Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 10-18-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I don't really understand the question. If my nose evolved from an apes nose, I would expect it to look pretty much as it does.

Does it, really?

The intent of the question was to get you to compare the aesthetic value of the skin flap/optic cup filler in the fish to the extra flesh at the end of your nose.

Vanderzyden

Xixax · 10-18-2002, 07:13 AM

Quote:

The intent of the question was to get you to compare the aesthetic value of the skin flap/optic cup filler in the fish to the extra flesh at the end of your nose.

So...... fish living in a place with no light are attracted to other fish with flaps of skin over holes in their skull?

*boink*

Something just snapped, and it hurts.

Vanderzyden · 10-18-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xixax:


So...... fish living in a place with no light are attracted to other fish with flaps of skin over holes in their skull?

Think about it for a moment: Does aesthetics only concern "attractiveness"?

Vanderzyden

Dr Rick · 10-18-2002, 08:55 AM

Think about it for a moment; what is the aesthetic value of an appendix?

KC · 10-18-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:


Rubbish. It's there as a support for glasses.

Oolon

Nah. Girls dig it. "Every girl crazy 'bout a sharp-tusked Babirusa'

Cheers,

KC

scigirl · 10-18-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Think about it for a moment; what is the aesthetic value of an appendix?

OH WAIT I get it now!

When God made things like appendices and foramen ovales, he wasn't thinking of the aesthetics of the human body itself, but rather, the aesthetics of the doctor's mercedes! I mean, think about how many surgeons have profited from these alleged "suboptimal designs." Luke was a doctor after all, right? Yes that must be it - thanks God for thinking of the medical profession!

Sorry couldn't resist.

scigirl

Baloo · 10-18-2002, 09:47 AM

Vanderzyden,

Are you postulating that an intelligent designer may have placed 90% of the tissue necessary for a functional eye - and covered the resulting non-functional mass of eye tissue with a permanent flap of skin - so that the cave fish would be more aesthetically pleasing?

If so, to whose aesthetics are you refering? For, you see, I personally feel it can be argued that the mass of non-functioning eye tissue in the cave fish is inherently and objectively aesthetically distasteful. It strongly resembles old computer programs I come across which, after tens or hundreds of flash revisions from a myriad of different programmers, often wind up with enormous portions of code that are simply never executed, but are too intricately woven into the existing code to simply be deleted.

I literally get a bad taste in my mouth from viewing a program of this nature, and actually set aside hours or even days at a time to "clean up" the code, winding up with no performance enhancement, no significant space savings, but a much more aesthetically pleasing set of code. EVEN if the "cleaned" code winds up being vastly different than other programs of the same general type, it is still, by and large, far more pleasing to work with than the "unclean" version.

When I think of the cave fish, and imagine cleaning out the genetic instructions involved in generating the mass of useless eye tissue, saving the resources needed to grow the tissue in the first place, and eliminating the two vulnerable skull-holes where the brain is protected from the environment by nothing more than soft tissue, I wind up envisioning a fish that may have only a negligible increase in survival traits, but a tremendous increase in aesthetic design.

Would you agree?

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]

Baloo · 10-18-2002, 09:59 AM

Vanderzyden,

More to the point. Imagine a cave-dwelling, fish-like animal with a uniform skull completely surrounding and protecting its brain living in a lightless environment. Lets call this hypothetical animal a "wedgie". Can you formulate an argument beginning with the phrase:

"The wedgie would be better aesthetically designed if two holes were placed into its skull, filled with soft tissue resembling that used by different kinds of animals for sight - but not actually functional in the wedgie itself - and covered with a thin flap of skin BECAUSE...."

Albion · 10-18-2002, 10:06 AM

Quote:

The intent of the question was to get you to compare the aesthetic value of the skin flap/optic cup filler in the fish to the extra flesh at the end of your nose.

The extra flesh at the end of the nose doesn't cause a major vulnerability of the brain in the same way that two functionally useless holes in the skull do. Protecting the brain is paramount in animals with brains, so that should be the overriding consideration if aesthetics is the only other consideration.

Which is why I'm wondering if there's any evidence that these sockets tend to fill in over time. Are there any fossil series showing something like that happening?

Jeremy Pallant · 10-18-2002, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I think warthogs are cute.

I think baby warthogs are cute, and it always makes me want to giggle when they run, and their tails go straight up.

10-18-2002, 09:47 AM	#237
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Vanderzyden, Are you postulating that an intelligent designer may have placed 90% of the tissue necessary for a functional eye - and covered the resulting non-functional mass of eye tissue with a permanent flap of skin - so that the cave fish would be more aesthetically pleasing? If so, to whose aesthetics are you refering? For, you see, I personally feel it can be argued that the mass of non-functioning eye tissue in the cave fish is inherently and objectively aesthetically distasteful. It strongly resembles old computer programs I come across which, after tens or hundreds of flash revisions from a myriad of different programmers, often wind up with enormous portions of code that are simply never executed, but are too intricately woven into the existing code to simply be deleted. I literally get a bad taste in my mouth from viewing a program of this nature, and actually set aside hours or even days at a time to "clean up" the code, winding up with no performance enhancement, no significant space savings, but a much more aesthetically pleasing set of code. EVEN if the "cleaned" code winds up being vastly different than other programs of the same general type, it is still, by and large, far more pleasing to work with than the "unclean" version. When I think of the cave fish, and imagine cleaning out the genetic instructions involved in generating the mass of useless eye tissue, saving the resources needed to grow the tissue in the first place, and eliminating the two vulnerable skull-holes where the brain is protected from the environment by nothing more than soft tissue, I wind up envisioning a fish that may have only a negligible increase in survival traits, but a tremendous increase in aesthetic design. Would you agree? [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 08:55 AM	#234
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Think about it for a moment; what is the aesthetic value of an appendix?

10-18-2002, 09:59 AM	#238
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Vanderzyden, More to the point. Imagine a cave-dwelling, fish-like animal with a uniform skull completely surrounding and protecting its brain living in a lightless environment. Lets call this hypothetical animal a "wedgie". Can you formulate an argument beginning with the phrase: "The wedgie would be better aesthetically designed if two holes were placed into its skull, filled with soft tissue resembling that used by different kinds of animals for sight - but not actually functional in the wedgie itself - and covered with a thin flap of skin BECAUSE...."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.