Jump to content


Photo

Beauty In Nature... Evidence Of Id


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

#21 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2005 - 10:19 AM

how do you explain the fact that tropical reef fish also evolved and happened to fit that preconceived standard of beauty?

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?

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.

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.

The overall coloration of tropical reef fishes is not camouflage, so you’re argument that their color is to avoid predators doesn’t make sense.  Their design if anything would call attention to themselves, and they would be like a brightly painted lure.  Besides, I’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 cited…..

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.

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 you’re suggesting that the patterns are random and just happen to be beautiful.

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".

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?

Natural selection is not random. If there is an advantage to a non-random pattern then it may be selected.

You haven’t given any indication that a pattern, which is not random,  offers any survival advantage.

That the fish with the pattern survive is at least an indicator that such patterns are, at worst, neutral survival traits.

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.

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.

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.  There’s no reason to suppose that a creator would have elected to create other species with less beauty.

View Post

I think you need to look at that last statement again...[Inigo]I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo]

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.

#22 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2005 - 11:57 AM

quote=wepwawet,Dec 15 2005, 10:19 AM

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?

I'm referring the the standards and laws of aesthetics that everyone recognizes exist and that you think evolved as a result of man's interaction with nature. If you don't think any standards of asthetics exist, explain to me why 100% of the population thinks tropical reef fish are attractive. If you think that the coloration of reef fishes is random (which you already agreed is not), then try designing one
blindfolded, and see how attractive it is.


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.

There is no other purpose which is evident.

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?

It's ridiculous to suggest that the fish I'm referring to are so embellished for camoflage. They stand out. Stripes are not only vertical, but horizontal and tangential as well. What about the yellow tang and other species that are flourescent blue and orange? These obviously do not blend into their background.

Well the ToE would merely hold that such a pattern would not be selected if it had any overall adverse effect on survivability.

That would only make sense if the patterns were random.

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".

I appreciate your honesty. Now, to continue in that honesty... I think you should consider that if there is no other explanation, that beauty of design is evidence of intelligent design.

Natural selection is not random. If there is an advantage to a non-random pattern then it may be selected.

For evolution to be a tenable theory, a purpose should be evident for complex adapatations. Evolutionists require it in anti-Creationist arguments. They say that an appendix is evidence against a creator, because it has "no function" How hard are they looking for a reason for its existence? I'm saying that a bright yellow fish is inviting predators and therefore was not a result of natural selection, and you're rebuttal is "we just haven't figured out it's funciton yet". You've assumed that evolution is the explanation... so you've closed your mind to other possibilities.

That the fish with the pattern survive is at least an indicator that such patterns are, at worst, neutral survival traits.

That argument is a tautology.

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.

You would never appreciate beauty if everything was beautiful... think about it.

Since we cannot know the purpose of the creator,...

We don't have to know the purpose of the creator to see evidence of design in nature. Let the facts speak for themselves. If you saw a rock on Mars that was in the shape of a perfect pyramid, you would conclude that it had an intelligent creator. Regardless of your inability to see a purpose for it's existence, the rock speaks for itself. It could not have come into existence by random events.

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).


Everything does not have to be beautiful for an example of beauty to be evidence of intelligent design. Your assertion to the contrary is a theological opinion.


Otherwise we require the further assumption that the creator must have had reasons...that train of thought never ends.

Objective evaluation of the evidence does not require knowledge of the purpose of creation.

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.

Evolutionists, not creationists, are the ones who enjoy inserting philosophical arguments into the conversation. You suppose what a creator should or shouldn't do. I'm merely looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on whether or not these features could have been the result of chance copying errors and natural selection. Evolutionary reasoning fails to provide any answers.

#23 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 December 2005 - 02:37 PM

chance> Perhaps, perhaps not, preferential S@xual selection can drive evolution to extremes e.g. the peacock, no reason why fish wont do the same.

Springer> A large number of beautiful tropical reef fishes are not s*xually dimorphic. Therefore, there is no obvious reason for their bright coloration.


Many (most) fish do not have to sit on there eggs for incubation, there is no need for fish to follow the bird S@xual strategy of the male being brightly coloured while the hen remains camouflaged, for obvious reasons of remaining inconspicuous. I think you are attempting to draw to much out of the analogy between peacock and tropical fish.


chance>
I don’t see any obvious ‘design’, how do you determine how much design there is in it?

Springer>
I'm looking objectively at asthetics. There is no reason for a fish to evolve by chance mutations into something that visually conforms to laws of asthetics, because evolution is random. There is no natural selective process that can be invoked to direct such adornment.


I have given you various reasons fish (and many other species) can be coloured so I don’t see how you can then claim there is no reasons to evolve such.

I've pointed out that beauty is evidence of creative design.


What are the “laws of aesthetics”?

For humans and some animals that manipulate material in their environment this is true. But to label all beauty as a cause of design, is drawing too longer a bow.

Evolution is not totally random, there are selective pressures.


Randomly throwing paint on a canvas does not produce anything of artistic worth.

No argument there! Now if only we could convince Pollock(sp) :lol:


If reef fish were not designed and somehow needed bright colors, you would expect the colors to be a random conglomeration of unmatched colors.


I don’t see how you can make this conclusion.

I'm really thinking that you're inability to see this as evidence is only a reflection of your materialistic perspective.


Likely correct, I see colouration as having distinctively survival value only for all the reasons previous listed.



It is quite likely that female fish find colourful males desirable to breed with (and visa versa), it need have nothing to do with camouflage but what fish finds attractive. e.g. “darling I just love the way the sunlight glints off your blue scales……...”


