Evolution of beauty

[tas8831]

This is not just about aesthetics.

Then why the "beauty" thing?

It's about order in nature with no survival purpose.

Why do you think all traits must have a selectable survival benefit?

Sorry John, I'm thinking you should have read up on evolution before setting up your website.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Then why the "beauty" thing?
Why do you think all traits must have a selectable survival benefit?

Sorry John, I'm thinking you should have read up on evolution before setting up your website.

All traits that are complex must have a survival benefit. That is a core principle of NDT.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Wait... WHAAAAT????




I would welcome your bible-based explanation as to why Jehovah created some fish to be beautiful and others to be ugly. And if you cannot provide such an explanation to my satisfaction, I will have to reject the bible and all things biblical.

I am posing a scientific challenge. Your philosophical views as to why a creator would or would not create everything equally beautiful begs the question. And you speak of my "obscession" with what I "perceive" as order. The patterns are ordered. Are you going to deny that? Are you telling me that the patterns of a coral reef fish are no more ordered than the patterns of a koi?

 

[tas8831]

I am posing a scientific challenge.

No, you aren't.

By the way - your 'mathematical disproof' of evolution is based on a refuted paper, and your math is nonsense.

You are out of your depth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All traits that are complex must have a survival benefit. That is a core principle of NDT.

Where does it say anywhere that anything that's complex MUST have a survival benefit?

 

[tas8831]

All traits that are complex must have a survival benefit. That is a core principle of NDT.

You are presuming a survival benefit to their coloration.

How do you KNOW that it is such an adaptation? Are there not ugly fish that do fine?

Interestingly, I just finished teaching about this sort of thing, and a core principle of NDT is to assume that any given trait is NOT an adaptation, and to only conclude it is if there is good reason for it.

That ugly fish do fine negates your premise.

And how is our interpretation of something as beautiful evidence of complexity?

You keep assuming things without a good reason.

 

[tas8831]

Your philosophical views as to why a creator would or would not create everything equally beautiful begs the question.

What assumption is that?

And you speak of my "obscession" with what I "perceive" as order.

Well, if I had done so, I would have spelled it correctly, for one thing.

Second, I wrote nothing about your perception of "order", I mentioned our perception of beauty. You know, the premise of this failed 'refutation' of evolution?

The patterns are ordered. Are you going to deny that? Are you telling me that the patterns of a coral reef fish are no more ordered than the patterns of a koi?

Your perception of koi coloration is that they are not ordered. Other than your perception of what 'ordered' means, what is your evidence that koi color splotches are not beautiful? What is your evidence that there is not some grand mathematical formula dictating their distribution?

And had you considered that the patterns that you think beautiful may have non-'ordered', non-planned causes?

Like maybe, cell-related stuff (not math)?


"However, the striped pattern (of zebrafish) itself is generated by self-
organizing mechanisms requiring interactions between all three pigment cell types. The involvement of integral membrane proteins, including connexins and potassium
channels, suggests that direct physical contacts between chromatophores are involved,
and that the directed transport of small molecules or bioelectrical coupling is important for these interactions. This mode of patterning by transmitting spatial information between adjacent tissues within three superimposed cell layers is unprecedented in other developmental systems. We propose that variations in the patterns among
Daniospecies are caused by allelic differences in the genes responsible for these interaction"


Given that your mathematical 'disproof' of evolution was a bust due at least three problems (primarily the fact that the paper you hung your hat on was itself refuted a couple years after its publication - you really should keep up), you might want to do a couple lit reviews for your other amazing disproofs that will also, doubtless, have major problems resulting in their demolition.

 

[John B. Andelin]

You are presuming a survival benefit to their coloration.

How do you KNOW that it is such an adaptation? Are there not ugly fish that do fine?

Interestingly, I just finished teaching about this sort of thing, and a core principle of NDT is to assume that any given trait is NOT an adaptation, and to only conclude it is if there is good reason for it.

That ugly fish do fine negates your premise.

And how is our interpretation of something as beautiful evidence of complexity?

You keep assuming things without a good reason.

The fact that ugly fish exist is irrelevant.
The belief that some elements of beauty are subjective ignores the bigger question... How and why did these patterns evolve?

 

[John B. Andelin]

What assumption is that?

Well, if I had done so, I would have spelled it correctly, for one thing.

Second, I wrote nothing about your perception of "order", I mentioned our perception of beauty. You know, the premise of this failed 'refutation' of evolution?


Your perception of koi coloration is that they are not ordered. Other than your perception of what 'ordered' means, what is your evidence that koi color splotches are not beautiful? What is your evidence that there is not some grand mathematical formula dictating their distribution?

And had you considered that the patterns that you think beautiful may have non-'ordered', non-planned causes?

Like maybe, cell-related stuff (not math)?


"However, the striped pattern (of zebrafish) itself is generated by self-
organizing mechanisms requiring interactions between all three pigment cell types. The involvement of integral membrane proteins, including connexins and potassium
channels, suggests that direct physical contacts between chromatophores are involved,
and that the directed transport of small molecules or bioelectrical coupling is important for these interactions. This mode of patterning by transmitting spatial information between adjacent tissues within three superimposed cell layers is unprecedented in other developmental systems. We propose that variations in the patterns among
Daniospecies are caused by allelic differences in the genes responsible for these interaction"


.

