Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: jeremyp on August 25, 2015, 08:27:29 AM
-
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.
-
Isn't this essentially about falsifiability?
If we can come up with falsifiable answers to questions they are "how" questions. This implies that we can build a model that works for the data observed so far and make useful, verifiable, predictions.
If we are unable to define the terms used in the question with any confidence, such that answers cannot be shown to be wrong, then it is a "why" question.
-
Jeremy, you are opening Pandora's box! >:(
-
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.
It's not that there are different meanings for 'why'. Why does not mean 'how', it's just that there are some 'why' questions where we know the 'how' and presume that's sufficient response. It just leads back to 'why' did the precursor conditions happen.
Why, in the absence of some evidence of a conscious choice, is begging the question. 'Why' is the sky dark makes no sense - nobody 'chose' to make the sky dark, no-one had options and decided darkness was a better decision.
O.
-
Jeremy, you are opening Pandora's box! >:(
I am aware of that.
-
It's not that there are different meanings for 'why'. Why does not mean 'how', it's just that there are some 'why' questions where we know the 'how' and presume that's sufficient response. It just leads back to 'why' did the precursor conditions happen.
Please try not to get hung up too much on the way I chose to phrase the "how" questions. The fact that "why question" is really not adequate to describe the "why questions" is not the main thrust of what I'm asking.
Why, in the absence of some evidence of a conscious choice, is begging the question. 'Why' is the sky dark makes no sense
I beg to differ. That particular question is known as Olbers' Paradox. The fact that the sky is dark rules out the possibility that the Universe is both infinite in extent and eternal. We have an answer to it which is that the Universe is not eternal.
It's true that we don't know why there was a Big Bang and, in spite of the first word of that sentence, I don't think that is a "why question" either (other opinions are available).
-
The 'why' refers to ultimate philosophical questions. Why the big bang....why humans...why intelligent beings in the first place....and so on. But it can be a relevant question in science also.
The Anthropic Principle for example does refer to the 'why' question. Why only those constants in nature that lead to intelligent beings....and not others? That is a meaningful 'why' question and some scientists have attempted to come up with many theories from that...such as Parallel universes....Simulated Universes.....String Theory ....Consciousness as participating in the creation and so on.
-
The Anthropic Principle for example does refer to the 'why' question. Why only those constants in nature that lead to intelligent beings....and not others?
How many universes have you sampled to find that they only come in a form that is sufficient for intelligent life?
O.
-
The 'why' refers to ultimate philosophical questions. Why the big bang....why humans...why intelligent beings in the first place....and so on. But it can be a relevant question in science also.
..
These "why" questions are asking about "purpose" or "meaning", and do not have answers that can be objectively verified, at least by humans.
-
These "why" questions are asking about "purpose" or "meaning", and do not have answers that can be objectively verified, at least by humans.
What other form of life are you inferring is capable of it?
-
None in particular .. just something as yet unknown.
-
If something is unknown, and you understand what that word plainly means, you can't even know if it exists in the first place.
-
What I meant was: up to now we have no way of answering these questions, we don't even know if they make sense. But there is always a possibility that some other creature exists or will exist somewhere, that may be able to investigate those questions. They could be some future form of humans, or some alien lifeform with better brains than ours or different senses or equipment.
-
I see the Christians are steering clear of this thread. Why is that, I wonder?
-
I see the Christians are steering clear of this thread. Why is that, I wonder?
Well it isn't as though we don't already know their single answer to everything, is it?
-
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?
The 'why' questions re almost always philosophical questions that have answers outside of the purely physical realm.#
This web page is quite fun in how it deals with such q's - http://tinyurl.com/pw5cpb3
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".
And where does science even remotely suggest either of these answers, jeremy?
[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.
Having been up since 3 this morning, not sure that my brain,let alone my body, is up to the challenge of that right now - but I'll ponder it a while.
-
And where does science even remotely suggest either of these answers, jeremy?
It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution. There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes. Any purpose we perceive is of our own making.
[Having been up since 3 this morning, not sure that my brain,let alone my body, is up to the challenge of that right now - but I'll ponder it a while.
Take your time.
-
It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution. There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes.
I realise you're probably taking the evolution's-eye view here but from the human perspective I would say not even that, since it would entail that those who don't propagate their genes have no purpose, a group which would include (amongst innumerable others) Jane Austen, Wilhelm Rontgen, Beethoven, Isaac Newton ...
Take your time.
He'll need to ;)
-
It's quite simple: humans are the product of an undirected process called Evolution. There's no purpose to us except to propagate our genes.
I realise you're probably taking the evolution's-eye view here but from the human perspective I would say not even that, since it would entail that those who don't propagate their genes have no purpose, a group which would include (amongst innumerable others) Jane Austen, Wilhelm Rontgen, Beethoven, Isaac Newton ...
My use of the word "purpose" was somewhat imprecise. I probably should have said "function" because "purpose" can imply some sort of agency. In reality, there is none. There is no evolution's eye view. The genes express a phenotype that just happens to make it possible for them to propagate and so they do.
-
Hi everyone,
I believe.... the very fact that complexity arose and humans have arisen....shows a direction and a purpose. We can keep saying that... 'given enough time, humans can arise due to simple genetic variation and NS'....but this has not been established beyond doubt. It is just a belief.
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
I believe some form of consciousness guides organisms through subtle means, to evolve in certain ways. Just as our own unconscious mind guides and directs our decisions without our own knowledge.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.
-
Hi everyone,
I believe.... the very fact that complexity arose and humans have arisen....shows a direction and a purpose. We can keep saying that... 'given enough time, humans can arise due to simple genetic variation and NS'....but this has not been established beyond doubt. It is just a belief.
