er another. This image is something that anthropologists have argued about for a few years now. They ask the question: is the model of evolution that we see accurate in the eyes of evolution itself? The most recent answers to this question are generally no, it is not accurate.The most current models have more in common with trees than they do with ladders. The trunk of the tree is the common history, the evolutionary dribble that all life stems from. However, there are an awful lot of branches along that trunk and not one is judged better than another. Each branch is a historical experiment of evolution to examine whether fur is better than scales on a particular species in its environment. Or, say, a protruding thumb may or may not benefit certain apes in their environment. Every twig on every branch is such an experiment and is not prone to judgment. There are more twigs that stop growing and eventually fall off than there are those that stay and grow. This means that not every change is necessarily better, it simply means that there is a change. This is not a progressive and linear examination into the evolution of the most “godlike” of animals on the planet. Rather it is jumbled and lacks in such a sense of progress: that we are better than apes, that apes are better than monkeys, and that eventually we will become “the enlightened ones.” The idea that human societies will one day merge into one and that humans will become the very definition of reason is extremely idealistic as well as arrogant. It may very well be possible, as a twig on a branch on the trunk of some roots, but it seems very improbable. In order for us to be enlightened in such a manner, the environment has to create an atmosphere in which emotion is detrimental. If such a thing occurred we would no longer be human, rather we would be a new species altogether. It does not even mean that human beings would cease to exist as t...
