Clothing (evolution)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

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

How would that work? Would they stop by the birdie city hall and get a license? They only have one sexual partner in their entire lives. Is that maybe what you were thinking of? Or was this supposed to be a joke?

[kai]

come on people they invented clothes which started off from crude animal skins draped over them because it was cold or you would die, simple as that its nothing to do with being bashful, pure survival

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

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

Being sexually pure in a spiritual sense, probably only makes sense in the context of sin. Although, there are a lot of physical impurities (i.e, disease) introduced by sexual promiscuity.

Originally Posted by Sunstone

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

I would question whether you have to be trained to notice.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

How would that work? Would they stop by the birdie city hall and get a license? They only have one sexual partner in their entire lives. Is that maybe what you were thinking of? Or was this supposed to be a joke?

I was trying to be funny. I must have failed.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

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)

What nonsense. Longwinded explanations do not bolster an inept argument. The probability that we exist is 100% because we exist. It says nothing about how we got here.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

I disagree. As often happens, you are misapplying probability.

I wasn't speaking of probability. Your's was a logically false aplication.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by kai

come on people they invented clothes which started off from crude animal skins draped over them because it was cold or you would die, simple as that its nothing to do with being bashful, pure survival

You make a good point that a major function of clothing is insulation, but I think there is more to it than that.

Even in tropical countries people clothe/decorate themselves. Elaborate painting, headdress, body modification, &c is common in tropical cultures and has nothing to do with insulation.

As far as bashful is concerned, I would say modesty is entirely artificial and varies widely in different societies.

On the island of Yap women traditionally wear nothing above the waist, and it never occurs to anyone that there might be something provocative or lascivious about a topless lawyer, businesswoman or high school student. A European tourist wearing shorts or ordinary beach attire, though, will be arrested and fined for indecent exposure -- one does not display one's thighs in public on Yap.

In native New Guinea men wear only a "horim" -- a penis sheath, and perhaps a boar's-tooth necklace or tusks through their noses.
A penis sheath is a long, slim, one to three foot long type of gourd that's slipped over the penis and secured in an 'erect' position with a string around the waist. This 'ordinary business attire' in males, conceals only the glans and distal two-thirds of the shaft -- everything else is unabashedly exposed.
The Naturalist Peter Matthiessen, covering the Harvard-Peabody anthropological expedition of '61, In his book Under the Mountain Wall, relates an incident where a Kurelu tribesman accidentally lost his sheath. The man was tremendously embarrassed and hid his "privates" till others withdrew.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

I wasn't speaking of probability. Your's was a logically false aplication.

You weren't? Maybe this was where I got that impression.

Originally Posted by sandy w.

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.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

You weren't? Maybe this was where I got that impression.

You're confused.

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.