Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

[LukeSkywatcher]

It's MY fault that this discussion of Dawkins turned into one of Dawkins the atheist v Dawkins the evolutionist. Ive made my apologies and i can do no more. I will give Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) a second chance.

I'll even click on the links provided an his lectures.

Regarding Bryson.................ive read most of his books and i have to say that the only one i have not enjoyed is "At Home". I just didnt get it. If anyone can write in a funny way about any/all rooms in an average house..................Bill is your guy. I found his take on this lacking in his typical humour. It had some interesting facts, but left me underwhelmed.

I think this thread is interesting and i hope its not shut down. Yes, i brought the religious aspect of Dawkins into it, but i have now retracted/moved away from that and am now concentrating on his other works. I'm not familiar with much of his other work, but have said i will try to educate myself on it.

p.s.~~~in interviews, he still comes across as a very grumpy/rude guy who is unwilling to answer any questions about any of his work, apart from the book he is promoting at the time.

That irks me.

This is about all i have to say on this matter (again............in my best Forest Gump accent).

p.p.s~~~~ive never read Darwin. I really must put that on my "to do" list. 

[JessicaFaye]

Lets allow the topic to get back on topic. As regardless of the person discussing the topic the topic is still interesting.

[JamesF]

On a marginally related note, I have a pet hypothesis that should mankind ever meet a technologically advanced alien species there's a passable chance that they'll be roughly humanoid.  Not for any particularly well-researched reason I admit, but if it were then it wouldn't be a pet hypothesis  The other day that got me into thinking about why we have five fingers (or digits, if you prefer) on each hand (and five toes, come to that).  Why not four, or six?  Or some other number?

It seems that the answer seems to be at least partially that the Hox genes that control gene expression for fingers can only code for a maximum of five.  There are some mammals that appear to have six digits, but the "thumb" in these cases is actually a development of the wrist bones, not a finger at all.  And there are people who have six fingers, but apparently the same genes involved in coding for fingers are somehow tied up with the reproductive system, so genetic "damage" that leads to six fingers may be unlikely to be passed on.  These Hox genes appear a very long way back in the evolutionary tree, long before vertebrate land-animals evolved, so pretty much all of us have at most five digits per hand/foot.

But why not fewer?  Little fingers and toes are relatively useless after all.  Would we be worse off without them?  Is it just that the "full" complement of fingers and toes was useful to animals living in trees so we kept them?

James

[HumptyMoo]

Anyway, I take it that nobody wants to talk about the OP's link. How many people in this conversation have watched it?

I did and I find all of this fascinating! However, I bow out and lurk to greater minds than mine.

To qualify, I had to check I spelt "fascinating" right

[JessicaFaye]

On a marginally related note, I have a pet hypothesis that should mankind ever meet a technologically advanced alien species there's a passable chance that they'll be roughly humanoid.  Not for any particularly well-researched reason I admit, but if it were then it wouldn't be a pet hypothesis  The other day that got me into thinking about why we have five fingers (or digits, if you prefer) on each hand (and five toes, come to that).  Why not four, or six?  Or some other number?

It seems that the answer seems to be at least partially that the Hox genes that control gene expression for fingers can only code for a maximum of five.  There are some mammals that appear to have six digits, but the "thumb" in these cases is actually a development of the wrist bones, not a finger at all.  And there are people who have six fingers, but apparently the same genes involved in coding for fingers are somehow tied up with the reproductive system, so genetic "damage" that leads to six fingers may be unlikely to be passed on.  These Hox genes appear a very long way back in the evolutionary tree, long before vertebrate land-animals evolved, so pretty much all of us have at most five digits per hand/foot.

But why not fewer?  Little fingers and toes are relatively useless after all.  Would we be worse off without them?  Is it just that the "full" complement of fingers and toes was useful to animals living in trees so we kept them?

