The "Why" Questions

[Shaker]

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.

You tell us, it certainly seems as if you have one in your brain, given the number of mentions you make of him.

Bazinga! 

[Outrider]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

Absolutely! Which hardly points to an intelligent creator.

[Jack Knave]

Dear Leonard,

See!! you are at it again.

Try these.

Gravity, air, electricity, evolution ...

WHY

Gonnagle.

  I can't improve on outrider's answer.  Science has discovered more or less HOW they work, but why they do so is just an unanswerable question.

Except to you and many of your ilk, of course ... you just bung that "personage" in as an answer. 

But why do we have this desire and need to know the impossible answers about life?

We ask why because we have prospered as a species by asking questions and struggling, with some success, to understand the seemingly incomprehensible; it's in our phenotype just as curling up is in a hedgehog's.  The popular answer, 'someone' must have done it, is also in our phenotype, it's cognitive bias.

But there's a difference between trying to figure out how to have a more easier life in terms of getting food and a mate and siting on ones ass and philosophically pondering why there is all this universe and where it came from, and what our lives mean in the big scheme of things.

This pondering, for me and many others, isn't some academic pastime to enjoy now and again as a bit of fun, it is something that 'presses' on my life as an almost continuum; as a fundamental and essential aspect and given of who I am.

[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?

[Leonard James]

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 know it's a simplistic explanation, but when there is a choice, couldn't it be that the mate was attracted more by the bright colours than the dull ones?

[Enki]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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 know it's a simplistic explanation, but when there is a choice, couldn't it be that the mate was attracted more by the bright colours than the dull ones?

But there must have been a stage in the past when the plumage was in some other configuration or just not present. When something new evolves that has not existed before how does the old approach recognise the totally new arrangement and deem it to be better, without have the required DNA to appreciate what it is being presented with?

[Leonard James]

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 know it's a simplistic explanation, but when there is a choice, couldn't it be that the mate was attracted more by the bright colours than the dull ones?

But there must have been a stage in the past when the plumage was in some other configuration or just not present. When something new evolves that has not existed before how does the old approach recognise the totally new arrangement and deem it to be better, without have the required DNA to appreciate what it is being presented with?

The link supplied by enki gives a logical explanation.

[Outrider]

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?

Random mutation? Personal affectation?

O.

[Harrowby Hall]

But why do we have this desire and need to know the impossible answers about life?

This is my take on it.

We are an instinctively inquisitive species. We are not born knowing what is good/bad to eat, we have to learn it from our parents and culture. Knowledge of what is edible/poisonous can only have come from being inquisitive and experimenting in the distant past.

As we discovered more and more things about ourselves and the environment, it was only natural that curiosity about everything took over.

Unfortunately, many of our forbears who couldn't find out the real answers to natural phenomena were prompted to invent answers in the form of spirits and gods.

May I add a further reason?

We are the only species to have developed a completely open-ended and infinitely variable communication system. We are the only species ever able to enquire of other members of our species matters which are abstract and hypothetical. And to add to that, by means of written language, we are able to know of the thoughts, actions and conclusions of people we will never meet and who may seperated from us not just by distance but by time.

We have the capability to ask the questions.

In some cases, communications from past-times are treated as authoritative just because they are old and more relevent, contempory, information is rejected.

Consider the RC Church's attitude toward sex and sexuality. Much of it comes from ancient Greece, via Thomas Aquinas. Modern understanding - empirical in origin - is rejected in favour of Natural Law.

[Nearly Sane]

Empiricism can never make the jump from ought to is. Its presence in discussions on morality must needs come after some moral assumption.

[Nearly Sane]

Also that we are the only species that looks at the abstract is an assumption based on us not seeing how we do it, done in the same way in other species. We have no real idea what it is like to be a chimp never mind a bat.

[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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Any chance of you outlining what you understand by evolution Ippy?

[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

Any chance of you outlining what you understand by evolution Ippy?

No need it's all well documented, unless you can't understand Wikki's simple explanation.

ippy

[jeremyp]

No need it's all well documented, unless you can't understand Wikki's simple explanation.

But we won't know if your understanding is correct unless you give it in your own words.

[ippy]

No need it's all well documented, unless you can't understand Wikki's simple explanation.

But we won't know if your understanding is correct unless you give it in your own words.

I've already done so and within the last couple of days as well; you tell me your version, I'm happy with the more simple version Wikki presents, mainly because it isn't that mind bogglingly hard  to understand.

ippy

[jeremyp]

you tell me your version

Vlad isn't questioning my understanding, he's questioning yours.

I'm happy with the more simple version Wikki presents, mainly because it isn't that mind bogglingly hard  to understand.

It would have to be very simple not to boggle Vlad's mind.

[ippy]

you tell me your version

Vlad isn't questioning my understanding, he's questioning yours.

I'm happy with the more simple version Wikki presents, mainly because it isn't that mind bogglingly hard  to understand.

It would have to be very simple not to boggle Vlad's mind.

And I thought I had answered Vlad.

I can't see anything difficult to understand about the way the Wikki site describes the evolutionary process, perhaps it would be a good starting point for anyone that would want to know or understand how evolution works would be to go there and feed their face as much as they like on the theory as described by them there.

If Vlad or anyone else feel that they are unable to understand evolution as described by Wikki, well I'm certain anything I say or add wouldn't help them that much either.

There's probably numerous sights covering this subject have you tried Google, I like the Opera browser it seems to work quite well, it's worth a try.

I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, I think I may have covered some ideas for where you might like to look.

ippy.
 

[jeremyp]

I can't see anything difficult to understand about the way the Wikki site describes the evolutionary process,

Yes but Vlad doesn't think you understand it.  That's why he asked you to explain it.  The only way for anybody to demonstrate an understanding of anything is to explain it in their own words.

[ippy]

I can't see anything difficult to understand about the way the Wikki site describes the evolutionary process,

Yes but Vlad doesn't think you understand it.  That's why he asked you to explain it.  The only way for anybody to demonstrate an understanding of anything is to explain it in their own words.

Vlad's limitations whatever they might be seem to worry you more than me, I'll take the view on evolution that are as I have said, perhaps you might like to take him on with any minor adjustments that could be a bother to you; well, whatever you would like to convey to him, please be my guest, fill your boots.

I'm sure Wikki has enough on the subject and is accurate enough to keep both you and Vlad happy, it's all yours JP, do as you wish.

ippy



   

[jeremyp]

Vlad's limitations whatever they might be seem to worry you more than me,

It's not about Vlad's limitations, it is about yours.  On this occasion, I think I'm beginning to agree with him: I don't think you understand what evolution is because you are spending a lot of time avoiding answering it in your own words.

I'll take the view on evolution that are as I have said

But you haven't said, you have only referred him to what somebody else said.

[ippy]

Vlad's limitations whatever they might be seem to worry you more than me,

It's not about Vlad's limitations, it is about yours.  On this occasion, I think I'm beginning to agree with him: I don't think you understand what evolution is because you are spending a lot of time avoiding answering it in your own words.

I'll take the view on evolution that are as I have said

But you haven't said, you have only referred him to what somebody else said.

It Looks like you've missed something along the way then; I'm fine with whatever you might like to think, 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.

ippy

[jeremyp]

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.