evolution or supreme design?

Whilst fundamental processing, if based on DNA evolution might explain some biological phenomena like in the case of bees, and

I do not see the match for children coming from populations and land far away the sea (no order, complexity, or symmetry in it) who have never seen it, therefore apparently adaptations is not always the solution.

Therefore, the evolution appears to be excluded as a common solution. So, after the DNA evolution, which does not explain the first case, what we can resort at before thinking of a supreme design in the universe?

The reply by Gemini:

You raise a critical point that challenges a purely adaptive evolutionary explanation for the child's fascination with the sea! If a child from a landlocked population, with no direct ancestral exposure to the sea, immediately finds it captivating, it indeed complicates the idea that specific adaptations to the sea itself are required. This suggests a more generalized, perhaps deeper, mechanism at play.

Let's address this, pushing beyond specific DNA adaptations for "sea-affinity" and before resorting to a "supreme design" explanation. We're looking for universal principles of perception and response that don't require specific prior exposure or direct evolutionary pressure for a particular stimulus.

Here's what we can resort to:

1. General Cognitive Processing Principles and "Perceptual Fluency"

Instead of specific adaptations to the sea, consider universal principles of how the human brain processes information and finds certain types of stimuli inherently rewarding.

Optimal Arousal/Stimulation: The brain thrives on a certain level of sensory input. Too little is boring, too much is overwhelming. The sea, for a child who has never seen it, offers an optimal level of novel, yet coherent, stimulation.
Perceptual Fluency: This theory suggests that stimuli that are easy for our brains to process are often perceived as more aesthetically pleasing or "beautiful." While the sea is novel, its inherent patterns (like waves breaking rhythmically) might be easier for the brain to process than truly chaotic scenes. The vastness also offers a simple, clear horizon, providing a sense of orientation.

2. Deep-Seated Biophilic Responses to Elements, Not Specific Environments
Instead of an adaptation to "the sea," consider an innate, broader biophilic response to fundamental elements crucial for life and well-being.

3. The "Awe" Response: Beyond Beauty

The child's fascination might be better described as "awe" rather than just "beauty." Awe is an emotion we experience when confronted with something vast, overwhelming, and transcendent, something that challenges our existing mental frameworks.

Conclusion: Universal Mechanisms of Perception and Emotion

So, before invoking a "supreme design," we can point to:

Universal principles of sensory processing: The brain's inherent wiring to find optimal levels of novelty and complexity, and its efficiency in processing certain patterns.
Broad biophilic predispositions to fundamental life-sustaining elements: Not specific environments, but generalized positive responses to water, open space, and natural rhythms.
The capacity for awe: A fundamental human emotional response to vastness and transcendence, which the sea perfectly embodies.

These mechanisms are deeply rooted in our shared human cognitive architecture and emotional systems, forged by eons of evolution in diverse environments where recognizing and responding positively to these fundamental elements was beneficial. The sea just happens to be a powerful, concentrated expression of many of these universally engaging qualities. It's less about a specific evolutionary adaptation to coastal living and more about the fundamental ways our brains interact with the world to ensure survival and well-being.