James

That's very interesting... the first thing that springs into my mind is that if we had less digits in my mind we wold have either smaller hands (which could affect the strength) or larger digits which would make us less agile and would make texting ten times harder than it already is I tell you what I'll cut off my pinkies and little toes and let you know how I get on!!

Also what made you start considering that?

[Scooot]

I had watched it, but must admit I'd forgotten most of it as the thread developed, so I've just watched it again, and still found it very interesting.

So the universe is queer, and perhaps queerer than we suppose, but the point is we recognise that, so although we might be stuck in middle world, as described, we know of other worlds so we can strive to understand what we can't suppose. Perhaps (scratches head)

[nebogipfel]

It is an interesting lecture and without doubt the Universe is a very strange place. That of course is where science comes in. As denizens of middle world we can now spend time thinking about things not related to simple survival and where the next meal is coming from. We can strive within the limitation of our senses and intellect to really try to understand and explain reality and the way the universe works. As we do so some of the mysteries will be solved but hopefully never the sense of wonder of it all

As the great Carl Sagan said we are "a way for the cosmos to know itself"

It's a sobering thought that even if life is common in the universe perhaps self aware intelligent life is rare or we may be the only planet with a sentient life form, truly the only way for the cosmos to know itself

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I particularly like the analogy of thinking of ourselves as waveforms, given that every atom in our bodies is replaced every few years. We naturally think in terms of entities, but really life is a process. And if we are waves, language is a medium that allows us to make a few ripples.

On a related note, I'm fascinated by the unreliability of our memories. We often think of them as recording devices, but perhaps a collection of draft sketches is closer to the truth. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, ask a dozen witness about an event and contradictions are inevitable. A 2002 experiment involved using a doctored photograph to convince people they had taken a balloon ride as a child. Once the subject's memories had been jogged about half of the participants began to invent details of the trip without realising they were doing so.

[John]

..... Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, ask a dozen witness about an event and contradictions are inevitable. A 2002 experiment involved using a doctored photograph to convince people they had taken a balloon ride as a child. Once the subject's memories had been jogged about half of the participants began to invent details of the trip without realising they were doing so.

On that, this test is interesting:

Off topic though, so apologies for that 

[symesie04]

Saw the gorilla and got the number of passes right.

[Mr Flibble]

As do I.  In fact it's one of those insights that once spoken seems blindingly obvious.  The sort of thing you think you'd probably have realised for yourself if you gave the matter any serious thought

James

The scientific method is what makes this insight into our evolutionary development within the confines of the 'middle world' so obvious. Just imagine what insight we might have, or more accurately the lack of, in the absence of the scientific method. For me this is why science is so beautiful.

[John]

Saw the gorilla and got the number of passes right.

Great 

It's actually a modesty test - you failed I'm afraid   

[Scooot]

On a related note, I'm fascinated by the unreliability of our memories. We often think of them as recording devices, but perhaps a collection of draft sketches is closer to the truth. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, ask a dozen witness about an event and contradictions are inevitable. A 2002 experiment involved using a doctored photograph to convince people they had taken a balloon ride as a child. Once the subject's memories had been jogged about half of the participants began to invent details of the trip without realising they were doing so.

One of my friend's step mother often recounts stories of him as a child, I'm sure she's convinced she was actually there -

[JamesF]

That's very interesting... the first thing that springs into my mind is that if we had less digits in my mind we wold have either smaller hands (which could affect the strength) or larger digits which would make us less agile and would make texting ten times harder than it already is I tell you what I'll cut off my pinkies and little toes and let you know how I get on!!

Also what made you start considering that?

