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

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Actually, the term you're looking for is "sexual selection," which is covered by evolutionary theory.

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.

Except that it's not "beauty" that attracts the females. It is the sign that this male is a strong, healthy specimen with good genes. After all, ugly critters need love too!

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.

So, ugly animals are unable to reproduce? This is God's reality?

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.

I can imagine a time without beauty... go back around 2-3 billion years, when a good chunk of this planet was still a spinning ball of molten slag.

See? Not too difficult.

If you want to appreciate beauty more, you must accept this.

False. We need not be shackled by other peoples' limited imagination.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So, Gott, how come ugly creatures can find mates?

I mean, have you ever looked closely at an armadillo? I mean really looked at one? It's a rat in a can!

 

[fossilman]

So, Gott, how come ugly creatures can find mates?

I mean, have you ever looked closely at an armadillo? I mean really looked at one? It's a rat in a can!

Beauty is in the eye or nose of the beholder.

Rat in a can. That's great. Sounds like a new product from Campbell's Soup. Next we'll have Cream of Armadillo soup!

Edited to add that I voted yes, meaning I'm ready to accept that what we, as humans, consider beauty is a result of natural selection.

 

[Gottservant]

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:

[...]

6. How did the first man find a mate?

Question 6 of your list about sums it up. If he'd just mutated an awareness of himself, how would he be able to distinguish what he wanted without waiting for another mutation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Question 6 of your list about sums it up. If he'd just mutated an awareness of himself, how would he be able to distinguish what he wanted without waiting for another mutation?

How do you distinguish what you want?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Question 6 of your list about sums it up. If he'd just mutated an awareness of himself, how would he be able to distinguish what he wanted without waiting for another mutation?

Take the analogy of linguistic evolution. Every english-speaking generation can communicate with each other and the previous living generations, but the farther you go back the more difficult it is for current generations to understand older language and at some point you get shakespeare which is very difficult for modern english speakers to understand.

In the same way every current generation can find the attractiveness of the current generation and those characteristics existed in many previous generations. It's just that if you go far back enough the current generation wouldn't recognize the attractive characteristics of that generation.

These changes aren't magical, they're gradual.

 

[Gottservant]

Changes being gradual doesn't explain mutations occuring simultaneously.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Let's say a female is born with a mutation that causes her to recognize a different characteristic in males, if that recognition happens to be for an external signal of an internal prowess such as immune health, then that recognition will be selected for. As generations continue more females will select for these characters and thus males that remain in the population will be the ones with these characteristics.

That's how it could happen. The change in one sex could directly cause change in the other sex through selection.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Changes being gradual doesn't explain mutations occuring simultaneously.

which mutations occured simultaneously? Not the ones you claim.

Hint: Mate selection isn't always a mutual choice.

 

[FishFace]

Quite obviously, Gottservant has never heard of the quotation, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beauty is defined as what people find beautiful, so beauty does not evolve until we find it attractive.

 

[Gottservant]

Semantics.

 

[Dannager]

Semantics.

No, logic.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Semantics.

You do understand enough of the Theory of evolution to understand that a selective pressure on one side will cause a response in the other side. Not that it will cause the other side to mutate, but that the range of variation of the other side will change. Simultaneous mutations are not necessary. If the most reproductive peahen mutates to suddenly prefer more blue in her mates, then the peacocks that get to mate are those with the most blue in their plumage. There is no requirement for simultaneous mutations.

What is to often forgotten is that no two individuals are identical, their is always variation. A single mutation does not require a corresponding mutation in the opposite sex, it only changes the selection of the the range in the opposite population.