What actual science says: Actually, life varies quite a bit and the vast majority of surviving lifeforms are literally spinless and brainless.
You, foolish: "ScIeNcE SaYs OnLy ThE BiGgEsT, ThE StRoNgeSt AnD SmArTeSt SuRvIvE"
Me, intelligent: "Consider the lobster."
Also when applying this to humans: almost all hunter gatherer societies were physically larger and stronger than agriculturalists because they had healthier and more varied diets. One of the biggest reasons that hunter gatherers were replaced by agriculturalists is that agriculture gave a more stable food supply and that let them have more kids.
Survival of the fittest is always misunderstood by pseudoscience dumbfucks. Fittest doesn’t mean strongest, it means ability to fuck and reproduce before you die and nothing else
...the vast majority of surviving lifeforms are literally spinless and brainless.
So there's still hope for us.
You should have known this already - look how many people voted for Biden
If you get that done can I have your frontal lobe? I'm gonna see what I can do with two of em.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have been sending letters telling the science nerds I wanna volunteer to be a brain in a jar for years, noone ever replies. feelsbadman
Every living thing has spin in some of its particles.
There are probably lots of undiscovered single-cell organisms too.
95% measured how? number of species? we have poor info about the total number of species. organisms? how do you count large federated stuff like Pando, or the fungus that covers 2,385 acres of the pacific northwest?
biomass maybe
species.
But yeah as for biomass, don't quote me on it but I think I read somewhere that it was largely non-mammalian at least.
