@DanielleFong "for redundancy" sounds like a bad evolutionary explanation
-
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong
@DanielleFong anything that doesn't imply intent. im not sure how well we can track the evolution of internal organs, so the actual origin..2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @beka_valentine
@psygnisfive try to take the meaning from my question that is correct. There is purpose behind most organs!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
@DanielleFong yes, but its typically a boring local phenomenon like "it was beneficial at the time, and thus preserved"1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beka_valentine
@DanielleFong evolution probes possibilities, maximizing utility locally, so these "why" sorts of questions generally dont have good answers1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @beka_valentine
@psygnisfive maybe you're not looking hard enough -- I see plenty of reason behind a lot of these things. Much chance but reason too1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
@DanielleFong we can imbue reason easily, that's what we humans do naturally. the question is, is the reason in our heads, or in evolution1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @beka_valentine
@DanielleFong to say there's two for redundancy just raises questions like the one you asked: if redundancy motivated it, why only kidneys?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @beka_valentine
@DanielleFong and why stop at two? why not three? or four? why not a bigger kidney instead of two smaller ones? etc etc3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@psygnisfive we ate some pretty nasty stuff while we were evolving?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.