Well, it's probably a bit long-winded, but as I said, I have this pet theory

Because it's far more interesting than watching television, I started wondering about what the kind alien we might meet (ie. technologically advanced) if any might look like and got to thinking that fundamentally evolution would have been presented with many of the same challenges.  So would it be likely to come up with a similar body design and would that "win out" in an evolutionary race elsewhere?  I'm inclined to think so.  There's an "efficiency" about having four limbs, or ultimately two arms and two legs, that may well be difficult to match with other numbers.  That most of the major organs should be in the trunk also makes good sense from an evolutionary point of view -- they're out of harm's way there as much as possible.  Putting the brain out in some other appendage seems an odd approach for evolution to favour, but nerve signals take time to travel and eyes and ears are most useful when they're somewhere they can be exposed without the entire body being out in the open so the position of the brain is a compromise.  It goes near those sense organs for providing speed of processing, but gets encased in a heavy structure of bone for protection.  These seem to me to be good design solutions to the problems of our environment and would therefore quite possibly be good design solutions for an alien's environment.  Given an approximately similar world therefore evolution might well chance upon roughly the same design.  Obviously one might argue that life might evolve on a planet very different from our own, but I'm yet to convince myself that it could reach any level of technological advancement.

The same might well not be true of the details however.  What's so efficient about pentadactyl hands and feet for instance?  Opposable thumbs are clearly advantageous and I'd say that three additional fingers gives greater dexterity than two so evolution might favour that.  But are five really that much more beneficial?  And if so, how did they come about so far back in the evolutionary tree?

Obviously this line of reasoning contains many flaws, but it's my fantasy and unlikely to be proven wrong or right in my lifetime, so I don't feel the need to justify it to anyone

James

[Macavity]

What's so efficient about pentadactyl hands and feet for instance?

More Jenny Clack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly_in_early_tetrapods

But interesting that the degree of polydactylism was rather variable at the beginning.

[JamesF]

But interesting that the degree of polydactylism was rather variable at the beginning.

It is.  Presumably the Hox gene that currently controls expression may once have coded for more, or there was an additional gene for the extra digits.  That nature should have abandoned those above five might appear to suggest that up to five is useful but more isn't, and that five is genuinely useful otherwise we'd have lost more, perhaps even before we made it onto land.

It also makes me wonder about how many different body designs have evolved and disappeared without leaving a trace in the fossil record.

James

[John]

Look folks - any more posts that overtly reference faith / belief / religion and we will have to stop the thread. That would be a shame because it's contained some good discussion otherwise, even where differing views on the topic were held.

So please resist the temptation to stray into subjects that the forum CoC asks us not to discuss.

Thanks - your co-operation is appreciated 

[Myopicus]

[Cath]

We have such a blinkered view on what we call the universe. Being a 'middle worlder' is just one of the many factors that has placed some quite severe limits on any possible point of view we might have on it all. Their is certainly going to be soooo very much more to it than we can ever know or realise.

All we can ever really do is to try and make the best of the ever so limiting view point that we are unfortunately (or should that be fortunately) lumbered with.

[ollypenrice]

Two things seem to enable us to take our thought processes further than we might have expected given their evolutionary heritage.

1) Metaphor. This extends the range of the verbal language we have. We cannot conceive outside the usual four dimensions but we can create illustrative metaphors like saddle shaped spacetime geometry.

2) Mathematics, which seems, perhaps, to be an 'absolute language' in that its terms are not culturally defined or arbitrary. SInce nature seems to be systematic, mathematics seems to be uncannily good at describing it.

These two points give me a little hope but not more than a little, I guess. Will there ever be a qualitative description of quantum theory? By that I mean a meaningful 'visual' description of the inside of an atom? Maybe not because eyes cannot see inside atoms because light doesn't function familiarly inside atoms, which takes us back to Dawkins' middle world.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

PS, I can imagine some aliens on a forum like this, discussing likely life forms out there.

- I do seriously think that they will resemble us. It's only a matter of time before the living wheel replaced the reciprocating limb. After all, inhabited planets must have atmospheres and atmospheres have wind which erodes the planetary surface, making the reciprocating limb bilogiocally obsolete. The reciprocating limb is only useful on irregular terrain, after all.

- I agree, and it isn't strictly by chance that we have seven tails, one of them opposed. Two is a good number for proulsion because it gives control over rolling direction, leaving two on each side free for manipulation and for advanced manipulation the central opposed tail is available.

