Yes.
I and many others covered our walls with pictures of the mandelbrot set even when we only had black ink only printers to make them.
btw… do think those who are color blind can never see beauty?
3 Likes
And some people refuse to look only skin deep. Superficial beauty doesn’t really appeal to me. Beautiful character and behavior has always been a greater component of my perception of beauty in people. The superficial stuff actually repulses me because it suggests excessive vanity. Though I have been surprised at times to find out with some they have a beautiful character as well.
except that neither you or anyone else is prepared to define the scope of the increments.
I have seen the so called progression for the growth of a jawbone and it is so far fetched as to begger belief
The whole point is that a jawbone flapping in the currents is neither use nor ornament. There has to be a method of opening and closing it. So how are you going to break down into increments that process? Muscles? Nerves? control? they are interdependent!
Richard
Remember when printer paper came as linked sheets that had to be separated into pages?
We once did a banner that way for a birthday party, and since it was for a mathematician we included portions of the Mandlebrot set in the banner.
2 Likes
Assuming you’ve actually been paying attention on this forum, that’s mendacious. I’m not a biologist, but I would venture that the “scope of the increments” is changes in proteins.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
1 Like
I feel like it reinforces messages I’m kind of trying to undo. I likely won’t show it. After reading all the posts, it just seems very misleading - especially all the emphasis on beauty being the nail in the coffin of evolution.
2 Likes
I don’t love the Sistine Chapel vs. splashes of paint either, but help me understand how it’s a false comparison.
1 Like
I’m assuming there were various shades of gray, and that you think black and gray are the same color.
Getting back to the logic of your argument…
Because if it’s not true of ALL iterative processes, then you don’t have a valid argument.
What you have is SOME iterative processes “are very powerful demonstrably producing both beauty and the appearance of superior intelligence including superior designs no human ever thought of.”
But no premise that establishes that your evolutionary iterative process is one of them.
No one here should accept your conclusion until you fix this defect.
- The Sistine Chapel was
- Intentional, i.e. the product of a conscious, intelligent mind (in this case: a human mind, i.e. Michelangelo’s.
- Pre-planned and organized to some extent. In other words, it was not a spontaneous, random splash of paints.
- It is not the chaotic result of one or more chaotic events.
- Compared to a ceiling and walls covered in paint, splashed on accidentally or intentionally, without rhyme or reason.
- As a crazy analogy, imagine Paul Nelson comparing a pot of the finest gourmet soup and a pot of rank vomit, then trying to argue:
- Obviously, the soup was prepared by a skilled and intelligent mine and the pot of rank vomit was not.
- Comparing two radically different things in order "to prove that the author of one could not be the author of the other is “a false comparison”.
- FYI: I’m a Christian. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. that he was crucified, entombed, resurrected, and ascended into heaven, and that after I die in this world, I will see him and the people who loved me in this world. In other words, I am not an atheist.
- I have blood-kin who are atheists who experience almost as much awe and wonder in this universe as I have and do. So what’s the difference between them and me? IMO, the difference is in “gratitude”.
- The really sad thing is that Paul Nelson is a professor of philosophy at Biola University, You’d think he ought to know better than make a false comparison.
What is beauty?
Really. What IS it?
After you’ve really thought through what we mean by “beauty” and what the word really implies, rethink this video.
Quote from competent-looking speaker in the dress shirt about 04:38:
“Give me an example of chaos and chance producing beauty, and I’ll rethink it.”
Rethink it. Here’s the opening shot from the video you’re in:
I have other questions and points, but these two are enough.
3 Likes
After looking at the first 2/3 of the video, I think it not only reinforces what you’re trying to counteract, but it does so dishonestly. Applying the concept of “beauty” as if it is some objective measure is either ignorant or dishonest.
The video in itself isn’t even coherent. The claim that the speaker would rethink evolution if someone could show him beauty that results from chaos and randomness is dishonest in light of the gorgeous photography of the ocean and rock formations at the beginning of the video. That gorgeous (at least to me) scenery IS the result of chaos and randomness.
There is nothing here of value. Don’t show your kids unless it is to discuss the flaws in the thinking.
3 Likes
I HAD THE EXACT SAME THOUGHT ABOUT THE SHOT OF THE OCEAN!!! 
. As you look at it from above, the randomness (and beauty) is so obvious.
3 Likes
What is TOE?
Did you know that the Dr. Mouw sound clip/article cuts off after only 50 seconds? It’s right before the (presumably!) wonderful Chesterton quote! 
???
I was talking about the development of the jawbone.
If you are going to claim that it did not develop in entirety then how are you going to break it down into component parts
I was trying to find a picture but none of them were distinct enough.
But, however it is done the first thing must be the bone structure. And if there are no muscles attached too it then it will just flap about.
If that is not Evolution then what is it?
TOE stand s for Theory of Evolution and is the shorthand name for the scientific version of Evolution (As opposed to any theistic one)
Richard
I’m at just under 6mins. So far I’ve detected examples of the following:
- poisoning the well
- arguments from incredulity (basically the whole video)
- mis-representing evolution as just Darwin’s hypothesis
- The repeated failure to see that Evolutionary science has moved on from Darwin. This is a common error from anti-evolution types where they treat evolution like a theological tradition that can be undermined by discrediting its founder.
- cultural snobbery. “show me an example of randomness producing beauty”, cut to the Sistine Chapel. At that point, if you turn the sound up you can actually hear Jackson Pollock roll over in his grave!
- Misrepresenting biology: Gratuitous beauty is not a scientific term, it is an ID/YEC term.
It’s a sad, sad, sad day for the church when we weaponise artistry and beauty for the culture war.
7 Likes
Total strawman. This was not my conclusion.
My conclusion was…
It was not to say that evolution can but only that we have no reason to think evolution can’t. Of course we see plenty of direct evidence in the result of evolution… but that presumes the overarching conclusion.
But we do have good indirect evidence (a constraint which the argument itself imposes) that evolution can produce the appearance of intelligence and beauty apart from what it has produced. Because that is what our simulations using the same principles in evolutionary algorithms show. Oh and then there is the evidence from the film when taken in context which Liam shows is exactly according natural selection.
The other thing that bugs me about the video is the cinematography, specifically the shoddy cuts of animals out of context. Let me give you an example:
Wow, look at this praying mantis! Look at the colours and the details! Intricate shading on its legs, eyes, and abdomen. What artistry! What gratuitous beauty!
When we’re talking about the design of animals and whether or not that serves a function other than or in addition to human perceptions of beauty, the context in which we are shown those animals matters. Close-ups of an eagle’s eye or a ladybird on a green leaf, boarder on audience manipulation, IMHO. Even if unintentional.
7 Likes
And here, as is often the case, the beauty serves the function of enabling the creature to eat other creatures or to avoid being eaten itself.
5 Likes
Well, you surely came across as taking the position that evolution positively can and does.
But I stand corrected. Thanks.
Personally, I need a reason to think evolution can. Having no proof to the contrary of a thing hardly even begins to move me in favor of believing it to be the case.