Sunsets

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Animals know instinctively what to eat. Enjoyment isn't the reason they choose their food. Many creatures, as well as man, eat unpleasant things that are medicinal. If enjoyment was required then, medicine would be avoided and a result contrary to survival would result. The history of mankind provides numerous examples that enjoyment dulls the survival instinct, which is contrary to the theory of evolution.

Joman.

So you eat food that you dislike? strange.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I have heard a few arguements for evolution vs creationism.
something that evolutionists seem to say is when emotions are bought up, is that emotions are just natures way of ensuring certain things happen.
for example,

love is just a feeling designed to make sure we get a mate, raise our kids to maturity and ensure the suvival of our species.
basically all emotions revolve around this sort of thing.

if that's true,
then somebody please explain to me where sunsets fit in!

almost everybody enjoys sunsets, we think thier pretty and most people will stop to enjoy one at one time or another.

the thing is sunsets shouldn't be beutiful if evolutionsts are right,
they should be a thing of horror and fear!
they should sybolise, minumin safe time to reach safe dwelling before the preditors come out!

thoughts on this?

We have evolved, and are no longer scared of sunsets. Unless of course you mean the Sunset strip, in which case I always avoid at night.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I like sunsets cos their pretty

 

[Joman]

Animals dont plan ahead like that, an early primate wouldn't have the abstract thought to think of the future as potentialy having a famine.

Exactly. They are instinctive. And they reveal no "enjoyment of food" as the driving force that prepares them for a possible famine. And, I have already shown that man requires no "enjoyment of food" for survival.

The only thing that would matter is the present. Thats why the enjoyment of food evolved it maximises the energy input when food is available.

Animals do not exhibit "enjoyment of food" as a motivating factor since if they did they would always be obese which they aren't. Animals forage for great distances when the lack of food becomes apparent to them and the recognition of the scarcity of food would be a sufficient mechanism to trigger the animal to instinctively begin overeating.

Our enjoyment of fatty & sweet foods are also a consequence of this.

If the enjoyment of food was a consequence then there was a time when we didn't enjoy food. And, we must be considered to have survived a long time without it, which reveals that we had no evolutionary need for it.

I'm unaware of any evidence that fat people, nor fat animals, are more fit for survival. If that were true we and all other creatures would be fat which we and they aren't. And, furthermore, the need for a mechanism such as the "enjoyment of food" isn't important enough to rise to the level of a "natural selection" factor.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

The enjoyment of food is an instinct in many ways as it compels us and other animals to eat more allowing greater fat reserves.

If the enjoyment of food was instinctive all mankind would like the same foods instinctively and we'd only enjoy the foods that best fit us for survival. This is not so therefore, joy of eating isn't an instinct.

Instinct is contrary to evolution. Evolution cannot show how a creature ever learned how to do a complex task without possession of a mind able to think. And, we know that acquired traits cannot be passed on genetically. The planning of a complex task involves objective analysis which evolution doesn't allow for.

Joman.

 

[Caphi]

Exactly. They are instinctive. And they reveal no "enjoyment of food" as the driving force that prepares them for a possible famine. And, I have already shown that man requires no "enjoyment of food" for survival.

The only thing that would matter is the present. Thats why the enjoyment of food evolved it maximises the energy input when food is available.

Animals do not exhibit "enjoyment of food" as a motivating factor since if they did they would always be obese which they aren't. Animals forage for great distances when the lack of food becomes apparent to them and the recognition of the scarcity of food would be a sufficient mechanism to trigger the animal to instinctively begin overeating.



If the enjoyment of food was a consequence then there was a time when we didn't enjoy food. And, we must be considered to have survived a long time without it, which reveals that we had no evolutionary need for it.

I'm unaware of any evidence that fat people, nor fat animals, are more fit for survival. If that were true we and all other creatures would be fat which we and they aren't. And, furthermore, the need for a mechanism such as the "enjoyment of food" isn't important enough to rise to the level of a "natural selection" factor.

Joman.

Fat is the most compact way in which an animal can store energy. When burned, a gram of fat releases much more energy than a gram of, say, protein or carbohydrates. (Get some oil, some milk, and some bread. See which burns best.) Naturally fat was the most favored way of storing away energy, and it is the one still in use today.

Your fallacy, Joman, is attempting to apply ancient evolutionary developments to extremely recent selective pressures. Were it raised in the wild, as it were, a human or animal who is obese as we see it would actually be the fittest of its clan or herd, simply because a wild animal must be able to a) expend energy to obtain food, and b) be prepared for a lack of food. Both pressures would favor an increased propensity to save excess energy rather than wasting it.