In the first place, many male and female fish are equally embellished. Secondly, if you are suggesting that a fish has the intelligence to recognize beauty, then you are also contradicting what you said before, i.e., that man's appreciation of beauty evolved because of our interaction with nature... in other words, you're saying that beauty is an absolute... that both fish and man recognize and appreciate it. If you adhere to that idea, then the probabilty of "beauty" evolving by chance mutations becomes increasingly smaller.


I’m saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder and do not claim that beauty is an absolute. A red fish may find a blue fish repulsive, (but I doubt it). A fish is unlikely to have any appreciation of aesthetics, the colouration (when selected for as a S@xual strategy) is just identification, and blue means that ‘your one of me’ a slightly brighter blue might mean that I am healthy.



Coincidence, for every pretty thing in nature we could find an ugly thing, sort of balances it all out I would think.


Whatever you think can be sited as "ugly" does not cancel out the beautiful, because you still can't explain in terms of probability why random mutations can create something as ordered as the coloration of a reef fish.


Why does it not cancel out beauty?

Evolution is not random, coloration is a strong S@xual selective pressure. Remove or paint a peacock tail feathers see how many mates he can attract!

#24 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2005 - 04:39 PM

quote=chance,Dec 15 2005, 02:37 PM

I have given you various reasons fish (and many other species) can be coloured so I don’t see how you can then claim there is no reasons to evolve such.


Yes, but you haven't given me any reason why a fish should be endowed with an asthetically pleasing pattern, which is far more than mere coloration.

What are the “laws of aesthetics”?


The criteria that you and I use to determine whether or not something has beauty.
There are innumerable combinations of colors that would not be considered beautiful.

Evolution is not totally random, there are selective pressures.


You've offered possibilities of selective pressures for color, but not for asthetic patterns.

No argument there! Now if only we could convince Pollock(sp)  :lol:


If you showed 1,000 people photos of tropical reef fish, at least 999 would consider them beautiful. If you showed the same people a Jackson Pollack painting, about 5-10% would call it beautiful. Thus, random assemblages of color are somehow not following laws of asthetics.

Likely correct, I see colouration as having distinctively survival value only for all the reasons previous listed.

As I've stated, reef fishes are embellished with far more than mere color.

I’m saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder and do not claim that beauty is an absolute. A red fish may find a blue fish repulsive, (but I doubt it).  A fish is unlikely to have any appreciation of aesthetics, the colouration (when selected for as a S@xual strategy) is just identification, and blue means that ‘your one of me’ a slightly brighter blue might mean that I am healthy.


If beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, then why does everyone consider a tropical reef fish beautiful? Why do all female peacocks consider male peacocks attractive? We think the male peacock is attractive... do you suppose that a female peacock has the intelligence to appreciate asthetics as we do? If not, then why did the male peacock evolve with such an elaborate display? My point is.... there are certain things that have beauty and that is not subject to debate, unless you simply care to deny that beauty exists.
For your interest, here is the link to the study I was referring to awhile back, suggesting that beauty is "not in the eye of the beholder".
http://www.sci-con.o...p?articleId=122 The author tries to interpret the data in terms of evolutionary biology...


Why does it not cancel out beauty?


If everything were beautiful, you would not recognize anything as beautiful. You would not consider that as evidence of ID, because you would see it as everywhere and it would not be special.

Evolution is not random, coloration is a strong S@xual selective pressure.  Remove or paint a peacock tail feathers see how many mates he can attract!


In the case of male birds, I agree that color could be a selective pressure. In the proposed evolution of the male peacock, I don't believe for a minute that mutations further and further toward more and more elaborate embellishments would provide any increase in reproductive success, do you? Do you think a female peacock is sufficiently intelligent to discriminate between what is color coordinated and what is a hodge-podge of colors? Thus, the degree of elaborate color and design of a male peacock, despite the fact that it apparently attracts females, remains very difficult to explain in terms of natural selection when you consider it in small steps.
I was centering this discussion more around tropical reef fishes (and other reef life, such as shellfish and crustaceans), because it is, to me, more obvious that these animals are adorned solely for beauty's sake.

#25 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 December 2005 - 07:39 PM

chance> I have given you various reasons fish (and many other species) can be coloured so I don’t see how you can then claim there is no reasons to evolve such.


Springer> Yes, but you haven't given me any reason why a fish should be endowed with an asthetically pleasing pattern, which is far more than mere coloration.


Coincedence.


chance> What are the “laws of aesthetics”?


Springer> The criteria that you and I use to determine whether or not something has beauty.
There are innumerable combinations of colors that would not be considered beautiful.


That is hardly a law. How do you tie reef fish specifically being designed because of a human fancy (also presumably designed) for bright shiny objects? I think you have no argument better than an incredulity argument i.e. “it too beautiful to have evolved, it must be designed”.


chance> Evolution is not totally random, there are selective pressures.

Springer> You've offered possibilities of selective pressures for color, but not for asthetic patterns.


I make no distinction, same rules apply.


No argument there! Now if only we could convince Pollock(sp) 


If you showed 1,000 people photos of tropical reef fish, at least 999 would consider them beautiful. If you showed the same people a Jackson Pollack painting, about 5-10% would call it beautiful. Thus, random assemblages of color are somehow not following laws of asthetics.


Good, we can now conclude that fish are pretty and Jackson Pollack cant paint to save his life (something I’ve suspected for a long time).


chance>
Likely correct, I see colouration as having distinctively survival value only for all the reasons previous listed.

