Did Eyelids Evolve?

The theory of evolution has progressed a great deal since Darwin, as has science in general. Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Have to love that one. I clearly cannot have been a real Christian, or really have accepted Jesus, because I later became an Atheist.

---

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

Ah, so you haven't been reading what people have been posting at all, then.You know, "gravity" is "just a theory" too. And it has about as much supporting evidence as the theory of evolution.

---

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

Go back and read the rest of the thread. We already went over some of the evolutionary precursors to eyelids, and the fact that humans still have the vestigial remnants of the nictitating membrane.As for other transitional evidence:ALL features of all species are transitional. They exist between their ancestors and their descendants, and their features will be slightly different versions from both, the differences growing with further separation.Humans, for example have features like the appendix - a vestigial remnant of the cecum, which helped our distant evolutionary ancestors digest cellulose (in other words, they were herbivores and could eat things like grass). In us, the appendix serves no real function, and is actually detrimental due to its habit of becoming infected. But it's the same feature, slightly modified for many, many generations until its original purpose is completely unnecessary.We also have a vestigial tail.If evolution is true, then all features of all species must be a modified version of the same feature on another pre-existing species. it doesn't have to do the same job, but it has to be the same feature. And this is exactly what we see. No features are unique, they are only modified versions of the same feature we see in other species.

---

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

The Bible makes no mention of Adam eating cellulose based plant matter. Just fruit, which is much different. Aside from that, vestigial features don;t occur within a single species (as in, you don't find a feature in a species, and then several generations later find that same feature in the same species is now useless and vestigial). This is the tailbone. Notice the fused, vestigial vertebrae at the end (technically, the whole of the coccyx is 4-5 fused vertebrae). If it was not a vestigial tail, we should simply see it end, and not have the extraneous section. Hell, the entire coccyx is attached after the hips. An un-evolved spinal column, intelligently designed if you will, should simply not have the coccyx at all. It's extraneous. It's useless. It's vestigial.

---

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

Let's bring things back on topic then. As posted earlier in this thread, humans have a vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane and some of the musculature that it would use were it still present. This is a vestigial feature, and nictitating membranes are a similar structure to eyelids. Note, however, that some creatures (like cats) have both - eyelids did not arise from nictitating membranes, but it would appear that, in some species (like us) eyelids have replaced them.Neither of your comments addressed that.

---

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

How is the word being misused? I'm disinclined to take your word for it, since you yourself misuse the word "theory" as it pertains to science, and don't understand the theory of evolution despite claiming it to be false.Discussion of how the vestigial remnants of the nictitating membrane are or are not in fact vestigial would certainly be on topic.

---

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