Did Eyelids Evolve?

I know. But the way you used the term indicates you are working under the assumption that an organism must be "told" to produce a feature. That is not the case. Incredulity is irrelevant. We have seen all of this happen. No, not every step of the formation of every species - but we have observed mutation, tracked the traits to the genetic code, and further examined the DNA copying sequence and seen exactly how the altered trait was changed. You say it doesn't compute - but we have actually observed this in real organisms. We have even observed actual new species arise from existing species, in the laboratory. We know from direct observation that mutation and natural selection do produce changes in species populations over time. It's not a matter of belief - you can do the same experiments and observe it yourself.That's the point of science, after all. Cosmetic changes are the same as all other changes, simple (sometimes) on a smaller scale.The human reproductive system is basically identical to the reproductive system of all mammals, with really only cosmetic differences. But let's not shift the topic, shall we? The topic here is the evolution of eyelids. You're welcome to start another thread, but really - it's the exact same process. Eyelids work just fine as an example of an evolved trait, just as human reproduction would be. We have examples of other reproductive systems (eggs, seeds, budding, mitosis, etc) just as we have examples of other eye protection - nictating membranes, the ability to withdraw the eyes, etc.Reproduction has certainly been evolving for longer than there were eyes to protect...think of it as walking only to Indiana from New York instead of all the way to Arizona...but the process is identical. Don't take it personally. We literally repeat the same answers to the same misconceptions (and sometimes misrepresentations) around here every time a new Creationist member joins. Remember how I said AnswersinGenesis puts forward a completely false version of evolution? Many of us just get frustrated, and are irritated by repeating the same refutation of the same simple misconception for the 1746th time.

---

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

fixed.

Chiroptera, I have no problem admitting:1. He did not convince me that eyelids could have evolved through random mutations; sorry, as thorough as he was...I just don't buy it.I was trying to be polite by "hmmmming" rather than responding aggressively because I appreciated his thorough non-aggressive response.2. I have no problem admitting I am trying to get a response rather than discuss. Quite frankly, I spend a great deal of time calling evolutionists idiots. But recently I have feeling as if perhaps I am speaking unintelligently about your position. Therefore, I stepped into this forum to find out if what I understand about the EVOs is true.I am exploring the EVO position. Is there a problem with that?I did not just respond to him hmmmmm; I rebutted with a second question regarding symmetry and how his answers jives with the human reproductive system.Does that qualify as discussion in your book?

That is not a rebuttal, but rather the Gish Gallop.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Then don't change the topic. The number one piece of evidence that creationists have little ability for rational discourse is their inability to stay focused.You started this thread on eyelids. Stick to eyelids.

---

He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis

Rahvin,I am not ignorant to the fact that speciazation and mutation have been observed and are real.My thing - and again, I am not arguing - I'm exploring...the symettry and order of things do not scream "randonmess created me."Have you seen, or can you reference a study that observed a mutation that would freak a creationist like me out?Secondly, my rebuttal regarding the reproductive system. Incredulity IS relevant when science has not witnessed something that compares to a species all of the sudden changing from one organization that reproduces itself without help for millions of years, then mutates another version of itself for which it is dependent upon for survival of its species. I know I am not articulating this well, but I am sure you know what I am getting at....I mean how could randomness come up with the male and female reproductive system? Incredulity IS relevant in this case... it has intelligence written all over it.

I don't require your babying. This is a debate forum. If you find my explanation unconvincing, please explain and rebut. Then this isn't the place for you. This is a debate forum. To remain here without being suspended, you will be required to participate in debate. If you're here to "get a rise out of the evolutionists," you'll be suspended pretty quickly. We'll be more than happy to show you what the actual Theory of Evolution states, and how the process it describes works, to the best of our ability. But please, if you find something unconvincing, or dont understand something we say, say so. That way you participate in the debate, and we can be sure that, whether you accept it or not, by the time you're done here you at least understand what it is you're arguing against. It's more like "changing the subject." Let's stick with the actual topic of the thread, shall we? I mean, you say you're still unconvinced - specifically, why? What do you not understand, or find convincing?

---

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

That's usually a sign that you don't understand the subject very well.Maybe one of the mods will step in suggest a thread that discusses some of the basic issues.