Springer>
As I've stated, reef fishes are embellished with far more than mere color.


Assume that whenever I talked of coloration, it includes the pattern as well, makes no difference to my argument.


chance>
I’m saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder and do not claim that beauty is an absolute. A red fish may find a blue fish repulsive, (but I doubt it).  A fish is unlikely to have any appreciation of aesthetics, the colouration (when selected for as a S@xual strategy) is just identification, and blue means that ‘your one of me’ a slightly brighter blue might mean that I am healthy.

Springer>
If beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, then why does everyone consider a tropical reef fish beautiful? Why do all female peacocks consider male peacocks attractive? We think the male peacock is attractive... do you suppose that a female peacock has the intelligence to appreciate asthetics as we do? If not, then why did the male peacock evolve with such an elaborate display? My point is.... there are certain things that have beauty and that is not subject to debate, unless you simply care to deny that beauty exists.
For your interest, here is the link to the study I was referring to awhile back, suggesting that beauty is "not in the eye of the beholder".
http://www.sci-con.o...p?articleId=122 The author tries to interpret the data in terms of evolutionary biology...


Humans evolved from a common ancestor thus we have similar tastes in art.

Peahens are attracted to a Peacocks tail because it a evolutionary selected trait for peacock health.

How much intelligence is used in art appreciation, I would think it a very base feeling with almost no reasoning. Hence the quote “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like”!

Re the link and claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Quote

“Given that we’ve found this in newborn infants who haven’t seen

that many faces it suggests that they come into the world with

an in-built representation of a face which happens to correspond

to an attractive face.”

thus what we call beautiful, is basically pattern matching, it fits our evolutionary template on what is good, we call that match beautiful.



chance>
Why does it not cancel out beauty?

Springer>
If everything were beautiful, you would not recognize anything as beautiful. You would not consider that as evidence of ID, because you would see it as everywhere and it would not be special.


Good point. I agree.


chance>
Evolution is not random, coloration is a strong S@xual selective pressure.  Remove or paint a peacock tail feathers see how many mates he can attract!

Springer>
In the case of male birds, I agree that color could be a selective pressure. In the proposed evolution of the male peacock, I don't believe for a minute that mutations further and further toward more and more elaborate embellishments would provide any increase in reproductive success, do you? Do you think a female peacock is sufficiently intelligent to discriminate between what is color coordinated and what is a hodge-podge of colors? Thus, the degree of elaborate color and design of a male peacock, despite the fact that it apparently attracts females, remains very difficult to explain in terms of natural selection when you consider it in small steps.
I was centering this discussion more around tropical reef fishes (and other reef life, such as shellfish and crustaceans), because it is, to me, more obvious that these animals are adorned solely for beauty's sake.


OK, sticking to fish. The pressures and reasons for coloration are the same as listed before:

Warnings (don’t eat me I am poisonous),
signalling of what species or s@x you are,
signalling what reproductive state you are in,
signals how healthy the individual is,
aids schooling behaviour, keep together don’t be distracted by all the colour.
Distraction to predators (e.g. eyespots or stripes)

Colour does all these things very well for little effort, i.e. it wont slow you down, nor make you hungry etc. It may make you more visible in some circumstances to predators but that is outweighed by being more visible to your own species.

#26 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 December 2005 - 07:11 AM

Well Springer, it looks like we're back to the same old differing opinion. It has to be ID because Darwinists cannot explain (insert random observation here) to your satisfaction.

Unless you can give some evidence for your position instead of assertions I'll just declare myself the winner here okay? Feel free to declare yourself the winner if it makes you feel better, but you have not even presented a convincing argument in this thread and you refuse to offer anything; instead you try to thrust the burden proof onto the other side and claim the default position. This is your argument...you come up with some proof that has some substance to it.

I've mentioned I do not have any detailed information on the development of tropical fish, seemingly though I have as much as you have. Yet you can come to the conclusion that fish are pretty...therefore God. I don't think you've presented anything to support that aside from your own twisted reasoning and persistant misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. So I'm going to sum up with a few questions...please answer the questions.

1. What standards and laws of aesthetics that everyone recognizes do tropical reef fish typically follow? (hint: I'm looking for actual links, quotes and evidence that a: name the laws, b: tell us that everyone recognizes them and c: tells us that tropical fish follow these standards and laws)

2: Where does the Theory of Evolution require that the purpose of selected traits be evident to casual observation?

3: If beauty is a marker for design then why does ugliness exist in a designed world?

4: Where does the ToE suggest that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of creating regular patterns?

5: Why are there no other possible uses for tropical reef fish markings and coloration than to be beautiful?

#27 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 16 December 2005 - 02:27 PM

quote=wepwawet,Dec 16 2005, 07:11 AM

Well Springer, it looks like we're back to the same old differing opinion. It has to be ID because Darwinists cannot explain (insert random observation here) to your satisfaction.


What do you mean by “random observation”? Are you faulting me for questioning Darwinism because nature does not fit with the theory? If Darwinism fails to explain the facts of nature, should I accept it on faith?

Unless you can give some evidence for your position instead of assertions I'll just declare myself the winner here okay? Feel free to declare yourself the winner if it makes you feel better, but you have not even presented a convincing argument in this thread and you refuse to offer anything; instead you try to thrust the burden proof onto the other side and claim the default position. This is your argument...you come up with some proof that has some substance to it.


