When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?

Well, at least I don't make up some magical answer like "Godidit".At least my hypothesis is based upon observations in the real world.So, do you deny that there is a genetic basis for why some people put on weight easily and other people do not?

No great achievement that I can see, especially since I don't either. No it's not. That's the point. It's based on evolutionism, all pure fantasy scenarios. Gad, you are a master of non sequitur.

.

quote:

---

No great achievement that I can see, especially since I don't either.

---

Sure you do. This is your stock answer to any and all scientific questions which contradict your particular interpretation of your holy book.So, do you deny that there is a genetic basis for why some people put on weight easily and other people do not?Yes or no?

Dreamed up? Sorry, Faith, what I told you was fact:1) It's a fact that starvation was an immediate possibility for all humans right up to the development of industrial society (and actually, through most of the history of those societies.)2) It's a fact that a person who's last meal was a fatty carbo-loaded food source will evade the harmful effects of starvation much longer than someone who's last meal was a salad. (Not much energy or fat in lettuce.)3) It's a fact that, in a situation of sudden famine, the person whose innate food preferences led them to eat fatty carbo-loaded foods will outlast the person whose innate food preferences led them to eat nothing more substantial than a salad. (Even if it was all the salad they could eat. Lettuce is mostly water.)4) It's a fact, thus, that your body's preference for the foods you labeled "bad" represents, in fact, an adaptation to the reality of food avaliability for the vast majority of human history.You're free to believe that this preference is a part of God's design for humanity; the evidence supports the idea that this represents an adaptation to environment via evolution. But the idea that this preference has nothing at all to do with our environment and genetics, or that this explanation is just "evo type imagination" is absolutely false. It's completely consistent with YEC, too; you've just simply chosen to reject it out of hand because an evolutionist is telling it to you. Had a creationist said "humans are this way as part of God's plan to deal with starvation" you would have said "oh, yes, how totally reasonable."

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink. You've got a real problem seeing the really obvious connections, don't you?Did you really think a genetic basis for weight gain was off-topic in a discussion about whether or not our food preferences constitute an adaptation to environment?

Hello Holmes.
I was always under the impression that human mate selection was best explained by biology,psycology,and human behavioral traits that have been observed in our species. (Universal attractions do exist such as symmetry chosen over asymmetry. I cant quote the study but will dig it up if pressed. )But It is also cultural to some extent and learned. In short there is in my opinion no difinitive way to scientifically prove what the mechanisms are or how humans are motivated to choose a mate. I think it is simple sexual urges based on a multitude of factors, nature and nurture and good ol fashion hornyness. Your thoughts?

Well I think it is complex and a mixture of heredity, physical development, and social environmental factors. I'm not sure I'd say these factors will never be pinned down to some degree, but it will be difficult and evades loose methodologies that popEP researchers use.In short I agree with your description in general.I am familiar with the concept of symmetry being a factor. It is claimed to be a universal attraction, but I am not confident in the explanations for why that is. That (why a genetic or extremely common factor exists) is something that will be even more difficult to pin down.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

quote:

---

I am familiar with the concept of symmetry being a factor.

---

Especially since humans in general seem to find symmetry aesthetically pleasing in contexts other than human appearance. Look at how geometric art is so common across the world. The notion that symmetry in humans is attractive (if it is) might be for whatever reason that symmetry in general is considered attractive and not necessarily for any reasons directly related to choice of breeding partner.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi Chioptera,
I believe the symmetry in mate selection has to do with the innate sense that the prospective partner is genetically sound. And perhaps less likely to express congenital deformities that would make for a less viable offspring. And is not just a human trait. Studies using finches showed that a male with asymmetrical color bands on his legs got fewer mates than did the same male with symmetrical color bands. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most often the beholder is often guided by his gonads.

That is exactly the argument I make against it. I believe it has to do with ease of processing data within our minds. We do have instinctual fears of the unknown, and a chaotic and disordered pattern does not allow itself to be known easier by the mind.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Yeah, but what are his (or her) gonads guided by? I would agree that certain disfigurements would turn people off, by suggesting ill health. However the simple preference for symmetry is not related to overt disfigurement, and it is seen applicable to other situations for humans.Generally my appreciation of a painting is not guided by my gonads... but symmetry will still heighten my appreciation of its beauty.Given its rather universal application, I think its more likely to say it has to do with perception rather than procreation.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

As I have stated before, this is a problem I have for a lot of the "research" that supposedly finds evolutionary "adaptive" reasons for human beauty.1) Standards of beauty are so culture specific, and even within a given culture are affected by fads and temporary fashions, that researchers should have to realize they need to work a little harder to even establish that there is some sort of innate standards of beauty.2) Even if there are innate standards of beauty, they could, as you point out, be the "unintentional" result of brain processes that were selected for other reasons.3) Finally, even if certain standards of beauty were selected for, it could be the result of sexual selection that has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of fitness of the individuals.A lot of the pop evopsych that I see in the mainstream media seem just like the "just so" stories that the creationists complain about.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi Holmesy,
If birds and other creatures prefer mates that are symmetrical, and humans prefer symmetrical mates then it would seem that there is a connection between offspring viability and symmetry. 'Last I heard birds do not take in art at local museums nordo they sit around and discuss they're preferences between Jackson Pollock over Frank Frazzetta. My point being that some people prefer abstract art over realism. So in my opinion art is a poor analogy from the get go. I am a Post modern abstract fan myself.
The human animal is driven by many things and one of them is a subconcious preference for clues that tell us "I am a breeder". I possess good genes. I am disease free. I am strong. I am availiable. I will make a good father, or mother. Breed with me and you will have strong healthy babies.Many congenital diseases show up as defects such as cleft pallette, mongoloidism. Missing limbs...fingers..
Most mating behavior is visual cues ..looking at the body, the hands, the shine of the hair, straight white teeth, the clear eyes all indicating health.
No one wants a mate that is unkept, malnutritioned and possibly has diseases.So symmetry is just one of the cues humans and other animals instictivley follow in mate selection. And if you do not agree thats fine. It just makes perfect logical sense to me. *edit typosThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-08-2006 10:45 AM

I don't see that one at all. As you go on to say, people haven't tried to figure out if animals use symmetry for evaluation in other circumstances. Thus they might. We know humans do. And appeals to abstract art don't mean anything. Even abstract art can have a sense of symmetry. And even rules can have exceptions or there'd only be genetically symmetrical people. I agree it is a possible answer, but one needs better evidence than is being presented in order to make it an actual answer. All I have seen so far is that when people are forced to choose beauty based on a singular characteristic (visual), they tend to correlate their choice with symmetry, which is not surprising as that is what humans seem to enjoy symmetry in many objects besides mates.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Ok...then how about Picasso?
My point was that some people find asymmetry in art beautiful and therefore art was a bad analogy. And I agree with you that to come out and say as scientific fact choosing a mate is based on symmetry is bad science. But I wouldnt fault a person for thinking that it is one of the subconcious cues in human mate selection . But as you said, visual isn't the only thing, there is also evidence to suggest that pheremones may also play a part in mate selection in humans. I for one do not like stinky woman even if Nepolian did plead for Josephine not to bathe the week before his leave.