(March 17, 2012 at 8:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: This sort of stuff is very much an effect of our language betraying us horribly.

It's just like that really big problem that language helped create and won't go away. It's called "god".

Apologies, I better understand your original post. I don't disagree Rhythm, in fact quite the opposite. By use of the term "goal" I mean something towards which nature is unwittingly converging; increased efficiency for a given environment.

Going back to the worn example of unnecessarily large breasts, I think those to be a development without seemingly positive benefits. With respects to a lack of more physical prowess, there is logic understandable to humans for that.

I fear though that this is going full circle in our debate! (An interesting one it has been though!)

mediamogul,

The trouble is that it isn't converging, it's diverging. We might point to convergence in general form but this is a product of biological limitation as much (and in some cases more) than environment.

Let's be clear here, you personally think that some breasts are unecessarily large, but I wonder what the threshold for this would be, and how many of our females exceed that threshold?

I leave it to the females of the forum to espouse the advantages of large breasts, believe at least one of them makes a decent living off the things, so you might have a hard time selling her on the idea that they seem to have no positive benefits. Why aren't you asking yourself what positive benefits there are for breasts in the first place (or do the tiny ones seem oh-so-advantageous)? Why even evolve mammary glands? Lizards probably think a particularly flat chested mouse has "unecessarily large breasts...whatever the fuck breasts are", let alone a human being with an A-cup. See what I mean?

(just what is it that you have against teh boobiez anyway huh?)

(March 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm)mannaka Wrote: Apologies, I better understand your original post. I don't disagree Rhythm, in fact quite the opposite. By use of the term "goal" I mean something towards which nature is unwittingly converging; increased efficiency for a given environment.

Going back to the worn example of unnecessarily large breasts, I think those to be a development without seemingly positive benefits. With respects to a lack of more physical prowess, there is logic understandable to humans for that.

I fear though that this is going full circle in our debate! (An interesting one it has been though!)

mediamogul,

It's an interesting concept. Idk if there is a religion gene or if it was selected for. My thought is that religion is more a byproduct of the misleading nature of language (as was astutely mentioned above), the catchiness of the memes it contains and the ruthless "marketing" by certain peoples. Certain religions have the concepts necessary for them to spread like a disease built into the belief system. It's an interesting concept, though.

(March 17, 2012 at 1:14 pm)mannaka Wrote: "If it be urged by some dreary person that these things are done to encourage reproduction, this is only putting the argument back by one notch. For why should these ornaments be attractive, sexually or otherwise."

From an evolutionary perspective it's really irrelevant whether one thinks something should be attractive. If it's selected for then, according to the theory of evolution, it is attractive, sexual, etc. If you want to argue that attractiveness is not an integral part of selection, especially in the case of perceived disadvantage to the organism, then you are arguing against the theory of evolution.

Erm, mammary glands are unnecessarily developed? Dude. That's sacreligious! hock:

Rhythm: I'd personally still classify that as a convergence - much like how an optimisation program converges as a result of specified boundaries. Clearly both biological and environmental constraints constitutes these boundaries. Indeed mathematical analysis of natural forms use such basis, and the results never cease to amaze.

In fact it is really on this kind of premises that ornaments such as breasts intrigue me (oh dear! - maybe I am just sub-consciously jealous D: ).

Blanca: Could you expand upon this particular part of your statement "If it's selected." What constitutes selection?

Of course it is irrelevant whether I or any other person should think it is attractive or not (with respects to the process of evolution), but the quest to find out why it is (or rather why it has come about), is one of interest to an inquisitive mind.

For lack of an answer, one might only exclaim it a quirk of evolution through the eyes of a human - till a better explanation comes along.

mediamogul: I think it is very interesting, and if true, could account for a lot of what we see today. Indeed the "catchiness" you so speak of might tie in quite nicely with it. I look forward to hearing more on the matter.

(March 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm)mannaka Wrote: Blanca: Could you expand upon this particular part of your statement "If it's selected." What constitutes selection?

Please refer to wikipedia (a.k.a god) for the answer to that question

That's the trouble Manna, what we as human beings can call something and what something is actually doing are not always synonymous, which what I've been trying to express. You can call divergence convergence, and I can call a banana a nine iron.

(March 18, 2012 at 7:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's the trouble Manna, what we as human beings can call something and what something is actually doing are not always synonymous, which what I've been trying to express. You can call divergence convergence, and I can call a banana a nine iron.

Even more than that words can imply qualities that simply are not there. How many times have you heard "Natural laws require a lawmaker"? It imparts false content onto the subject. "Laws" are merely a descriptive term closest to the way in which we understand the tendencies of matter to behave in certain ways.