Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Eyelids Evolve?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 91 of 117 (448685)
01-14-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Aladon
01-14-2008 7:23 PM


Re: denial?
You're off to a roaring start.
Since you are a new member, I would like to remind you of 3 things (tho others have mentioned them previously):
1. This is a science thread. Which means, when discussing a science topic, you are obligated to provide evidence of your assertions.
2. You need to stay on topic.
3. It would do you a world of good to read a thread before responding.
Okay, is there any transitional evidence for the eyelid or any other of modern mans parts or functions?
The transitional "forms" of the eyelid have been covered in detail in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Aladon, posted 01-14-2008 7:23 PM Aladon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 5:31 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Aladon
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 22
From: Scotland
Joined: 01-14-2008


Message 92 of 117 (448689)
01-14-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: denial?
quote:
in other words, they were herbivores and could eat things like grass
Well Adam would have been a herbivore as you call it. Thats why God gave him that organ.
AS for Coccyx, it is just the end of the vertebral column that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 7:40 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 8:04 PM Aladon has not replied
 Message 95 by Quetzal, posted 01-14-2008 8:31 PM Aladon has not replied
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 8:34 PM Aladon has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 93 of 117 (448695)
01-14-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Aladon
01-14-2008 7:53 PM


Re: denial?
Well Adam would have been a herbivore as you call it. Thats why God gave him that organ.
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).
AS for Coccyx, it is just the end of the vertebral column that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Aladon, posted 01-14-2008 7:53 PM Aladon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AdminNosy, posted 01-14-2008 8:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 94 of 117 (448698)
01-14-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 8:04 PM


Topic!
As mobil... noted. This is NOT the topic here.
Unfortunately I'm going to be gone for a couple of days so I hope someone else suspends the next person who wanders off topic. I do soo hate to miss the chance myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 8:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 95 of 117 (448699)
01-14-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Aladon
01-14-2008 7:53 PM


Re: denial?
AS for Coccyx, it is just the end of the vertebral column that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.
If that's the case, don't you find it just a bit odd that the very poorly developed (and often absent) extensor coccygis muscle in humans that attaches to the coccyx is functionally identical (and attached the same place in the same way) as the dorsal sacrococcygeal muscle in animals with tails? Which said animals use to raise their tails? I always thought that was a pretty good indicator the coccyx was a "vestigial" tail. But hey, what do I know?
Added by edit: Sorry Nosey. I'll shut up.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.
Edited by Quetzal, : Too many "c"s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Aladon, posted 01-14-2008 7:53 PM Aladon has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 96 of 117 (448700)
01-14-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Aladon
01-14-2008 7:53 PM


Re: denial?
Well Adam would have been a herbivore as you call it. Thats why God gave him that organ.
AS for Coccyx, it is just the end of the vertebral column that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Aladon, posted 01-14-2008 7:53 PM Aladon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 6:13 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Aladon
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 22
From: Scotland
Joined: 01-14-2008


Message 97 of 117 (448765)
01-15-2008 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by molbiogirl
01-14-2008 7:46 PM


Re: denial?
You didn't notice the reason why we went off topic? As is normally the case in such discussions, evolutionists make sweeping scientific claims with NO evidence whatsoever. I was challenging that.
I refer you to 'God did it', not being a mechanism, etc.
Sorry for breathing - it's an involuntary function. Some kind of deal between my brain and my lungs apparently.
Edited by Aladon, : missed a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 7:46 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 6:19 AM Aladon has replied

  
Aladon
Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 22
From: Scotland
Joined: 01-14-2008


Message 98 of 117 (448767)
01-15-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
01-14-2008 8:34 PM


Re: denial?
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.
Can we look at why evolutionists are clutching at this word - Vestigial.
Vestigial = Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change. The American Heritage Science Dictionary
I cannot discuss eyelids without first discussing this word and it's misuse. Is that permitted on this thread or must we start another and come back here once we have established some rules on the use of language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 01-14-2008 8:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2008 10:37 AM Aladon has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 99 of 117 (448769)
01-15-2008 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Aladon
01-15-2008 5:31 AM


Yes, denial
As is normally the case in such discussions, evolutionists make sweeping scientific claims with NO evidence whatsoever. I was challenging that.
Incorrect.
  • Message 67 you ask why your eyelids feel heavy when tired.
  • Message 68 Rhavin answers you
  • Message 70 You rebut saying that his answer is similar to Goddidit (start of off topic discussion)
  • Message 71 Rhavin answers you and attempts to bring it back to topic
  • Message 72 You reply with nonsense about panspermia and its only a theory and make no mention of the topic.
  • Message 75 Further off topic, as with the next 3 posts
  • Message 84 Almost made it! Slipped on the next two
    Given that you have shown a decided lack of knowledge on regarding the word theory as it is used in science, and making reference to panspermia as if this has anything to do with ToE, I would suggest you simply ask the questions and lay off the challenges. Your challenges are simply off topic and your binging them up only shows your lack of knowledge regarding the discussion.
    I refer you to 'God did it', not being a mechanism
    Exactly my point. Go back and read Rhavins explanation again and perhaps you will understand its importance and its relevance to the questions you have put forward.
    The "reason why we went off topic" is likely because you are challenging something you have little knowledge about. Try asking, learning, and showing progress as to what ToE really is about instead of what you think its about.
    I am enjoying Rhavins contributions to this thread and hope to see it continue.
    *Topic* Did Eyelids Evolve?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 5:31 AM Aladon has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 6:50 AM Vacate has replied

