iNow

Nobody has suggested it doesn’t

no

Plasmodium, snakes (lost all limbs), Axolotl... the ostrich, emu, dodo and kiwi bird have lost the ability to fly... yeast, horses lost their thumbs and all but their middle fingers... the examples of evolution favoring simpler over more complex are literally endless. The core point is you're representing a false version of how it works. There is no direction in evolution, and definitely not toward more complex (even though that is one possible outcome). You can dig your heels in all you want, but you're wrong and I'd advise you adapt your understanding to a more accurate one. Perhaps it is, but it's not one necessarily favored by evolution

I'll defer to the active discussion taking place within thread as the current relevant context

no again, not always. sometimes it "engenders" more simplicity no, it's not... but then again this is borderline "not even wrong"

Perhaps, but right now is not that time, IMO. Right now, we must not be passive in the face of the approaching storm. We need to stop whistling passed the threat of fascism and authoritarianism, stand up, and support what we believe in... en masse, with intensity, and without pause. When the hurricane approaches, you work together to stack sand bags, install plywood on the windows, ensure availability of food and water, and move to higher ground where possible. You don't just sit there defeated and reliant on the power of prayer and positive vibes. Inaction favors those who are actively doing evil things.

So absurd it’s now probable and likely

Agreed. I was reaching more for poetry than precision when using the posters own words to demonstrate the paucity of their point, and acknowledge this welcome correction from you

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. That’s not a direction.

If time passed, yet absolutely nothing moved, there’d be no change. Ergo, you’re wrong and it is motion that is the essence of change Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

According to this SCOTUS, the president can use their office to overturn an election as long as they do so officially, and they can use their power over the military (which they assert is basically absolute) to order assassination of rivals, even though they may be doing so for personal gain and personal vengeance. Also apparently this same king-like entity according to this court in parallel cannot cancel student loan debt, nor adopt clean energy requirements, nor mandate vaccination during a pandemic as those would be a bridge too far.

It’s hard using logic and reason to change the mind of a person who arrives at their position using neither If facts mattered, we’d have begun addressing this when it was first brought to congress in the 1980s as a real risk

You implied that evolution leads to more complexity. That is not true. It just represents change. There is no direction

The whole world, really

That’s not how evolution works. More complexity isn’t de facto better. In many environments it reduces probability of reproducing and this would get selected against. There is no direction to evolution.

Biden should use old age to his advantage, leverage his newly confirmed immunity re: exec actions as per SCOTUS decision today, and send Seal Team 6 to turn DJT into a wet spot. By the time they rethink their ruling and sort out whether or not it’s really truly okay for our prez to do this, Biden will be long deceased. Win/win

It only seems random bc we lack sufficient information about the state of the system overall to better model them. This is word salad

You're just spamming / soapboxing

no

Actually, the definition of census is an official count or survey, most commonly related to the numbers within a given population. But your comment is also disconnected from the actual topic under discussion, so encourage you to allow this tangent to die here.

Wow. Someone went on a neg rep spree in this thread hitting up posts from very early on Page 1. Okay... but care to comment on why you found them so problematic? After 7 pages of repetition and disregard of critique, they seem accurate IMO.

This is a delusional claim, and reeks of deep bias and disconnection from reality.

Completely agree

What happens when artificial intelligence overtakes real stupidity?