Beauty In Evolution?

[Ryan2065]

Can't find the bird...

Yay, we win!

 

[meogi]

Yay, we win!

I just got back from looking at some amazing exotic birds that were simply beautiful.

You can't go back? Or call them?

But he did say that there is still much dispute as to how apes started to walk upright.

If by dispute you mean conjecture over the current theories, then yes. Regardless of that, there is very little conjecture over whether it actually happened or not. The reason being, is we look at us, we look at them, and we see a pattern and lineage. And so far, every new bit of evidence (such as advances in genetics and biology) fits into it as well.

Of course.

Glad you agree. I just hope you're not being sarcastic.

You're right but I only said that because some would come to me and say "I'm glad you asked, and not me". But this is a problem in the religious world as it is in the science world.

Indeed. But I think there's a difference between questioning the mechanics of a process, questioning the process itself, and questioning the divine. (And how often they occur, or how productive they are).

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]You can't go back? Or call them?

I wouldn't even know how to go about that. It was actually a Home and Garden Convention in our city. The bird was in a cage by a toucan (this one I know because of the cereal ) and other birds. A vendor selling tropical/exotic jacuzzi's had the birds there just for show and tell.

If by dispute you mean conjecture over the current theories, then yes. Regardless of that, there is very little conjecture over whether it actually happened or not. The reason being, is we look at us, we look at them, and we see a pattern and lineage. And so far, every new bit of evidence (such as advances in genetics and biology) fits into it as well.

So scientist can be varied in opinions on how something happened, but there is no doubt as to whether it happened? Do I got that right?

Glad you agree. I just hope you're not being sarcastic.

No I wasn't. Although it does sound like you have already begun to paint a picture of me. How do I look? Perhaps it was past comments I have made.

Indeed. But I think there's a difference between questioning the mechanics of a process, questioning the process itself, and questioning the divine. (And how often they occur, or how productive they are).

Yes there is. Mechanical processes I would not care what the outcome would be. Divine I would because it would affect my life. This is obviously just not me, but everyone.

~Victor

 

[meogi]

So scientist can be varied in opinions on how something happened, but there is no doubt as to whether it happened? Do I got that right?

I didn't say there was no doubt. I said very little... and this doubt varies from theory to theory, depending on the evidence.

No I wasn't. Although it does sound like you have already begun to paint a picture of me. How do I look? Perhaps it was past comments I have made.

I will admit that I analyze people based on how they act and what they say. But that's why I put in little things like that, to learn more about the person (and to try and avoid misunderstanding). And how did you look? Like someone trying to justify their belief in the supernatural with a natural process. In the past, that has tended to leave people sarcastic when considering certain things... so I'm sorry if I offended you by making this assumption, I now know otherwise.

Yes there is. Mechanical processes I would not care what the outcome would be. Divine I would because it would affect my life. This is obviously just not me, but everyone.

I thought we were talking about questioning beliefs... I was trying to say that I'm not sure how seriously people take questioning the divine (this being one of the reasons... you want it to be true.) And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Flappycat]

I just got back from looking at some amazing exotic birds that were simply beautiful. As I stared at them I said to myself "How in the world do those colors on that bird serve as any purpose for survival?". There were several birds but one in particular had every color in the rainbow and they were bright (I can't remember the name. Too busy starring). If anything, it would seem that bird would stand out and be eaten. And if your going to give me crap about "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Save your precious nails for another post. I think most people would look at those birds and say "wow, they are beautiful". It seems if survival was the main concern then we would see some ugly birds with a sprinkle of beauty. Only enough to survive...no more...no less.

~Victor

The evolutionary path of creatures meanders, not where it must, but where it might. The titanic forces that sculpt our mountains have no purpose and no proclivities beyond their own nature, but the features they produce astound and amaze us, nonetheless. The same is so with living things. The birds do not lose anything in being colorful and beautiful, so why shouldn't they be colorful and beautiful? Evolution is not a conscious thing that teaches creatures to evade predators and to find food. On the contrary, evolution is not a cause at all but an effect. What reproductive advantage do brightly colored birds have over birds that are not brilliant? Perhaps prospective mates share our admiration for these colors. Are not the birds that we keep as pets drawn to colorful or otherwise interesting objects?

