• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Beauty In Evolution?

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
For the same reasons that a scientist may ponder over why monkeys still have tails.
Scientists don't ponder over monkeys' tails any longer than they ponder over cats' tails, squirrels' tails, and countless others. Don't you see how this is evidence for evolution? Useless body parts, (such as the human appendix), might once have served a purpose, but they don't any more. The reason why they still appear on animals is because there is no reason for them to have "evolved away" to to speak. Things don't automatically disappear when they aren't needed anymore--only an intelligent designer would be able to come up with that...

That said, some useless body parts begin to be used for new purposes. My cat, for instance, has an amputated tail. He is able to walk along fencelines and balance perfectly just as before, but he has lost something very important all the same: a communication tool. Most animals, (even humans, to a lesser degree), communicate mainly with body language, and they use nearly every part of their bodies to do it.

Even if mating is the reason for this bird, would you say that is the case for all beautiful birds?
I must agree with everyone else here. Unless you can come up with the name of a bird species which does not use "beauty" for mating purposes or purposes of warding off predators, and yet has this "beauty" all the same, I won't be able to take your claim of "Intelligent Designer" seriously.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
How about skimming thru it one more time? Cause I clearly said in my first post that I was not paying attention to the tag on the cage. I was too busy starring at the bird. I kinda wonder as to why you even decided to post. Is that all you want? The name of the bird?

Even if mating is the reason for this bird, would you say that is the case for all beautiful birds?
Either offer the birds name or i will consider it a fictious bird that you just made up. =)

The reason I ask is because you say that the bird did not use evolution to get to where it is. You offer absoultely no proof at all to back up your statement. If we are to refute this claim we would need the birds name, otherwise this is a worthless debate.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
A hunting I will go. Apparently the name of the bird is really important to you guys. Not only that but if I find I just find ONE bird in which beauty has nothing to do with mating then, oh boy, I await your answers.

Will return if I find this fictitious bird...:areyoucra

~Victor
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
er... monkeys have tails because they are useful to them in getting around.
Thier bodies are designed for moving though the trees with the legs held underneath themselves, very little motion out to the sides, the tail acts as a variably usefull extra grip... Apes on the other hand, going back to the earliest of them the Rampithocines had thier legs more to the sides and with better rotation of the sholders, elbows and hips.... with this a tail is of less use as the limbs can move to a greater degree to grip avalable branches.

So there isn't much wondering why they have it... the evidence is right there. :D
We don't need them we have nice thumbs and swively joints. :cool:

wa:do
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
painted wolf said:
er... monkeys have tails because they are useful to them in getting around.
Thier bodies are designed for moving though the trees with the legs held underneath themselves, very little motion out to the sides, the tail acts as a variably usefull extra grip... Apes on the other hand, going back to the earliest of them the Rampithocines had thier legs more to the sides and with better rotation of the sholders, elbows and hips.... with this a tail is of less use as the limbs can move to a greater degree to grip avalable branches.

So there isn't much wondering why they have it... the evidence is right there. :D
We don't need them we have nice thumbs and swively joints. :cool:

wa:do
Thank you for the education but my point was that certain things in evolutionary process are really no longer needed to survive. Apes don't have tails and they do just fine.

But with the right enviroment, isolation, and anything else needed to explain why the monkeys still have tails or don't have thumb, etc. I guess most everything is possible.

~Victor
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Thank you for the education but my point was that certain things in evolutionary process are really no longer needed to survive. Apes don't have tails and they do just fine.
Your point here is what? This is like saying rats do just fine with fur so why don't humans have fur? Apes and monkeys are two different creatures that are built differently and therefore are bound to have differences.

And just to let you know, we are still waiting on the name of that bird! ;)
 
Victor said:
Thank you for the education but my point was that certain things in evolutionary process are really no longer needed to survive.
You are exactly right, Victor. However, with respect to evolution/natural selection, all those "things" which animanls no longer need to survive will continue to be present UNLESS there is a change in the environment which makes having those unnecessary "things" a DISADVANTAGE. As Ceridwen astutely pointed out, it would take an Intelligent Designer to go around and remove things from animals which did not put them at a disadvantage, simply because those things are superfluous. Alas, we are the product of natural processes, so don't count on our tailbones disappearing the instant we no longer have a use for them. :)
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Ryan2065 said:
Your point here is what? This is like saying rats do just fine with fur so why don't humans have fur? Apes and monkeys are two different creatures that are built differently and therefore are bound to have differences.

And just to let you know, we are still waiting on the name of that bird! ;)
I guess you missed my point. Oh well.
Still looking for bird. You gotta remember there are tons of birds and I'm just going by look.