I’m not “thrusting the burden of proof” to your side. I’m giving you positive evidence of ID What is there about Darwinism to suggest a need for aesthetics in nature? I’m stating that beauty is evidence of intelligent design because it requires compositional skill. Nature is random. If you look at a dalmation, you see random spots. If you look at a tropical reef fish, you do not see randomness. If you see a horizontal stripe on the skin that continues through the base of the pectoral fin, you must conclude that, unless both were derived by the same gene, there is a purpose to it being there. Why are you saying I haven’t given you any evidence? Everyone sees a tropical reef fish as beautiful. There is no debate. Perhaps you would benefit by the following link:

http://www.sci-con.o...p?articleId=122

Beauty is not totally in the eye of the beholder. It is not a figment of man’s imagination.
There are absolutes… three day old infants don’t lie.


I've mentioned I do not have any detailed information on the development of tropical fish, seemingly though I have as much as you have. Yet you can come to the conclusion that fish are pretty...therefore God. I don't think you've presented anything to support that aside from your own twisted reasoning and persistant misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. So I'm going to sum up with a few questions...please answer the questions.

1. What standards and laws of aesthetics that everyone recognizes do tropical reef fish typically follow? (hint: I'm looking for actual links, quotes and evidence that a: name the laws, b: tell us that everyone recognizes them and c: tells us that tropical fish follow these standards and laws)


Everyone recognizes the standards, but few can verbalize them. If there are no standards, then people would not recognize things as beautiful. The fact that tropical reef fish are universally appreciated proves that criteria for beauty exist. When you see the face of a beautiful woman, you evaluate her features based on criteria. Can you name those criteria? If you can’t, does that mean that criteria do not exist? If someone else saw the same woman, they would likely agree with you, because they are using the same criteria. If no criteria existed, there would be nothing by which to judge beauty, and there would certainly be no agreement as to what is or isn’t beautiful.

Whether or not you consider tropical reef fishes to be beautiful, it must be admitted that, at least, their patterns are not random. If they are not random, then there must be a survival purpose. Otherwise, natural selection could not have produced them. Take a look at this one:

http://www.melevsree...erblue_tang.jpg

First: do you think anyone would deny that there is striking beauty?
Second: do you think you could produce that kind of beauty by randomly applying colors to a porcelain blank?
Third: Notice how the dorsal fin, base of the tail, and pectoral fin all compliment each other. Are you suggesting that this is coincidence? If not, what is the purpose?
Notice how the coloration exhibits complimentary shades of blue. Notice the delicate highlighting of the top edge of the dorsal fin. Observe how the tail is tastefully framed in blue.
These are not random arrangements of color. I challenge you to offer any selective advantage to this decoration. Simply stating that a brightly colored fish has some sort of selective advantage begs the question, because this fish is far more than just “brightly colored”.

2: Where does the Theory of Evolution require that the purpose of selected traits be evident to casual observation?


If you’re arguing for evolution and you cannot come up with a purpose of selected traits, then your argument fails. This is especially true in the case at hand, since I’m stating that beauty is positive evidence of ID.

I invite you to make serious observation and exhaust your imagination. The elaborate coloration patterns of tropical reef fish as well as other reef creatures (nudibranchs, mulloscs, and crustaceans) do not serve any known function. If anything, many of the brightly colored fish would be like painted lures to predators. For natural selection to work, a mutation must produce something that leads to increased reproductive success. Simply stating that bright colors would help survival is dodging the question, because these animals are decorated with far more than bright colors. There is non random design.

Why is it that evolutionists think they don’t have to provide a plausible function when they require it in creationist arguments? They argue that an appendix is a useless organ and therefore was not designed. They cannot see a function, so they assume a function does not exist. I cannot see a survival function in artistic coloration, and criticize me for concluding that a function does not exist.

3: If beauty is a marker for design then why does ugliness exist in a designed world?


You cannot recognize beauty if you have nothing to compare it to. Although a philosophical statement, the thruthfulness of that principle is self-evident.

4: Where does the ToE suggest that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of creating regular patterns?

The patterns of coloration of tropical reef fish are not regular and repeating like a salt crystal. They are non-random. For a stripe on the skin to continue through the eye, a different gene would be required. If all colors in a fish are coordinated to please the human eye, then this is not random. If it were random, it would not possess the striking beauty that we all recognize.


5: Why are there no other possible uses for tropical reef fish markings and coloration than to be beautiful?


I have no reason to believe that there are any uses if I cannot imagine any. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the complexity of producing such elaborate embellishments would require very strong selective pressure under evolutionary theory.

I would remind you that no one has ever documented that natural selection is this all-powerful force in nature. Yes, black moths can survive over white moths, but that’s a far cry from the claims goo-to-you evolution makes.

#28 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:18 PM

quote=chance,Dec 15 2005, 07:39 PM

Springer: Yes, but you haven't given me any reason why a fish should be endowed with an asthetically pleasing pattern, which is far more than mere coloration.
Chance: Coincedence.


You can't ascribe this to chance, especially when you consider that numerous unrelated species of a tropical coral reef all show artistically decorative patterns.You're underestimating what would be required to produce an artiscially pleasing pattern.



That is hardly a law. How do you tie reef fish specifically being designed because of a human fancy (also presumably designed) for bright shiny objects? I think you have no argument better than an incredulity argument i.e. “it too beautiful to have evolved, it must be designed”.


That is an oversimiplification. Fish are not just “bright shiny objects”.


Assume that whenever I talked of coloration, it includes the pattern as well, makes no difference to my argument.


