Design evidence # 231: taste buds

Yeah, I am one of those wierdos who like to eat the raw fish plain! Oh, and carpaccio is served at room temperature, and I'll bet you would like it if you thought of it as really rare steak.I agree, however, that since people had enough liesure time, we have been looking for ways to manipulate our food to make it delight the palate.

""There are no evolutionists in Hell"lpetrich: 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? "
--------------------------------
Either you didn't get the point, or you are trying to be funny..I'll assume it's a joke.
Unless Darwin accepted Christ on his deathbed, he is INDEED in Hell realizing that he was WRONG, thus he is now a hell-bound Creationist.
Therefore, there are no evolutionists or atheists in hell.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Oh.Satan is the Creator too?

quote:

---

"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

---

Don't read much about Chaos Theory, do you?

[QUOTE]by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++
Either you didn't get the point, or you are trying to be funny..I'll assume it's a joke.
Unless Darwin accepted Christ on his deathbed, he is INDEED in Hell realizing that he was WRONG, thus he is now a hell-bound Creationist.
Therefore, there are no evolutionists or atheists in hell.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Actually I didn't get the point when I read it either. I guess the reason why is because your point (like your evidence for design) is stuck within your own circular logic.Many people can, and do, believe in evolution AND God (even the Xtian god, accepting Jesus as their savior)! Ever hear of theistic evolutionists? How about deists?All it takes is altering which statements of the bible you believe are parables, and which you believe are statements of fact.This is similar to when people realized that the Biblical statements regarding an earth-centered universe must be parable, as the evidence from their senses proved quite the opposite was true. You do believe the earth goes around the sun, right?Or do you believe there are no heliocentrists in hell either?Never mind answering this, just answer the real questions regarding your evidence for design.holmes

quote:

---

Satan is the Creator too?

---

Sure, makes sense. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I remember doing a taste test in biology class ...
I couldn't taste it at all ... which from other people's
reactions was a good thing.Taste in general, though, is psychological surely?One can accustom oneself to unusuals tastes ... I remember
shuddering down a mouthful of my dad's beer as a child,
but drink it now and savour the taste ... not entirely a
changing of growing up thing there, and there are several
food items that I hated a few years ago, but quite like
now.

Yes, taste is physiological, but there is a lot of cultural learning which greatly influences our tastes.It is pretty much agreed upon that hair, fur and paper are not considered food by humans, universally, but after that it is a question of social norms and exposure, and a little bit of personal taste.The occurance of true food allergies and true lactose intolerance and true gluten sensitivity in the US population are all very small, despite the fact that they are the trendy ailments of the day. I think that they are often used to justify fear of food or pickiness. IT is also true that children who are breast fed tend to be more adventureous eaters, because they were being exposed to a much greater range of taste because the mother's diet would affect the taste of her milk.It is repeated exposure to different foods that will allow a person of any age to develop a taste for it.I reccomend a great book on the subject called "The Man Who Ate Everything" by Jeffery Steingarten

quote:

---

Taste in general, though, is psychological surely?

---

Meaning what? That our brains process chemical signals associated with the stuff we eat? And that our brains further associate those chemical signals with stuff we have eaten in the past that did or did not make us sick, throwing in the cultural components to make those associations streatch back many generations?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

quote:

​

Taste in general, though, is psychological surely?

​

Meaning what? That our brains process chemical signals associated with the stuff we eat? And that our brains further associate those chemical signals with stuff we have eaten in the past that did or did not make us sick, throwing in the cultural components to make those associations streatch back many generations?

---

Our taste-buds and olifactory sensors send signals back to the
brain for processing.The brain then makes associations based upon past exposure,
cultural acceptance etc. and sends a message representing
a degree of acceptance.Have you ever seen programs (they used to do them in the UK)
where they take unusual food out on to the street, and say
'Here try this.' People chow down, making 'that's not bad'
noises then the presenter says 'hey, that's a sheep's eyeball'
or 'bull's testicle' and the people go 'Yuk!!!' and spit out
the stuff with a look of revultion. It's a rare person who just
goes on munching and saying 'Hmmm ... tastes good anyhow.'Taste is largely psychological.

What's wrong with eating nonmeat animal parts? Indonesians seem to do it all the time: goat testicles, cow brains, nose cartilage, knee cartilage, stomach, chicken intestines (deep-fried), lungs, tails,... but we're nothing compared with the insect-eating Thais or dog-eating Koreans or half-incubated-egg-gulping Filipinos.Asia's one adventurous place for the gastronomically adventurous

That's what I was getting at really .... it's not a function
of the taste or texture etc. that ultimately determines
whether or not one likes what one is tasting ... it's psychological
and a large part of that is social conditioning and cultural
influence.Added as an afetrthought::A traditional English dish is tripe and onions .... with
tripe being cow's intestines, and the scottish love their
sheep stomaches stuffed with spicy stuff (hagis) [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-13-2003]

quote:

---

It's a rare person who just goes on munching and saying 'Hmmm ... tastes good anyhow.'

---

ah....Would you really call that taste though? Seems like that while the mystery-dish is still a mystery the taste buds are doing their jobs properly, and when the host tells them that they are eating sea slug a different component of the brain takes over. It is a fine line, as these things are all inter-related.Lets say, many millions of years ago and long before we resembled humans, our taste mechanisms worked essentially on trial and error. Eventually a slight cultural element came into play. Bears, for example, to a certain extent teach their cubs what to eat, where to find food, etc. This cultural component became stronger in primates. In our case, it can overwhelm the taste-buds-- so to speak. The cultural component has become strong enough to backfire.I suppose I am thinking of taste in a more restricted way than are you. I mean, Americans eat cow on a daily basis but will react with horror if they are asked to eat horse. The two meats must produce very similar taste bud responses.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I think the way I view it is that the taste-buds simply report
'flavour characteristics' (taste buds can only do salt, sweet,
and sour ... or somesuch ... anyhow, a lot of what we call taste
includes smell) ... it's the brain that interprets and says
yes or no, surely.

What's wrong with believing that the universe was created by Satan?