I came away with the same impression. Even though I know better I tend to think of things as having a usefullness even though I can’t always see it. At the very least things will often get out of ballance if something disappears.
But such a purpose can only have come about after humans did, by definition. Thus, it is not a reason that humans came to be, but a reason to continue to be.
History! That reminds me of a few medieval practices. Back in the days when fleas were an every day problem, one could make an offer to one’s object of affection to search out and pluck away her flea(s).
The evidence? There were small boxes made where one could store the fleas so plucked. Why would you do that? Because each flea contained a small bit of her blood, thus allowing you to carry a bit of her around with you. There was also more than one smutty painting of a woman disrobing to allow a man to search.
So the purpose of fleas: Romance!
Sure wish I had thought to put (pun intended) there, or even realized that it could be :smack:
nice pickup!
I’ve heard John Waters lament the pubic lice of the 60s and 70s along the same lines - catching crabs from one’s beloved, why, it’s sharing something intimate and secret… romantic ! 
True enough about balances changing when certain species are removed.
But that’s a very different discussion than is the discussion of “purpose.” As several in the thread have pointed out, that word carries implications. The OP’s intentions do matter, of course. From the first post itself, though, we were stuck with answering as if those implications were intended.
We had no way of knowing that the OP didn’t intend those implications until that information was offered to us (later in the thread) by the OP.
Yes; human-created purpose isn’t the same as Purpose (imposed from without by…whatever).
Thank you.
Funny, at least 2 of us knew what the OP meant. And even if the word ‘purpose’ is not technically correct, it isn’t very hard to answer in a constructive way:
“There isn’t really a purpose to any non-animal species, evolution doesn’t work like that. If you mean do fleas’ innate behavior help mankind in anyway, like bees pollinate plants to provide food, and spiders kill a lot of insects, then (yes/no) fleas do…(insert something factual here)”
Instead, it seems a lot of posters immediately jumped on the OP for seemingly poor grammar, or a badly worded question, or below-the-surface ridicule, and even explicit “must be an intelligent design weirdo” instead of reasonably trying to think about what question she had.
also, i don’t know how to multi-quote, so to the OP - you are welcome.
(I’m afraid to ask the board how to multi-quote because of the chance that I might use the incorrect terminology for multi-quote questions)
It’s only natural to compose doggerel about fleas, considering where lots of them live.
And yet many did not, including myself. I’m going to pick a couple of nits with your comments, not to disparage the OP but to defend the tone of the responses. The word “purpose” is very much more than just “not technically correct” – it’s a word that is loaded with the specific connotations of a goal, of an intelligently directed result or end state. It’s completely different than asking what role fleas might play in the ecosystem. Of course we get inaccurately worded questions all the time, and that’s fine, but it’s hardly fair to accuse the responders of being intentionally pedantic just because they made a completely reasonable interpretation of the question.
What is a “non-animal species”? If you’re saying that humans are fundamentally different from any other species, then you’re biologically wrong. If you’re saying that humans are the only species on earth (or, perhaps, in the entire universe) that don’t need to justify their existence, whereas all other species do, then you’re morally wrong.
See? We could do all that without even getting into the business of multi quotes!
Sorry, I meant non-human species.
Is that one yours?
Well-said. And I’m skeptical of the claims made (in the post to which you replied) that the OP was “jumped on” or treated with “below-the-surface ridicule.” Certainly I have trouble seeing my own remark “I’m not trying to characterize the OP. I am just assuming (unless corrected) that the idea that a particular life form must ‘serve a purpose’ in the Earth biosphere comes out of creationist or related modes of belief” as the “explicit” labelling of the OP as “weirdo” that the person to whom you replied claimed.
Re-reading the thread, it all looks like fair discussion to me. But to some posters, apparently, the thread looks like a personal attack on the OP.
Perhaps this difference in perceptions stems from our being in the Dog Days of summer. Things get magnified when people are physically uncomfortable. (They don’t call That Other Sub-Forum “The BBQ Pit” for nothing…)