28 ms·
Your argument implies that cows who did not eat seaweed survived and therefore we see cows not eating seaweed now. Since cows cannot live underwater and seawee
by rkul 7y ago
Your argument implies that cows who did not eat seaweed survived and therefore we see cows not eating seaweed now.
Since cows cannot live underwater and seaweed does not grow outside water, these "two worlds" could not meet and the outcome of their interaction is unknown. It might work, it might not, however, evolution was not here yet.
- blue_devil 7y agoYou are focusing on a mechanistic view. My general point is we do not understand these systems well enough to take the risk to solve a non-essential issue, when we have the option to eliminate the risk altogether. Let me try a metaphor: Imagine you bought a new gadget for your car - you did not use it before, you're using it now and you like it. Turns out it influences the car so that your engine would die within 5 years instead of 20 years, and that it will die spectacularly (like explode). You don't know when but you know it's practically guaranteed to happen. You don't have the option to buy a new engine in the future, and you don't know what causes the gadget to impact your engine like this - you can kind of guess, but you don't understand it completely. You know that yanking out the gadget gives you a good chance to restore your broken engine, somewhat, and reduces the risk of implosion. Do you go about tinkering with adding stuff to the gadget because you really like it and want to keep using it despite knowing the risks, or do yank out the old gadget and make your peace with the fact that it's not possible to have it with this car? Replace car with planet Earth above.