Reply #13: It's a good example of [View All]

[hyphenate]

evolution. The monkeys that didn't wash the potatoes would likely suffer deteriously from the sand collected on the potatoes, and eventually that branch of the group would die out, leaving only the ones who could understand the new behavior would continue to evolve. The next generation of monkeys would likely find a way to "heat" the potatoes or something, and like them better, and over time, those who could not move on to another, higher step would begun to breed out.

It's the same pretty much in almost all facets of evolution. The two lions will fight to the death--the one who is strongest will survive, and father the next generations to come, which will be bigger, stronger and more capable of surviving. The same goes for every single animal on earth, with the result that the weak will perish, whether it's a weakness of the mind, spirit or body.

We have to take into account that there was also another race of humans on earth which ran into a far different set of circumstances along their way: even though the neanderthals might have been more intelligent than what eventually became homo sapiens, they probably did not have the brutality which brought the other evolving race through more difficult and nasty times, like the ice ages, for example. Perhaps the neanderthals would have been a far more noble group of humans, but the potential gentility would not have served them as well, because thinking powers were less useful at that time than the power to overcome potential enemies.

You see, it's part of why I hate these mental midgets who don't believe in evolution. They can not and will never understand the phases of life on our planet. To think that mankind emerged full-blown and with all his mental faculties only ten thousand years ago shortshrifts the more incredible tale of our survival through so much of a past. A Catholic friend had a different take on it--she used to say that an all powerful god would have used evolution to create everything that would not deny science. It's the weaker, "Xtian" god that seems to have more limitations and more human failings than even the worst human on the planet. A true god would have no need for petty ideologies, nor would a true god care about blind devotion.



Regardless of whether it is truth or not, the postulation is still a decent one. It might take a 100 years, but the innate behavior does change when changes are verifiable.