Why would parrots develop such an amazing capacity for remembering and repeating complex sounds? Is it a demonstration of intelligence? Perhaps singing birds sing because their mates admire the songs of birds as much as we do.

Besides, I find the idea that the universe cannot produce beautiful things very depressing. How can you live with the idea that life has a natural proclivity toward ugliness?

 

[Quiddity]

How can you live with the idea that life has a natural proclivity toward ugliness?

Sure could. But like you, I would find it rather depressing.
The universe does indeed produce ugly and beautiful. But I just found it difficult to pieace together the beautiful in the evolutionary process. Since subjective truths (like beauty, love, caring, etc) are of the least importance in a world where everything is just trying to survive.

~Victor

 

[Cynic]

Sure could. But like you, I would find it rather depressing.
The universe does indeed produce ugly and beautiful. But I just found it difficult to pieace together the beautiful in the evolutionary process.

Since subjective truths (like beauty, love, caring, etc) are of the least importance in a world where everything is just trying to survive.

~Victor

Please show the evidense, tests and analysis by which you came to this conclusion.

 

[Quiddity]

Please show the evidense, tests and analysis by which you came to this conclusion.

I wasn't attempting to or wanted to provide evidence for this. Just my opinion. But since you seem to think that IT DOES have an effect on the evolutionary process, how about you provide evidence.

~Victor

 

[Fire Empire]

The same is so with living things. The birds do not lose anything in being colorful and beautiful, so why shouldn't they be colorful and beautiful? Evolution is not a conscious thing that teaches creatures to evade predators and to find food. On the contrary, evolution is not a cause at all but an effect. What reproductive advantage do brightly colored birds have over birds that are not brilliant? Perhaps prospective mates share our admiration for these colors...

We want to address this issue because it seems to be reoccuring in this thread. First, the vivid, beautiful colors of the tropical birds you refer to are in fact known as a "handicap" in the scientific community. Handicaps (like vivid colors) are exactly what the name implies--they handicap the male birds by making them more noticable to predators (like a neon sign flashing "free food! have a taste!"). This is a part of evolution that weeds out the weaker, slower male birds so that the ones left standing (err, flying) are those that have the best genes for mating (since the surviving birds must be fast and alert with quick reflexes and good brains if they are to survive their handicaps).

Also, it should be noted that the "theory of evolution" is an outdated term, no longer used by the majority of the scientific community. Evolution is now considered as factual as electricity.

 

[JerryL]

First, the vivid, beautiful colors of the tropical birds you refer to are in fact known as a "handicap" in the scientific community.

Cite please.

Also, it should be noted that the "theory of evolution" is an outdated term, no longer used by the majority of the scientific community. Evolution is now considered as factual as electricity.

This is not good terminology at all. Facts are statements of emperical objectivity. Evolution cannot be a fact because it *contains* facts, laws (mathmatical or logical relationships) and theorums (descriptive processes). Evolution is proven and accepted, which is why it's a theory, not a hypothesis.

For reference: The Theory of Bouyancy and The Theory of Gravity.

 

[Ryan2065]

We want to address this issue because it seems to be reoccuring in this thread. First, the vivid, beautiful colors of the tropical birds you refer to are in fact known as a "handicap" in the scientific community. Handicaps (like vivid colors) are exactly what the name implies--they handicap the male birds by making them more noticable to predators (like a neon sign flashing "free food! have a taste!"). This is a part of evolution that weeds out the weaker, slower male birds so that the ones left standing (err, flying) are those that have the best genes for mating (since the surviving birds must be fast and alert with quick reflexes and good brains if they are to survive their handicaps).

Cite please.

I would have to agree... Unless you can cite examples of where all predators of these birds can actually see color (some dont) and cite examples of all predators of these birds not being scared away by the colors then you cannot make that statement.

 

[Fire Empire]

Cite please.

