> it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent Sure, but that's not the cas

> it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent Sure, but that's not the case here. While existing traits are selected for based on fitness (which has absolutely no meaning outside of environment, another rant), new traits (whether wrinkly fingers in one leap or in several small ones) are evolved by chance. Evolution has no intent, no direction. Each individual trait has no reason other than, "Hey, I'll try this out!" In a society where a good chunk doesn't even believe evolution is an accurate model, I think it's helpful to be precise with the language to minimize misunderstanding which further inhibits the idea's acceptance.