Evolution can't account for beauty, the poetic or the sublime while Creationism does

[Gottservant]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

Evolution must be put behind us. This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

 

[JohnR7]

Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Actually, the whole theory of selection is that some things are selected.
So if evolution were true then ugly would have been eliminated by now because it would have been rejected for selection.

 

[Lord_Marx]

This guy can't be real... No one could think like this and still manage to use a computer.

 

[lemmings]

This is both sexual and natural selection.

Flowers and plants can not move by themselves, as a result they require animals to pollinate each other and transmit the seeds to other locations. The plants provide a tasty meal for the animals in exchange for allowing them to reproduce. The flowers needed to attract insects so their cells began to produce pigments that made them easier to spot by the incest’s limited vision, this is far more prevalent in the UV wavelengths which we can’t see ( http://www.naturfotograf.com/images/tarax_UV.jpg ).

After the plant has been pollinated then they begin producing the seeds, many smaller seeds can be released just by wind however larger seeds require a host such as a bird or herbivore. They began producing a fruit to attract these animals and in time animals began to be attracted to the better tasting ones.

Plants however had a problem, what if the animals ate the fruits too early? The seeds would be underdeveloped and it could not reproduce. To solve this they added time released pigments to the fruits and made them taste foul if they where still developing (oranges appear green and bitter if you pick them early).


In the animal kingdom you will see something common, the males are nearly always the more attractive of the two sexes. The female is looking for the strongest mate to insure that their offspring will have the strongest genes possible. To find this they try to figure out who is capable of providing her with the best gift, this could be any number of things such as a dance or a song, a gift of food (even themselves), fighting off competition or just being more noticable than others in their species.

 

[corvus_corax]

Actually, the whole theory of selection is that some things are selected. [quote/]
Yes, some things are selected

So if evolution were true then ugly would have been eliminated by now because it would have been rejected for selection.

Wrong
Ugly is a somewhat subjective POV, not necessarily something that is necessary for survival
Take, for instance, Fergie from Black Eyed Peas. I think that she is ugly. However many people, including women, that I know of think that I must be smoking something, as they think she is GORGEOUS.
I, obviously differ in my opinion

And, quite frankly, "ugly" and "pretty" or "handsome" is not the only (or even the primary) trait that attracts one to another.
For instance, the perception of intelligence is quite attractive to many people, for obvious reproductive success.
For others, having a "mother" or "father" figure is quite attractive, and for the very same reasons (if you cant figure this one out, just think about it for a moment)

I'd like you to actually define "ugly" (in all ways) for the sake of your argument. I trust, however, that you can't, at least not in any objective way that applies to all people

Hence, your so-called "argument" against or "contradiction of" evolution dies within your very statement

 

[lemmings]

The blue and red footed boobies are proof that beauty is not universal within the animal kingdom.

 

[corvus_corax]

The blue and red footed boobies are proof that beauty is not universal within the animal kingdom.

Neither is Fergie, even from a human POV
Contrast this

With this-

Just like the Boobie, even within species a "definition" of beauty is hard to attain, at least in the objective sense.

Of course physical beauty or the lack thereof, is not the only thing that drives our desires towards another

 

[Morcova]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution.

That's an easy enough question to answer.

To understand evolution requires education. Which takes alot of hard work.

To understand creationism requires absolutly no education. Which takes no work.

So one is easy and one is hard.

 

[Dannager]

This thread has just been nominated for the Non-argument of the Year Award.

 

[Gottservant]

This is both sexual and natural selection.

[...]

In the animal kingdom you will see something common, the males are nearly always the more attractive of the two sexes. The female is looking for the strongest mate to insure that their offspring will have the strongest genes possible. To find this they try to figure out who is capable of providing her with the best gift, this could be any number of things such as a dance or a song, a gift of food (even themselves), fighting off competition or just being more noticable than others in their species.

All this is great speculation, but there's a problem. You are describing this process of auto-poeisis in terms of simple cause and effect. That is not possible with genders within the evolutionary model, the answer is necessarily complicated.

Not only must the beautiful be shown to evolve but the appreciation of it and that for every case where something beautiful exists. I was laughed at for pointing out that evolution says nothing against your parents reappearing later in time because of the odds, but the odds of both beauty and the appreciation of it "evolving" simultaneously in every case where there is successful survival is preposterous to the point that it is not even worth calculating.

It really does not make sense to say that both male and female must evolve compatible beauties and appreciations, the whole thing must be dropped. It makes even less sense when you realize that if random mutation were true, beauty would not be the domain of just one sex as that is a needless amount of order in strictly survivalist/evolutionist terms.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

Evolution must be put behind us. This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

So... abandon scientific inquiry in favor of warm and fuzzy feel-good pseudo-philosophical fluff?