"Human Evolutionary Psychology" by Louise Barrett et al.

 

[JerryL]

First, the vivid, beautiful colors of the tropical birds you refer to are in fact known as a "handicap" in the scientific community.

Cite please.

"Human Evolutionary Psychology" by Louise Barrett et al.

A book on human psycohlogy is your source for terminology in regards to physiology in the animal kingdom? I'm incredulious. What page, I'll look it up at Barnes and Noble.

 

[Fire Empire]

A book on human psycohlogy is your source for terminology in regards to physiology in the animal kingdom? I'm incredulious. What page, I'll look it up at Barnes and Noble.

Well, before you judge a book by its title, you might do well to read it's contents (sorry, but I don't remember the page/chapter--only what I read). A great deal of physiology/biology/anthropology/other-stuffology is involved (and cited) in the read.

 

[Cynic]

I wasn't attempting to or wanted to provide evidence for this. Just my opinion. But since you seem to think that IT DOES have an effect on the evolutionary process, how about you provide evidence.[/color][/font]

~Victor

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who made the statement.

Your previous statement was:

Since subjective truths (like beauty, love, caring, etc) are of the least importance in a world where everything is just trying to survive.

Now by what evidense, tests or analysis did you come to this conclusion? (I'm speaking of research, books, articles, statistics, etc that you might have come across).

 

[painted wolf]

Louise Barrett is a widely reccognised expert on evolutionary biology. She is especally known for her work on human evolution.

Birds greatest predators, other birds all see in color... most see in wavelengths that we can't such as UV and infrared.
One advantage to the bright colors is that in large flocks it becomes increasing difficult to spot an individual out of the blurr. The most brightly colored of the birds are also the most social. Parrots and thier kin for example gather in flocks numbering from dozens to thousands or more.

Zebras also use this to thier advantage, though they don't have to worry about color as most mammals are very limited in thier ability to see full spectrum color.

Breaking up the outline of the individual is the most effective way of camoflauging themselves. The easiest way to do so is by bold patterning be it brightly colored or not.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who made the statement.

Your previous statement was:
Now by what evidense, tests or analysis did you come to this conclusion? (I'm speaking of research, books, articles, statistics, etc that you might have come across).

Cynic, I couldn't of made it clearer that it was my opinion. How I came to form that opinion is something that I doubt you are interested in. You want evidence, not my opinion. So once again, are you going to answer my question or do you just like asking others for evidence, while hating when it of you?

~Victor

 

[painted wolf]

love, caring and so on are evolutionary advantages... animals that form social bonds are more capable of surviving tough times as a species. Parents invest more time and protection on thier young increasing thier survival rates... Mates that come to one anothers defence increase thier chances of reproducing and passing on thier genes...

far from being less important they are of great advantage. Those animals that show such 'subjective resoning' (and in some degree all higher animals do) would be at greater advantage for passing on thier genes and selected for evolutionarily.

wa:do

 

[JerryL]

One advantage to the bright colors is that in large flocks it becomes increasing difficult to spot an individual out of the blurr. The most brightly colored of the birds are also the most social. Parrots and thier kin for example gather in flocks numbering from dozens to thousands or more.

Zebras also use this to thier advantage, though they don't have to worry about color as most mammals are very limited in thier ability to see full spectrum color.

Breaking up the outline of the individual is the most effective way of camoflauging themselves. The easiest way to do so is by bold patterning be it brightly colored or not.

Exactly, and one of the reasons I'm incredulious that biologists would call it a "handicap". In fact, I'm incredulious that they would use the word universally for any trait, and it's incongruious with the way mutations effect.

In short, a true handicap would be something that got you deselected.

 

[painted wolf]

bright coloration can indeed be a handicap... but it also serves to keep the species in question strong. A brightly colored bird alone is at a stronger disadvantage of predation than a dull well camoflauged one.

this is the 'handicap prinicple' that things that on the surface seem to be disadvantages for the individual can in the long run be evolutionarily advantagous for the species.

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/handicap_principle.html

wa:do