To Lions, Zebras Are Mostly Gray
All these &quot;evolutionary arguments&quot; -- this isn&#x27;t real science. It&#x27;s just a bunch of &quot;just so&quot; stories that are tested in some of the flimsiest ways (one phenomenon demonstrated to a statistically significant degree -- therefore that must have been &quot;the reason for the evolutionary change&quot;).<p>Listen, tons of features that an animal has are not correlated so highly to survival as to make enough selective pressure to make that feature come to completely dominate a population. I am very skeptical of the widely &quot;held&quot; assumption otherwise.<p>For example, lets say the human anorectal angle was specifically &quot;evolved&quot; for pooping while squatting. Is it a &quot;just so&quot; story or did the exact anorectal angle contribute SO MUCH to survival or reprosuction that it became the standard for bipedal humans?<p>Consider just how much relative advantage with survival and replication any given feature must have in order to come to dominate ALL the other features that are competing in the population. And this is in just one area. During a single reproduction, there are tons of genetic and epigenetic variables that could be selected for, which determine different things. Why would a specific feature in a specific part of the body, that provides merely a minor improvement at any given time, come to completely replace all other genotype expressions? I have never seen a good analysis of this, just hopeful handwaving, especially in popular books like The Selfish Gene.