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
I believe some form of consciousness guides organisms through subtle means, to evolve in certain ways. Just as our own unconscious mind guides and directs our decisions without our own knowledge.
Cheers.
Sriram
That is woolly nonsense! By all means, believe it till the cows come home, but do NOT teach children that it is true.
-
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.
What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?! From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!!
I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective. What do we know?!
The clear direction is very much there however.
-
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.
What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?! From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!!
I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective. What do we know?!
The clear direction is very much there however.
Don't be obtuse! You were talking about some "agency" directing the course of evolution, not natural selection itself, which imo is the sole guiding force we are subjected to.
-
All emergent properties that arise at various points through the evolution of any species....indicate an intervention and course correction directed by some agency.
If they do, then that agency is not directing us on any defined course, because emergent properties include the bad ones as well as the good. It is we humans ourselves who have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Give me an example of one of these 'directed' emergent properties, and I think I will be able to show you an equal and opposite one.
What do you mean ...'not directing us on any defined course'?! From bacteria...to reptiles...to primates...to you and me punching away at computer keys...is a very well defined course IMO!!
I agree that it is not exactly a straight line from bacteria to humans. Lot of meandering about and hits and misses....but that is only from our limited human perspective. What do we know?!
The clear direction is very much there however.
Don't be obtuse! You were talking about some "agency" directing the course of evolution, not natural selection itself, which imo is the sole guiding force we are subjected to.
Alright! Alright! Let me leave it at that. Thanks.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
The WHY question, according to Prof Hawking we are to busy with the HOW question.
And it is okay to ask WHY, some atheists on here think it smacks of God, but no, you can ask WHY.
For instance.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm
WHY
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
WHY
Godidit, how he did it! I will leave to science.
Gonnagle.
-
Prof Hawkins?
Hawking or Dawkins?
-
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.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
The WHY question, according to Prof Hawkins we are to busy with the HOW question.
And it is okay to ask WHY, some atheists on here think it smacks of God, but no, you can ask WHY.
For instance.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm
WHY
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
WHY
Godidit, how he did it! I will leave to science.
Gonnagle.
Curiouser and curiouser! The more we learn the less we realise we know!
However, Gonners, that's no reason to introduce your friend "God" into the equation. Just accept that we will have to wait until we find out why these things happen.
-
Dear Leonard,
However, Gonners, that's no reason to introduce your friend "God" into the equation.
Well that's my point, you don't have to bring God into the equation to ask why.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
However, Gonners, that's no reason to introduce your friend "God" into the equation.
Well that's my point, you don't have to bring God into the equation to ask why.
Gonnagle.
OIC. Sorry, I thought you were saying 'goddidit' seriously. :)
-
Dear Leonard,
Seriously!! Goddidoit, but you don't have to belief to ask the question why.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Seriously!! Goddidoit, but you don't have to belief to ask the question why.
Gonnagle.
Which god is that, then? I hope you are not referring to the Christian "God" ... the one they say is all love, and yet who created the prey/predator system. :)
-
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.
Funny, I've just mentioned someone else who made that slip. It was dear freeminer, of blessed memory ;)
-
You've a different definition of blessed to mine, Dicky ;D
-
You've a different definition of blessed to mine, Dicky ;D
It's a common euphemism for the other b-word. Tellyer what - if we all used it, it might make a certain someone happier. But we'd still have our deliberate spelling mistakes and inadvertent typos to look out for....
-
Dear Leonard,
I would be happy if you shut up about God and just asked "WHY" ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
I would be happy if you shut up about God and just asked "WHY" ;)
Gonnagle.
And I would be happy if you didn't bring "God" into the discussion in the form of goddidit. >:(
As for asking "why", I don't see the point in asking pointless questions about something that isn't there.
-
Dear Leonard,
See!! you are at it again.
Try these.
Gravity, air, electricity, evolution, why I prefer cotton socks and not cotton rich socks >:(
WHY
Gonnagle.
-
Gravity, air, electricity, evolution
In what way does 'why' make sense? Why presumes an intention, a pre-determined purpose for which these properties were somehow intended, yet we have no evidence that there is either an intended purpose to anything we perceive in reality, nor anything to conceive of that purpose in the first place.
why I prefer cotton socks and not cotton rich socks >:(
I don't disagree, but only you can answer that for you, grasshopper :)
O.
-
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. :)
-
Dear Outrider and Leonard,
Fair enough chaps, it could well be me not thinking it through, but I don't see the intention bit or the pre determined, just the why!
Gonnagle.
-
In what way does 'why' make sense? Why presumes an intention, a pre-determined purpose for which these properties were somehow intended, yet we have no evidence that there is either an intended purpose to anything we perceive in reality, nor anything to conceive of that purpose in the first place.
Couldn't have put it better myself - the last time I tried I went off at a tangent about screwdrivers and clarinets ::)
-
Dear Outrider and Leonard,
Fair enough chaps, it could well be me not thinking it through, but I don't see the intention bit or the pre determined, just the why!
Gonnagle.
Well Gonners, it just come down to the eternal question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" When we can answer that, we may be a little nearer the truth of it all.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dear Outrider and Leonard,
Fair enough chaps, it could well be me not thinking it through, but I don't see the intention bit or the pre determined, just the why!
Gonnagle.
Why requires someone to have had an intent, otherwise you've just got how. Why do things fall, when you know the answer, actually becomes 'how do things fall', because it's gravity acting upon mass. There is no 'why', because why suggests someone has decided that it should be so.
We don't have any proof that someone hasn't, don't get me wrong, but in all of the things we've actually found answers for it turns out that no-one's decided, it's simply the mechanics of nature.
We have no reason to presume someone is making these decisions in the background.
O.
-
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! ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Empiricism can never make the jump from ought to is. Its presence in discussions on morality must needs come after some moral assumption.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.