Design evidence # 231: taste buds

Wouldn't natural selection favour the emergence of
tastebuds?After all any creature who gains pleasure out of eating will
be more motivated to eat than one who doesn't ... and
if you can't be bothered to eat you'll have less energy for
reproduction and evading predators.

quote:

---

Coragyps say::
So this implies that I should go engage in hot jungle sex with Sandra Bullock and Winona Ryder simultaneously? That would be a wonderful function, and likely would bring me great delight.Somehow, though, Sonnike, I don't think you (or my wife) would approve.

---

Especially if your wife isn't a dark-eyed brunette

quote:

---

Peter:
Wouldn't natural selection favour the emergence of
tastebuds? (on their usefulness for keeping their owners well-fed...)

---

That's right. And not only good-taste sensations, but also bad-taste sensations are useful; stuff that tastes bad is often poisonous or otherwise not worth eating.

Like brussel sprouts you mean ? [This message has been edited by Peter, 01-30-2003]

quote:

---

Like brussel sprouts you mean ?

---

Brussel sprouts contain a chemical which some people taste and others don't. It is a quirk of genetics like tongue rolling. For the people who taste this chemical, brussel sprouts taste horrible-- or so I have been told. I don't taste it.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

holmes: "Interestingly enough my heart tells me such a threesome would be fantastic. My girlfriend would also approve, and more than likely want to take part in that hot jungle sex scenario. Lucky me."
---------------------------Wow, a clear demonstration of the utter moral negligence and de-valued thinking of evolutionary minds. This is exactly the kind of junk that belief in ToE produces...which then leads to pornography..which leads to child porn...which devalues lives of children...which leads to abortions...genocides..homocides...suicides...etcYes, it is clearly a wonderful thing to realize that we are an "accident", we have no Maker, we are a product of chance...no different than the animals...what value has anything....digressing...I'm not sure exactly what you want me to respond to in the rest of your post, I agree with the gluttony part..I disagree with the "I know of no basic foodstuff that on its own creates delight" part. I would say that many natural foods are delightful, apples, oranges, strawberries, etc. But it's all about taste.My point basically is that BECAUSE we are able to enjoy food and drink, thanks to our tastebuds, and also defend ourselves against poisons, it points towards a Creator who WANTED us to do these things.
He specifically designed that function in us for pleasure, and for protection.
Now, you are welcome to see it any other way you want, but to me it is just another piece of evidence that suggests it was put there for a reason, and didn't just happen by chance and through time.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

holmes: (a sex fantasy...)sonnikke:
Wow, a clear demonstration of the utter moral negligence and de-valued thinking of evolutionary minds. This is exactly the kind of junk that belief in ToE produces...which then leads to pornography..which leads to child porn...which devalues lives of children...which leads to abortions...genocides..homocides...suicides...etcExcept that the Bible commands the genocide of those already in the Promised Land -- every single one of those people was to be killed.As to baby killing, let us not forget Psalm 137.And as to porn, read the Song of Solomon. If it is purely metaphorical, one has to wonder about its writer's taste in metaphors.All this was written centuries before Charles Darwin was born, so evolutionary biology was nowhere in sight.Yes, it is clearly a wonderful thing to realize that we are an "accident", we have no Maker, we are a product of chance...no different than the animals...what value has anything....Every one of us has two "makers": two human parents. At least until human cloning is perfected. My point basically is that BECAUSE we are able to enjoy food and drink, thanks to our tastebuds, and also defend ourselves against poisons, it points towards a Creator who WANTED us to do these things.A Raelian would agree 100% -- except for who's doing the designing.Now, you are welcome to see it any other way you want, but to me it is just another piece of evidence that suggests it was put there for a reason, and didn't just happen by chance and through time.Except that being preserved by natural selection is a non-accidental process.

