thus far, the development of our eyesight is limited. We require the microscope to see a large percentage of our Universe and we require a telescope to see another vast portion of our Universe. My question is what drove us, if we do not require the natural vision to view these places for survival, to seek unseen microcosms and the reaches of outer space beyond that which was clearly observable by the natural eye? My second question is why is the human eye limited while the brain is capable of reaching beyond that which is tangible in theory? Is this part of evolution, or super natural phenomena. If it is the latter, I am in the wrong thread and I apologize.
Sarahnn: <i>My question is what drove us, if we do not require the natural vision to view these places for survival, to seek unseen microcosms and the reaches of outer space beyond that which was clearly observable by the natural eye?</i> We have the capacity for abstract thought. We have evolved to be curious about our environment. <i>My second question is why is the human eye limited while the brain is capable of reaching beyond that which is tangible in theory?</i> The human eye evolved as much as it needed to in order to provide a survival advantage for human beings. In an evolutionary sense, it is of no use to us to be able to see bacteria or distant galaxies, since there is nothing we can do to affect either of these things directly. ----- By the way, human beings are not in any sense a "final species in the evolutionary process".
Dear James R. But, even our abstract abilities did not give us insight to universes which were not known to us beyond our own cognitive reality. Meaning within the reach of our five senses. This is true. But not only have we been driven to explore beyond our necessity to survive, with the use of microscopes and telescopes, but these discoveries and resulting advancement has further secured our survival. Coincidence? ----- Yes we are until the next species evolves within a range which is clincally comparable to us. LOL Did you catch the "Thus Far"? I said that for a reason. I guess you are the reason. LOL Thanks.
Sarahnn - I gather quickly you have no clue what you're talking about. Human beings the final species? what kind of an arrogant stupidity is that? James - Dead wrong. Being able to identify microbes through a microscope is DIRECTLY RELATED TO SURVIVAL. Identifying them allows us to treat humans with them. Duh
But then evolution has nothing to do with survival crystal, you said so yourselfPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree that the title of this thread is frustrating though.
Dear Crystal, Why the angst? Has it occured to you that on the evolutionary path, due to the homogenized environment man has technically structured, we may be the final product of our species? Also, due to the length of time it takes to evolve, our days may be numbered by some comet hurling at us through space or some gigantic solar flare which lurks in the distance sending us into a tailspin. Think on this with some charity. We are, at this point, on this planet the final evolved species until a new one emerges. Whether we remain the "final" product of evolution remains to be seen. I admit I took liberties with this. But, is that such a crime? Does that make me arrogant? Or does it simply make you rude? I did say "thus far". Perhaps a fundamental course in "comprehensive reading" would help you to make it past my literary feaux pax's in the future. Nice to meet you by the way. I appreciate your input.
Dear Dr. Lou Natic, I will take more care to "title" my threads from now on. My point was that our intelligence has driven us beyond the abilities of our evolutionary status. The eye is an example. We use our eyes to explore realms which do not exist to the naked eye. And yes, curiousity drove us to seek more information beyond our human observations. I think the answer here is that the eye is adequate as it is. And we are limited in evolution once we become self-contained. Gosh, this was so much fun. Let's do it again sometimes.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What drove us to seek unseen microcosms and the reaches of outer space beyond that which was clearly observable by the natural eye? For one because humans desire to know and understand as much as they can about the universe they live in. Many of us have an innate curiosity and seek information to understand the mysteries of life. It might be an extension of our evolution, or it might be a quirk. How many other animals do you see peering into the stars?
I don’t agree with linear explanations of innovation, but this could also be seen in terms of a technology being created to compensation for the failing of biology, in that the lens were created to compensate for failing eyes (i.e. the reading stone 1000AD). It’s a nice story to think that the connection between age and wisdom led to the creation of tools to compensate for the bodies failings. I don’t think there is one factor to why we developed a system of inquiry (system of inquiry; thoughts, a method for experimenting, institutional structure, and resulting application). Rather I would say that curiosity, time keeping and the need for social control all play a part. As far as I know most of the earliest stone monuments where used for religious festivals. This would have required not only a person to be interested in the stars, but time to do so, an application for it, as well as resources. It is not hard to image the resulting authority that would have been given to the wise-person who was able to put all these things together and create a monument that lit in the solstice this would give statues to the person, and control over the group. Star gazing in Islam was encouraged to enable the accurate keeping of religious festivals, and they set up some very fine observatories. And finally western science broke with Christianity when it proposed a different ‘world view’ which both challenged the view that humans were the center of the universe, and the authority of the Christian church to how humans should live. For the microscopes I think its very important that Nature has a graduation of size. Creatures come in different sizes, and some are only large enough to see with the naked eye when they are adults. I can image a person sitting scratching at their head, hunting fleas. They find one, and look at it but it jumps away. So they want to look at how it moves, and they grab a pair of strong reading glasses…I don’t think that Hook or Leeuwenhoek wanted to see things they couldn’t see with the naked eye, but rather that they started off their experiments by wanting to see things they could see better (hooke looking at a piece of cork and bird feathers, Leeuwenhoek’s first was bee mouthparts and stings, a human louse and a fungus). In many ways he did not set out to look at unseen things. 'Experiments on pepper, to discover if its heat was caused by spikes, caused him to put peppercorns in water and let them soften for three weeks. On 24th April 1676 he observed the water and was surprised to see tiny organisms; the first bacteria observed by man. His description read: '[They] were incredibly small, nay so small, in my sight, that I judged that even if 100 of these very wee animals lay stretched out one against another, they could not reach to the length of a grain of coarse Sand'.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/leeuwenhoek_antonie_van.shtml However there may be evidence to contradict the view that Leeuwenhoek was just 'fooling around' with no purpose. Within the area of generation there has always been a question of how offspring were made and few good answers. The microscope held a hope of ‘proving’ if it was the mother or farther which made the child, and so he put sperm under the microscope. This is an easy example of how society creates a culture where certain questions are posed, and science seeks to answer them, but it should not be forgotten that science (in this case Henry Oldenburg) plays a great part in asking them of society. Sorry for the long posting…
