fast
Contributor
Why do so many people, especially the people learned in topics related to biology and related fields persist in explaining why adaptations occur as if nature had a conscious reason?
Why do so many people, especially the people learned in topics related to biology and related fields persist in explaining why adaptations occur as if nature had a conscious reason?
I don't know whether they're still writing scientific reports that way, but I used to think it funny, the lengths they went to for objectivity, pretending nobody was there during the experiment. "Subject was placed in the closed room." "The following measurements were taken at 5 minute intervals." "Specimens 2, 5, 6 and 8 were observed to convulse up and die." Like that.
All to distance ourselves from the innate human tendency to reflect ourselves; to attribute reason and purpose like our own to every process. We're a story-telling species and it's easier for us to think and communicate in narrative than any other format.
Romantics put a motherly face on natural phenomena. Poets personify everything from rain to socks. Children's book authors give voices and vices to wild animals. Ancient peoples put their stories up in the sky and we still use their legendary names. It's hard to get away from.
Creationists take advantage of that tendency and wedge their God into every chink and cranny, so it's important to be as cold and objective as possible when discussing evolution with them. No, Nature wasn't aiming for Billy Graham when she designed crocodiles!
That's another thing that gets my eyebrows-a-raisin' when speaking of successful adaptation. It seems a bit disingenuous to speak of and regard a species proliferation as successful adaptation--with no conscious efforts or intention to do so--more like a lack of failure--sortaall current species are exactly as successful as each other (so far), because continuing existence is the only valid criterion for success in evolutionary theory.
That's another thing that gets my eyebrows-a-raisin' when speaking of successful adaptation. It seems a bit disingenuous to speak of and regard a species proliferation as successful adaptation--with no conscious efforts or intention to do so--more like a lack of failure--sortaall current species are exactly as successful as each other (so far), because continuing existence is the only valid criterion for success in evolutionary theory.
That's another thing that gets my eyebrows-a-raisin' when speaking of successful adaptation. It seems a bit disingenuous to speak of and regard a species proliferation as successful adaptation--with no conscious efforts or intention to do so--more like a lack of failure--sortaall current species are exactly as successful as each other (so far), because continuing existence is the only valid criterion for success in evolutionary theory.
That's the problem of imprecise language (of which I think we're having a pandemic). Reason, cause and purpose are very different concepts, but they are used interchangeably - especially by the disingenuous who subtly change the meaning of the argument by the substitution of similar words.I have been asked "Do you think everything happens for a reason?" and my first impulse is to answer "Yes". There is a prior cause for everything that happens and we can usually even observe what that is.
But I have to say "No" because I'm pretty sure a "Yes" would be taken for support for the idea that something is moulding the universe according to a master plan. It puts the kybosh on what could be some interesting conversations.
That's the problem of imprecise language (of which I think we're having a pandemic). ...I have been asked "Do you think everything happens for a reason?" and my first impulse is to answer "Yes". There is a prior cause for everything that happens and we can usually even observe what that is.
But I have to say "No" because I'm pretty sure a "Yes" would be taken for support for the idea that something is moulding the universe according to a master plan. It puts the kybosh on what could be some interesting conversations.
haha, I knew I was being metaphorical when being metaphorical. It just doesn't appear sometimes that people realize they are being metaphorical when they are.BTW, do you really mean physically raise your eyebrows, or are you just highlighting your feeling in a non literal manner?
haha, I knew I was being metaphorical when being metaphorical. It just doesn't appear sometimes that people realize they are being metaphorical when they are.BTW, do you really mean physically raise your eyebrows, or are you just highlighting your feeling in a non literal manner?
Yes.Sorry, is that 'we' as in 'the members of Talk Freethought', 'we' as in 'users of the Internet', or 'we' as in 'Humanity'?
Gee, it's just a discussion, not a debate. Easy tiger.haha, I knew I was being metaphorical when being metaphorical. It just doesn't appear sometimes that people realize they are being metaphorical when they are.BTW, do you really mean physically raise your eyebrows, or are you just highlighting your feeling in a non literal manner?
'Raising your eyebrows' is not metaphor. It is graphic imagery for emphasis.
In this case you 'fumbled the ball', the common football sports metaphor.
Debating you is like 'shooting fish in a barrel'....
Why do so many people, especially the people learned in topics related to biology and related fields persist in explaining why adaptations occur as if nature had a conscious reason?
haha, I knew I was being metaphorical when being metaphorical. It just doesn't appear sometimes that people realize they are being metaphorical when they are.BTW, do you really mean physically raise your eyebrows, or are you just highlighting your feeling in a non literal manner?
'Raising your eyebrows' is not metaphor. It is graphic imagery for emphasis.
In this case you 'fumbled the ball', the common football sports metaphor.
Debating you is like 'shooting fish in a barrel'....