[Quote] by sonnike++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow, a clear demonstration of the utter moral negligence and de-valued thinking of evolutionary minds. This is exactly the kind of junk that belief in ToE produces...which then leads to pornography..which leads to child porn...which devalues lives of children...which leads to abortions... genocides.. homocides... suicides... etc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Wow, a clear demonstration of ad hominem, non sequitor, guilt by association, and slippery-slope fallacies.This utter intellectual negligence and de-valuation of rational thought is exactly the kind of junk produced by Fundamentalist thinking.I guess a commandment against poor logic wouldn't have prevented Sonnikke from making his argument as the commandment against bearing false witness sure didn't.Heck, he didn't even stick with "judge not, lest ye be judged."Ahhhhhhhh... those sinners.Anyhow, if you want to open up this can of worms* in another forum I'd be happy to go head to head with you any time. I'd suggest the "innerancy of the Bible" section.(* the can of worms being the bible and how free it is--- compared to ToE--- from such "life devaluing" matter as pornography, rape, child sexual abuse, child pornography, slavery, murder, mysogny, and genocide) [Quote] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not sure exactly what you want me to respond to in the rest of your post....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm sorry that your "divine love" induced rage prevented you from understanding my points. Here they are:1) The pleasure of taste is no different than any other pleasure, except if one imposes personal prudish standards onto the situation. Thus, logically, sexual pleasure OUGHT to be counted as much a sign of design as taste... if pleasure is to be a sign of design!2) Along those lines some Xtian denominations would support your claim, and others would deny it. Showing that even Xtian thought is not unanimous on the design argument you just posed... or at least not in ascribing the particular authors as you have done.3) I can, and do, argue that the beneficial trait of taste could have arisen through evolutionary mechanisms due to its beneficial aspects, and that the vast amount of pleasure we derive from food is due to playing with our food (and our tastebuds) to encite "delight".It is up to you to counter evidence for evolutionary mechanisms as well as to give evidence for your own claims.All you have done so far is assert (including the implied assertion that there is a huge list of evidence for design that you are privy to and which you get to dole out as you see fit). [Quote] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
My point basically is that BECAUSE we are able to enjoy food and drink, thanks to our tastebuds, and also defend ourselves against poisons, it points towards a Creator who WANTED us to do these things.
He specifically designed that function in us for pleasure, and for protection.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Unfortunately this explanation does nothing to counter points 1-3 above.Sexual pleasure helps us to "be fruitful and multiply" just as much as the pleasures of taste helps us to eat and stay healthy.We are driven to have sex with many different partners, and judging by the size of human testicles, were created with this habit in mind.How do you argue that this was NOT part of god's plan? It seems more than likely it was given to us for pleasure and protection (just like taste). Again, some Xtians thought as much, or blasted taste as the product of the devil just as much you blast sexual pleasure.And finally, to say "it seems nice and beneficial, so a nice and beneficial god must have created", is NOT to make an argument for design.Even ID theory expects a little more than that. You need to show how the function of taste buds could not have arisen by natural means, and some reason to believe that the only mechanism could have been a designer... much less give evidence for a specific designer.holmes

Holmes: "1) The pleasure of taste is no different than any other pleasure, except if one imposes personal prudish standards onto the situation. Thus, logically, sexual pleasure OUGHT to be counted as much a sign of design as taste... if pleasure is to be a sign of design!"
--------------------------
S: Amen brother! I agree. I believe sex (the way God intended it to be, ie. between a husband and wife) was specifically designed to be both pleasurable and functional..thank you for pointing out another piece of evidence of the hand of the Maker.
----------------------------------
"2) Along those lines some Xtian denominations would support your claim, and others would deny it. Showing that even Xtian thought is not unanimous on the design argument you just posed... or at least not in ascribing the particular authors as you have done."
---------------------------------
S: Okay, that's not a problem.
-----------------------------
"3) I can, and do, argue that the beneficial trait of taste could have arisen through evolutionary mechanisms due to its beneficial aspects, and that the vast amount of pleasure we derive from food is due to playing with our food (and our tastebuds) to encite "delight"."
-----------------------------------
S: Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. To me it simply makes more sense that it was designed that way in the first place.I would say that the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to try to imagine a scenario for the appearance of tastebuds via evolutionary mechanisms.Not only do you have to account for taste pores, taste cells, supporting cells, connective tissue, and sensory nerve fibers, you also have to account for sweet receptors, salt receptors, sour receptors, and bitter receptors. Each located in a specific region on the tongue.Good luck to you.Regards,
S-----------------------------------------------------
"There are no evolutionists in Hell"

My pleasure!Carpaccio is raw beef steak sliced paper thin, served with bread and slivers of Parmigiano cheese, and sometimes fine aged Balsamic vinegar. Here's a picture:http://www.italiansecrets.co.uk/images/carpaccio.jpgOh, and I forgot another raw meat dish; kibbe, which is raw minced lamb with pine nuts and spices.

