Just today I saw two articles that stated claims that 'something' evolved to be able to do 'something else'. It's been bothering me for some time, but I don't think I've ever written about it. In the first story, the claim was that bats evolved to be able to repair DNA radiation damage from flight. In the second, that human fists had evolved to allow humans to make fists for punching other people. This makes it sound as if a group of homo erectus got together and agreed to only mate with people with a good right hook. This is hardly an accurate concept.
Both of these are fundamentally wrong statements. In fact, I find the statements downright misleading. It mixes the mindset of intelligent design with that of evolution. We, and our counterpart life forms, do not evolve toward a purpose. Instead, it is right to think that we evolve BECAUSE of specific environmental changes. E.g. Bats have evolved to the point where they repair DNA radiation damage experienced in flight. Humans have evolved fist-making hands most likely due to the survival advantage offered by being able to punch someone in the face.
It may be a nit picking argument, but I think it would serve the greater good if evolution were properly characterized by statements that indicate its actual mechanism rather than set in the minds of the reader that we, or anyone else, evolve toward a specific purpose. The only purpose evident in the function of evolution is survival. Thus, it is really only right to say that 'something' evolved to be able to survive its environment.
No one knows why my branch of the evolutionary tree has evolved to be so pedantic.
- Recovered from a missing draft using BlogPress from my iPad
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad