ubermeisters t1_jdmqda9 wrote

The poetic reflectance of nature's preferred method of reproduction (chemical delivery of ingredients to other ingredients) is a lot to turn down in the absence of better theories. Plus, these compounds had to come from somewhere, and we can't find any mechanism for creating them on Earth before life existed, combine that with the fact that we've found literally every single building block needed for life, to exist on astral bodies outside of the planet... It's a lot to dismiss.


ubermeisters t1_jc2wa26 wrote

it's a science article. they should be using appropriate terms, else how am I supposed to respect them anough to believe they have conducted proper science?

you can be fine with clickbait BS titles, that's all on you. doesn't mean that I need to feel or conduct myself similarly.


ubermeisters t1_jc2giue wrote

Charles Darwin ruined us all with the implication that evolution is driven by goals. it isn't. the most successful survive, that's it.

the fact that this disproportionately effects the male offspring sure would seem to imply an evolutionary disadvantage, so we can probably assume they have another major advantage elsewhere that overshadows this seeming flaw.