[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++
S: Amen brother! I agree. I believe sex (the way God intended it to be, ie. between a husband and wife) was specifically designed to be both pleasurable and functional..thank you for pointing out another piece of evidence of the hand of the Maker.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sorry brother, you missed the point.Humans are not naturally monogamous. We are drawn to multiple sexual partners throughout life and must overcome natural psychological inclinations in order to comply with various man-made social customs.Along with our minds, our bodies are physically adapted to fit our nonmonogamous tendencies. Evidence for this comes from testicular size comparisons, as well as sperm generation studies (the latter regarding men's sperm production given absence of female partners).While I have used the terms "nature" and "adapted", because I prefer an evolutionary paradigm, they can be altered to fit your own paradigm.And that is where you face problems. Without question our physical and psychological DESIGN is for nonmonogamous sexual lifestyles.Thus, according to your theory (just like tastebuds), god must want us to be nonmonogamous. It is GOOD the be nonmonogamous. It is both pleasurable and functional.This is supported by the fact that multiple partners helps the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing.IF you are right that God intended for sex to be practiced only by husbands and wives, THEN he has clearly indicated (through his DESIGN) that polygamy is the correct matrimonial structure we should be using... score one for the Islamic and Mormon faiths.Monogamous marriage would thus be a tool constructed by the Devil to thwart god's intentions and pit men against men (caused by adultery with other people's wives because you only have one choice at home), women against women (because they must compete for a single man rather than sharing), and men against women (because lies will be the order of the day to maintain outward social propriety while driven to fulfill god's design).My guess is you'll believe your own arguments as far as you need to go in order to prove that god exists, but will refuse to follow them to their logical conclusion (which contradicts your prudish man-constructed version of what God wants).If God is for real, perhaps you should stop listening to MEN and judging his creation based on what MEN have taught you, and discover his intentions through the function of his design.That is if you believe DESIGN so much.BTW, since you claim that I have added another proof of design could you give me a hint how big your list is by telling me what number my proof will be? [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"2) Along those lines some Xtian denominations would support your claim, and others would deny it. Showing that even Xtian thought is not unanimous on the design argument you just posed... or at least not in ascribing the particular authors as you have done."
---------------------------------
S: Okay, that's not a problem.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes this is a problem, since you are asserting that you have delivered proof not merely of design, but of design by a specific god and with specific intentions. Differing Xtian denominations provide rebuttals against two-thirds of your claim. [QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
S: Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. To me it simply makes more sense that it was designed that way in the first place.
I would say that the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to try to imagine a scenario for the appearance of tastebuds via evolutionary mechanisms.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies with you. I did not start a thread claiming that tastebuds were my proof for ToE. YOU claimed that tastebuds were your evidence for design. Onus on you.ID theory demands that you prove IC with regards to your "evidence" for design. This consists in part by showing there is no possible evolutionary mechanism responsible. Not only have you not attempted to demonstrate IC (merely stating that it is complex), but you have not responded to general and plausible explanations for evolutionary mechanisms.I am guessing at this point that you are not a true ID theorist, which means this thread is really in the wrong forum. The level of my critique was aimed at science-based ID theory and not blanket assertion creationist "beliefs."Let me clue you in: If all you want to do is say "I have a belief and you have a belief and ah well, la de da..." then there is no point in your posting anything. The point of these discussions is to have a real debate on issues where logic and evidence are presented and analyzed.It seems like la de da is all you have to say when flaws are pointed out to you. Please improve your arguments, or don't claim you have anything stronger than a "belief". That way I know in advance not to waste my time.I'll say amen to that!holmes