 

[Elduran]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

So basically all of your arguments were from personal dislike rather than any form of scientific backing whatsoever. This explains a lot about the posts you make here, which show very little understanding of the real theory of evolution.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

I appreciate beauty already thanks. However, I also don't have any illusions that the world is an entirely beautiful place. I know that there are horrible diseases and abject poverty in the world, and don't find either of those particularly beautiful.

If you do, then I'm a little worried!

Evolution must be put behind us.

Only if we want a one-way ticket back to the dark ages, where scientific investigation was suppressed, largely by religion.

This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

Nothing stops you from believing in this and evolution at the same time, other than your own personal incredulity.

 

[FoeHammer]

This is both sexual and natural selection.

Flowers and plants can not move by themselves, as a result they require animals to pollinate each other and transmit the seeds to other locations. The plants provide a tasty meal for the animals in exchange for allowing them to reproduce. The flowers needed to attract insects so their cells began to produce pigments that made them easier to spot by the incest’s limited vision, this is far more prevalent in the UV wavelengths which we can’t see.

Its not often that evo’s will try to explain themselves like this. I am glad when they do because it makes it very plain for all to see just how much imagination and faith is required to accept evolution as they do.
Plants require animals.
How did they reproduce without them?
If they managed to reproduce without them why did they require them?
Flowers needed to attract insects.
How did they reproduce without them?
If they managed to reproduce without them why did they need them?
How were the plants ''aware’’ that insects had ‘’limited vision’’ and of how to remedy it?

After the plant has been pollinated then they begin producing the seeds, many smaller seeds can be released just by wind however larger seeds require a host such as a bird or herbivore. They began producing a fruit to attract these animals and in time animals began to be attracted to the better tasting ones.

Which came first, wind blown or dung sown seeds?
Wind blown would seem to be the best ‘’evolutionary’’ prospect so why did they begin to produce seed that could not be wind blown?
How did the plants know what would, and therefore would not, be attractive to animals whether by sight or by taste?
Was it pure luck that the seeds eaten by animals could withstand the digestive process?

Plants however had a problem, what if the animals ate the fruits too early? The seeds would be underdeveloped and it could not reproduce. To solve this they added time released pigments to the fruits and made them taste foul if they where still developing (oranges appear green and bitter if you pick them early).

Fantastic! Plants can perceive a problem and develop a solution to solve that problem via chemistry aware of the preferences of an animal’s taste buds.

In the animal kingdom you will see something common, the males are nearly always the more attractive of the two sexes. The female is looking for the strongest mate to insure that their offspring will have the strongest genes possible. To find this they try to figure out who is capable of providing her with the best gift, this could be any number of things such as a dance or a song, a gift of food (even themselves), fighting off competition or just being more noticable than others in their species.

It is one thing to state things are observed today it is quite another to explain how these things came about and you have failed miserably, as does evolution itself.

FoeHammer.

 

[flatworm]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

To complain that evolution doesn't explain poetry is like complaining that astronomy doesn't explain how to bake a bunt cake. Evolution explains the diversity of species and their interrelatedness. It won't teach you to play the violin or navigate through downtown St. Louis. It won't tell you whether anything is morally right or wrong. It is not a religion; it is a scientific theory.

All this is great speculation, but there's a problem. You are describing this process of auto-poeisis in terms of simple cause and effect. That is not possible with genders within the evolutionary model, the answer is necessarily complicated.

Not only must the beautiful be shown to evolve but the appreciation of it and that for every case where something beautiful exists.

The case of beauty and its perception as they relate to sexual attraction are no problem for evolution. Their evolution is inevitable. An organism chooses a mate based on whatever criteria it happens to find compelling. Those who don't choose mates leave no offspring and any hereditary cause for their apathy is lost. For all the rest patterns of reproductive success emerge. Individuals that had more of whatever made the opposite sex want to mate with them leave more offspring. Those offspring inherit both the attractive traits and the capacity to appreciate them.

That's the point - beauty and the ability to appreciate them cannot avoid evolving simultaneously because sexual reproduction forces the two to combine in the next generation. Once again I'm getting the sinking feeling that you don't understand how babies are made.

I was laughed at for pointing out that evolution says nothing against your parents reappearing later in time because of the odds, but the odds of both beauty and the appreciation of it "evolving" simultaneously in every case where there is successful survival is preposterous to the point that it is not even worth calculating.

10^(-360) = 1 Award!

It makes even less sense when you realize that if random mutation were true, beauty would not be the domain of just one sex as that is a needless amount of order in strictly survivalist/evolutionist terms.

Beauty is not the domain of just one sex. QED.

 

[Siderite]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

Evolution must be put behind us. This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

Does this mean that Gottservant has a Leap To Conclusions mat like in Office Space?