I don't doubt that there are genetic mechanisms in place to allow the creation of striped patterns. The notion of "self-organizing mechanisms" is extremely vague. "Direct physical contact between chromotaophores" doesn't explain how the cromatophores got there. The question I'm asking is how and why did the genetic code change to result in such patterns. It is obvious that any proposed evolutionary mechanism would have required many specific nucleotide substitutions. How could this occur by chance? You can't just tweak a few nucleotides and result in an artistically pleasing pattern.
"Daniospecies are caused by allelic differences in the genes responsible for these interaction"... this implies that you could take a koi fish and breed an offspring with an ordered pattern.

 

[tas8831]

The fact that ugly fish exist is irrelevant.

Even when your argument was premised on beautiful fish? Ok...

The belief that some elements of beauty are subjective ignores the bigger question... How and why did these patterns evolve?

And I guess if the answers are not "there is no way to know, and mathematically, it is impossible" then you are not interested.

Your mind is made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you.

 

[tas8831]

I don't doubt that there are genetic mechanisms in place to allow the creation of striped patterns.

And none of them rely on 'mathematical odds.'

The notion of "self-organizing mechanisms" is extremely vague.

Then perhaps you should read up on it.

"Direct physical contact between chromotaophores" doesn't explain how the cromatophores got there.

You folks always have an out, don't you?

You ALWAYS have a "whatabout". We call that moving the goalposts, and it is pretty disingenuous.

The question I'm asking is how and why did the genetic code change to result in such patterns.

How? Mutations. Why? No why. Mutations happen. You keep asking the wrong questions. A pertinent Why? question might be "Why did Yahweh make some reef fish beautiful with patterns, and other fish ugly with splotches that I cannot see a pattern in?"

Weird that you don't ask that.

It is obvious that any proposed evolutionary mechanism would have required many specific nucleotide substitutions.

And there you go again.

"Specific"? ANYTHING can be considered 'specific' after the fact.

I put on a blindfold and throw a ball - you would ask "How did the ball land in that specific place?"

How can you not see the folly of your line of "questioning"?"

Evolution does not posit that specific mutations are a goal - YOU do.
You'd think after you were refuted on your 'mathematical' echolocation thing that you might tone it down a little, but nope.

How could this occur by chance?

Golly, I don;t know and cannot produce a series of mathematical equations that you would accept even if I did, so I guess it is all God magic? That is obviously what you are yearning to see.

You can't just tweak a few nucleotides and result in an artistically pleasing pattern.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???

What is your knowledge of the relationship between genotype and phenotype? It seems pretty unimpressive thus far, but maybe you are being coy.

Do you have evidence that your claim has merit, or is it your mere 'disbelief'? Your mere 'personal incredulity'?

"Daniospecies are caused by allelic differences in the genes responsible for these interaction"... this implies that you could take a koi fish and breed an offspring with an ordered pattern.

Maybe so. Looks like you should spend a bit more time learning genetics and a bit less concocting inapplicable mathematical tricks.

 

[tas8831]

The coloration of a koi is not ordered. It is random.

Prove it.

By "order", I'm referring to, for example, the three vertical stripes on the reticulate butterflyfish,

Looks like pretty good camo to me. Breaks up their silhouette.

or the four delicate colored outlines of the fins of the lipstick tang.

Don't see 4 lines, but it looks like a concentration gradient thing to me.

In most of the articles I've read, the idea of "camouflage" is dismissed, because these are the opposite of camouflage.

Creationist articles seeking to dismiss evolution? no doubt.

Look at the many species of surgeon fish...how their tails are outlined in color.
I think "sexual selection" is a big stretch.

A creationist pathologist with no knowledge of genetics thinks "sexual selection" is a big stretch. Color me unimpressed.

Third, the patterns are too precise... they would require ordered sequences of DNA to randomly appear.

Please quantify "too precise".

Also, please explain why you think 'ordered sequences of DNA' would be needed to make "too precise" stripes.

Please present an example of ordered sequences of DNA producing too precise stripes such that your supposition has merit.

And what about the colored composite stripes through the eyes? How can two sets of genetic instructions incorporate mutations such that they stripes through the eyes will perfectly match the skin stripes?

Must be a miracle. Perhaps you can present another failed mathematics extravaganza to prop up your evidence-free suppositions?

And why are the skin stripes so perfectly centered so as to transect the pupils of the eyes?

What happens when their eyes move - are they still perfectly centered?

If you honestly look at the intricate patterns of color, and how precise they are... how can you just say in one broad statement "camouflage"? ... or "mate attraction?"

Please explain how you measured their "precision" - but not until you have provided examples of ordered sequences of DNA producing too precise stripes.

The survival functions are mere speculations.

So, it seems, are speculations on their precision and 'required' sequences of DNA.

