You're viewing a single thread.
No living thing has a feature "to" do anything. That implies decision making, which is intelligent design.
Tigers have spots on their ears, which can confuse attackers.
Tigers did not develop those spots "to" confuse attackers.
I hear what you're saying, and you're 100% correct, but I think most people will realize it's a figure of speech, and easier to say than "Via the process of gene mutation trial and error over many, many generations of tigers, spots have developed on their ears that look like eyes, resulting in predation from behind being discourged."
One way of thinking of it could be that since all of our intention and decision making originates in such a process, the line between them isn't that clear.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. Thinking of evolved features as having a purpose is wrong, but it is also incredibly useful.
Why do we have eyes? In some sense, there is no reason, just a sequence of random coincidences, combined with a slightly non-randon bias refered to as "survival of the fittest" (itself an incorrect model).
However, saying that we have eyes to see has incredible explanatory power, which makes it a useful model. Just like Newton's law of Universal gravity. We've known it that is wrong for a century at this point, but most of the time still talk as if it's true, because it is useful.
Yes, they did though. That's the purpose of this evolutionary trait. I see what you're getting at, but you seem to be implying this was a concidence
Every evolutionary trait is coincidence. If it was adaptation we'd be able to regrow vital organs.
that's not how that works, we cant regrow (most) vital organs (liver says hi) because of "engineering problems" not because evolution is random. we personify adaptations to understand them, it can lead to issues but yours is a massive overcorrection.
Adaptation is bullshit? Well that's a new one...
The spots might be helpful for baby tigers?