~Victor
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Still looking for bird. You gotta remember there are tons of birds and I'm just going by look.
Wait wait, the way that you determine if evolution created the "beautiful" bird is based on its looks? You are not going to do any scientific research at all? Just go by pictures?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Ryan2065 said:
Wait wait, the way that you determine if evolution created the "beautiful" bird is based on its looks? You are not going to do any scientific research at all? Just go by pictures?
Im looking for the bird so I can give you guys the name!! :149:
I have no idea how you concluded the above.

~Victor
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Mr_Spinkles said:
You are exactly right, Victor. However, with respect to evolution/natural selection, all those "things" which animanls no longer need to survive will continue to be present UNLESS there is a change in the environment which makes having those unnecessary "things" a DISADVANTAGE.


Quit using my color Spinks...:D
That's why I said that for SOME monkeys with the conditions that surrounded it no longer needed a tail. Were the CURRENT monkeys not exposed to these conditions that contaminated us and caused us to no longer have a tail?

[color=#000000 said:
Mr_Spinkles]
[color=#000000 said:
]As Ceridwen astutely pointed out, it would take an Intelligent Designer to go around and remove things from animals which did not put them at a disadvantage, simply because those things are superfluous. Alas, we are the product of natural processes, so don't count on our tailbones disappearing the instant we no longer have a use for them. :)
Very good point. Although many questions still remain..:)
But it's the natural processes that are just taken as stone (by some, not all) that bug me. It is rather easy to come up with all kinds of explanations as to how a monkey lost it's thumb. Put the monkey in the right enviroment, right circumstances, right everything and bingo!! I've tooken Anthropology and loved it. But I had to sit there when the Professor with a PhD said that apes started to walk up right in the Savanna because of the heat on their backs. I was like :eek: . And nobody said a peep. What loyalty to science...I took him up on it and we stayed late after class.

~Victor
[/color]
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Victor said:
But I had to sit there when the Professor with a PhD said that apes started to walk up right in the Savanna because of the heat on their backs. I was like :eek: . And nobody said a peep. What loyalty to science...I took him up on it and we stayed late after class.
Perhaps you could start another thread on the God-Did_It theory of bipedalism.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
How about addressing my questions instead of coming up with "uhh...ahh" type of responses. You are incredible.

~Victor
 

Cynic

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Beauty on an objective level is hardly explained. Attempting to do thru neurons firing is still up in the air and there is nothing definitive.
~Victor
scrn03_gilr.face.right.jpg
scrn03_girl.face.left.jpg

When a computer-generated "average" face was made "hyper-feminine" -- with plump lips, a short and narrow lower jaw, and high eyebrows -- it was judged more attractive by both men and women. Evolutionary psychologist Victor Johnson, who led the study, notes that full lips and a delicate jaw are indicators of high estrogen and low testosterone levels -- indicators of fertility -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/love/4.html?fy

The brain recognizes and will react more specifically to certain stimulai. It would seem obvious that beauty is a screening process for health, fertility, and good genes, that uses both a detector (our brain) and an indicator (appearance).

scrn01_baby.jpg

Are we born with a beauty detector? Three-month-old babies stare longer at faces that adults rate as beautiful than they do at faces adults deem unattractive.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/love/2.html?fy

Victor said:
I’m sure you wish you did, but you said beauty has meaning. Deut does not agree with you.
Victor said:
Of course, there will be a meaning, to the one experiencing beauty, which is a reaction to specific stimulai. Ojectively, it becomes irrelevant, like I have been saying. Beauty is really illusive. On an objective level, nothing is more or less beautiful.


 

meogi

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
But I had to sit there when the Professor with a PhD said that apes started to walk up right in the Savanna because of the heat on their backs. I was like :eek: . And nobody said a peep. What loyalty to science...I took him up on it and we stayed late after class.
And the result of staying late after class was?

Victor said:
Were the CURRENT monkeys not exposed to these conditions that contaminated us and caused us to no longer have a tail?
Short answer would be: yes.

And I want to address this:
Victor said:
What loyalty to science...
Perhaps, it makes sense to them? Perhaps they have no reason to question it? Perhaps it's just an intro to anthropology course and they're taking it for a core requirement? I'm sorry, but some students not questioning what's taught to them is not something that equates to loyalty to science.
 
