(March 17, 2012 at 10:00 am)mannaka Wrote: 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.
