Quadruple Homophone.

Where
Ware
Wear
Were

Interestingly this isn't the only Quadruple homophone in English. I know of another one. Can anybody guess it. (It's insanely cheap).

Why are there still Chimpanzees?

While I support such answers and I think Dawkins gives a marvelous answer. I'm more inclined towards a general and somewhat more complete explanation of biological evolution. As I noted in my response to the question here, and perhaps opting for an even more humorous reply.

There are generally two different understandings of evolution, one is a strawman setup to tell people that evolution doesn't make any sense at all by slandering the theory with false and untrue remarks which leads to question of why there are still other apes, whereas the other version of evolution is the real and solid science of biology. While I admire Dawkins answer for being clear and very good at explaining the error made in the question, the rest of evolutionary theory isn't obvious. From this answer and anybody asking the question doesn't really know.

Why do species diversify? Why do the species fall into a tree like that? The core problem is they don't have a good and understanding of the actual theory. They have a strawman and their strawman suggests that's a good question. To *REALLY* answer the question, one needs to give a quick and understandable run through the actual theory at it's most basic. I think Darwin gave the most thought to how to explain evolution to the uninducted. I think his explanation from Malthus to the struggle for existence, and then a clear explanation of taxonomy is going to be the quickest road to Rome. With this nugget of truth, it can quickly be used to expand and show why the question is wrong with the given sort of taxonomy explanation.

Are you related to the Blahs?

My name is David Blah.
-- "Are you related to the Blahs?"
No.

I know all of the members of my branch of the family. I could draw the tree from my great great grandfather. However, I firmly understand and accept evolution and clearly am related to the the Blahs. But, not in the fashion they want to know about. -- Every time I say "no" to that question, I feel a little tinge like I should have a witty reply ready that doesn't violate common ancestry.

Any suggestions?

I am more related to them than to bananas, but my surname does not reflect a particularly close or known relationship.

Obscure question of the day?

What do the following names have in common?
Banning, Destra, Cabott, and Zelle.

Update: Zel changed to Zelle.

What is that supposed to be?

Funny picture, parody of something...

Dunno what.



Anybody place it?

Is there something wrong with assuming everything has a purpose.

I believe there is. It's false.

It's a good assumption, in fact, I daresay it's an assumption you should make, even if it leads to nothing. Assuming there is a purpose for something, a reason for things, or a good solid answer to the why question... really does push inquiry. We learn a lot about physics when we ask "why the sky is blue", we learn a lot about biology when we ask "why plants are green". Why does pollen on water jiggle? Why do we always see the same face of the moon?

The problem with the question is, it's not actually true. Aristotle once wrote "Nature does nothing uselessly." -- strictly speaking, this is completely false... nature does everything uselessly. Purpose has no bearing on evolution. However, when we look at things in nature it's extremely useful to ascribe purposes to things. Hands are for holding. Teeth are for chewing. Legs are for running. Eyes are for seeing. Wings are for flying. If we look at it, the way nature actually works: those organisms with those traits survived better to build and expand upon their successful strategies. That's helpful in some ways, but the lie is seemingly more useful. When we look at the universe as being filled with purpose, we can say to ourselves, "Oh, wings are for flying... so when I build this airplane, I should build wings on it."

This way of thinking is useful, but not true. When we look on something and ask, "Why does the sun revolve around the Earth?" or "Why do we have an appendix?" or "What was before the Big Bang?" -- We don't have answers. But, people are inclined to shove a God-of-the-Gaps into these problems. This doesn't provide any utility to a person, and the only reason we assumed there was a purpose to things was because it's a very useful thing to assume. So basically, we're assuming there is an answer, and then shoving in a worthless answer to stop the inquiry. You might as well not ask the question, if you aren't going to honestly seek the answer.