- I see what you mean but why not have two opposed tails?

- Because it would require two inter-connected brain hemispheres to control them semi-independently and how would that evolve? Besides, if we had two opposed tails they wouldn't strictly be opposed, would they?

- Fair point. Now they're bound to have snorkels or they'd be unable to inhabit both land and sea.

- Sure, I don't think anybody is going to dispute that but will they necessarily have buoancy bladders? I mean, I guess they might have some kind of fins to help them reach the surface.

- No, manipulating fins for rising from the deep ocean would not be energy efficient. They have to have dorsal bladders like ours because otherwise their food intake would have to be too high and the dorsal bladder is the only stable arrangement during rising and falling.

- OK. But do they have to fly like us using the same dorsal bladders? Could they not use the fin system for flight?

- What, sort of 'flap' themselves into the air? No, same reason as before. Far too energy inefficient. Especially when pregnant. Imagine trying to fly while gestating. We weigh around 30% more and the only way round that would be somehow to have the foetus stored outside the body and left in a safe place while we flew. Not very likely. How would we transfer all our thoughts and memories to the foetus without continuous contact? It would mean all offspring having to re-learn everything we know and that would be a massive impediment to our progress. 

- And they must have struckks or they wouldn't be able to scrone. Scroning must be found wherever there's life, Tom.

- You're right, James. You're right.    

Olly

[JB80]

Reminds me somewhat of the "Intelligent Meat" story.

[Cath]

Nice one Olly lol. Kind of highlights how small, limited and self important our thinking is at times.

Dark matter I see as being a fairly good example. We apparently have no biological senses to directly detect it, and currently no artificial (techno) senses to directly detect it, so it has up until very recently gone totally unnoticed, yet we know it's there, or at least we know something is there, or at least we think we do, because our math is telling us we are missing something pretty major that must be lurking out there in the universe and most likely all around us. And until we can try to image a way of detecting this 'stuff' we are going to remain pretty much in the dark about it.

I wonder what else is it that we are missing/not seeing about our environment (the universe) that has yet (if ever) to reveal itself within our math or thinking that our view point (middle world as one example) is hiding from us? .. Their must surely be a great deal we are totally missing.

I think all dear Richard is trying to highlight in his lecture is how limiting our view point is (most likely in ways we will never imagine). What is it that some of you people have against that I wonder? .. Seconds thoughts, don't answer that!

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Another way of looking at our limitations is through numbers. I can picture six apples or a dozen eggs without too much difficulty. North of that things get vague, although I could probably guess if a quantity was closer to fifty or a hundred. A thousand is a fuzzy concept, I can just about manage it by shuffling toy soldiers into 10 x 10 ranks and placing them in formation. A million is well beyond my ability to visualize, although possibly not for someone with a greater facility for mathematics.

Yet these are all miniscule numbers compared to those we regularly come across when looking at the universe on a microscopic or cosmic scale. Our ability to manipulate numbers far outstrips our ability to comprehend them.

A human lifetime is about two-and-a-half billion seconds.

Saw the gorilla and got the number of passes right.

Not only did i notice the gorilla, I evaluated his performance for artistic and technical merit!

On the other hand, counting to 15 was beyond me. 

[AlexB67]

The other day that got me into thinking about why we have five fingers (or digits, if you prefer) on each hand (and five toes, come to that).  Why not four, or six?  Or some other number?

I often had the thought we ended up with 5 so early mathematicians could be deceived and we ended up with that horrific base 10 system. 

I am not sure it was the Romans or not that enforced the base 10 system eventually, but apparently somewhere along the line reasoning had something to do with the number of finger on our hands. It would have made much more sense if we had just adopted the base 12 system, a much neater and easier system and easier to remember multiplication tables too.   In fact we could have used our hands and four finger excluding the thumb and just count phalanges as many modern mathematicians have said, that makes 12.

Of course hindsight is a great thing, but it is all too late to change now :0)

sorry about he tangent