Evolution #9

[RJT]

Zerios,

I don’t know if I agree with you here. I would think cosmologists study the galaxies with a purpose that someday their study might be useful to ourselves, no?

Paleontologists , I’ll take your word for it.

Perhaps I am mistaken when I assumed evolutionists are not social scientist.

I think scientist generally have a curious motive, true. But don’t most hope that their research pays off in some tangible way? For some other reason than curiosity?

RJT

[RJT]

“You seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding about evolution.”

Actually, I think it might be the opposite. That I am looking for more of evolutionist than only the study of what has happened or perhaps what can be expected to happen if this then that.

You say evolutions don’t deal with the whys - the meanings so much. I guess that is my question. Why aren’t they looking for the whys. Not the tangible whys like why the eyelids. But like I said why emotions?

I will take a gander at further reading regarding evolution. As far as philosophy and theology - I think I have a good foundation there - no expert by any means.

Thanks, buddy

[ QUOTE ]
Simply survival seems so mundane to me.


[/ QUOTE ]


Species evolving to adapt and survive in their environment isn't "cool enough" for you, huh? Yeah, the fact that a single cell organism can evolve over billions of years into a thinking being capable of living in almost any environment including outer space merely as a consequence of selection based on survival is pretty boring stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
But don’t most hope that their research pays off in some tangible way?

[/ QUOTE ]

The understanding of the universe is a tangible way. You have very odd thoughts on science, as if researchers only explore in order to build a better motor engine or something.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply survival seems so mundane to me.


[/ QUOTE ]


Species evolving to adapt and survive in their environment isn't "cool enough" for you, huh? Yeah, the fact that a single cell organism can evolve over billions of years into a thinking being capable of living in almost any environment including outer space merely as a consequence of selection based on survival is pretty boring stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s my point.

That we evolved into all of this. And evolutionist state simply - well it just happened.

[ QUOTE ]
You say evolutions don’t deal with the whys - the meanings so much. I guess that is my question. Why aren’t they looking for the whys. Not the tangible whys like why the eyelids. But like I said why emotions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very easy answer: because at some point, they aided survival. Period. That's the only WHY in evolution. There is no "deeper meaning" or "right path." If a characteristic such as consciousness develops and those members of the species gain a survival advantage from it, then it will become more dominant as time goes on. Simple as that. Also, you'll have to define what you mean by "emotions" because even dogs feel joy, sadness, sympathy, etc. Are these emotions? Isn't "emotion" just a response to stimulus? By feeling "love" and being loved, this can be a trait which leads to more successful reproduction, rearing of offspring, etc., which thus aids selection. Again, we're back to "emotions" just being another trait that aids survival.

[RJT]

So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)

[ QUOTE ]
That we evolved into all of this. And evolutionist state simply - well it just happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

And creationists state simply -- well it (creation) just happened. I don't know what kind of answer you want evolution to give you. Evolution is just concerned with how species adapt and evolve. It isn't mysticism that speculates why the universe exists. You are missing the point by claiming this as a deficiency in evolutionary theory. I don't expect chemists to explain why protons and electrons exist. The chemist knows they exist and explains how they interact. Just like an evolutionary biologist knows organic matter exists and explains how it evolves.

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Einstein didn't create the theory of relativity because he wanted to sell a time transporter.

[tolbiny]

If your interested in why humans evollved as emotional entities Anthropology might be of interest to you.
A basic explanation would be that humas are social beings who care for their young. For our offspring to survive long enough to develope the skills ness they are dependant upon thier parents. The emotional attachment between parent and child is important to this. It is also important for humans to be able to cooperate wth one another, we are more efficient in groups. being emotionally invested with your neighbors makes it easier to help out and recieve help.

As for you comments about humans "no longer" evolving, look up the thoery of puntuated equilibrium. In a basic sense it states that short bursts of evolution are responsible for most of the variety. Predator/prey will fall into a kind of equilibrium with neither having to big of an advantage- untill the environment changes, and those changes will strat off a procession of evolution and "counter-evolution" untill an "equilibrium" is reached again. And in other situations an animal might fit a niche so well that they don't evolve for quite some time. Certain species of sharks appear "unchanged" from ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago (clearly we can only study limited stuff like bone structure, and other parts of them might have changed).

what are we evolving to? There are tons of genes entering and being weeded out of our gene pool, and many don't do anything (neutral mutations) - but might be effective in the future. IE resistance to radiation wouldn't make you much more likely to surevive and reproduce, but should a nuclear war occur you could have a huge advantage. Basically since we don't know the conditions of the future we don't know what we are "evolving towards".