How many are prepared to call beauty and its appreciation simultaneous mutations?

[Gottservant]

Its one thing to say that something mutates and is good. Its another thing to say that mutations that are good are passed on to offspring and that death helps that bad mutations be forgotten. It is still another thing to say that mutations somehow occur simultaneously across a given species. That is just what is being claimed by evolution.

A male bird develops beauty, the female appreciates that beauty and selects him as a mate, they multiply and the species continues - this is creation. Evolution would have you believe a lie that somehow beauty and the appreciation of it mutate simultaneously. With the two evolving at the same time, procreation is able to continue, all without a hitch in the mutated lineargy.

The reality is that God gave creatures the ability to become handsome and beautiful and knowing that He had designed them so, He gave them the ability to appreciate that beauty as well. The reason we can't imagine a time without beauty is that God has always imbued His creation with it - He is an excellent designer. If you want to appreciate beauty more, you must accept this.

 

[Chalnoth]

Mu.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Or you can realize that traits we are attracted are also external markings of health. A male attracted to females with hips too narrow to bear children won’t get to pass along that trait. I’ve seen studies that found beauty is linked strongly to symmetry which is a strong external indicator of good genes.

 

[Siderite]

Its one thing to say that something mutates and is good. Its another thing to say that mutations that are good are passed on to offspring and that death helps that bad mutations be forgotten. It is still another thing to say that mutations somehow occur simultaneously across a given species. That is just what is being claimed by evolution.

A male bird develops beauty, the female appreciates that beauty and selects him as a mate, they multiply and the species continues - this is creation. Evolution would have you believe a lie that somehow beauty and the appreciation of it mutate simultaneously. With the two evolving at the same time, procreation is able to continue, all without a hitch in the mutated lineargy.

The reality is that God gave creatures the ability to become handsome and beautiful and knowing that He had designed them so, He gave them the ability to appreciate that beauty as well. The reason we can't imagine a time without beauty is that God has always imbued His creation with it - He is an excellent designer. If you want to appreciate beauty more, you must accept this.

You REALLY REALLY need to read the following web page. It will help your understanding of evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Please read it........please

 

[lemmings]

You forgot about Natural Selection....



AGAIN!

 

[random_guy]

Keep making threads. I'm sure you're convincing a lot of lurkers out there.

 

[Ryal Kane]

EVOLUTION!

 

[Gottservant]

Or you can realize that traits we are attracted are also external markings of health. A male attracted to females with hips too narrow to bear children won’t get to pass along that trait. I’ve seen studies that found beauty is linked strongly to symmetry which is a strong external indicator of good genes.

Something you don't seem to acknowledge is that for you to assess value of beauty, you first have to be able to appreciate it. It is not possible to say "that looks good for survival reasons" without, according to evolution, first evolving the capacity to recognise beauty. Therein lies the problem.

To all the other rude, arrogant, more knowledgeable-than-thou people replying to this thread with the argument of natural selection once again, I must dutifully point out that without recognizing God, the natural selection process fails!

In order for the natural selection myth to work, you have to have simultaneous mutations, both of the object and the recognition of the object as this thread points out. Please read the thread again before unthinkingly replying from your throne of disdain for anything which challenges you to look at things from another point of view.

 

[[serious]]

EVOLUTION!

[thread winning pic]

and with that I declare this thread over. Nothing can trump Princess Bride referances.

 

[RedAndy]

Something you don't seem to acknowledge is that for you to assess value of beauty, you first have to be able to appreciate it. It is not possible to say "that looks good for survival reasons" without, according to evolution, first evolving the capacity to recognise beauty. Therein lies the problem.

The characteristics of beauty were selected for because they were considered attractive. It's nothing to do with an "appreciation for beauty" having independently arisen - the appreciation is what drives sexual selection.

To all the other rude, arrogant, more knowledgeable-than-thou people replying to this thread with the argument of natural selection once again, I must dutifully point out that without recognizing God, the natural selection process fails!

No. Your straw-man caricature version of natural selection fails. The version that evolutionists subscribe to is unaffected, whether it recognises your God, another God or no God at all.

Please read the thread again before unthinkingly replying from your throne of disdain for anything which challenges you to look at things from another point of view.

I'd be more than willing to look at things from another point of view - if a credible alternative viewpoint existed. Appealing to God is not credible, not scientific, and not honest. Simply put, it is a denial of all the evidence in favour of the unknown and unknowable.

 

[The Nihilist]

I voted no because the question is completely backwards, mostly because I really don't think it's appropriate to say that something like beauty evolves.