A study has shown that chimpanzees are attracted to slightly overripe fruits. This is because these fruits contain more sugars and alcohols, which in turn are wonderful sources of energy. This is why humans and animals like sweet things and alcohols, by the way, and it's why we allow fruit to ripen.

To summarize - yes, increased fat production was an evolutionary drive.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Exactly. They are instinctive. And they reveal no "enjoyment of food" as the driving force that prepares them for a possible famine. And, I have already shown that man requires no "enjoyment of food" for survival.

Where? I know you've proposed this but I dont remember you showing us why your proposal is correct.

Animals do not exhibit "enjoyment of food" as a motivating factor since if they did they would always be obese which they aren't.

The reason you dont see any obese animals is because to be obese you need to be sedate most of the time- animals aren't the same with hunter-gatherer humans, many eat as many calories as people in the west but do not become obese because of their active lifestyles.

If the enjoyment of food was a consequence then there was a time when we didn't enjoy food. And, we must be considered to have survived a long time without it, which reveals that we had no evolutionary need for it.

When you say we Im assuming your talking about humans, this instinct predates humans and probably primates but became much more important to our ape ancestors when forced from the abundant and predictable food sources of the forests onto the savannas.

I'm unaware of any evidence that fat people, nor fat animals, are more fit for survival. If that were true we and all other creatures would be fat which we and they aren't. And, furthermore, the need for a mechanism such as the "enjoyment of food" isn't important enough to rise to the level of a "natural selection" factor.

Joman.

A pound of fat has 3000 Calories of energy and a sedate human can survive on 1500 calories per day. So for every pound of fat a human has they can last an extra couple days at the minimum. Therefore the better you are at storing fat the fitter you are in an environment where the availability of food is unpradictable like lets say the african savannas where our ancestors spent the last few million years.

 

[Dal M.]

The Christian walks in the light of truth and doesn't sleep as the heathen do. Therefore, I conclude that it is the evolutionist who is fearful of the impending death that comes upon all the children of Adam.

And what does the Christian evolutionist do?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

well shouldn't we ALL be subject to this fear?

No.

There is no advantagwe to be had from it, there has not been for many generations. Why should a fear of sunset increase some ones cahnce of pre-creation?

Ghost

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution does not allow for the evolution of freakish behavior that countermands the survival of the fittest.

Joman.

Sure it does, it just happens to be less likely than behavior that increases fitness. Evolution doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't enjoy. Evolution only describes what has happened in the past, just as a history book tells us what has happened in human culture in the past. Are we supposed to start World Wars because the History books tell us we have to?

Secondly, no one, including Ray, has shown that enjoyment of sunrises/sunsets is even genetically based. If it is not genetically based then evolution can not affect it. If anything, enjoyment of sunsets is like religion, a common bond between people in communities that fosters cooperation.

 

[Dannager]

As most fears are not genetically inherited, the majority of people acquire their fears early in life. Unless you were given some reason to fear sunsets at some point in your life, you will not fear them. Most people were never given any reason to fear sunsets, so they do not fear them and instead are able to find them appealing, aesthetically.

 

[Martinez]

Christians are unafraid of darkness. My view of a sunset is that it is simply beautiful. However, the scripture provides a deeper view for the faithful to appreciate.

The sun is representative of the Lord Jesus Christ as he is descriptively named the 'Daystar' in scripture. As a type of Jesus... the sun sinking down in the western sky typifies the death of Christ as well as the death of all who are in him. For we who are in Christ Jesus, the night holds no torment of fearfulness. The death of Jesus of Nazareth upon the tree was the most glorious moment of his life on earth in that it showed forth, most evidentially, the love of God for sinners. Jesus was unafraid of death, as was proven by his laying down his life freely on our behalf.

Furthermore, the sunset should not be considered, without also considering, the promised sunrise also. For three days the disciples of Jesus sat in the darkness of grief over the death of Jesus. But, at sunrise on the first day of the week Jesus arose, as does the sun, and the disciples ever since have faced the night with the hope, that faith in the promised return of Jesus and the ressurection of the dead in Christ provides.
These considerations are why the day is capitalized as Day in Genesis chapter one. God wants all men to walk eternally in the light of Jesus Christ without any encroachment of darkness intruding in. But temporarily, the day is also defined as consisting of a, "morning and an evening". So we walk in darkness and in light for our sojourn upon this present earth. The people in darkness (such as evolutionist) stumble at they know not what, having darkened minds that are completely decieved by Satan. The Christian walks in the light of truth and doesn't sleep as the heathen do. Therefore, I conclude that it is the evolutionist who is fearful of the impending death that comes upon all the children of Adam. [staff edit]

Joman.

Joman.

Hey, good post man!

