What preconceived standard? You keep referring to standards and laws and rules that frankly do not exist as anything other than a general consensus. Most people think colorful fish are pretty, do we all agree on why we think colorful fish are pretty? Any research supporting that?
how do you explain the fact that tropical reef fish also evolved and happened to fit that preconceived standard of beauty?
I can agree that the fish are beautiful without agreeing that the purpose of their markings is to be beautiful to us or to a creator.
Everyone is in agreement, including you. You agree that reef fish are beautiful and so does everyone else. If they did not adhere to rules that define beauty, then they would not be universally regarded as beautiful.
Stripes are effective camoflage in an environment containing linear background components. The stripes do not have to be the same color as the background, merely provide similar contrast (ever wonder why tigers get away with being bright orange?). This is an understood principle of camoflage. Also consider this...most reef fish are schooling fish...they congregate for protection...could the markings help them congregate and stay schooled closely? Do the markings help camoflage at the school level? I really don't know the answer to this question, but I cannot so boldly dismiss natural explanations for their markings.
The overall coloration of tropical reef fishes is not camouflage, so youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re argument that their color is to avoid predators doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make sense. Their design if anything would call attention to themselves, and they would be like a brightly painted lure. Besides, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not talking about how or why coloration evolved, but how asthetically pleasing patterns evolved. These are not random patterns. If they were, they would not be asthetically pleasing. If you would care to take a look at the example I citedÃ¢â‚¬Â¦..
Well the ToE would merely hold that such a pattern would not be selected if it had any overall adverse effect on survivability. But no I am not suggesting that the patterns are random, but are the effect of evolutionary pressures. Because of my poor general understanding of tropical fish evolution I have to admit that I cannot give an exact why answer...but I do not surrender and give the credit to the creator when the answer is "I don't know".
You need to show why the vertical stripe needs to go through the eye, because the likelihood of a chance mutation causing that is extremely remote. I think much of our disagreement is in the significance of the patterns. I think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re suggesting that the patterns are random and just happen to be beautiful.
Natural selection is not random. If there is an advantage to a non-random pattern then it may be selected.
Then we are in agreement that the patterns in reef fishes are not random. DNA copying errors are random. Why, then, is natural selection going to select out a non-random pattern that does not in and of itself have any bearing on reproductive success?
That the fish with the pattern survive is at least an indicator that such patterns are, at worst, neutral survival traits.
You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given any indication that a pattern, which is not random, offers any survival advantage.
If we are going to use beauty as a marker of design then yes, the creator must have made all things beautiful, or had a purpose in making some beautiful and some not. Since we cannot know the purpose of the creator, beauty is an unreliable marker because it is not consistant unless we can also conclude that ugly things were not created (face the facts...any designer responsible for Carrot Top can lay no claim to intelligence). Otherwise we require the further assumption that the creator must have had reasons...that train of thought never ends.
Beauty is very consistent, in that numerous species are endowed with it. You are willing to deny the evidence under the pretext that, in your opinion, if a creator endowed one creature with beauty he would have similarly endowed all creatures with beauty.
I think you need to look at that last statement again...[Inigo]I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo]
I think this is getting too much into religion and is beyond the scope of objective science. You need only to look at the evidence of the numerous species that do exhibit beauty, and ask yourself if this does show evidence of intelligent design. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no reason to suppose that a creator would have elected to create other species with less beauty.
Along with the beautiful plants and fishes I also see things like the hookworm, the fangtooth and frogfish. Do you think maybe God ran out of beauty on the third day or something? I think it's getting more into philosophy than religion because we have to discuss what is beauty and can it exist naturally. You are saying beauty must come from a creator and I say it doesn't have to. This certainly isn't a scientific conversation.