 

[FishFace]

Something you don't seem to acknowledge is that for you to assess value of beauty, you first have to be able to appreciate it. It is not possible to say "that looks good for survival reasons" without, according to evolution, first evolving the capacity to recognise beauty. Therein lies the problem.

Therein lies no problem.

Imagine there are two females, one with two-thin hips, the other with child-bearing hips. Now imagine two men, one of whom prefers women with wide hips, the other of whom prefers women with thin hips. The former will pass on his genes more, since he goes for the woman with healthier genes.
First, there is a variation in appearance that is a result of a variation that affects survival. Then, there is a variation that causes men to recognise that variation subconsciously.

No problem there.

 

[Chalnoth]

I voted no because the question is completely backwards, mostly because I really don't think it's appropriate to say that something like beauty evolves.

That's why the correct answer is mu

 

[Bombila]

Gottservant, I think people would respect you more if you made a little effort to understand the actual Theory of Evolution, and what it means. As it is, you make all these threads which say absurd things, and ask questions which are unanswerable because they are based on disinformation. Sometimes it seems as if you are exactly that, an absurdist, or a practitioner of Dada or Surrealism. Are you?

 

[FoeHammer]

Therein lies no problem.

Imagine there are two females, one with two-thin hips, the other with child-bearing hips. Now imagine two men, one of whom prefers women with wide hips, the other of whom prefers women with thin hips. The former will pass on his genes more, since he goes for the woman with healthier genes.
First, there is a variation in appearance that is a result of a variation that affects survival. Then, there is a variation that causes men to recognise that variation subconsciously.

No problem there.

What do you mean by ''thin hips''?

FoeHammer.

 

[Bombila]

I'm guessing he means 'narrow hips', and it is actually not a good example, as the width of the pelvic girdle isn't that good an indicator of fertility or childbearing ability. There are far too many other variables. The theory that symmetry, which we perceive as beauty, indicates genetic health and would be a subtle indicator of reproductive capability, is better on this topic.

 

[Dannager]

Mu.

This is, perhaps, the best answer.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

A male bird develops beauty, the female appreciates that beauty and selects him as a mate, they multiply and the species continues - this is creation. Evolution would have you believe a lie that somehow beauty and the appreciation of it mutate simultaneously. With the two evolving at the same time, procreation is able to continue, all without a hitch in the mutated lineargy.

I think you are referring to beauty in two different contexts, beauty in the sense of abstract aesthetics and beauty in the sense of sexual attraction. These are two totally different things.
The female has evolved selective tastes and the male develops coloration to match that taste based on those traits being selected for. The female is not recognising the beauty of the male in the abstract sense, only in the sexual sense.

BTW it is pointless to deny natural selection at this point. It has been observed in the lab and in nature. This would fall under the category of microevolution which is so demonsterable that even creationists can't dispute it. They somehow manage though to create a barrier between micro and macro.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Something you don't seem to acknowledge is that for you to assess value of beauty, you first have to be able to appreciate it. It is not possible to say "that looks good for survival reasons" without, according to evolution, first evolving the capacity to recognise beauty. Therein lies the problem.

For natural selection to work there does not have to be a conscious decision made. As long as one trait has greater reproductive success then anyone attracted to that trait will have greater reproductive success. Over time the traits with less reproductive success and those who find that beautiful will diminish in number as the population of organisms evolve.

As an extreme example, if you have 100 females with hips too narrow to birth children and 100 males attracted to narrow hips vs. 100 females with ample room for birthing and 100 males attracted to them who will be able to produce the most offspring? How will this affect the genetics in the subsequent generations?

 

[Split Rock]

Something you don't seem to acknowledge is that for you to assess value of beauty, you first have to be able to appreciate it. It is not possible to say "that looks good for survival reasons" without, according to evolution, first evolving the capacity to recognise beauty. Therein lies the problem.

To all the other rude, arrogant, more knowledgeable-than-thou people replying to this thread with the argument of natural selection once again, I must dutifully point out that without recognizing God, the natural selection process fails!

In order for the natural selection myth to work, you have to have simultaneous mutations, both of the object and the recognition of the object as this thread points out. Please read the thread again before unthinkingly replying from your throne of disdain for anything which challenges you to look at things from another point of view.

Great Stuff! Once again you have cut to the meat of the issue and shown these atheist God-hating evos the TRUTH!!!111

Some other questions you can ask them that they cannot answer:

1. Who came up with the number 10 ?

2. What came first... the ability to eat food, or the desire to eat food?

3. If we evolved from slime, why don't we remember doing so?

4. How can everything come from nothing?

5. If we come from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

6. How did the first man find a mate?

Keep up the Good Work!