 

[Martinez]

Nonsense. The evolutionist claim that evolution is driven by natural selection forces. Hunger pangs are all that is required to fulfill that evolutionary requirement. Therefore, 'joy of eating" has no evolutionary pupose. Joy of eating leads to obesity and early death which is contrary to raising children and the survival of ones own person as well as the population at large.

Joman.

Did I mention that I like your style Joman!

 

[Martinez]

Sure it does, it just happens to be less likely than behavior that increases fitness. Evolution doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't enjoy. Evolution only describes what has happened in the past, just as a history book tells us what has happened in human culture in the past. Are we supposed to start World Wars because the History books tell us we have to?

Secondly, no one, including Ray, has shown that enjoyment of sunrises/sunsets is even genetically based. If it is not genetically based then evolution can not affect it. If anything, enjoyment of sunsets is like religion, a common bond between people in communities that fosters cooperation.

so far that's the most intelligent answer I heard to my original question!

 

[Lilandra]

and no one has pointed out the flawed assumptions in this argument?

I have heard a few arguements for evolution vs creationism.
something that evolutionists seem to say is when emotions are bought up, is that emotions are just natures way of ensuring certain things happen.
for example

This is HUGE.

Evolution is about population genetics. Emotions in some cases are not necessary for an organism to evolve. An obvious example is single celled organisms.

Evolution doesn't explain all of nature, including the aesthetic value of sunsets. Try psychology. You may make a marginal case for cultural or social evolution which falls under psychology. Still iffy.

Just who are these "evolutionists" anyways?

 

[Dal M.]

the thing is sunsets shouldn't be beutiful if evolutionsts are right,
they should be a thing of horror and fear!
they should sybolise, minumin safe time to reach safe dwelling before the preditors come out!
thoughts on this?

I think you don't respect the complexity of the human mind.

We have enormous brains. These brains make us the best communicators, organizers, and problem solvers in the animal kingdom. They also make us extraordinarily good at pattern recognition and connecting dissimilar ideas, and grant us a lot of excess intelligence that doesn't always need to be absorbed with thoughts of immediate survival.

You see, the human mind is complex enough that it doesn't have to relate everything in terms of big red equals signs. You're saying the human mind should be like this:

sunset = predators

When in fact, much more goes into it. Sunsets might call to mind any number of wonderful events in our past (dating, summers at a cabin, etc.), or they might remind us of how small we are in such a large world, or we might just think the colors are pretty. That's what happens when you have too much brain to be completely occupied with finding food and avoiding predators: you end up making strange connections, and developing wacky ideas like "art" and "philosophy."

Maybe you're saying that if the human brain had evolved perfectly, then we'd think like this:

sunset = predators

But, of course, the brain didn't evolve perfectly. Evolution isn't a perfect process. It only arises because of errors in the molecular copying process, and because the world is full of things that'll try to kill you (and often succeed). Given the fact that the evolutionary process is so haphazard, any argument that begins with "If evolution were true, then it would have..." is pretty much bound to be false. Evolution only works well enough. It gave us enough sense to get worried when a tiger is running in our direction. Apparently being terrified of the sunset wasn't an important enough trait to be selected for.

And I'm glad of that. Me, I think sunsets are beautiful.

 

[Dragar]

Arguably, a more adaptable brain that doesn't automatically associate one concept with another, from birth till death, has better chances at leading to reproduction in a world that is not a static environment.

 

[caravelair]

Animals know instinctively what to eat. Enjoyment isn't the reason they choose their food.

how do you know that? i think it's much more likely that animals eat what tastes or smells good to them. it's a much simpler way to regulate things like that.

Many creatures, as well as man, eat unpleasant things that are medicinal.

i'd love to see you provide evidence of animals eating things which taste unpleasant to them.

The history of mankind provides numerous examples that enjoyment dulls the survival instinct, which is contrary to the theory of evolution.

yet i'm willing to bet that these things only came into existence once an extensive human society existed. human traits would have evolved earlier during our hunter/gatherer period. i doubt you can find any of these traits that would have been negative for those people.

 

[Dragar]

Animals know instinctively what to eat. Enjoyment isn't the reason they choose their food.

You've never seen a cat spitting out food when it realises it tastes bad, or purring around your legs when you have some tasty treat ready to give them?

I'm absolutely certain cats enjoy (and sometimes dislike) eating, just as humans do.

 

[Dylock]

beauty is relative.
if you were a tribeman who knew that at sunset the beasts of the forest came and dragged your family to feast on, Im sure you would have a less pleasent view of beauty. The sunrise would bring relief
if you were a rich businessman that knew a sunset was a good conclusion to a nice business day and sitting down to enjoy a fatty meal.
Ill say it again, beauty is relative to the person.