> But answering it as if there was some intention behind it? That is not how evolution works. This nitpick is brought up each time someone makes an interesting

> But answering it as if there was some intention behind it? That is not how evolution works. This nitpick is brought up each time someone makes an interesting observation. I can only image it is because people are trying to preempt intelligent design nonsense. You are ofc right, it had no purpose when you talk generation to generation, the gradual tiny mutation each time did indeed serve no purpose. But when you talk about the end product, the striped zebra, it is ok to say zebras (as the product of those millions of tiny iterations) might have evolved to discourage biting flies. Of course it could have been some other reason altogether, or a mixture of reasons but there is nothing wrong with the vocabulary, imo.