The coloration patterns of fish are not random and therefore not attributable to chance. If you are going to cite evolution as a cause, you need to provide a reason that natural selection should prefer an artistic pattern to a random pattern.


Humans evolved from a common ancestor thus we have similar tastes in art.

Are you suggesting that a hydra (or whatever was our common ancestor might have been) , which possessed perhaps only possessed a light sensitive spot, had some rudimentary form of asthetic appreciation, thus explaining our common taste in art?

Peahens are attracted to a Peacocks tail because it a evolutionary selected trait for peacock health.


You're assuming that a peahen is sufficiently discriminating in her taste that natural selection would produce such an elaborate display, because anything less than a male peacock would result in less reproductive success. Birds are not that intelligent.

How much intelligence is used in art appreciation, I would think it a very base feeling with almost no reasoning. Hence the quote “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like”!


To produce art that is appreciated definitely requires intelligence, and there's no question that reef fishes are artistically adorned.

Re the link and claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder…

… is basically pattern matching, it fits our evolutionary template on what is good, we call that match beautiful.


Why did the newborns stare at the beautiful women? They were reacting positively to an image. Ugly women also have a pattern... the infants did not respond positively to those pictures. Reef fishes have more than a "pattern"... they have a pattern of beauty, and that is not subject to debate. Besides, even if you call it a "pattern", you still need to justify it's existence by natural selection.

OK, sticking to fish. The pressures and reasons for coloration are the same as listed before:

Warnings (don’t eat me I am poisonous),
signalling of what species or s@x you are,
signalling what reproductive state you are in,
signals how healthy the individual is,
aids schooling behaviour, keep together don’t be distracted by all the colour.
Distraction to predators (e.g. eyespots or stripes)

Colour does all these things very well for little effort, i.e. it wont slow you down, nor make you hungry etc. It may make you more visible in some circumstances to predators but that is outweighed by being more visible to your own species.


Whether or not you believe that beauty is an absolute, none of your reasons account for the non random patterns of fish markings. You seem to be minimizing their significance. Imagine the number of random possibilities for coloration of a reef fish. How many of them would be as visually pleasing as the species that exist? Given the number of base pairs in DNA, consider the probability that a line on the skin will continue through the eye. If you cannot imagine a function for such, evolution cannot claim to have produced it. Why, because probability prohibits it from happening. Now, another question arises: Why do so many divergent species of coral reefs, such as cowries, nudibranchs, and shrimp as well as fishes all show vivid artistic coloration patterns? Try factoring that into probability calculations.

#29 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 18 December 2005 - 04:56 PM

Warnings (don’t eat me I am poisonous),
signalling of what species or s@x you are,
signalling what reproductive state you are in,
signals how healthy the individual is,
aids schooling behaviour, keep together don’t be distracted by all the colour.
Distraction to predators (e.g. eyespots or stripes)



Colour does all these things very well for little effort, i.e. it wont slow you down, nor make you hungry etc.  It may make you more visible in some circumstances to predators but that is outweighed by being more visible to your own species.

View Post


Eyespots in particular but much of the color in general is camoflauge. Gives an advantage through deception. This cannot occur through random accident or mutation. Conceiving of camoflauge or deception or"Warnings, signalling, schooling behavi(u)or, distraction" requires intelligence.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2005 - 07:50 PM

Springer>  Yes, but you haven't given me any reason why a fish should be endowed with an asthetically pleasing pattern, which is far more than mere coloration.

Chance> Coincedence.

Springer>
You can't ascribe this to chance, especially when you consider that numerous unrelated species of a tropical coral reef all show artistically decorative patterns. You're underestimating what would be required to produce an artiscially pleasing pattern.


I don’t ascribe the colouration or patterning to chance, I ascribe it to an evolutionary successful strategy, the coincidence is in those colorations and patterns being aesthetically pleasing to humans.



chance>
That is hardly a law. How do you tie reef fish specifically being designed because of a human fancy (also presumably designed) for bright shiny objects? I think you have no argument better than an incredulity argument i.e. “it too beautiful to have evolved, it must be designed”.

Springer>
That is an oversimiplification. Fish are not just “bright shiny objects”.


The over simplification is yours, i.e. it to pretty to have evolved.


chance>
Assume that whenever I talked of coloration, it includes the pattern as well, makes no difference to my argument.

Springer>
The coloration patterns of fish are not random and therefore not attributable to chance. If you are going to cite evolution as a cause, you need to provide a reason that natural selection should prefer an artistic pattern to a random pattern.


Artistic is mainly a human quality, the fish are just surviving, colour and patterns work for them.



chance> Humans evolved from a common ancestor thus we have similar tastes in art.


Springer> Are you suggesting that a hydra (or whatever was our common ancestor might have been) , which possessed perhaps only possessed a light sensitive spot, had some rudimentary form of asthetic appreciation, thus explaining our common taste in art?


Of course not, you need a brain that is functioning with some cognitive ability, approximately at dog or a chimps level would be my guess.


chance> Peahens are attracted to a Peacocks tail because it a evolutionary selected trait for peacock health.

Springer>
You're assuming that a peahen is sufficiently discriminating in her taste that natural selection would produce such an elaborate display, because anything less than a male peacock would result in less reproductive success. Birds are not that intelligent.


Yes, and intelligences has nothing to do with it.


chance> How much intelligence is used in art appreciation, I would think it a very base feeling with almost no reasoning. Hence the quote “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like”!