There is no evidence that the ordered patterns assist the creatures in evading predators, or that they facilitate in mate attraction.

Maybe they have nothing to do with evading predators or attracting mates.

These are just desperate attempts to justify evolution.

Your projection is noted, especially given that your premises have been refuted.

 

[tas8831]

The Turing-like pattern argument is interesting, but highly speculative as it would apply to reef fish. It doesn't explain the complexity of the patterns I've pointed out. It doesn't explain the outlining of the tail by tapered colored stripes. It doesn't explain how a composite colored stripe in the skin is repeated in the eye. How do you explain the problem of the midline stripe of the copper-banded butterflyfish?(maskofscience.com)
The "argument from incredulity" accusation means you've lost the debate.

So, your argument from incredulity is a debate winner, our pointing it out is a debate loser.

Got it. Creationist win-win logic is amazing.

 

[tas8831]

Show us your designer. Describe the mechanism. Show your work.

And he never did...

 

[tas8831]

You can always dodge a challenge by attempts to appeal to the overall validity of evolution.

It is funny to look back at these earlier posts - the hubris, the overconfidence, the "I am right and you are wrong" condescension - then to skim through both threads and see how handily his 'disproofs' were rebutted and refuted, only to watch him do the creationist shuffle (moving goal posts, 'whataboutisms', using his lack of understanding of basic genetics and his lack of a basic understanding of evolution as, in effect an argument (personal incredulity), etc. ).

It is sad at one level, but then I remember how I enjoy seeing the arrogance of ignorance shattered.

 

[tas8831]

In all of the articles I've read, my points are not addressed...

1. Do you think all evolutionary biology researchers are aware of your "points"?
2. If so, how do you justify that?

But I know enough about DNA and the probability of mutation

Hmmmm..... Not in evidence.

to know that is is extremely unlikely that any number of mutations could produce the order that exists in the color patterns of reef fish.

All your amazing mathematics, and you do not show this. Not that it would matter...

If you say that genes exist that code for these patterns in other species, then you haven't explained how mutations created these genes in the first place.

'Oh yeah" Well, what about THIS???'

If evolution can actually create patterns in reef fish, then why is it that no one can scientifically demonstrate this as even a possibility?

Another creationist fallacy -

Evolutionists MUST have already addressed my personal and specific questions!

Evolutionists MUST have ALL answers to ALL questions right now, lest ALL of evolution be false!

And I, the great creationist, do not even have to offer ANY explanations of ANY of my evidence-free contrarian beliefs, because MY beliefs are the default!

 

[tas8831]

Your cherry-picked list is not the only way to falsify evolution.

But yours is?

How about mathematical falsification? That is never considered as a means of falsifying evolution. Why? Because evolution, unlike all legitimate science, fails all mathematical tests.

Does creation science have to meet the same burden? If not, why not?

Charles Darwin listed a number of potential ways of falsifying evolution in "Origin of Species". One way was the existence of beauty for beauty's sake... a challenge that I have pointed out.

But then you punted and said it was all about "order" - so is it your position that "order" = Beauty, and that therefore beauty is NOT subjective?
Seems like you are just playing games.

Another is impossibility of functional intermediate forms.

LOL!

Another is biologic altruism.

LOL!

Why are these no longer considered plausible means of falsification? Because evolution fails all of these challenges.

Interesting - I just covered the chapter discussing Altruism in my evolution class. I guess the author of the text I am using (Futuyma) didn't get your memo.

Considering that your echolocation paper was out of date even as you made your website, I am not so confident in your mere assertions about these 'failures.' Seems like you rely way too much on outdated and mendacious creationist websites for your information.

 

[tas8831]

You can quibble over semantics...

LOL!

Typical..

Would you agree that flipping 100 heads in a row is an ordered sequence?

Would you agree that flipping 22 heads in a row, followed by 17 tails in a row, followed by 39 heads in a row is also an ordered sequence?
Why not? What if I took that sequence of 100 flips and just focused on the first 20? Would that fit your special parameters?

Let's suppose you had no pre-determined goal... it is essentially impossible to achieve 100 heads in a row. If someone did that, any mathematician would say that the coin was rigged, because 100 heads in a row is not random. By "order"... I'm saying the opposite of "random". Do you have another word for it?

Yes - ignorance of statistics.

 

[tas8831]

I guess we should have known:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Mask-Science-J-B-Andelin-ebook/dp/B00PL7WOQK

Pity that the glowing reviews are from people even less informed than our creationist pathologist pal...

 

[46AND2]

It is impossible for you to flip a coin 100 times and achieve 100 heads. This is because 100 heads is an ordered outcome.

Let us suppose that a lottery was designed such that every human on earth was assigned a number of sets of outcomes such that every possible combination was accounted for, and the winner would receive something, I dunno, unprecedented in desirability.

Would you be disappointed if all of your sets were things like all heads and all tails and alternating heads and tails, and 99 heads before 1 tail, etc.? Suppose all of your approximately 1.5*10^20 assigned combinations had this kind of familiar appearance in some way, would you feel like you got cheated?