Did Eyelids Evolve?

my brain is organic, and fully intact, thank you. maybe your brain is missing something, or cannot process something, but mine's just fine. as you'll notice, i said "brain" in singular. i have one brain -- this was one example of an organ i brought up above that is not duplicated. it's also example of how an organ can gradually duplicate. primitve amniote brains have only a single hemisphere. my brain has two. i would call that "transitional." again, this is simply your failure to see something. evidence is there. if you want to understand the human reproductive system, first look at the primitive amniotic ones, followed by the monotremes (like the platypus) and marsupials and then placental mammals. you'll see a rather clear progression. like so: define ID. because now you're pushing its definition so far as to be vacuous, and easily eliminated by ockham's razor as an extraneous variable. if the observed mutatations are enough, what do we need ID for, exactly? take a biology class or five. yes. afterall, it's more or less identical to the reproductive system of every other primate. which is almost identical to every other placental mammal. which is only slightly modified from marsupials. which is only slightly modified from monotremes. which is only slightly modified from other amniotes (like reptiles)... etc. you get the picture.

---

quote:

---

I'll move on with a "hmmmm" but the symmetry and order we see simply does not compute with randomness.

---

How so?Evolution consists of random mutations and natural selection, the latter being non-random, as the word selection indicates.

quote:

---

what I cannot see or even come close to seeing is that random, unintelligent mutations resulted in the human reproductive system...or the eyelid.

---

Me neither. That would make no sense.What about random mutations selected by the environment, though?That makes a lot of sense.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell"Man's greatest asset is the unsettled mind." - Isaac Asimov"We not only believe what we see, to some extent we see what we believe
...The implications of our beliefs are frightening." - Richard Gregory

Cats have them:

quote:

---

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

---

LOL!Look, I've posted on several Creationist-run boards which claim to be fair to science-minded people. I've ben extra, extra careful at these places to be very polite and as non-confrontational as I could be while disagreeing with people, and do you want to know how I've been treated, every single time?I have had my posts edited, censored, and deleted. I have been spammed by site owners/moderators. I have had the site owners lie about me. I have been kicked out for pointing out the moderators'/site owners' lies and unfair treatment, or sometimes simply for arguing too effectively and proving Creationists wrong too many times. I've never lasted more than a couple of weeks, tops.This sort of thing has happened to lots of people here. It seems that the people who run many of the Creationist boards don't really like challenges their doctrine, so they tend to silence their critics by banning members who don't agree with them.Maybe you are new to message boards, I don't know, but believe me, this one is far and away the most even-handed, fair, and most balanced one dealing with the Evolution vs. Creationism issue.I've read the thread, and it does appear that you are trying to change the subject in order to avoid getting into any detail about why you won't accept the answers people have given you regarding eyelid evolution.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

No, "EVO" hasn't delivered all the answers. It has, however, delivered some answers. This fact alone puts it ahead of creationism (YEC, OEC or ID), which hasn't delivered any answers.I do find it amusing when a cdesign proponentist comes in and starts asking what they think are tough questions about something that evolution can't explain. They usually fasten on something that they simply don't understand, then disregard the explanations offered, because they didn't come here to understand in the first place. The really funny thing is that for every false problem for evolution that a cdesign proponentist trots out, there are dozens of real questions that evolution hasn't yet answered. If they were to bother to learn about evolution, they'd learn that there are volumes of questions that evolution hasn't answered yet.It's amusing because they seem to think that the fact that evolution can't answer all questions somehow undermines the validity of evolution as a scientific explanation. There are two problems with this idea.The first is that it's not the questions that evolution can't answer that are significant, it's the millions upon millions of questions that evolution can answer that are significant. Heh, maybe what we should do when a cdesign proponentist slinks in asking us to show how evolution explains "X," we should first ask them to show how creationism explains "Y."The second, and perhaps more significant problem with the cdesign proponentist idea that unanswered questions in evolution undermine it, is that in fact unanswered questions is one of the hallmarks of a valid, functioning and vital area of scientific investigation. The old saying that every answer raises more questions is very significant. There is no field of science that doesn't have a million questions that researchers are working on every day. If unanswered questions were enough to disqualify evolution from the ranks of science, then there would be no such thing as science.So, yes, you are correct. "EVO" doesn't have all the answers. But it has infinitely more than then next best explanation.

---

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

Why do my nictitating membranes feel heavy when I'm tired? If the brain tells me it's time to sleep, when did that connection with the nictitating membrane happen?

First: you don't have nictitating membranes. You have a vestigial remnant of them left over from an evolutionary precursor, but we mammals have eyelids, which are different.Nitpicking aside - you have many, many instinctual reactions that would have evolved together with the formation of different structures, and many, many autonomic functions.You may as well ask when the "connection" with the brain for making your heart beat, or making your lungs breathe form. The simple answer is, the "connection" evolved as the structures did. Your lungs are a great example of an autonomous action that is still partially voluntary (you can hold your breath, but you can't stop your heart for a few seconds, for example).Another, perhaps more similar example is sexual arousal. Human sexual organs have a distinct reaction to nonphysical stimulation - seeing an attractive member of the opposite sex in a state of undress, for example. When was the "connection" made? It evolved as sexual organs evolved.Why do your eyelids feel heavy when it's time to sleep? Because keeping your eyes open for that long would dry them out, perhaps? Or maybe because keeping them open causes too much distraction and would keep you awake constantly (and humans don't do well without sleep). Either way would provide a selective advantage for those who closed their eyes during the sleep cycle. It could also simply be our body's autonomous signal that we need sleep soon, no different from the signals you receive when you've held your breath too long and your lungs start "burning."There also doesn't need to be a "connection" of the sort you are referring to between the brain and your eyelids. The eyelids don't actually get heavy, you know - the relaxed position for the muscles that control them is the open position; it actually requires your muscles to contract to close your eyes. The heaviness you feel is just the result of your subconscious brain trying to start the sleep cycle. The feedback loop of

quote:

