Do you believe in human evolution?

Isn't it pretty simple? I.D. is a political tool. It has to have a deity aspect, because otherwise it's impossible for there to be original intelligence without expanding into realms possibly beyond our comprehension. (not that it isn't absolutely impossible to understand, but I wouldn't be surprised if we never cared to)

None of this will matter anyway when the universe dies a heat death or cold death or entropy death or the Big Rip or...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It's times like these I feel good about transhumanism. Only a little, though.

Also I might as well throw my view into this: I personally adhere to the probability eventuality. Since time cannot exist, it is therefore possible that all probabilities exist at some point. The universe could have expanded contracted, dissappeared and reappeared the amount of times which we haven't even discovered the number for yet, before we were created.

Hell, probability also stipulates it's possible that Earth is the only planet in the universe which has born life. We could be the only carbon-based lifeforms in existence. Wouldn't that be something?

Using an estimation of the amount of Earth-like planets as evidence isn't very scientific, though. We can't really know unless they're confirmed to be earth-like.

If we do discover other forms of life, I hope it's delicious.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

How do I put this? The prevailing notion is that time is linear or cyclical, but time is actually constant. Since everything exists constantly, it's impossible to move "forward" or "backward" in time, and therefore it doesn't exist.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

PPS: Brady, Vonnegut's dead.

Vonnegut lives!
in our hearts

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Mathematically macroevolution becomes more probable when dealing with organisms who have rapidly replaced generations. It's more likely to observe genetic traits being adopted over the course of hundreds of years in insects than higher mammals. Spread out over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, new species branch off of the base species (which may very well still be in abundance). Then over millions and hundreds of millions classes begin to form.

There is, of course, no set timespan for any macroevolutionary change, but the "faults" of macroevolution are more a fault of human perception than of logic. Of course, we probably can't definitively prove it until protohumans are able to directly observe the changes over several millenia, but in the meantime it's the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the species.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Kinkymagic's been doing most of the talking on his own in this thread. He posted a link to sources which back up his claims and cannot be derided for doing so. If anything, "DarkLink," you are the one who's cruisin' for a bruisin' here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said you were cruisin' for a bruisin', DK. Drop the fucking links shit. Linking a source is a staple of the Codex, and if you have a problem with that, then argue the source, not the use of it.

FELIPE NO

That's enough dicking around with semantics for this thread.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?