Design evidence # 231: taste buds

ToE is purposeless and random, non-guided. Supposedly natural selection acting on random mutations "favour" certain characteristics that ensure better survival (survial of the fittest).The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about. It is direct evidence for a Creator, who created with PURPOSE.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about.

---

Ever consider that taste is functional? It gives clues to what is nutritious and to what is poisonous.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about.

---

​

Ever consider that taste is functional? It gives clues to what is nutritious and to what is poisonous.

​

---

Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.

---

Do you think that humans who buy their food at Piggly Wiggly are the only creatures that have taste buds???? Get a grip, man!

My cat's taste buds are so exacting and demanding that she'll only eat the very best (Fancy Feast), and even only four of the flavors are good enough. God must really like cats!--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
My cat's taste buds are so exacting and demanding that she'll only eat the very best (Fancy Feast), and even only four of the flavors are good enough. God must really like cats!

​

--Percy

---

I had a Spaniel-mix who grew up eating cat food. ( She died a couple of years ago at the age of 21. ) Her favorite food had two parts -- a red kibble and a tan kibble. She would sit and pick out the red ones and leave the tan ones. It was quite interesting to watch.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.

​

---

You are missing the point. Taste buds are always used for this function. Everytime you eat something you are picking up chemical clues as to its contents. 'Pleasurable' is calibrated towards nutricious while 'distasteful' is calibated towards dangerous. All of this, of course, works on average and isn't absolutely reliable. Still, it only has to work more more times than not to be beneficial.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-20-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.

​

---

​

You are missing the point. Taste buds are always used for this function. Everytime you eat something you are picking up chemical clues as to its contents. 'Pleasurable' is calibrated towards nutricious while 'distasteful' is calibated towards dangerous. All of this, of course, works on average and isn't absolutely reliable. Still, it only has to work more more times than not to be beneficial.

​

---

I believe it is you who are missing the point. And furthermore, how indeed another proof of God, that He designed most creatures with taste buds so they could protect themselves (if they didn't have the mental intelligence to decipher between good and bad) as opposed to his Crown creation who would use this wonderful function for a delightful purpose.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

There's a couple answers to this.First, you're actually just restating your initial point. Man takes delight in taste, only God could create the ability to experience delight, therefore taste is evidence of God. There are many other examples: music, art, humor, etc. The key question is whether our ability to experience delight could only have been provided by God.It's been explained how taste can be placed within an evolutionary context. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way, it only means that taste is consistent with evolution.So how do you choose between the two alternatives? If you're being scientific then you look at which one is better supported by the evidence. Evidence of actions by God have traditionally been problematic. We can study evolution in action in the present and project the understanding we develop onto historical scenarios such as the evolution of taste. How does one gather evidence of God in action from which to build up an understanding of how he works in order to do the same thing?Second, it's important to note that one of the problems with using good things (such as delight) as evidence *for* God is that bad things automatically become evidence *against* God.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

I believe it is you who are missing the point. And furthermore, how indeed another proof of God, that He designed most creatures with taste buds so they could protect themselves (if they didn't have the mental intelligence to decipher between good and bad) as opposed to his Crown creation who would use this wonderful function for a delightful purpose.

​

There's a couple answers to this.

​

First, you're actually just restating your initial point. Man takes delight in taste, only God could create the ability to experience delight, therefore taste is evidence of God. There are many other examples: music, art, humor, etc. The key question is whether our ability to experience delight could only have been provided by God.

​

It's been explained how taste can be placed within an evolutionary context. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way, it only means that taste is consistent with evolution.

​

So how do you choose between the two alternatives? If you're being scientific then you look at which one is better supported by the evidence. Evidence of actions by God have traditionally been problematic. We can study evolution in action in the present and project the understanding we develop onto historical scenarios such as the evolution of taste. How does one gather evidence of God in action from which to build up an understanding of how he works in order to do the same thing?

​

Second, it's important to note that one of the problems with using good things (such as delight) as evidence *for* God is that bad things automatically become evidence *against* God.

​

--Percy

---

I hear what you are saying. God in action can be seen in millions of lives of followers all over the world, where He is actively ministering to them at a personal level every day. He changes lives every day, He brings peace in the middle of the storm, He heals the broken hearted, He restores the lost.
He works through people to bring hope and salvation to those that seek it. He desires fellowship with all mankind, but many reject Him.I believe the reason someone would use bad things as evidence against God is because they do not recognize sin and the devil.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Let us postulate two alternatives consistent with the presence of good and evil in the world today:

• A cold impersonal universe where there is no God, and whatever happens, good or bad, has no rhyme or reason to it.
  ​
• A universe where God and the devil do battle. God does good, the devil does evil.

What experiment, test or evidence would enable you to tell which type of universe you were living in?--Percy

You're just preaching Sonnike. Get back to taste buds.The sense of taste is as important as sight for humans and other animals, not a god-given pleasure gift. If anything, it's more proof of evolution than many other parts of our make-up.You seem to be thinking the wrong-way-round as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution is the result of such senses as taste, not taste the result of evolution. Though evolution would fine-tune such senses.

I'm not sure I can agree with this way of expressing it. Cells have always interacted chemically with their environment, and so in that sense one could argue that evolution has been guided by taste, but to call evolution a result of senses like taste seems a bit of a stretch.--Percy

Sonnike,Perhaps if there was a pleasure thang that couldn't be related to a biological function? Taste is most certainly connected with identification of good/bad/harmful foods.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
The purpose of taste buds is to provide pleasure when eating and drinking, which is something "natural selection" could "care" less about.

---

​

Ever consider that taste is functional? It gives clues to what is nutritious and to what is poisonous.

​

---

​

Yes, I did consider that, however, considering the percentage of the time our taste buds are utilized for this function compared to the every day function of pleasure, the most reasonable conclusion is that of a Creator, who not only gave us something for pleasure but also as a tool to protect us.

---

So essentially your argument is based on the assumption that taste buds were invented for people who have the good fortune to live in a society where food is so plentiful that they can afford to be choosy.Perhaps you can explain the reasoning that lead you to rely on this assumption ? Or is it the case that you did not adequately consider the matter ?