data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e596a/e596a15c83d68858fb0d73ca17127e3c8a72f54a" alt="NoHoesinOhio"
NoHoesinOhio
Christ's tallest skulled soldier
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2025
- Posts
- 1,909
- Reputation
- 2,805
if resource allocation exactly matched demand then no organism would survive during the mildest of stressors , and no amount of evolutionary statistical models can explain this as stressors are ubiquitous even in single celled organisms. Therefore unless life has a "baneful maw of eternal hunger" as a springboard, lifeforms cannot emerge. Evolutionary statistics only holds for large scale populations and examing macrocosms, it cannot explain the abiogenesis and original differentiation of prokaryotes and simple eukaryotes. Im still newb in Spencerian biology, and in general late 19th/ early 20th century thought that didnt make darwin out to be some redditor with a sex doll unlike modern materialist conceptions, but survival and sex are overrated if this is true, and ascribing the "purpose" of an organism is to reproduce is as stupid as saying God is created during binary fission. This is why I dont identify as an incel because reproduction is failure by definition
Last edited: