My favorite thing about archaeology is that if they have no idea whatever about the things they find. . .
>were used for ritualistic or religious purposes
Don't know what it is? Religion baby.
>were used for ritualistic or religious purposes
Don't know what it is? Religion baby.
> "that the toilet seat is a sacred collar one must wear before shouting, down the hole, to the gods below"
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/162247/humorous-st...
Obviously this ... seemingly useless feature must have been ... crucial to survival of this species.
I guess Thomas Kuhn calls this ordinary science. Explanation within the framework. But it's incredibly dull
How can the evolutionary explanation be overused? It literally applies in case of and explains any single feature, no?
Usually solving the paradox (something looks redundant, but must be useful in some way) requires some creativity, but ultimately it's always a rather boring confirmation of the theory.
The danger of normal science is that scientists turn "it can be explained by the theory" into "it must be explained by the theory".
The energy required to maintain bodily structures mean that they tend to be relevant to evolutionary fitness. There are very few structures that are entirely irrelevant, even if the specific difference in form between different populations may be the result of genetic drift.
That said, I think your example would work by replacing it with "sexual selection." Don't know why bird feathers have complex micro-structures allowing them to reflect UV light? Let's just call it "sexual selection."
>it must be a fertility symbol
The ancients didn't do dick jokes/humour apparently.
It almost boils down to “we can’t think of a way in which this got anybody (better) fed, clothed or housed”