Does evolution have a purpose?

[metis]

But we're speaking biology, not English.

Yep, but what was said in post #616 was in English, and I used the word "technically" for that reason. We always should remember that a word is not the same as what it symbolizes, such as the Buddhist teaching that "When pointing at the moon, we should always remember that the end of our finger is not the moon".

One of my favorite books ever is Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape", and that got me so interested in anthropology that I went into it and eventually taught a course in it for 30 years. My point is that indeed we are a "naked ape", although I think most would likely agree who have seen me that it's best that I keep my clothes on.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we're speaking biology, not English.

You're speaking manmade categories, not supported by real terms. Ok fantastic blends made up. Missing genes between gorillas and humans. Yet that supposed Unknown Common Ancestor just hasn't been found yet. But scientists who agree with you will say that it's there somehow ..lol...that humans evolved from, um, something in the ape family I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

But there are air breathing fish, and fish that can leave the water and walk, even today.

And what's the connecting 'link' between air breathing fish and the next step, meaning totally air breathers. I mean that's what you're saying walking fish are, aren't you-- The evolved step from fish to total non-water breathers? Like an in-between. While fascinating the fish with legs have to go back to water, don't they? Now if I were believing in evolution as the primary ingredient for lifeforms, I'd say these walking fish developed lungs and lost their ability to breathe under water. Then I'd wonder what the next step was. Maybe these walking fish mated with?? beavers??

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, but what was said in post #616 was in English, and I used the word "technically" for that reason. We always should remember that a word is not the same as what it symbolizes, such as the Buddhist teaching that "When pointing at the moon, we should always remember that the end of our finger is not the moon".

One of my favorite books ever is Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape", and that got me so interested in anthropology that I went into it and eventually taught a course in it for 30 years. My point is that indeed we are a "naked ape", although I think most would likely agree who have seen me that it's best that I keep my clothes on.

But apes not human type apes didn't have the brains to develop clothing? Hmm. Almost like the nonhuman apes also couldn't figure how to write. As in record history, even made up history. Score one for nonhuman apes that they didn't write down myths.

 

[Valjean]

Technically, no, and that's because in English we do separate the two: thus "ape" and "human".

But "human" is a subset of ape, like tuna's a subset of fish, All humans are apes. All apes are not humans.

As you say, languages group things differently. In French "singe" can mean either a monkey or an ape, for example.

 

[Valjean]

And what's the connecting 'link' between air breathing fish and the next step, meaning totally air breathers. I mean that's what you're saying walking fish are, aren't you-- The evolved step from fish to total non-water breathers? Like an in-between. While fascinating the fish with legs have to go back to water, don't they? Now if I were believing in evolution as the primary ingredient for lifeforms, I'd say these walking fish developed lungs and lost their ability to breathe under water. Then I'd wonder what the next step was. Maybe these walking fish mated with?? beavers??

No, some walking fish are totally aquatic. They're just able to walk a little on leglike fins.
The air breathing fish predate the water breathers with gills. Lungs have existed a long time. Swim bladders are modified lungs.

Please stop being obtuse. You know evolution is a slow process that takes thousands of generations. No fish-beavers or crocoducks.
Some fish exited the water and became amphibians. Some mammals went back to the water and became completely aquatic.

 

[Valjean]

You're speaking manmade categories, not supported by real terms. Ok fantastic blends made up. Missing genes between gorillas and humans. Yet that supposed Unknown Common Ancestor just hasn't been found yet. But scientists who agree with you will say that it's there somehow ..lol...that humans evolved from, um, something in the ape family I suppose.

I'm speaking manmade terms, reflecting real biological categories.
Do you think there's a single, "missing link" between humans and gorillas? If I linked to one, I suspect you'd ask for two more, on either temporal side of this ape-man.

 

[Valjean]

But apes not human type apes didn't have the brains to develop clothing? Hmm. Almost like the nonhuman apes also couldn't figure how to write. As in record history, even made up history. Score one for nonhuman apes that they didn't write down myths.

They didn't need clothing. Nor did early humans. Clothing, writing and other technologies developed long after we became brainy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They didn't need clothing. Nor did early humans. Clothing, writing and other technologies developed long after we became brainy.

The big question is ...
...
...
..what caused us to become brainy?
Is it because our brains evolved and got bigger?
..and then we needed to make hats to keep our brains warm

No .. I think that we became civilised when God taught us.
That's what curiousity does .. "knowing" brings responsibility.
..but I'd rather know than be ignorant.

 

[metis]

But apes not human type apes didn't have the brains to develop clothing?

We don't know if they did or didn't.

Almost like the nonhuman apes also couldn't figure how to write.

We didn't know this either.

Thus, we are not the ones jumping to conclusions.

 

[metis]

But "human" is a subset of ape, like tuna's a subset of fish, All humans are apes. All apes are not humans.

As you say, languages group things differently. In French "singe" can mean either a monkey or an ape, for example

You're misunderstanding what I actually posted and why as I focused on a technicality of the English words "ape" and "human". My reference to "The Naked Ape", which I 100% agree with, was meant to clarify this.

 

[Valjean]

The big question is ...
what caused us to become brainy?
Is it because our brains evolved and got bigger?
..and then we needed to make hats to keep our brains warm

Social interaction. Hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cooked food. Reduplicated mirror neurons, &c.

No .. I think that we became civilised when God taught us.
That's what curiousity does .. "knowing" brings responsibility.
..but I'd rather know than be ignorant.

No. You don't think this. You feel this. Thinking it would involve objective evidence and critical analysis.
I don't think this is how you came to this belief.[/QUOTE]

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know if they did or didn't.

We didn't know this either.

Thus, we are not the ones jumping to conclusions.

Well, we do know that only humans have devised the means and felt the need to wear clothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

They didn't need clothing. Nor did early humans. Clothing, writing and other technologies developed long after we became brainy.

Wayyt a minute. Are you saying that humans are brainier than gorillas?

 

[YoursTrue]

Social interaction. Hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cooked food. Reduplicated mirror neurons, &c.
No. You don't think this. You feel this. Thinking it would involve objective evidence and critical analysis.
I don't think this is how you came to this belief.

[/QUOTE]
What about the gorillas? Could you repeat why bonobos and gorillas and chimpanzees have not devised or felt the need to put on clothing? (Only humans have that need.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about the gorillas? Could you repeat why bonobos and gorillas and chimpanzees have not devised or felt the need to put on clothing? (Only humans have that need.)[/QUOTE]
Is it a need? Can you explain why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wayyt a minute. Are you saying that humans are brainier than gorillas?

Some. Not all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we do know that only humans have devised the means and felt the need to wear clothing.

Depends on your definition of clothing. Some insects cover themselves with debris for protection and wear it like clothes. Insects and other arthropods spin silk to make cocoons as well as other constructions.

So humans are not the only animals that have taken to wearing clothing and developed the means to do so.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What about the gorillas? Could you repeat why bonobos and gorillas and chimpanzees have not devised or felt the need to put on clothing? (Only humans have that need.)

"Clothing? Now why would we need that?" (Hint: Notice the fur?)

 

[metis]

Well, we do know that only humans have devised the means and felt the need to wear clothing.

Probably true, but we also do know that some species have devised other ways to keep warm, whether that be through instinct or thought.