---

(brain decides it's time for sleep) > (brain sends signal to eyelids) > (eyelids get heavy) > (conscious brain detects heavy eyelids) > (conscious brain interprets heavy eyelids as sleepiness)

---

is incidental. Our conscious minds are not aware of every autonomous function of our bodies, and we assess our condition along similarly indirect lines all the time.

---

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

Ah, you are unique, a new step on the evolutionary trail. Can you tell us more about that trait? Do you have pictures? This is very exciting and many here would love to know more.

---

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

quote:

---

You may as well ask when the "connection" with the brain for making your heart beat, or making your lungs breathe form. The simple answer is, the "connection" evolved as the structures did. Your lungs are a great example of an autonomous action that is still partially voluntary (you can hold your breath, but you can't stop your heart for a few seconds, for example).

---

All you are doing is explaining a few of the body's basic functions, but you replace 'God created it that way', with - 'it evolved'.You are not really answering the question.

Except that evolution has a mechanism. "Goddidit" does not.If you ask why an object fell, and I say "gravity did it," that is fundamentally different from "Goddidit." The workings of gravity are well-known, and attributing a fall to its workings is perfectly reasonable. It even results in some testable predictions: for instance, if the object fell on Earth and discounting any wind resistance, the object should fall at about 9.8 m/s^2 towards the ground. "Goddidit" says nothing.When I say that a feature "evolved," I am similarly referencing the mechanisms and predictions of the process described by the Theory of Evolution - that is, the feature in question should be a slightly modified version of the same feature found in an already existing species, that the similarities between the related structures should be more similar for very closely related species and less similar for distantly related species, and that the feature likely provides some sort of advantage to the organism as opposed to a creature that does not posess the feature.That's a lot more than "Goddidit," don't you think?When I say "the urge to close the eyes must have evolved along with eyelids and the continuing evolution of sleep patterns," it's like saying "the rock must have fallen off of the shelf due to gravity when it was pushed off balance." I don't need to go into the extreme specifics of the evolution of the "heaviness of eyelids" in the former statement any more than I need to describe how gravity works in the latter.Do you believe this behavior, or eyelids, did not evolve? If not, why not?

---

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

Excuse me, evolution has no mechanism. Evolution is only a theory, has only ever been a theory and scientifically is being dismantled year on year. Trying to explain it is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia""God did it" does in actual fact have a mechanism. God making it happen is a mechanism is it not? What you are doing is merely disposing of the 'God did it' theory because you have prepositioned yourself as an atheist or agnostic. You are not really examining the facts in a scholarly manner. Richard Dawkins does exactly the same thing.If we are to really discover truth, we must examine.

Then you have no idea what evolution or a scientific theory are. A scientific theory is a model of an observed process that takes into account all available evidence to make the most accurate predictions possible. Further, to be considered a theory a model must pass through the peer review process and undergo extensive testing of its predictions. If those predictions are slightly off, the model will be modified in the persuit of accuracy. If the predictions are falsified, the model will be thrown out.A scientific theory is quite a bit different from the normal usage of the term.And quite contrary to your statement, each year the mountains of evidence for evolution grows. Hell, the theory only describes the process - evolution by mutation and natural selection has been actually observced. The specific mechanisms described in our model are still tentatative, but that species do change, and new species arise from pre-existing species is an observed fact.If you have evidence that the theory of evolution is being "dismantled year by year," present it. The theory of evolution has literally nothing to do with how life arose int he first place. None. Zilch. Completely different topic. The theory of evolution describes only the process by which new species arise from existing species. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, any more than the theory of gravity is also the theory of plate tectonics. No, it's not. If I say "I fixed the TV," you have absolutely no idea how the TV was fixed. You only know that I did it. Incorrect. I was a Christian for the first 25 years of my life, and I accepted evolution even then. I agree, which is why it's sad that you don't know what a scientific theory is, and you clearly haven't researched the theory of evolution because you are confusing it with abiogenesis.

---

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

Not really. Maybe once you place God out there to be examined it might be a mechanism but until then GodDidIt is simply contentfree and worthless. Nonsense. Christians support evolution unless they are set on denying God and passing on a culture of ignorance to their children. In the words of the Clergy Project, and open letter on the subject endorsed by over 11,000 US Christian Clergy: The evolution of things like eyelids has NOTHING to do with God or Atheism.

---

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

Oh dear. You've obviously never read the The Origin of Species then? Evolution may not be coined as a word, but the book covers the theory extensively.Also, you are quite mistaken on a theological front here also. People are not born as Christians, they are born as sinners. They need to make a rational decision at some point in their life to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and move from darkness into light. From death to life, so to speak.So, for the first 25 years of your life you may have had a belief in God. Not the same.Edited by Aladon, : No reason given.