4 ms·
Your comment has no relevance to the article. Article is saying that chemical/physical properties can be mistaken for life and the line is thin. You seem to b
by kylebenzle 3y ago
Your comment has no relevance to the article.
Article is saying that chemical/physical properties can be mistaken for life and the line is thin.
You seem to be trying a version of the argument, "if evolution exists then why the heck do we still have monkeys?"
- soared 3y agoThe article says “fossils of single celled organisms can easily be confused for rocks”. But the title says does not make the same claim, so the parent comment is refuting the title not the article. The title implies something like “for any biological process of a living being, there exists a non-living version”. Which is clearly false