Springer> 
To produce art that is appreciated definitely requires intelligence, and there's no question that reef fishes are artistically adorned.


There is your difference then, art does require intelligence to produce, whereas animal colouration, decoration, song etc, is not art.


chance>
Re the link and claim that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder…

… is basically pattern matching, it fits our evolutionary template on what is good, we call that match beautiful.

Springer>
Why did the newborns stare at the beautiful women? They were reacting positively to an image. Ugly women also have a pattern... the infants did not respond positively to those pictures. Reef fishes have more than a "pattern"... they have a pattern of beauty, and that is not subject to debate. Besides, even if you call it a "pattern", you still need to justify it's existence by natural selection.


The baby can discriminate the beauty and the ugly pattern, the match to beauty is just that, a pattern match (evolutionary source). Same for our taste in reef fish, it matches some artistic pattern in our brain (coincidence to a pre-existing evolutionary source).


chance>
OK, sticking to fish. The pressures and reasons for coloration are the same as listed before:

Warnings (don’t eat me I am poisonous),
signalling of what species or s@x you are,
signalling what reproductive state you are in,
signals how healthy the individual is,
aids schooling behaviour, keep together don’t be distracted by all the colour.
Distraction to predators (e.g. eyespots or stripes)

Colour does all these things very well for little effort, i.e. it wont slow you down, nor make you hungry etc. It may make you more visible in some circumstances to predators but that is outweighed by being more visible to your own species.

Springer> 
Whether or not you believe that beauty is an absolute, none of your reasons account for the non random patterns of fish markings. You seem to be minimizing their significance. Imagine the number of random possibilities for coloration of a reef fish. How many of them would be as visually pleasing as the species that exist? Given the number of base pairs in DNA, consider the probability that a line on the skin will continue through the eye. If you cannot imagine a function for such, evolution cannot claim to have produced it. Why, because probability prohibits it from happening.


Of course they account for the non random markings, the selective pressure of ‘display’ practically ensures it moves away from random to striking. If the selective pressure was for camouflage it would have produced the almost universal coloration we see in open ocean fish, i.e. white belly, grey top.

Now, another question arises: Why do so many divergent species of coral reefs, such as cowries, nudibranchs, and shrimp as well as fishes all show vivid artistic coloration patterns? Try factoring that into probability calculations.


Same environment same response.

#31 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2005 - 08:04 PM

Warnings (don’t eat me I am poisonous),
signalling of what species or s@x you are,
signalling what reproductive state you are in,
signals how healthy the individual is,
aids schooling behaviour, keep together don’t be distracted by all the colour.
Distraction to predators (e.g. eyespots or stripes)



Colour does all these things very well for little effort, i.e. it wont slow you down, nor make you hungry etc.  It may make you more visible in some circumstances to predators but that is outweighed by being more visible to your own species.



Eyespots in particular but much of the color in general is camoflauge. Gives an advantage through deception. This cannot occur through random accident or mutation. Conceiving of camoflauge or deception or"Warnings, signalling, schooling behavi(u)or, distraction" requires intelligence.


No intelligence is required, out of a spawning of say a thousand fry, let say one has the beginnings of an eyespot on the tail, chances are this will be the fish that survives because the predator fish is distracted by the spot and lunges towards the wrong end, that fish will on average produce fish with eyespot coloration and so on. Same with all the other versions of coloration the stripes perhaps serve a camouflage in a colourful environment.

The fact that the colourful fish are the ones that live by hiding amongst the coral and the dull ones in the open ocean speaks volumes that it is the environment that shaped the fish not a designer.

#32 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:41 AM

What do you mean by “random observation”?  Are you faulting me for questioning Darwinism because nature does not fit with the theory?  If Darwinism fails to explain the facts of nature, should I accept it on faith?

I mean that you make an observation about something and demand that Darwinists explain it to your satisfaction while refusing to provide any evidence in support of your own theories or listen to the actual evidence which the evolution proponnents offer. It is a very obvious and dishonest debating technique. Can you give me a quote from the Bible or something that tells us where God or the designer decided to put regular patterns on tropical fish? Without it you have no proof and your argument fails. (Two can play that game you see).

I’m not “thrusting the burden of proof” to your side.  I’m giving you positive evidence of ID What is there about Darwinism to suggest a need for aesthetics in nature?  I’m stating that beauty is evidence of intelligent design because it requires compositional skill.

No. You have essentially been saying fish are pretty therefore God without giving any evidence short of vague references to universal standards of beauty. Sorry, it's not enough.

Nature is random.

No it is not. And the ToE does not teach that it is.

Everyone recognizes the standards, but few can verbalize them.  If there are no standards, then people would not recognize things as beautiful.  The fact that tropical reef fish are universally appreciated proves that criteria for beauty exist...

Okay...there are standards, but nobody knows what they are, but whatever they are tropical reef fish follow 'em. Sure thing. Your fuzzy logic is too fuzzy for me. A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed Springer.

(so as not to ignore your long journey into showing the beauty of a single fish I will agree that yes, tang are pretty fish...you could probably come up with a similar scheme applying colors to a porcelain figure if you had enough time and figures...but that's not how the ToE says it works.)

If you’re arguing for evolution and you cannot come up with a purpose of selected traits, then your argument fails.  This is especially true in the case at hand, since I’m stating that beauty is positive evidence of ID. 

Nope...sorry. The ToE explains how natural selection works. In many cases the purpose of a selected feature is evident but the fact that I cannot explain a particular feature you want explained doesn't invalidate diddly-squat. Marine biologists (these are the people who study things like tropical reef fish) may have an answer though. One answer may be that such coloration has a purpose in mate selection (Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish ).

