Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Francis,

Quote:

It would be nice if you could stop patronizing about differentiation.

Im not trying to be patronizing. Im walking on eggs here so as not to piss you off. However Im firm with my sexual dimorphism concept . I live more in a practise world where evidence and data are tested . "beauty" unless it can be quantified, is merely another term of art appreciation , "Pre-Raphaelite" versus "Dada". Its a manifestation of symmetrical surface structure. Does it have any evoltuionary significance, yes, if you define beauty in its widest terms to include all the aspects of dimorphism and polymorphism (strength, nest building skills, symmetry of face, proportion of limb, etc etc). These may be of interest and a great diversion to you and spendi. However, on this thread that wandel started, weve been involved in debunking the Constitutional stand regarding what is science or what is merely religion posing as science. Again, Unless I am overruled by the author of this thread, I have historically stated little interest in pursuing the "role of beauty" or any other metaphysical direction that this thread could take, when it was clearly not the mission that the thread was intended to accomplish. Therefore I dont feel I have to justify my honesty in keeping my responses limited and thread on track against the fevered meanderings of someone who merely craves attention.

Quote:

In what way does beauty contribute to the amelioration of the species, other than metaphysically?

You seem to entertain a fixed concept that such is actually the case and all biological interactions are only to the "betterment" of a species.( You imply that flowers get prettier, so do male birds of paradise, and women). To me, species just adapt and the most adaptible adapt the best.
Perhaps if youd start a thread from ground zero, maybe youd get some lively debate about the ontological "purpose" of beauty. I can tell you that I probably wouldnt participate farther than my points that Ive already made and you dont seem to consider.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Beauty is just our species term to describe humankind's sexual dimorphism.

In sunsets? In music? In a frothing pint of John Smith's Extra Smooth after a hot day in the steel furnace casting department. In a tapestry? In a cathedral? In a page of writing?

AS far as I can tell , sunsets dont reproduce or are they called into question in a schools science curriculum(since refraction is well understood in elemenary physics, ditto the other lameos)

Quote:

Dimorphism is explained on the division of labour principle.

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DISCUSSION, sexual dimorphism was easily explained by Linneaus and develoiped by several zoologists and botanists (Lets do try to stay on point)

Quote:

I would think I am one of the few who does understand the biological imperative of dimorphism. (see above). And polymorphism is usually related to humans although some cows can be seen at it but it might be anthropomorphic to think it's a sexual act. No cow has ever been to confession

YOU WOULLD THINK, So far youve done little to display your vast wisdom and understanding. The concept is one I brought up in responding to Francis. If you wish to dance, then you should display some interest other than establishing your self expressed creds.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Like, what beauty, and specifically the beauty of a lady, inserts itself in the theory (the survival of the fittest).

Hi Francis, what do you mean by "inserts itself into the theory"?

Francis wrote:

What's the purpose of beauty in evolutionary terms and what's its influence on the cells?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking about "beauty" with regard to attractiveness between potential mates? Or are you asking about the sense of "beauty" that humans have for other things, like sunsets and stuff?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Hi Francis, what do you mean by "inserts itself into the theory"?

It's a version of the lingerie shop question ros. You cant explain lingerie shops which are here in the evolutionary chain of events and are directly and intimately related to sexual selection so we can't expect you to know the answer to the question. Or any about lingerie catalogues.

Can you attempt an explanation of open crotch panties ros? There are millions of pairs sold every year. Why they come in pairs is a philosophical linguistic problem so I don't expect you to be able to cope with that, or those.

That's an interesting idea.

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

You are probably well advised to remain in that state my dear. Francis has upped the ante.

And don't mention ******* sunsets for ****'s sake. effemm blew that idea away. Sunsets can't get a hard on and they don't figure in science classrooms.

The tourist industry might take issue with him but he can always put them on Ignore as well.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Don't hide away like a chaste, blushing virgin being respectful and delicately timid.

Your use of metaphors always seems to point to female issues Spendi. Between your post about attacks on Christianity because of support of feminism to this metaphor, I think you have fallen hard for the virgin/whore mythos and it colors much of your understanding of biology.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im not trying to be patronizing.

Well that's something new at least. It's a bit patronising though. It's assumption that we are all completely stupid is what I have come to expect.

There's no need to walk on eggs effemm. Francis has been pissed off before. It won't shock him I don't think. That's really patronising.

