Why did man evolve an...........

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

appreciation for art and music? I just can't see how those abilities fit well with the whole "survival of the fittest" concept. The only explanation I can think of is those abilities are simply byproducts of the ability to recognize patterns. However that explanation just doesn't feel right. We appreciate art and music too much for it to be a byproduct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing comes without work, try viewing art and music as practice. The more time you spend working on rhythm the easier it is to recognize, early cave painting are very often silhouettes of prey. Its not likely just a byproduct, but a reinforcement mechanism allowing individuals to learn (and to teach their children) in a safer environment.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

appreciation for art and music? I just can't see how those abilities fit well with the whole "survival of the fittest" concept. The only explanation I can think of is those abilities are simply byproducts of the ability to recognize patterns. However that explanation just doesn't feel right. We appreciate art and music too much for it to be a byproduct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I've bolded the fallacies in your argument. My point being, even if you personally can't think of plausible explanations, this is not an argument against evolution. In fact, even if it were true that no one had yet thought of plausible explanations, that still would not be an argument against evolution.

Do you see why?

Just because we cannot think of plausible mechanisms (yet) to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe does not logically imply that you get to spackle those holes up with God. And what kind of God is it that you want, that he is ever-shrinking as our scientific knowledge is ever-growing?



[/ QUOTE ]

"WE DON'T KNOW YET, BUT WE'RE RIGHT IN OUR METHOD SO STAY THE COURSE"? "wE ARE THE KEEPERS OF THE KINGDOM"?

This is tantamount to positing that God which you decry. The difficulty is that modern science has separated itself from knowledge of those three attributes of consideration.

They are the "GOOD", the "BEAUTY", and the "TRUE".

The "GOOD" in that science is bereft of any moral consideration.

The "Beauty" in that only the intellect is considered bereft of feelings.

The "TRUE" in that only a small consideration of truths are considered within their own scope in that what is considered is materially evident within abstract thinking.

We can all believe that the future is within our grasp but we don't need science to arrogate this human understanding common to all men.

[Lestat]

I'd be willing to bet that things like music, art, and story telling, had something to do with the evolution of our communication and language. These things may seem to fit no practical use, but neither do a lot of other activities and/or ideas that man pursues and engages in.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet that things like music, art, and story telling, had something to do with the evolution of our communication and language. These things may seem to fit no practical use, but neither do a lot of other activities and/or ideas that man pursues and engages in.

[/ QUOTE ]

In an animal exhibiting high levels of communication, methods of expressing ourselves emotionally and abstractly should hardly be rare. Why would the grunts and yips of language not be aided by facial expressions, body language, caressing, grooming, etc.

The OP asked 'why', that seems an easy question. Without getting into peacocks tail considerations, surely there are things we communicate with music and art so why would it not develop in a species such as ours?
The 'how' is more interesting but with the evidence of other species usage of it and what we can learn from our own history of it we're not bewildered by it.

"Nothing is communicated by art or music" would need to be the premise before either question would leave us with more to wonder about.

luckyme

[evil twin]

I would add to the discussion the fact that there is growing evidence that evolved traits can be pretty neutral.

http://www.physorg.com/news103206868.html

So our appreciation of art et al might well not confer a specific great advantage to us as a species.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would add to the discussion the fact that there is growing evidence that evolved traits can be pretty neutral.

http://www.physorg.com/news103206868.html

So our appreciation of art et al might well not confer a specific great advantage to us as a species.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Great advantage' is not a necessary evolutionary component, some small sniggly one will do or as the link points out, a neutral one may be do just fine also.

Genetics may be too low a level to be looking at it. There is no need for there to be a direct line genetic component for 'appreciation of art' since it likely operates at the cultural level. We don't have an 'appreciation of german' coded anywhere either.

thanks for the link, luckyme

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
'Great advantage' is not a necessary evolutionary component, some small sniggly one will do or as the link points out, a neutral one may be do just fine also.

Genetics may be too low a level to be looking at it. There is no need for there to be a direct line genetic component for 'appreciation of art' since it likely operates at the cultural level. We don't have an 'appreciation of german' coded anywhere either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes a neutral trait will do just fine. Disadvantage is the key to the "survival of the fittest" mentality, rather than advantage.

As you point out, a good many perceived traits in us humans are far more cultural that anything else.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
sexual selection can make pretty strange things happen

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Just take a look at a bull moose. No way does lugging those massive antlers around through dense forest and willow brush have any survival value. But those antlers are critical to being able to reproduce.

[Peter666]

Man definitely needs a transcendence that the natural world cannot provide. In the radio debate Between White and Hitchens, an interesting point is made that the greatest scientific achievements of man, such as the moon landing, have added next to nothing in terms of art and culture, but a religious figure like St. Francis of Assisi have been inspiring great works up to the present day. The mysteries of self consciousness and language have not been unlocked by science, yet create all that is beautiful. Science has produced many godless nerds who have trouble procreating.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The mysteries of self consciousness and language have not been unlocked by science, yet create all that is beautiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

and when they are then religion will claim the sweating of warthogs as it's bailiwick or whatever the gap has shrunk to for this god.

luckyme