An interesting quote on evolution

[mannaka]

Before posting the following quote I'd like, if I may, to ask people to refrain from talking about deities in any context in this topic. Being selfish, I wish only to debate from a scientific perspective. The quote itself was made in the field of engineering.

"With regard to this question of functionalism and "efficiency" Nature seems to have a sense of humour, or perhaps just a sense of proportion. She will construct the stem of a plant, for instance, with the uttermost regard for metabolic economy; the thing is a miracle of structural efficiency. Having done this, she will put a great big flower on top - for fun, as far as one can see. In the same way, peacocks have tails and girls have hair which cannot be considered strictly functional. 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" (J.E.Gordon: one of the founders of materials science and biomechanics)

Whilst I'd argue that flowers do serve functions other than looking pretty (and why we should find them aesthetically pleasing is interesting in itself) peacock feathers, or the mammary glands of homo sapiens seem unnecessarily developed.

I'd be fascinated to hear the opinions of others on this (if it hasn't already been discussed).

[Nine]

Interesting video that's on topic is the first from one of Summers Botany threads.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9933.html

[KichigaiNeko]

You are a joke ...RIGHT???

Since when do YOU have ANY idea what a plant needs to propagate it??

[Nine]

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" (J.E.Gordon: one of the founders of materials science and biomechanics)

Whilst I'd argue that flowers do serve functions other than looking pretty (and why we should find them aesthetically pleasing is interesting in itself) peacock feathers, or the mammary glands of homo sapiens seem unnecessarily developed.

I would say its to encourage reproduction.

Like in the video. The large flower means that more insects will help to pollinate. So more big flowers. Seems wasteful but its not if its helping it to reproduce better.

Same with all animals. Although with animals you have social aspects to take into account.

[The Grand Nudger]

Many things make decisions with their eyes (or their noses..whatever that would mean for any given species). The bigger, brighter, more fragrant flower gets noticed, the girl with the massive knockers gets noticed. In truth, these things don't really have to "pleasing" per se (and what would that really mean to a bee or a flower anyway?) they just have to help you stand out. With regards to flowers, I don't know what part of a flower the author of that quote thinks is wasteful...I can assure you that there is no such waste is occurring. Massive displays of feathers are useful for more than just admiring. Imagine looking at a peacock with the less refined eyes and brains of some predators, it might seem just a little bit larger than it is, and all those eyespots...is it staring at you, just what kind of animal is this anyway? Fuck this, off to find an easier meal! All mammals have "unnecessarily" developed mammary glands......hence.."mammal", derived from "mamma", meaning teat or pap (but I don't think that our offspring would consider them as such).

[Phil]

Before posting the following quote I'd like, if I may, to ask people to refrain from talking about deities in any context in this topic. Being selfish, I wish only to debate from a scientific perspective. The quote itself was made in the field of engineering.

"With regard to this question of functionalism and "efficiency" Nature seems to have a sense of humour, or perhaps just a sense of proportion. She will construct the stem of a plant, for instance, with the uttermost regard for metabolic economy; the thing is a miracle of structural efficiency. Having done this, she will put a great big flower on top - for fun, as far as one can see. In the same way, peacocks have tails and girls have hair which cannot be considered strictly functional. 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" (J.E.Gordon: one of the founders of materials science and biomechanics)

Whilst I'd argue that flowers do serve functions other than looking pretty (and why we should find them aesthetically pleasing is interesting in itself) peacock feathers, or the mammary glands of homo sapiens seem unnecessarily developed.

I'd be fascinated to hear the opinions of others on this (if it hasn't already been discussed).

You gotta be kidding. Go read The Greatest Show On Earth and you will read a description of why plants look as they do and as an added bonus you will find out why some look radically different under UV light. Then again, we wouldn't want to destroy your preconceived bias against evolutionary biology so go on thinking there must be a designer.

[KichigaiNeko]

You really don't know anything do you mannaka?

You have not LOOKED at the world around you... it is ALL ABOUT SEX AND REPRODUCTION.

What would seem excessive to you is VITAL to other species. you ARE an animal and excessive displays of reproductive prowess is vital for the continuance of the genetic code that you carry... nothing more.

Remember...there is no god/s...only SMP

[The Grand Nudger]

"Sex and death, in an interesting, night time telly sort of way"...lol

[KichigaiNeko]

SMP = Sex Money and Power.... Why do you think there are enough soapies for that theme?

[Cyberman]

SMP = Sex Money and Power....

Well, so far I'm batting 0 for 3. Might as well turn it in. No flowers, please.