Victor said:
[/color]

Quit using my color Spinks...:D
Sorry! When I quote you, my own text assumes your color, and I'm usually too lazy to change it back to black. :p


Victor said:
That's why I said that for SOME monkeys with the conditions that surrounded it no longer needed a tail. Were the CURRENT monkeys not exposed to these conditions that contaminated us and caused us to no longer have a tail?
In order to answer that question, we would have to go way back in our evolutionary history, at which point we would no longer be talking about "us", nor "CURRENT monkeys".


Victor said:
Very good point. Although many questions still remain..:)
But it's the natural processes that are just taken as stone (by some, not all) that bug me. It is rather easy to come up with all kinds of explanations as to how a monkey lost it's thumb. Put the monkey in the right enviroment, right circumstances, right everything and bingo!! I've tooken Anthropology and loved it. But I had to sit there when the Professor with a PhD said that apes started to walk up right in the Savanna because of the heat on their backs. I was like :eek: . And nobody said a peep. What loyalty to science...I took him up on it and we stayed late after class.
Good for you, Victor! I think it's excellent that you think critically about proposed explanations--that's what good scientists do. I completely agree that we should not take any explanation from science as absolute and unquestionable. I would qualify that, however, by adding that our degree of certainty/uncertainty should depend on the evidence.
 

Cynic

Well-Known Member
Also, I would say that colorization may be an indicator of health. If perhaps the woman on the right was malnurished, she might look pale, as so.

scrn03_gilr.face.right.jpg
face2mal.jpg


Similarily an inadequate amount of nutrients might take it's toll on a bird's plumage.
Certain illnesses can cause such discoloration.

Color also stands out, so if a bird evolved colorful plumage, it would have more sucess in passing on it's genes. Think of it as advertisement.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
meogi said:
And the result of staying late after class was?
There was much discussed and this was years back.....I don't really remember everything because I stayed after class with her more then once. But he did say that there is still much dispute as to how apes started to walk upright.

meogi said:
Short answer would be: yes.
Of course.

meogi said:
And I want to address this:perhaps, it makes sense to them? Perhaps they have no reason to question it? Perhaps it's just an intro to anthropology course and they're taking it for a core requirement? I'm sorry, but some students not questioning what's taught to them is not something that equates to loyalty to science.
You're right but I only said that because some would come to me and say "I'm glad you asked, and not me". But this is a problem in the religious world as it is in the science world.

~Victor
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Cynic said:
Also, I would say that colorization may be an indicator of health. If perhaps the woman on the right was malnurished, she might look pale, as so.



Similarily an inadequate amount of nutrients might take it's toll on a bird's plumage.
Certain illnesses can cause such discoloration.

Color also stands out, so if a bird evolved colorful plumage, it would have more sucess in passing on it's genes. Think of it as advertisement.

Ah, but there's more to it than that! As an extract from :-

http://www.biochemist.org/news/page.htm?item=15425 will tell you;

.........................."Animals, like birds and fishes, commonly use biochromes like carotenoids to acquire red, orange or yellow coloration, but McGraw and Nogare found that these compounds are not responsible for the red colours found in the parrot species they sampled.

The researchers used high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to survey the pigments present in red parrot feathers. McGraw and Nogare collected and analyzed samples from 44 parrot species that have red feathers. Overall, there are some 350 species of parrots, 80 percent of which have red in their plumage.

They found a suite of five molecules, called polyenal lipochromes (or psittacofulvins), which colour parrot plumage red in all of the species studied.
"We've uncovered a system where all red parrots use the same set of molecules to colour themselves," McGraw said. "It is a unique pigment found nowhere else in the world. We are fascinated at how parrots are able to do this.

"The fact that there is a single set of molecules unique to and widespread among parrots, suggests that it is a pretty important evolutionary novelty, and one we should carefully consider when we think about why parrots are so strikingly colourful," McGraw said.

He added that an interesting aspect of the five polyenal lipochromes that provide the red in parrots, is that the pigment is found only in the bird's feathers and nowhere else in the body of the bird, indicating that parrots manufacture these molecules internally and directly at the maturing follicles of the growing, colourful plumage.

In addition, these pigments may play a valuable role in maintaining the health of parrots. McGraw cites an independent study on the parrot pigments that suggests that they can act as anti-oxidants to quench free radicals and potentially protect cells and tissues in the body from oxidative damage.
Now, McGraw says, he's interested in learning more about the connection between the red colours and anti-oxidants within and among parrot species, as well as "to specifically explore the balance of naturally and sexually selected costs and benefits to becoming colourful. "...........................
:p
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Can't find the bird...:banghead3
Chicken size bird, but skinnier. Looked like it was a ground bird and had woodpecker hair. Very colorful. Oh well.

~Victor
 
Top