      
    Aladon
    Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
    Posts: 22
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 01-14-2008


    Message 100 of 117 (448770)
    01-15-2008 6:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 99 by Vacate
    01-15-2008 6:19 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    Yet another 'off topic' post about off topic posts.
    Yes, have a go at my lack of knowledge.(your opinion) I didn't know I was in the company of such brilliant scholars. By the way, you're very aggressive.
    Okay, so we cant make challenges if we fall below a certain bar of learning. Okay - noted.
    Any threads on Sesame Street?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 6:19 AM Vacate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 101 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-15-2008 7:19 AM Aladon has replied
     Message 103 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 8:58 AM Aladon has replied
     Message 113 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 3:06 PM Aladon has replied

      
    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 3598 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 101 of 117 (448774)
    01-15-2008 7:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Aladon
    01-15-2008 6:50 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    Welcome to the asylum, Aladon. Just pull up a rubber floor and make yourself at home.
    I want everybody to know that I deny the existence of denial.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 6:50 AM Aladon has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 7:49 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

      
    Aladon
    Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
    Posts: 22
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 01-14-2008


    Message 102 of 117 (448776)
    01-15-2008 7:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 101 by Archer Opteryx
    01-15-2008 7:19 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    Thanks for the welcome.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-15-2008 7:19 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

      
    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 4601 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 103 of 117 (448783)
    01-15-2008 8:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Aladon
    01-15-2008 6:50 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    Yet another 'off topic' post about off topic posts.
    My apologies, my intent was to possibly suggest a method that could be both beneficial for further discussion and leading to further learning on your part (and mine).
    Yes, have a go at my lack of knowledge.(your opinion)
    Further explanations about your lack of knowledge on the subject will likely be interpreted as insults. My opinion is simply based on your misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution and the inevitable result of those misconceptions being off topic and incorrect statements.
    I didn't know I was in the company of such brilliant scholars.
    I had thought you to be one:
    message 72 writes:
    You are not really examining the facts in a scholarly manner.
    By the way, you're very aggressive.
    I had my coffee and cigarette but forgot my smilies.
    Okay, so we cant make challenges if we fall below a certain bar of learning.
    Making challenges based upon false information is generally not a good idea. Asking direct questions about the topic without immediatly expressing your bias and false assumptions could in fact lead to you learning something before expressing incorrect facts.
    This is hardly conductive to an informed discussion:
    quote:
    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.
    Based upon what I have read in your post I would suggest instead of saying "you replace 'God created it that way', with - 'it evolved'. you instead ask "what is the difference between "goddidit" and "it evolved"? (its much less agressive)
    Instead of saying "Excuse me, evolution has no mechanism...." you instead say "what exactly do you mean about evolution having a mechanism?" (its much less agressive)
    Instead of saying "Oh dear. You've obviously never read the The Origin of Species then?" you instead say "my understanding of evolution differs from yours, perhaps you could correct me in a my possible misunderstandings?" (its much less agressive, but admittedly sounding a bit like a kiss ass)
    If you can weed out the misconceptions its completely possible that you have an ace up your sleeve. Silly things such as "its only a theory" won't win you many points here however.
    I cannot discuss eyelids without first discussing this word and it's misuse. Is that permitted on this thread or must we start another and come back here once we have established some rules on the use of language?
    Why not simply accept the definition as described regardless of whether you actually believe in it. For the purpose of this thread you appear to be aware of what is meant by the term. I think a great question regarding this would be:
    Rhavin writes:
    you don't have nictitating membranes. You have a vestigial remnant of them left over from an evolutionary precursor
    Rhavin, or whoever - Why do you say that humans have vestigial nictitating membranes? What evidence supports this idea?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 6:50 AM Aladon has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 9:13 AM Vacate has replied
     Message 105 by Aladon, posted 01-15-2008 9:17 AM Vacate has not replied

      
    Aladon
    Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
    Posts: 22
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 01-14-2008


    Message 104 of 117 (448791)
    01-15-2008 9:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Vacate
    01-15-2008 8:58 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    Well thank you for the lesson.
    Okay,just one tiny point, off topic of course.
    If you can weed out the misconceptions its completely possible that you have an ace up your sleeve. Silly things such as "its only a theory" won't win you many points here however.
    I assume that advice applies to everyone and that if I detect any misconceptions I am allowed to say something? There does seem to be a contempt for anything Biblical but total respect for anything pro-evolution scientific. That makes debates debatable to say the least; very imbalanced.
    So, eyelids. Great little things. Fascinating that they allow just enough light through to wake you up naturally in the morning.
    Edited by Aladon, : I didn't spoll preperly

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 8:58 AM Vacate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 9:26 AM Aladon has not replied
     Message 107 by jar, posted 01-15-2008 9:43 AM Aladon has replied

      
    Aladon
    Junior Member (Idle past 5917 days)
    Posts: 22
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 01-14-2008


    Message 105 of 117 (448792)
    01-15-2008 9:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Vacate
    01-15-2008 8:58 AM


    Re: Yes, denial
    I didn't know I was in the company of such brilliant scholars.
    I had thought you to be one:
    Smoothie!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 8:58 AM Vacate has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024