Clothing (evolution)

[WhiteSeal]

we probably started wearing clothes because after we killed the big fuzzy animals and all of a sudden it became freezing cold, some brilliant homo erectus looked at the big fuzzy dead thing and thought: If i throw that over myself, I'll be warmer. Enter clothing.
But then said caveman thought: Perhaps it will be more comfortable if I shape the fuzzy part to my body and eat/throw away the rest? Enter comfortable clothing.
Notice how many of the Indians living in South America and the Africas where it's nice and warm are still running around naked?
Now why do they stick bones in their noses, that's the real question.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by WhiteSeal

we probably started wearing clothes because after we killed the big fuzzy animals and all of a sudden it became freezing cold, some brilliant homo erectus looked at the big fuzzy dead thing and thought: If i throw that over myself, I'll be warmer. Enter clothing.
But then said caveman thought: Perhaps it will be more comfortable if I shape the fuzzy part to my body and eat/throw away the rest? Enter comfortable clothing.

So how come no other species fasioned themselve so stylisly?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

I don't see this as a plausible explaination for only one species having a far superior intelligence. Given the similarity of so many species it would seem probable that there should be a few more species with similar intelligence to man's.

Evolution doesn't care what should be, nor what is plausible. Further, I submit that when compared to the dung beetle, the intelligence of the chimpanzee and some other species is similar to ours.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Good enough but moving would still have been a speedier solution than evolving.

Originally Posted by camanintx

Unless there were already people there hogging all of the resources.

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Invent weapons.

Is that still an easier speedier solution than inventing clothing?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

It is not logical to suggest that just because we exist that the theories as to why we exist are true based only on our existance.

I disagree. As often happens, you are misapplying probability. The probability of anything happened which has already happened is precisly 100%. The probability of human beings inventing clothing, while other animals do not, = 100%. Now, which explanation do you choose: Due to our larger brains, our ancestors figured out that it would be beneficial, and those who did survived to pass the trait on? Or, 6000 years ago a powerful invisible being got angry at the first man and first woman for eating a fruit he told them not to, so he commanded them to cover themselves up? Or that the bodhisattva gave up his vow of chastity to marry an ogress and give birth to a tribe of monkeys who eventually learned to walk upright and wear clothing? (Tibet) Or whether Iktomi first gave a packet of fine food and clothing to the first people to tempt them to come to him so he could trick them? (Dakota)

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Actually human beings are not the most "pure and modest" species. Albatrosses, petrels, swans, geese, eagles, and some owls and parrots are all life-long monogamists. They have a single mate for life, and if that mate dies, they remain single and widowed.

Ok, I didn't know that. But do they wait until they are married to mate?

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

What does sex have to do with "purity?" The term does not apply to sexuality or behavior. It paints a false parallel. Sex does not pollute.
The only way "purity" could apply to people is perhaps in reference to levels of foreign chemicals -- PCBs, mercury, organophosphates, &c.

Sexual purity refers to being spiritually clean from sexual sin.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Clothing, in the West at least, is used as much for sexual attraction as for maintaining modesty. Women's clothing, in particular, is often tailored to be provocative, not modest.

Sad, but true.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

It should be pointed out as well, that ideas of modesty vary tremendously, both between cultures and over time. "In olden times a glimpse of stocking...," &c.

I agree that modesty in dress seems to be relative.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

A lack of clothing does not necessarily relate to modesty, either. There are plenty of tropical societies where people wear very little clothing and are a great deal less promiscuous than our own, clothed culture.

I'll take your word for it. But, modesty in dress helps reduce temptation.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

Sexual purity refers to being spiritually clean from sexual sin.

So the concept is only useful to people who believe in the notion of sin.

I'll take your word for it. But, modesty in dress helps reduce temptation.

Only if one is trained to regard nudity as sexually tempting.