---

He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis

That's good. Because it's not completely random. Chemistry works only in very specific ways. The genetic code is wildly variable, but at its essence is only composed of a very few base pairs.I know this is branching from the topic a bit, but I'll run with it anyway. Let's take the early abiogenesis experiments as an example. Abiogenesis is not really the topic here, but it works as an example of "randomness" being more of a case of "inevitability."We know with pretty decent certainty the conditions of the early, pre-life Earth. As a nice example, we have the moon Titan - it's full of organic compounds like methane, and is very Earth-like except for it's distance from the Sun and the fact that it's a satellite.Given the conditions of the early Earth with basically a "soup" of organic compounds we know to exist naturally without the involvement of life or intelligence, scientists observed that amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins, formed spontaneously.Was this a "random" occurrence? You could say so from one perspective - nobody guided the reaction, it happened on its own given the correct environment. But it wasn't really. It's just how chemistry works - atoms form themselves into molecules in very predictable and consistent ways. It was "random" in the way that rainfall is random, but inevitable as a result of natural processes given a certain environment, just like rain.Further than that, scientists have conducted subsequent experiments and found that amino acids will even form into proteins spontaneously (a protein is really just a chain of amino acids). Guess what RNA is? That's right - a chain of proteins, and it's essentially what viruses are -some of the simplest forms of life we know of. DNA is the same, but with two helixes instead of one (I know, I'm making this way oversimplified, but it works well enough for the example).We know exactly what DNA does.In much the same way, random mutations are still not random in the way you seem to be using the word. The genetic code is still only made up of certain base pairs, and the order of those base pairs will always, every single time, determine which proteins are produced, and ultimately determine the traits of an organism.Randomness in evolution is also governed by natural selection. Those organisms that just "don't work" won't survive long enough to reproduce, and so their genetic lines will end. The symmetry you believe makes randomness so incredible is simple a beneficial trait - we have two lungs because "backup" organs are more beneficial than single organs. Animals tend to have an even number of limbs because it's more conducive to locomotion and balance.Does that help?

---

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

ChiroptYou write: That's usually a sign that you don't understand the subject very well.That's a sign you have not read my posts. I do not understand the EVO position well at all. Thus the reason for my being in here.I am not antagonizing anyone, but yet, many of you are responding aggressively.You say stick to Eyelids. I don't have to stick to eyelids. Eyelids was the title. Any functional attribute of the things we see on earth could be plugged into my question in exchange for eyelid.I am not sure why you are not willing to follow my line of discussion. So Eyelid was not the perfect choice for my question...may I please rephrase the question so that I can better understand your position? And direct the question to the male femal reproductive system?Please see my previous post above this one for more on that question.Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.

The rules of the site dictate that we stick to the topic. Drift happens (hell, my most recent post skirts the line at least), but we don't change topic from "eyelids" to "sex" within a thread. It prevents us from discussing completely different topics from that which the thread began, and the posts in threads are limited to about 300 messages.If you'd like to discuss the evolution of gender and sexuality, by all means, start another topic - but I don't see the point personally. We should be able to discuss your incredulity regarding natural processes producing symmetry and so on just fine in a topic about eyelids. You lack of understanding regarding the Theory of Evolution is the real problem, correct? Eyelids are as good an example as any.

---

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

Because what you are doing is just palming the pea. It is a shyster game made famous by Duane Gish.You bring up a subject but when you get a response you do not admit that it has been refuted and try to move the goal posts. Once you work through your string of fallacies we will find ourselves back at the initial question all over again, and the beat goes on.The topic, in case you missed it, is "Did Eyelids Evolve?"

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

1. Atoms form themselves into molecules in very predictable and consistent ways.2. The order of those base pairs will always, every single time, determine which proteins are produced, and ultimately determine the traits of an organism.3. We have two lungs because "backup" organs are more beneficial than single organs. Animals tend to have an even number of limbs because it's more conducive to locomotion and balance.Are you open to consider that any of those things were designed by a supreme being?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.

Because what you are doing is just palming the pea. It is a shyster game made famous by Duane Gish.You bring up a subject but when you get a response you do not admit that it has been refuted and try to move the goal posts. Once you work through your string of fallacies we will find ourselves back at the initial question all over again, and the beat goes on.The topic, in case you missed it, is "Did Eyelids Evolve?"

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Jar you say: "You bring up a subject but when you get a response you do not admit that it has been refuted"It did not get refuted. I found that I was not getting a response to the base question I wanted the answer to - I did not care specifically about eyelids - for goodness sakes - I am trying to understand the whole mutation thing and eyelids seemed to be a good place to start - but I found that I needed clarification on his response so I asked him to apply the same theory to the gender/redroductive issues.I'll remind you we are still in the Biological Evolution box, so don't get bent all of shape becuase I switched body parts on you.Geeeeesh! I say again....geeeesh!