh" is simply not enough.

You folks are mean. Just plain mean.You both (previous two posters) need to evolve into something human.

Perceived rudeness is irrelevant, TheDarin. Actually answering the content of posts, however, is.We collectively have a large number of points and rebuttals that you have not answered. If you really want to debate, or even just learn about Evolution so you can argue against the actual theory, real participation in the thread beyond "you're mean" would be a good start.Personal attacks, btw, are disallowed at the site. Since I'd really like to debate you and help you learn about the Theory of Evolution, I'd rather not see you suspended for things like that.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.