Gottservants argument is not an argument, its a nebulous feeling of an idea of a belief.

 

[FishFace]

Flowers needed to attract insects.
How did they reproduce without them?
If they managed to reproduce without them why did they need them?
How were the plants ''aware’’ that insects had ‘’limited vision’’ and of how to remedy it?Which came first, wind blown or dung sown seeds?

Here's how it likely proceeded. First, there were very simple flowering plants (actually, first, there were non-flowering plants, but never mind) which spread pollen by wind. An insect tries to feed off the plant (some insects actually eat pollen), but in doing so, spreads pollen from one plant to the next. The plant now has a selection pressure to try and get this insect to come to the flower and pollinate it. A flower that has petals more attractive to insects would be more likely to be pollinated.
That you asked how the flower knows to cater to the insect shows you need to learn more about evolution. The flower knows nothing - but a mutation that gives it attractive petals vs one that gives it ugly petals (in the eyes of the insect) is going to make it more likely to survive and reproduce.

Wind blown would seem to be the best ‘’evolutionary’’ prospect so why did they begin to produce seed that could not be wind blown?

Because as animals carried those seeds, it was unnecessary to produce wind-blowable seeds. There was no selection pressure for this feature, and, since it would cost energy, it was evolved away in these plants. Animal-carried seeds allow the plant to expend less energy, since it has to produce fewer seeds.

Was it pure luck that the seeds eaten by animals could withstand the digestive process?

At first, perhaps no seeds survived at all. Then, of course, it would be in the plant's reproductive interests to produce indigestible seeds. Then it would be advantageous to produce seeds that had a tasty, nutritious wrapper.

Fantastic! Plants can perceive a problem and develop a solution to solve that problem via chemistry aware of the preferences of an animal’s taste buds.

NO. No no no no. You should know this is not how it works. Natural selection is NOT a complicated concept - why don't you understand it? If a plant produces a foul tasting fruit, is it more or less likely to reproduce? If it produces a tasty fruit, what then? These changes are blind - that's the point. It is the selection pressure that is non-random, not the mutation.

It is one thing to state things are observed today it is quite another to explain how these things came about and you have failed miserably, as does evolution itself.

FoeHammer. [/quote]

 

[us38]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution.

That's not instinct; it's brainwashing.

Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Objectively define beauty, and standards for establishing something as such, then show that evolution could not have produced such beauty, and you might have an argument.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime.

If by "appreciation of beauty" you mean "ignoring of science", then I would be inclined to agree with you.

Evolution must be put behind us.

Then you won't mind using ineffective anti-biotics, I presume.

 

[shadowmage36]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution. After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic. Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

Evolution must be put behind us. This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

There was a thread about this type of statement recently. This belongs in Origins Theology, not Creation/Evolution. You are not making any scientific points, only philosophical ones. This is a forum for scientific discussion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've been racking my brain trying to think of what it is that I instinctively don't like about Evolution.

We instinctively feel that we are special (in order to give meaning to our lives); while I instinctively do not like the futility of my like, I nonetheless accept is as undeniable.
My point? What you like or dislike is irrelevant.

After some time, I began to realize that all the arguments I was formulating had something in common: all my arguments focussed on the sublime or were poetic.

Don't forget innane, utterly irrelevant, often not having anything to do with Evolution or the models derived thereof, etc.

Then I leapt to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for these two things or even beauty.

The sublime, the poetic, and the beautiful, are all human terms to describe common chemical and synaptic responses in a our respective conciousnesses. They are either beneficial to have, or an ultimately insignificant extrapolation of more basal benefits.
Sorry, your argument just sublimely fell flat on it's face.

Creationism encourages the appreciation of beauty, the appreciation of poetry and the appreciation of the sublime. God created us so that we could entertain and be entertained. These things are abstract and require careful attention, they require time to be fully appreciated and God made all that possible for us.

Creationism would have us reject the logically deduced and the empirically observed, and even the absolutely defined. If I must reject your notion of beauty to reject Creationism, then so be it.

Evolution must be put behind us. This constant striving for ways of defining things in terms of survival only will come to an end. What is important now that Christ has surrendered his life to the cross is that we embrace the life that God designed us for.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I am a college student working towards becoming a zoologist, so I see great aesthetic beauty in nature. I think that the fact that all life is connected and the way in which life is connected biologically is very beatiful. I find aesthetic value in the fossil record, particularly those specimens that show the path life has taken. I think the balance of nature in terms of predator-prey relationships and ecological niches is beautiful. Evolution can plenty explain the bite of the shark and the cunning of the wolf. These are beautiful things to me and the knowledge of how they came to be enhances rather than degrades their beauty.