These arguments don't work either.
You say we are attracted to flowers and animals all over the world because they have 'morphological and behavioural similarities to species from our own natural habitat. But this doesn't make sense. How would this increase the rate of reproduction of our genes? If we evolved to be attracted to certain features that exist in all kinds of environments all around the world, including uninhabitable ones, why should we believe this will improve our inclusive fitness? Developing an attraction to individuals of our own species or species that directly benefit us is something different.
Indeed you are correct that just because certain behaviors are not exhibited, does not mean they did not evolve. But the absence of said behavior does cast doubt. Anyway, this example is not even relevant. You said we evolved to find flowers attractive because they are a good indication of a healthy environment suitable human habitation. But so are the roots, trunks and leaves of a tree. We consistently and reliably write: songs, poems, and stories about flowers. Draw, paint and sculpt flowers on a regular basis. We even pick and bundle flowers into bouquets and give to give as presents to our loved ones. But we do no such thing with roots, trunks and leaves. We rarely ever -- but not never -- write poems about trunks, compose songs about leaves and make beautiful paintings of roots. Not so with flowers. This can't be a coincidence! There must be an explanation beyond evolution for our reliable attraction to flowers.
Last edited:
