|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Eyelids Evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
I am trying to understand positions on evolution...first question.
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? Asked sincerely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
OK. I am sorry that my question stressed you all out so much. Let me re-phrase the questions since the fact that narrowed the question down too much by saying HUMAN.
Is it the EVO position that early living beings with eyeballs may not have had eyelids, but after millions of years the the EVO-Code started saying to offspring "form something over your eyes to keep foreign objects out" or "form something over the eyes that will help us rest for 8 hours"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
Modulus:
Please explain "ability to withdraw the eyes for protection and the like evolved first."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
"The EVO-code" term was one that I jut made up for the question - I was not taught that there was such a thing.
I appreciate your thorough response - you type fast. I'll move on with a "hmmmm" but the symmetry and order we see simply does not compute with randomness. May I move on since I've found someone that responds with words rather than attitude??? Your comments may address the question as it relates to cosmetic changes. But how did randomness come up with the reproductive system as seen in Humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
Chiropt
You 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 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 5689 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDarin Member (Idle past 5689 days) Posts: 50 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024