This one has been around for a while, but it’s still funny.
Everyone knows Smarties® are the superior candy species.
Mike P, Steve LaBonne, and King Aardvark: You know what’s also less sweet than Smarties? Lemons. You should all go suck one.
I’m especially ashamed of you King Aardvark. You just lost your Canadian status. Turn in your toque and your ketchup chips to the nearest RCMP station, pronto.
Smarties aren’t nearly as good as M&Ms.
Hah! You’re just overloaded because the mighty US sugar companies put sugar into your so-called “bread”, and into the cornflakes, too.
Smarties are way better because they don’t contain useless peanuts. Who needs peanuts? (Not an allergic like me…)
But did you consider that the harder M&M’s may play a more active role in the gene pool? For instance, perhaps the optimum fitness per bag requires that the hard-to-soft M&M ratio remain within certain thresholds. Too high, and the consumer is unlikely to buy more M&M’s due to cracked and chipped teeth. Too soft, and the user may as well buy Skittles. So the hard M&M’s do piggyback on the fitness of their softer cousins, but they also serve as genetic repositories for hardness that keep the M&M population distinct from the Skittles population, thus allowing it to exploit a particular confectionary niche.
Where’s Pivar? I have an idea for a book he may be interested in….
The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.
I think this is rather awesome: a detailed examination of the Cambrian fossil Hallucigenia, specifically an…
It’s another Dawkins question!
Why do cave-dwellers lose their eyes? Theyâ€™re useless, but are they harmful? Costly…
Ophelia has summarized a series of science questions Richard Dawkins asked on Twitter. Hey, I thought,…
But Mary tells me I have to post a picture of a British bulldog puppy anyway.