The "Why" Questions

[ippy]

Have you tried Wikki yet, I'm trying to think where there might be another explanation of evolution that differs from the original theory, I don't think there is one.

How do you know?  You don't understand the Theory of Evolution.

If you think I don't understand the theory of how evolution works, well that's up to you I really don't mind, I'm quite happy with my understanding of it.

Have a look at where poor old Hope's having a job understanding the evolution theory I'm sure I gave him a rough outline of what the theory is about, it was somewhere over the last, now three or four days.

I hope this addresses your worries, I've no problem with relating my understanding of the theory when I feel it's needed to put over some important, to me, point.

ippy   


P S, You seem to be worried about my understanding of evolution JP, just found roughly where it was I stated something about it on the "Speaking In Tongues" thread somewhere from post 160 onwards or thereabouts, hope this is a help to you.   

[Jack Knave]

Dear Berational,

Sorry my bad!

I may be coming down with a case of Vlad, got Dawkins on the brain, yes of course Prof Hawking

Gonnagle.

I'm sure Dawkins' friend the neuroscientist Sam Harris would agree there is a Dawkins' centre in the brain.....probably shaped like a Haribo jelly bear.

Though what the Dawkins' centre is for is anybody's guess.

It isn't 'for' anything. Nothing in evolutionary theory is 'for' anything. Everything is a random variation - those that have survived are those which, after the fact, have turned out to have either a beneficial or neutral effect on procreation, directly or indirectly.

People use the language 'birds have developed colourful plumage to attract mates' as shorthand, but the reality is that those birds which first developed colourful plumage were more successful than those which didn't, and so those traits have persisted.

Nothing in nature is 'for' anything, they are just conveniently put to a use after the fact.

O.

But there are problems with this though. On what bases does the mate find this new plumage attractive if they are programmed by their DNA to go for the old style plumage?

I think you will find that the reasons for brighter and more colourful plumage in many, but certainly not all, male bird species can be, but is not necessarily associated with sexual preference. The position is rather more complex. This article, I suggest, clarifies some of the reasons quite well:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-male-birds-more-c/

However, I agree with O. The overriding factor is that in many bird species sexual dichromatism aids survival of the species, which of course is what evolution is all about.

That article doesn't answer my fundamental question as to how 'old style' female birds would find 'new style' males; due to a mutation, more attractive than their contemporary 'old style' males, assuming that the mutation is not just an up grade of a present attribute but some new feature. It is obvious that 10s of millions of years previously these birds would not have existed as a species but only their ancestral form with different mating criteria. So how does all this come about?

[Jack Knave]

There are several people that seem to me to be reasonably intelligent people posting here that never seem to actually get the basics of the theory of evolution into their heads and continue to put forward really stupid, inane, childlike questionings of this very well tried and tested theory.

It reminds me of children with their eyes shut fingers in the ears and la,la,la,la,la; this theory is as watertight as any theory you're ever likely to get.

You know who you are, get over it!

ippy

The idea of evolution isn't hard it is the details that get tricky. The idea of evolution is just a general overview of how species have developed but says nothing of the various mechanisms and intricate processes that govern it.

[Enki]

Hi Jack,

Dear Berational,

Sorry my bad!

I may be coming down with a case of Vlad, got Dawkins on the brain, yes of course Prof Hawking

Gonnagle.

I'm sure Dawkins' friend the neuroscientist Sam Harris would agree there is a Dawkins' centre in the brain.....probably shaped like a Haribo jelly bear.

Though what the Dawkins' centre is for is anybody's guess.

It isn't 'for' anything. Nothing in evolutionary theory is 'for' anything. Everything is a random variation - those that have survived are those which, after the fact, have turned out to have either a beneficial or neutral effect on procreation, directly or indirectly.

People use the language 'birds have developed colourful plumage to attract mates' as shorthand, but the reality is that those birds which first developed colourful plumage were more successful than those which didn't, and so those traits have persisted.

Nothing in nature is 'for' anything, they are just conveniently put to a use after the fact.

O.

But there are problems with this though. On what bases does the mate find this new plumage attractive if they are programmed by their DNA to go for the old style plumage?

I think you will find that the reasons for brighter and more colourful plumage in many, but certainly not all, male bird species can be, but is not necessarily associated with sexual preference. The position is rather more complex. This article, I suggest, clarifies some of the reasons quite well:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-male-birds-more-c/

However, I agree with O. The overriding factor is that in many bird species sexual dichromatism aids survival of the species, which of course is what evolution is all about.

