3 ms·
You have misinterpreted the point of my post. The initial post was: >"if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to b
by dylanjermiah 11y ago
You have misinterpreted the point of my post. The initial post was:
>"if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use."
Whereby time was the factor by which something is considered 'of use'. The things you've mentioned evolution, the wheel, research papers etc. Have more concrete evidence than just time to back them up.
Although on the topic of food, do you have any evidence to support that?
- tcfunk 11y agoBut I think you've misinterpreted the original comment in the first place. Saying something "is likely to be of use" is not the same as "is empirically true".
- dylanjermiah 11y agoVery true, my mistake. I was pushing my interpretation 'of use'. That can have many more meanings.