Jump to content


Photo

Beauty In Nature... Evidence Of Id


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#41 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 30 January 2006 - 07:54 AM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 30 2006, 01:32 AM

That they're universally appreciated suggests that they are appreciated below the intellectual level, most intellectual art is appreciated only by some.
So when you see a beautiful painitng/person you go "Hmm, is that person good looking or ugly, well, let's see, that nose seems attractive, but maybe the skin tone is a shade too light to go witrh the shape of that ear" before deciding?


Even though you don't consciously know why something possesses beauty, that does not imply that intelligence is not required to process the information necessary to make a judgement. I think everyone agrees that reef fish are not highly intelligent. What about elaborately decorated mulloscs or nudibranchs? Are you suggesting that these organisms also have art appreciation? For beauty to evolve, they would need to have sufficient intelligence to make subtle distinctions between color and pattern.

If you suppose that lower forms of life are somehow programmed genetically to appreciate asthetics, where did that "program" come from? It's easy to say that a genetic "program" may exist, but how can you account for its evolution through natural selection?

#42 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 January 2006 - 12:38 PM

I know no-one who finds tropical fish beautiful on an intellectual level.

Some modern art is aimed at the intellect, cubism maybe, things like those fish, no.

We don't react to the aesthetics on an intellectual level, we can understand them on an intellectual level, but we find them beautiful on a level far below that.

The level on which we find those fish beautiful seems to me to be on the bottom of the emotional/top of the instinctual level. A level which I can see fish having.

Those fish couldn't design something like themselves. They couldn't explain why they find things like themselves attractive, but then they couldn't explain why they eat when they're hungry. They still do.

View Post


Your experience may be limited and sheltered though I doubt it. Do you really know nobody able to appreciate, "on an intellectual level", the asthetic design (regardless of origin) of organisms so attractive and yet so well camoflauged?

If the art(?) we see in designs on the animals (all inclusive) is the result of evolution, it seems to me there would have to be a similar to ancestor to the various versions of the "false eye" on various animals for camoflauge. Such a patterning should not occur so often in random mutation and specialization as is evident, without a similar ancestor originating. Can you explain this with evidence?

#43 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2006 - 05:59 PM

When everyone else is sufficient, and you're better, you breed more.


Better at what??? From what I can tell, alot of undesirable humans behavior leads to lots of breeding. Somehow that doesn't seem to fit this idea.

Hence if fish are able to appreciate the effects of these patterns, which I see no reason to assume they aren't (if all such patterns are for humans, why are some on flowers etc. in the UV range anyway?) then those fish with better patterns will get to pick better mates


Why is very simple, it pleases God, and is part of how he glorifies himself:

NUM 14:21 but indeed, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord.

HAB 2:14 "For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, As the waters cover the sea.

Terry

#44 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 February 2006 - 08:34 PM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 30 2006, 01:32 AM


When everyone else is sufficient, and you're better, you breed more. Hence if fish are able to appreciate the effects of these patterns, which I see no reason to assume they aren't (if all such patterns are for humans, why are some on flowers etc. in the UV range anyway?) then those fish with better patterns will get to pick better mates


Again, you're making the assumption that reef fish have sufficient intelligence to appreciate asthetics, which is a major stretch. (If fish are so discriminating, why do they bite readily on a brightly colored lure?) If all reef fish of a given species are similarly embellished, that will not increase reproductive success, so you're left with no explanation by evolutionary mechanisms as to why these patterns evolved.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users