That article doesn't answer my fundamental question as to how 'old style' female birds would find 'new style' males; due to a mutation, more attractive than their contemporary 'old style' males, assuming that the mutation is not just an up grade of a present attribute but some new feature. It is obvious that 10s of millions of years previously these birds would not have existed as a species but only their ancestral form with different mating criteria. So how does all this come about?

Suggestions:

Both sexes being originally colourful, then the female becoming less colourful as camouflage aids survival of the young?

Colour in males making them more prominent as showing them to be in charge of a territory?

Plumage brightness illustrating the health of the male? Remember, for many birds, it is the female which chooses her mate(s)?

Plumage brightness showing the presence of the male to the female in a territory?

Is it not possible that anything which shows off the male to best advantage could well attract the female because of the above, whether it be song, size, plumage, ritual courtship etc.?

Most of these effects are mentioned in the article. Your idea of 'old style' female birds and 'new style' males doesn't take account of gradual change. Is it not sensible to suggest that more prominent males had greater success with females, hence with a greater likelihood of these traits being passed on?

[ippy]

There are several people that seem to me to be reasonably intelligent people posting here that never seem to actually get the basics of the theory of evolution into their heads and continue to put forward really stupid, inane, childlike questionings of this very well tried and tested theory.

It reminds me of children with their eyes shut fingers in the ears and la,la,la,la,la; this theory is as watertight as any theory you're ever likely to get.

You know who you are, get over it!

ippy

The idea of evolution isn't hard it is the details that get tricky. The idea of evolution is just a general overview of how species have developed but says nothing of the various mechanisms and intricate processes that govern it.

I know this is the electronic equivalent of ink but many reams of paper and copious amounts of ink could easily be gobbled up writing out about just a few of the nuances of how evolution works.

I like most people and I think most people have got the basics without a lot of trouble, just as you're implying, I agree.

In the mean time I think covering whatever part of the theory is being discussed at the time it comes up for debate, is sufficient.

ippy

[Samuel]

In other threads, it is frequently asserted that science can't answer the why questions but only the how questions.

Some examples of why questions:

• What is our purpose?
• What (or who) created the Universe?
• Do we have a soul?

Some examples of how questions

• Why is the sky dark?
• Why have there been so many species of life on Earth?
• Why is the Sun so hot?

Clearly the term "why question" is poorly chosen, but leaving that aside, what makes a "why" question?  Is there some quality they have or don't have that makes them "why" questions or is it simply that religions are happy to make up answers to difficult questions when science is not?

Actually, at one level, I think science can provide answers to some of the why questions.  For example, the answer to the first one above, according to science, is "none" or perhaps "we make our own purpose".

It would be helpful, I think, if the religionists here could give some of the why questions they think science can't answer and the answers that their religion gives and how they know the answer is correct.

A couple more for you

Where is justice?

what is beauty?


My own view is that the 'how' questions provide information about the external world. They show us the context of our lives.

The 'why' questions are all about making sense of our internal lives i.e. what its like to live inside our own heads. Messy and illogical certainly, which is probably the reason why these sorts of questions are illogical and messy too.

Another way to think about it is the 'why' questions being about seeking, and perhaps inventing, purpose and meaning. The former is implied, as someone already pointed out, by the very use of the work 'why', and difficult to proove as valid. 'Meaning' however is more elusive and personal. We all need to feel our lives have some sort of meaning, even if it is simply through our personal relationships with friends and family.

In the end there is little chance of making it through life in a sensible way without taking account of both sorts of questions, and using them to understand ourselves, the world around us and our place in it.

[Outrider]

A couple more for you

Where is justice?

In the eye of the beholder...

what is beauty?

Subjective aesthetics...

My own view is that the 'how' questions provide information about the external world. They show us the context of our lives.

The 'why' questions are all about making sense of our internal lives i.e. what its like to live inside our own heads. Messy and illogical certainly, which is probably the reason why these sorts of questions are illogical and messy too.

Another way to think about it is the 'why' questions being about seeking, and perhaps inventing, purpose and meaning. The former is implied, as someone already pointed out, by the very use of the work 'why', and difficult to proove as valid. 'Meaning' however is more elusive and personal. We all need to feel our lives have some sort of meaning, even if it is simply through our personal relationships with friends and family.

In the end there is little chance of making it through life in a sensible way without taking account of both sorts of questions, and using them to understand ourselves, the world around us and our place in it.

"Why do you think you're here?", interpreted as 'what do you choose as your purpose in life' is absolutely fine, that's a great place to start from. "Why do you think you're here?" in an absolute sense begs the question, though, and too many people are prepared to ignore that and suggest that there is something missing from our understanding of reality because of it.

O.