Did Eyelids Evolve?

I should hope so. This is the science area of EvC, this is a thread about evolution of eyelids; it was bound to happen. There are some heavy topics on the Theology side that I just know I would get creamed in. Not a fair assesment however given that I can also get creamed on the science threads. I am a night worker in a northern climate. I go to bed in the dark and wake up in the dark, I don't need an alarm clock as I wake up at my decided time. Naturally. Perhaps I evolved along with the inumerable nocturnal species that do not use light through eyelids as a method of waking.

Guess what, nocturnal critters have eyelids as well. All of your close relatives, chimps, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans have eyelids. Almost all mammals have eyelids and many reptiles, amphibians and birds have eyelids.It appears that eyelids developed pretty early on and so talking about humans and evolving eyelids is somewhat silly. Humans, like almost all mammals, have eyelids.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Okay, so maybe I'll leave eyelids for now.I could just say though, all my close relatives are human. Granted, they do have eyelids.

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.

Vestigial is the word I would like to discuss.Overused and thus misused.My assessment - in a nutshell, Evolutionists use vestigial to describe any part of a human which they regard as, perhaps, once having a function but is now no longer required.Are we agreed on that?

Hi, Aladon, and welcome to EvC. That's not quite right. Think about it; gall bladders are often removed, and the patients usually can lead a pretty normal life (although they might have to watch what they eat). So gall bladders are not required, but I don't think anyone will call them vestigial. This isn't meant to demean your attempt at a definition; I'm just pointing out that definitions can be tricky at times. Wikipedia seems to have a good description of what vestigial means:

quote:

---

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.

---

And:

quote:

---

[Vestigial structures] are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition, and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.

---

I will also say that Douglas Theobald has something interesting to say about vestigial structures in regards to evolution; I recommend reading his essay, although discussion of it would be appropriate for another thread.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added greeting; also added "This isn't meant...can be tricky at times."

---

Few men and fewer women had the means or the desire to write a book on "How I failed to overcome my humble origins." -- Graham Robb

No, I would say not.First, it's a word that scientists use, not evolutionists. Different anti-science types use the word "evolutionist" for different reasons, so I'd simply be speculating on what you might mean by it. But one thing is clear, it has no relation to the real world of science.Second, vestigial structures are found in many, many organisms that aren't human. An example, and one loosely related to the topic of this thread, would be the blind mole rat This curious creature has eyes that are completely covered over by a layer of skin.Third, I'm rather confused by the word "required." If you'd substitute the word "functional," I think we'd be much closer. To illustrate using my example from above, there's nothing that requires any rodent to have eyes, that's simply the way that they evolved. However, in the case of the blind mole rat, the eye that it does have is non-functional, but it is still there, a vestige from an earlier parent species that did have eyes.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You haven't seen anything yet. If you've thin skin, this isn't the place for you.I'd like to add another item to the list I posted previously:4. This isn't a chat room.Content free (Message 102, Message 105) and chatty posts are discouraged.Threads are limited to 300. You are needlessly chewing up bandwidth with your 1 and 2 sentence nonsense.I suggest you carefully consider your responses and -- since this is a science thread -- keep the Forum Guidelines in mind, particularly Rule 4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

I think we would have got on just fine without the lectures.

Okay folks. Square pegs and all that.It seems we cant progress with any discussion without examining every single word. You have your slant on things and I have mine.Plus I have the self-appointed queen of the evolutionary scene on my case telling me I cant 'chat'.What a miserable place.I wipe the dust from my feet as I leave. I will watch the door doesn't hit me on the way out.

Another content free post.Please address the topic.We have a thread for moderation. Message 1. You've already been warned once by a moderator. If you continue with this nonsense, I will post a complaint to the moderation thread.

go ahead. Report yourself too. Three posts of chiding me; off topic I would think.Goodbye.