I stumbled across this little gem yesterday on Phys.org – you know, the site usually telling us about sensible things like quarks and distant galaxies. But no, today they dropped this headline: “Two rivers that science says shouldn’t exist.”
(Record scratch)
Excuse me? Rivers that shouldn’t exist? Are we talking rivers flowing uphill made of pure spite? Rivers that only appear on Tuesdays during a full moon if you’re wearing mismatched socks? The article (and let’s pause to check the date… ah, yes, April 1st, suspicious…) doesn’t quite say, but implies some geological or hydrological shenanigans that have scientists scratching their heads and probably throwing textbooks out the window.
Now, while my eyebrow is firmly arched regarding these specific rivers today, it got me thinking. If science is suddenly drawing lines in the sand (or water, as it were) about what should and shouldn’t be allowed in the natural world, I’ve got a few additions for that list. Because honestly, Nature, some of your choices are questionable.
Things That Absolutely Should Not Exist, But Here We Are:
- Mosquitoes: Let’s just start with the obvious. What evolutionary purpose do these whining, blood-sucking, disease-vectoring little demons serve? They’re the universe’s tiny, irritating vampires, and their only discernible function is to make summer evenings miserable and spread itchy bumps and deadly illnesses. Verdict: SHOULD NOT EXIST. Science, get on de-inventing these, please. Yesterday.
- The Platypus: Okay, Nature, what happened here? Did you have spare parts lying around? “Let’s see… duck bill, beaver tail, otter feet… oh, and let’s make the males VENOMOUS just for laughs!” It’s like a committee designed this creature after a three-martini lunch. It’s baffling, it’s absurd, it lays eggs but is a mammal? Make it make sense! Verdict: Adorable monstrosity that defies categorization and SHOULD NOT EXIST (but secretly glad it does because it’s weird).
- Wasps: If mosquitoes are annoying vampires, wasps are just airborne rage monsters. They build creepy paper fortresses, seem personally offended by your mere existence, and possess stingers apparently designed by sadists. Bees? Bees are cool. They make honey, pollinate stuff. Wasps just seem to exist to inject pure fury into unsuspecting picnic-goers. Verdict: Unnecessary aggression incarnate. SHOULD NOT EXIST.
- Anglerfish: Residing in the terrifying abyss, looking like something H.P. Lovecraft doodled on a napkin after a bad dream. Bioluminescent lure? Check. Mouth full of nightmare teeth? Check. Parasitic males that fuse to the female? CHECK. This isn’t an animal; it’s a horror movie prop that somehow gained sentience. Verdict: Aquatic nightmare fuel. SHOULD NOT EXIST. Go back to the void, please.
- Poison Ivy/Oak/Sumac: “Hey,” said Nature, “you know what would be hilarious? Let’s make a plant that looks perfectly innocent, but if you touch it, you get weeks of unbearable, weeping, blistering itchiness!” Why? What’s the payoff? It’s just botanical malice. Verdict: Green-leafed torture. SHOULD NOT EXIST.
So, while scientists are apparently baffled by a couple of rogue rivers today (on this very specific date), maybe they should broaden their horizons. Nature is chock-full of things that seem less like elegant design and more like cosmic practical jokes or outright mistakes.
Maybe these “impossible” rivers are just Nature’s way of giving Science the middle finger, reminding us it doesn’t care about our tidy little laws and theories. Or maybe… just maybe… someone at Phys.org is having a bit of April Fools’ fun.
Either way, my list stands. Mosquitoes, you’re still number one with a bullet.
