Why did the bicycle fall over?

Because it was TWO-TIRED!!!

Hahaha.

Why did I evolve to laugh at that?

+1 and Goddammit

Why?





You didn't . . . . . . here we go again . . .

Running joke about useless posts, Foose...happen a lot in "General" and "Daniel's Poker Blog". If you dont' visit those much then you won't get it.

Sorry. I don't mean to troll. I have a serious question.

I don't understand how humor evolved. If evolution can't explain it, then evolution is flawed.

Fair enough . . . I just hate that word.

Yeah I don't visit General much anymore . . . ironically because there are too many lame posts to sift through . . lol.

When adam leaned over to eve and said, "Hey, do you want ribs for lunch?"

*double post

I call BS.

Wrong forum anyway if that were true.

Call BS all you want.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm serious.

Evolution is a religous concept. I put it in the right forum.

No it isn't; it's science. That's the whole point.

this is actually a pretty difficult question. i dont think there is a scientific consensus.

part of the difficulty is that there are at least several reasons why we laugh
or tell jokes, so you would probably have to come up with an explanation
for each of them. i think the most common explanation is that humor shows
adaptive fitness because we are able to notice subtle distinctions, contradictions, and connections in worldviews. interestingly, women seem to be more attracted to guys who are funny, but men more attracted to women who laugh at their jokes.

i dont know if you were implying this, but it seems you might be making a logical mistake by rejecting evolution if it cant explain humor well.

the problem is that no other model, religious or otherwise, comes close to fully explaining humor either.

falsely holding a theory you dont like to vastly higher standards than the theory you do believe is very common. obviously there is no good way to systematically test it, but i would guess that religious fundamentalists make this mistake even more often than a random person.

i think you could probably make the case that the refusal to self-criticize is the most common fundamental logical error.

QFT



Can you explain why the lacrimal glands produce tears when human emotions reach heightened levels.

If you can't then evolution is a farce.

That's the logic you are using.

And evolution is a scienctific idea not religious. What religeon created the idea of evolution? If you say secular humanism or atheism than this post is BS.

None of this changes the truth of evolution. I was merely curious. Upon more research, I found one theory that proposes brains are like peacock tails. Humor ties right into it.

Evolution is a religious idea because it splits sects. Jesus was an organism with chemical processes inside his cells, but that doesn't mean he isn't central to Christianity and Islam. I would argue his importance is religious, not scientific.

If we are arguing what is religious and what is scientific, the answer is simple.

sci·ence (n.)

1.
- 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
- 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
- 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


re·li·gion (n.)

1.
- 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


The key difference is science involves observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation. This would include observations of fossilized organisms and genetics which leads many people to support the theory of evolution.

Religion does not use the scientific method to test hypotheses, and therefore the burden is on the individual to either believe or have faith in the religions teachings.

Calling evolution a religious belief is untrue, because it has been under the scrutiny of the scientific community for nearly 200 years. While a scientist cannot physically perform an experiment to prove that evolution has taken place, they can take into account physical evidence that either supports or rejects the claims of Darwin. Up until this point the scientific community has overwhelmingly supported the theory of evolution.

Now you will probably still reject the idea that evolution is scientifically based, but I will ask you this: Do you have a thorough enough understanding of biology to retort the claims of thousands of experts who have spent their entire lives in labs scrutinizing the very principles of evolution?

I doubt it.

My cat has a sense of humor. Explain THAT!

My explanation is that you're lying.

I can't stand this kind of thinking.

At the moment, perhaps, no one has provided an good way for evolution to explain humor... this is not a reason to throw out the whole theory. There is lots of work to be done, and particular things about evoluton will always be up to spectulation. There is very little doubt in my mind that it happened in one way or another...particular details may always remain unknown.

Being flawed (i.e., not being perfect) doesn't mean the theory is wrong. I'd bet my life savings on evolution at 1000:1 odds.

even monkeys laugh...