I'll tell ya schraf, if it wasn't raw that carpaccio sounds pretty tasty. Personally I can't stand coldcuts on sandwiches. Meat has to be warm or it makes me nauseous while eating (unless it's on cold pizza... but then it has been cooked already).But I'll have to take back my acceptance of carpaccio as proof of raw meat being delicious, and I can't accept kibble either. Both seem to involve spices or other taste enhancers (cheese and vinegar are pretty big)... which was my original point.While sushi often includes other combinations of foods and spices, I was willing to accept that as counter-evidence since I've heard some people eat just the fish, and totally raw at that.Then again, maybe I should chalk that up to some people just being weird. I know some people eat what other people excrete and they call that a delicacy.Hmmmmm, sonnikke what do you make of people that do that? Or what would god say about them? Looks like its in the design somewhere.holmes

(Holmes on sexual pleasure...)
Sonnikke: Amen brother! I agree. I believe sex (the way God intended it to be, ie. between a husband and wife) was specifically designed to be both pleasurable and functional..thank you for pointing out another piece of evidence of the hand of the Maker.Seems like our sexuality was misdesigned, because it ought to switch on only in a "legitimate" marriage, and not in "living together", civil marriages, marriages of other religions, etc. And we ought to be physically incapable of performing nonprocreative sex acts like masturbation, oral sex, etc. And homosexuality ought never to happen. All of this I mean not in a moral sense but in a physical sense.(Holmes on the sense of taste having appeared...)
S: Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. To me it simply makes more sense that it was designed that way in the first place.Except that that argument could be made for any adaptation whatsoever.Sonnikke, how do you explain cross-purpose adaptations? Predators have adaptations for catching and eating their prey, while prey have adaptations for avoiding that fate. Furthermore, predator-prey systems can be more than one level deep:A deer eats some grass.
A wolf catches and eats a deer.
A flea bites a wolf.Grass leaves have phytoliths, tiny silica lumps that grind down the teeth of grass-eaters.Deer have big molars for grinding up the grass, and big fermentation-vat stomachs for digesting it.Deer can run fast to outrun wolves, and they have eyes and ears pointing sort-of sideways, because a wolf can come from any direction.Wolves can run fast to catch deer, and they have eyes and ears pointing forward, because that's the relative direction of a deer that they approach.Wolves scratch itchy spots, to get rid of fleas and other biters.Fleas bite through the skins of wolves in order to drink their blood.And I'm sure that grass plants like the "taste" of water and bound nitrogen and minerals, that deer like the taste of grass, that wolves like the taste of deer meat, and that fleas like the taste of wolf blood.I would say that the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to try to imagine a scenario for the appearance of tastebuds via evolutionary mechanisms.As opposed to jerking one's knees and saying "goddidit"?Not only do you have to account for taste pores, taste cells, supporting cells, connective tissue, and sensory nerve fibers, you also have to account for sweet receptors, salt receptors, sour receptors, and bitter receptors. Each located in a specific region on the tongue.However, "goddidit" is a poor explanation. Philosopher Karl Popper would say that it lacks "falsifiability", at least unless someone can show otherwise.Smell and taste are two different versions of the same kind of sense: a chemical-detection sense. And the earliest organisms undoubtedly had simple forms of this sense; internal versions of this sense are important parts of various biochemical mechanisms. Biosynthesis systems are regulated by their products; too much, and the systems slow down their production.And as to such details as nerves and taste buds, these are elaborations on multicellularity."There are no evolutionists in Hell"So Charles Darwin is in Heaven, getting to survey the evolution of life at first hand and wishing he could return to Earth to tell everybody what he has seen?

quote:

---

My point basically is that BECAUSE we are able to enjoy food and drink, thanks to our tastebuds, and also defend ourselves against poisons, it points towards a Creator who WANTED us to do these things.

---

Did the Creator also mean for us to have pleasure receptors in our brains which make it possible for us to become addicted to harmful substances?

No. That was Satan.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com