Even should we seperate ourselves from "Darwinsim" and consider evolution as a maturity of becoming, in one "mere" human life, I feel that my fourth question has not of yet been answered.
What thing has seperated us, from those (animals) who did not evolve?
It wasn't mere invention.
Monkeys have been recorded as to the use of (utilization of reason) simple tools--taking a stick and placing it into anthills to partake a snack. Other mammals as well have been noted to utilize environmental opportunities.
The presence of chemicals, hormonal balances and the conclusionatory -imbalances?- in the human brain represent, I believe, the Last Frontier.
What invention (and I am behooved to call fire "invention"--it was discovery) that propelled the evolution of mankind, beyond the simple manipulation of environment, to being in control, and thus achieving the enhancement of advancement, and our bodies followed suit.
It sparked society. And so much more than that.
The natural enemy of all animal flesh -- fire -- it could be managed, controlled, and it was "reasoned" (in other words, there was reasoning function in our brain) that not only changed the way that mankind lived, but the very utilization of our bowels.
(Cooked meat simply digests more efficiently than raw meat. The body adapted--resulting in a more upright skeletal framework and enabling us to more exploration, and thus, more situations requiring adaptability.)
This wasn't always a successful evolution. (For reference, just hit the google search engine and type in Goliath evolution, and then Hobbit--both are the legitimate names for the anthropology.)
Let's assume for a moment that you do not follow the Darwinist Theory of Evolution.
Someone should explain to me the differences in the skeletal-muscular system, and how, even now, as I type, we become a much more well-fed (fattened)population, and thus the size of our body mass index increases, and so does the size of the typical foot?
Perhaps we adapt....here?
For example, I am Hypatia, and I am a woman. A typical waistline in the 1800's was 15-17 inches. A typical shoe size was a four. (Any woman who has bought vintage clothing knows this is underestimation.)
The typical shoe size for women in the seventies was 6/7.
Today? It is 8/9. Wide
For now, I shall leave that as the lot of my physical evidence.
But now, let's explore evolution as a simple rite of maturity of a human being, from newborn to, what we would hope would be a natural death at say, typically, between 75-90 years of age.
I submit as fact that a newborn may be bottle-fed, with a formula of nutrition that matches (in some cases surpasses) that of the natural teat of the newborn's mother. And yet, it has long been emphasized from doctors to mothers that "bottle-propping" is not only unacceptable, but it could result in a de-socialized behavior--and lack of human contact is cause specific in cases of "failure to thrive".
In other words, even infants who have never known such will get lonely and will mourn the lack of touch.
We are all born with the innate ability "to suck", and yet not all of us are suckled.
We hire people to rock babies in hospitals, and yet, we continue to deny our need for intimacy.
I maintain it's a question of nature and nurture, and not an ultimate equation of either/or, but a fine balance of the two.
We can take the emotions and isolate them, and dissolve them into finite microscopic entity, but it takes an "x" factor to replicate the total devotion of that which is given to us, (and some be burdened by) the mysterious factor of algebraic "x":
Instinct or emotion?
I suggest our instinct drives us to seek out emotion.