I invite you to make serious observation and exhaust your imagination.

I have a better idea! I'll go out and see what the experts say on the subject...then I can have an informed opinion.

The elaborate coloration patterns of tropical reef fish as well as other reef creatures (nudibranchs, mulloscs, and crustaceans) do not serve any known function.

Any sources or references? Didn't think so...

If anything, many of the brightly colored fish would be like painted lures to predators.  For natural selection to work, a mutation must produce something that leads to increased reproductive success.  Simply stating that bright colors would help survival is dodging the question, because these animals are decorated with far more than bright colors.  There is non random design.

In short...you can't imagine it...so it didn't happen. Of course we won't bother pointing out that you didn't bother to study any actual scientific literature on the subject...you're just making the observation that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Why is it that evolutionists think they don’t have to provide a plausible function when they require it in creationist arguments?  They argue that an appendix is a useless organ and therefore was not designed.  They cannot see a function, so they assume a function does not exist.  I cannot see a survival function in artistic coloration, and criticize me for concluding that a function does not exist.

Considering that I can find multiple references to purposes of coloration in tropical reef fish with a simple google search such criticism is highly justified.

You cannot recognize beauty if you have nothing to compare it to.  Although a philosophical statement, the thruthfulness of that principle is self-evident.

Ooooh. Same reason evil exists I see. So the ugly things are designed to be ugly...should we expect to see a certain ratio of beauty to ugly or anything in order to validate this theory? I mean we only need establish a minimum percentage of ugliness necessary to achieve maximum appreciation of beauty right? Got any research like that? Can we test this idea?

Continued...

#33 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:51 AM

Continued...

The patterns of coloration of tropical reef fish are not regular and repeating like a salt crystal.  They are non-random.  For a stripe on the skin to continue through the eye, a different gene would be required.  If all colors in a fish are coordinated to please the human eye, then this is not random.  If it were random, it would not possess the striking beauty that we all recognize.

Which doesn't answer the question because the ToE does not posit only random mechanisms.

I have no reason to believe that there are any uses if I cannot imagine any.  This is particularly true in view of the fact that the complexity of producing such elaborate embellishments would require very strong selective pressure under evolutionary theory.

The answer "I don't know" works well for me when people ask me things that I don't understand.

I would remind you that no one has ever documented that natural selection is this all-powerful force in nature.  Yes, black moths can survive over white moths, but that’s a far cry from the claims goo-to-you evolution makes.

View Post


Well since you brought up the moths then you know that the process of natural selection has been documented quite thoroughly. Extending it beyond the moths is merely a matter of extrapolation and seeing if it fits our universe.

#34 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 19 December 2005 - 10:24 AM

quote=wepwawet,Dec 19 2005, 09:41 AM

I mean that you make an observation about something and demand that Darwinists explain it to your satisfaction while refusing to provide any evidence in support of your own theories or listen to the actual evidence which the evolution proponnents offer. It is a very obvious and dishonest debating technique. Can you give me a quote from the Bible or something that tells us where God or the designer decided to put regular patterns on tropical fish? Without it you have no proof and your argument fails. (Two can play that game you see).

If I provided a quote from the Bible you would discount it and would ridicule me for not being "scientific." The evidence I'm giving speaks for itself... tropical reef fish show evidence of design.

No. You have essentially been saying fish are pretty therefore God without giving any evidence short of vague references to universal standards of beauty. Sorry, it's not enough.

The fact that everyone recognizes beauty is proof.

No it is not. And the ToE does not teach that it is.


The only examples of non-randomness in nature, aside from perhaps the existance of snowflakes and crystals, depends on acceptance of ToE, which has never been validated. You believe nature is non-random because you believe ToE to be true. ToE is not obvservable. Everything you do observe in nature is random.


(so as not to ignore your long journey into showing the beauty of a single fish I will agree that yes, tang are pretty fish...you could probably come up with a similar scheme applying colors to a porcelain figure if you had enough time and figures...but that's not how the ToE says it works.)


I gave one example but you know perfectly well that numerous could be given. If you ascribe the beauty of the powder blue tang to coincidence, then all of the other species are also coincidentally beautiful.

Nope...sorry. The ToE explains how natural selection works.

Your "knowledge" of natural selection is based entirely on assumptions. The only thing that you "know" natural selection can do is favor survival of something with a single very obvious survival advantage , such as preferential survival of pre-existing black moths over white moths. The unidirecitonal accumulation of micromutational changes that is required for evolution to work has never been proven. This is the backbone of evolutionary theory, and no one can show it is operational... they can only suppose.

In many cases the purpose of a selected feature is evident but the fact that I cannot explain a particular feature you want explained doesn't invalidate diddly-squat.  Marine biologists (these are the people who study things like tropical reef fish) may have an answer though. One answer may be that such coloration has a purpose in mate selection

(Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish ).

The link only dealt with a single color, not with any elaborate docorative display as we're discussing.

In short...you can't imagine it...so it didn't happen.

Your conclusion: even though I can't imagine it, it happened anyway.



Ooooh. Same reason evil exists I see. So the ugly things are designed to be ugly...should we expect to see a certain ratio of beauty to ugly or anything in order to validate this theory? I mean we only need establish a minimum percentage of ugliness necessary to achieve maximum appreciation of beauty right? Got any research like that? Can we test this idea?

