• cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 month ago

    Efficiency is making the same structure work for dual purposes…like garbage disposal + procreation.

  • Oijkuij@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 month ago

    You know what the alternatives are, right? either we have two mouths, or we speak with our nostrils and the silent, gaping hole below only unhinges for the consumption of organic matter.

  • servobobo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    Last change made by Evolution, commit message “ehh good enough TODO fix in next release”, 500 million years ago

  • lowleveldata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    identical unmarked doors

    Bro I don’t think you are supposed to look at it to determine which way food goes

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Thinking about how smell might have developed is kind of cool. Some mutation allowing cells to detect smell (something modern science is kind of puzzled by) then just sending those signals to the brain and saying, you figure it out. I’d bet there is some other property of matter that exists that we have no ability to detect.

    • el_abuelo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Isn’t smell just particulate matter hitting receptors not dissimilar to how taste receptors send taste signals to the brain? I thought science had this stuff nailed down now?

        • el_abuelo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Science shit?

          I dont know…but I wouldn’t say that’s a good reason to doubt it, for example I don’t know how they proved black holes exist but they seem pretty confident.

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Ok, if it’s just particles how does it distinguish the particles on a molecular level. This is important shit. The closest science can do is gas chromatography and that’s an instrument which exists in any reputable lab. Also, using gas chromatography for this a far cry from the simple function of our sense of smell which can distinguish scents just by simply introducing a fragrence.

            • Redfox8@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I believe the receptor cell responds to a particular part of the molecule in question. Artificial flavourings and scents have identical (or similar enough) parts to trigger the same response, but are otherwise different molecules.

            • el_abuelo@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Maybe I’m misreading your tone, but I’m not trying to argue with you - I’m genuinely curious about this and if you have superior knowledge I’m open!

              My understanding from a quick skim of Wikipedia citations suggests we understand what’s involved (particles and receptors) but the actual mechanism around encoding of signals seems to be theory.

              We also can’t teach a computer to think, but we still have quite a good idea of how it works.