I have been firm myself on the "diamorphism" concept on many occasions. Perhaps too many. Hard and rigid in my younger days.

I too have lived in a world where evidence and data are tested. It is a question of which evidence and data. Babies test evidence and data.

Beauty is felt. Art appreciation can be a career.

wande had no clue when he started this thread what a can of worms he was opening. He thought ID was not science and shouldn't be taught in science classes. And he was looking for reassurance.

The Founders of the Constitution had no clue either of where Science was heading. We all know what the mission was. I do anyway.

Does Mr Obama crave attention?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I think you have fallen hard for the virgin/whore mythos and it colors much of your understanding of biology.

You might have a very valid point there parados. Did I make a mistake?

1 Reply

@spendius,

It does put rouge on your beauty.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Should I take your childish response to mean that you intended the second meaning? If so, you might want to tell farmerman.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's so apparent that you're barely even paying attention that I won't merit your ranting with much of a response. The bill was stupid, not the people (they're willfully ignorant). I didn't say I was surprised by the mere fact that people lie.

spendius wrote:

If you will take the time to study carefully your words there you will find that they mean sweet **** all. A bunch of trite mealy-mouthed froth.

Really? Because it sounds like you didn't take the time to carefully study my words, as you obviously missed my point entirely. Francis asked a vague question, I offered two plausible scenarios, one in which beauty was pleasing (and sexual) indicators and one in which it's the general sense of a pleasing aesthetic.

Is that difficult to understand, spendi? I guess you jump right to the spittle-laden ranting rather than asking me to clarify, eh?

spendius wrote:

And obviously there is no purpose in it from even an elementary atheism point of view. From the atheism pov there is no point in anything and that includes atheism itself.

Utter bullshit, you know jackall about any atheistic pov, as evidenced in that very stupid claim.

spendius wrote:

[altogether too long rambling. Something about Elton John]

Uh-huh. And you're the one claiming my words mean "sweet **** all", LOL. Go sober up, spendi.

0 Replies

@Shirakawasuna,

If this is the extent of your knowledge and understanding of my vague questions, you better restrain from uttering such gibberish..

1 Reply

Ok, I'm sorry that I could not make myself comprehensible (understandable), which is certainly due to my lack of English language skills.

I'll try again:

I do believe that beauty, in the evolution theory, is a completely different notion that dimorphism differentiation.

I reckon that, sometimes, it can be interpreted as such, as dimorphism meets the usual criteria of beauty.

However, these two notions are not the same, as dimorphism is patent between two women and a men.

These two women being different, one being beautiful and the other ugly, according to the mating criteria of man.

Why then man will choose the beautiful one, even though the ugly one can can be better for him in terms of genetic pool and so on?

This obviously is contrary to the tenants of the evolution theory on the topic of species amelioration.

2 Replies

@Francis,

I didnt abandon this thread, we just went out for the evening and returned rather late.
To continue our discussion, the elements that define "beauty" in human evolution have been summarized by Russle Guthrie in several works of developmental anthropology. (Im no expert so Im not able to quickly discern whether Guthrie IS one to be accountable to)
His works summarizes thos aspects of beuty that can be evidenced in records of archeological finds. He talks of the pathways of physical attraction from the paleolithic. One major "dawn" concept of the definition of beauty (according to him) was the fecundity of the female. Thus, he concludes from settlement artifacts and stuff like body adornment, the woman who was yound and mature was sought out for4 her nubility. Marriageable men were of all ages but the standard was set for marriageable women being young yet ovulating goes back to the PAleolithic when several sub species of Homo were dying out (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens idaltu). No evidence of body adornment or of the practises of marriage are avalilable from Heidebergensis and only scant evidence is available from Neanderthalensis.

I must be permitted to be consistent in my approaches for such speculation. Im not (professionaly) bent to engage in a lot of baseless speculation nor metaphysical discussion , and I try to avoid such patterns of discussion because, in classes, If I open my yap and pronounce something like spendii is fond of spouting, Id be taken seriously and would have several students wishing to concentrate on the geology of human development. (I admit that Im not close to being an expert, however, I can smell BS when it presents itself, so, , my patience with guys like gunga or spendi is not endless. ). I enjoy discussions of these topics but I can only follow them for as far as data permits me to go. When the dicussions go way beyond the boundaries of fact, I find myself asking the participants to come back to the points of common ground and extending our inquiries from there. When a discussion is waay out in a personal journey of fancy and verbal preening, I get bored easily. Our discussion here has remained on common ground, so far no one has made any propositions regarding "the monk who coined the term big bang" or the escapades of Don Juan.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I do appreciate your honesty and you willing to stay on topic.

