The evolution of sunrises? (God, easter)

[painted wolf]

Pah- many other primates use color as part of sexual display. Just look at the Mandrill for instance. Also when chimp girls are 'in heat' they develop bright red swolen genitals. The closer she is to being fertile the redder she gets. Many of the primates are very color aware.

Few animals are truely 'color blind' most do have less color range than humans most in favor of better night vision. Some however (birds in particualr) can see colors we can't into the ultravolet and infrared spectrum.

Our relyance on color vision is natually going to be part of our sexuality. That is why red lipstick has been a favorite since the days of Anchient Egypt. And why blushing is part of non-verbal communication.
To a degree I agree with the loss of hair being tied in with sexual selection, especally considering the sexual dimorphism in body hair between males and females. And the great lengths women go to, to atifically rid themselves of more. I don't think its the only reason but certenly part of it.

wa:do

[kbc_1963]

A terribly big question should be asked in this thread. how do any of the instinctual properties found in living things transfer from parent to child.
Do we assume that as life evolved that the things that the parent learned during its life, like knowing the sound of a specific enemy and the reaction to hide are transfered to subsequent generations.
or
Do we assume that an Intelligent Designer provided unchanging preprogramming specific for each living thing.
what proof do we have for either arguement? If we can prove that one arguement is more probable according to evidence then it may answer the original question a little easier.
Personally I feel that appreciation of beauty is only possible for intelligence and if you see things in nature that seem to be more beautiful than necsssity dictates according to the randomness of nature then it may be argued that the beauty we see was the result of intelligent forethought and the ability to understand the concept of beauty the result of being created in the image of an intelligent being.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

A terribly big question should be asked in this thread. how do any of the instinctual properties found in living things transfer from parent to child.
Do we assume that as life evolved that the things that the parent learned during its life, like knowing the sound of a specific enemy and the reaction to hide are transfered to subsequent generations.
or
Do we assume that an Intelligent Designer provided unchanging preprogramming specific for each living thing.
what proof do we have for either arguement? If we can prove that one arguement is more probable according to evidence then it may answer the original question a little easier.
Personally I feel that appreciation of beauty is only possible for intelligence and if you see things in nature that seem to be more beautiful than necsssity dictates according to the randomness of nature then it may be argued that the beauty we see was the result of intelligent forethought and the ability to understand the concept of beauty the result of being created in the image of an intelligent being.

And Satan taught us "ugly"????

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by pah

I wonder why mink and sable and fox are so popular as coats and bedspreads (if you can afford them and in spite of PETA).

Although I see you point, what people do with their coats and bedspreads and what people do with their lovers are completely different (or at least I hope so).

I admit that animals etc are aesthetically pleasing, but human beauty can be sexually attractive.

How many foxes have you slept with for instance?

[Pah]

Originally Posted by truthseekingsoul

...
How many foxes have you slept with for instance?

There were probably more than a dozen, each dead, and sown together into a long jacket. We (the pre-Gail-wife and I) used the jacket as a bedspread for the sensuality of the soft fur against our skin.

If you must know.

But the point being that some humans get turned on by body hair

[painted wolf]

I think that the use of fur from other animals is a part of pair bonding as well as survival. If a male wanted to prove that he was a good provider than what better way than the gift of a 'fur coat'. Fur coats made from large numbers of small soft animals imply (in the old days) that the male was a good hunter (its tough to catch enough little critters quickly ) or if the coat is of one large animal with good fur like a bear it proves that they are brave and strong.
The gift of a fur coat is also practical, it will keep you warm in colder environments thus increasing your survival ability.
In todays world a fur coat implys you will be a good provider as they are not cheap and only someone who has a very successful source of money can afford one.
It is a part of pair bonding and frankly thus a part of human sexuality.

The loss of hair on humans in a sexual context also allows the prospective mates to see what sort of conditon thier choises are in, too skiny, too injured, muscle mass and so on. Eaven in the hairiest of people it isn't enough to completly obscure the human form.

and considering how varied the human idea of beauty is it suggests to me that it is an adaptive concept. Beauty varies wildly from one culture to another with little regard for a standard.

wa:do

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is there an evolutionary reason why sunrises and sunsets are beautiful to us? That is, it might seem on the face of it that the beauty of sunrises and sunsets serves no evolutionary purpose whatsoever. But is that the case? What do you think?

To enlarge on this question: What is the evolutionary purpose of our sense of beauty?

Hi Sunstone,
I found the following very interesting , lending a new 'slant' on some of the debating that has arisen on 'the sense of beauty' aspect of your last question

http://home.t-online.de/home/HelmutW...choenes_e.htm:)