Have you ever been to an art museum? After two or three hours you become saturated and your level of appreciation subsides. This is a self evident fact.


Continued...

#35 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 19 December 2005 - 10:30 AM

quote=wepwawet,Dec 19 2005, 09:51 AM
Continued...

Which doesn't answer the question because the ToE does not posit only random mechanisms.

You presume that natural selection will preserve more favorable mutants, regardless of how slight the mutation, yet you cannot provide me in this discussion with any reason why natural selection created the elaborate embellishments of reef fishes. You only state that it was operational.

The answer "I don't know" works well for me when people ask me things that I don't understand.

Evolution is filled with innumerable "I don't know's". Why is it that you are unwillling to entertain other possibilities. Every "I don't know" is followed by "Someday, evolution will explain it."

Well since you brought up the moths then you know that the process of natural selection has been documented quite thoroughly. Extending it beyond the moths is merely a matter of extrapolation and seeing if it fits our universe.


The argument of peppered moths is one of the weakest arguments ever put forth to defend evolution. Do you think that demonstrating the survival advantage of black moths over white moths proves anything? If so, what does it actually prove?

#36 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2006 - 08:59 AM

quote=chance,Dec 12 2005, 07:22 PM
Now that you mention it... somone in a different thread said that if a species possessed something that was not beneficial to itself but useful to another organism (such as a horse with a saddle), then such would be evidence of ID.  What do you think of the fact that brightly colored ripe fruit helps survival of animals that feed on it, but does nothing to help survival of the tree?

View Post

What do you think fruit is for except being eaten? By allowing the fruit to be eaten and digested the seeds are spread over a larger area, in clumps of fertiliser


Yes, I agree that you can make such a case for bird plumage.  However, I don't see those factors in tropical reefs.

Many tropical fish have bright colorations only in the males, suggesting it is a S@xual factor

I think that the beauty of a tropical reef is evidence of a creator... that it was done for beauty's sake.  If there is no other obvious reason and ID is ruled out, then it must be ascribed to coincidence.

Or a reason that isn't obvious

In other words, it's beauty is a coincidence?  Remember, that I'm not referring to one or two isolated species, but hundreds... all of which display striking beauty.
However, such a point of view does imply that you believe that asthetics are completely in the mind of man and do not adhere to any absolute rules.  Obviously, just because something is natural, it is not necessary "beautiful".  Most would consider the wart hog to be a very ugly creature. 

The warthog is relatively ugly, but only when coated with mud, when clean I find warthogs to be perfectly ordinary animals

The enigma I see with the tropical reef is that, as you suggested, it "just happens to mirror what we desire/need."  I find it very difficult to ascribe such to chance, especially when you consider the great number of creatures with such adornments.  Evolution does not predict such, because natural selection is only concerned with reproductive success.

If, as it seems, most complex species share an attraction to complex aesthetics then all the examples of beauty can be explained by attempts to attract things. Flowers attracting insects, male tropical fish attracting females, females attracting males (in some cases) etc.

An experiment on how tropical fish react to others of their species with marred colourings (across the spectrum, not just visual) would probably be useful for this question

#37 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 29 January 2006 - 01:20 PM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 29 2006, 08:59 AM

If, as it seems, most complex species share an attraction to complex aesthetics then all the examples of beauty can be explained by attempts to attract things. Flowers attracting insects, male tropical fish attracting females, females attracting males (in some cases) etc.


Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that animals such as a tropical reef fish have sufficient intelligence to appreciate aesthetics? I can agree that they can appreciate bright colors, but the adornment of reef fishes and other creatures goes far beyond that.

#38 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2006 - 03:14 PM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 29 2006, 08:59 AM
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that animals such as a tropical reef fish have sufficient intelligence to appreciate aesthetics?  I can agree that they can appreciate bright colors, but the adornment of reef fishes and other creatures goes far beyond that.

View Post

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.

#39 Springer

Springer

    Member

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

Posted 29 January 2006 - 06:11 PM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 29 2006, 03:14 PM


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


Whether you choose to analyze it or not, virtually everyone views tropical fish as beautiful. If you contend that art is not evaluable on an intellectual level, I disagree. That is what art critics do.

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


It remains a fact that they are universally appreciated. Thus, it really isn't a matter of opinion.

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.


That is an assumption that I think is without basis.

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.


THese aren't just bright colors or random assemblages... there is color coordination and balance.

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.


You're oversimplifying the issue. Survival of the fittest would not demand such elaborately embellished creatures... simple random coloration would have been more than sufficient.

#40 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2006 - 01:32 AM

quote=kingreaper,Jan 29 2006, 03:14 PM
Whether you choose to analyze it or not, virtually everyone views tropical fish as beautiful. If you contend that art is not evaluable on an intellectual level, I disagree.  That is what art critics do.

View Post

Art critics analyse art on an intellectual level, sure, but most people don't analyse what I'll call "pretty art" (picture postacards etc.) on an intellectual level, only "smart art" (like a cow chopped in half, art which generally has a message)

It remains a fact that they are universally appreciated.  Thus, it really isn't a matter of opinion.

That they're universally appreciated suggests that they are appreciated below the intellectual level, most intellectual art is appreciated only by some.

That is an assumption that I think is without basis.

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?

Or, do you make the decision of whether they're physically attractive with no thought involved?

THese aren't just bright colors or random assemblages... there is color coordination and balance.
You're oversimplifying the issue.  Survival of the fittest would not demand such elaborately embellished creatures... simple random coloration would have been more than sufficient.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users