You reminded the geological aspects of human evolution which are now well known and passed in common knowledge.

But, as you might think, my question is not as off topic as some would pretend.

Because it's only the emerged part of a more consistent topic.

Is the evolution theory, in its current dynamics, still compatible with modern societies?

As we advanced in our discussion, I'll raise some other delicate points as to validate or invalidate such positions..

3 Replies

Men may be fascinated by women's beauty, but if you look around enough, you will see many ugly wives out there. Beauty may play a big part for many men, but surely not all of them. I have not made a study of this, but many mates and mothers are less than plain.

2 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Is the evolution theory, in its current dynamics, still compatible with modern societies?

In a recent note in SCience, I saw how it had been proposed to modify our subspecies name based upon a temporal boundary. The note proposed that we be called H sapiens evolutus,, as we are on the cusp of being able to actually "artificially select" for traits and positive aspects of our genotype. (This kind a scares the **** out of me, but fortunately Ill be dead in those days of Brave new world).
I look forward to more discussion on this, Ill get my cc of Guthrie and see if I cant pull out some nuggest from his thoughts.
Remember also that Guthrie limits his discussions to aspects of societal evolution where actual hard evidence exists. His discussions and thoughts about societal evolution are wholly from research done by others on which he relied.(I find that the stretches of truth often get wider when people "borrow or adopt" findings by others)

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Why then man will choose the beautiful one, even though the ugly one can can be better for him in terms of genetic pool and so on?

This obviously is contrary to the tenants of the evolution theory on the topic of species amelioration.

Ah, I think I get it now. You're asking why evolution would tend to favor a superficial attraction (subjective "beauty") between mates over a substantive attraction based on genetic "quality".

There are several reasons:
1. In evolution, genetic "quality" is measured by reproductive success. This can be a result of health, but it can also be a result of pure fecundity, especially under conditions where health is not a primary selective factor (such as modern human society, as opposed to post-Toba environments where only the strongest made it to puberty).
2. Several lines of research have also shown that physical health is often a large factor in what is considered beautiful. Obviously there's a lot of variation in what people consider beautiful, but one of the underlying consistencies across cultures, is physical health.
3. And lastly, we have evolved under conditions in which only secondary information can be used to evaluate the genetic viability of a mate. We have no genetic probe to test our potential mates, so the only other method is to emotionally associate genetic "quality" to various aspects of physical appearance and behavior, and we call this beauty.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Is the evolution theory, in its current dynamics, still compatible with modern societies?

We might ask if modern society can make itself compatible with the fact of evolution.

Much like the knowledge of "how to build an atomic weapon" isn't going away, likewise our knowledge of evolutionary forces in the natural world isn't going away. And the natural world certainly isn't going to change in order to appease the desires of any society.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Men may be fascinated by women's beauty, but if you look around enough, you will see many ugly wives out there. Beauty may play a big part for many men, but surely not all of them. I have not made a study of this, but many mates and mothers are less than plain.

Some might say that a person isn't beautiful just because they are "pretty", but also because of their temperament and behavior. Even though a good portion of "beauty" is physical, I think real beauty is probably measured in a broader way.

0 Replies

References to "beauty" and evolutionary forces ignore a basic fact which has nothing to do with physical appearance, and that is breeding opportunity and breeding success. Someone who is considered "beautiful" in their culture (and definitions of beauty will always be culturally conditioned) is not going to pass on his or her genetic code if they do not have what it takes to get a breeding opportunity and what it takes to successfully reproduce and rear the offspring to reproductive age. We have women with broad backsides because women with wide pelvic girdles are more likely to successfully deliver live infants, and far less likely to suffer damage to their reproductive and birth delivery tracks. If a culture were to decide that narrow hips on women were "beautiful," evolutionary forces would take care of that **** right quick.

Throughout most of human history, the odds are pretty good that evolution has tended to favor women with broad hips, and men and women with strong backs. In that respect, a woman with a big butt and a strong back is most likely to successfully reproduce and rear her children to adulthood, regardless of the structure of her face.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know