But A series of Biochemical reactions that drive people together to marrY and reproDuce in Order to produce stroNg offspring in a safe and nourishing environmenT? How qUeeR is iT that love May simply Exist to further the lifespan of the DiscOrdaNT existence of our species? and for what purpose? to further the lifespan of a species that is dancing the border between Heimal nUcleaR fallouT and Magnificent yEt seemiNgly out-of-grasp utOpia? to further the Misanthropic crimes that have been cOmmited against ouRselvEs? how inconsiderate of nature.
Just out of curiousity, did you read the capitals or the whole thing first?
Again, the Order vs. Chaos argument. True chaos is subjective to those who know of their own order. Ordinarily species didn't need "love" and would simply fend for themselves. Most species in the universe did this and as a result, humans classified this style of living as "animal." The "Law of the Jungle" was a trend we noticed in biology, so we made it a rule. It even seemed more logical to us, because it matched our observations of how life behaves, but the mistake was that we had never seen another creature that could love, so any species other than our own that did this was assumed to have been destroyed or evolutionarily unlikely to ever exist until now.
The mistake was that we didn't integrate the exception, or humans, into the rule, or nature. We used this new idea of "love" to support the assertion that we, in fact, were the dominant species, destined to bring new order into the universe. Our kind, a much more social one than most other species, would effectively elevate the universe to a higher level of order and complexity. Of course, complexity is extremely subjective. In fact, the idea of complexity doesn't really make sense intrinsically, only extrinsically when weighed against things that don't serve a "function."
This second mistake is to say that things of "lower complexity" are not serving any "function." Any thing that exists, in any state, is serving the function of doing whatever it is doing.
If anything in the universe happens, it is considered logical in the universe because the universe encompasses
everything that ever happens in the sense that we know it. It's sort of circular reasoning, but there is no other way to apply such broad generalizations to anything so large.
So if human "love" creates "structure," this "structure" is just part of the "entropy" of the universe. The question deals with the subjective specifics of a physical science and attempts to attach it to the grand scheme of existence, even though all things are equally connected to the scheme of existence.