A human wouldn't grow hair to adapt to cold environment... That wouldn't be possible what are you even talking about?
And evolution being a process that takes thousands of generations in most cases no one have ever seen it on humans with his bear eyes...

For the monkeys part that's also completely false. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys I don't know in which school you went but you're clearly lacking some HUGE part of the scientific biological knowledge.

I'm just using YOUR source to explain why you're wwrong on considering macroevolution is a thing.

You still haven't defined evolution or adaptation but still claim they're different and one is acceptable but not the other...

The dealer?

In which version of the game do you have to beat the dealer? Oo
Poker is PvP not player versus the bank!

Is there any house edge on the coinflip game?

Or is it just a free PVP game?

Macroevolution isn't a scientific concept, it's just a word to make discussions easier to distinguish big or small time scale.

Macro evolution = micro evolution multiple times = evolution

That's less expensive than the scam that Apple is, but still it's not cheap...

And buying directly from Google is a bit too much for me concerning personnal data. That's like hearing "ok this time we directly put the viruses in the phone so you don't even have to give autorisation we automatically collect everything you do or say don't worry "

Not really...

Poker is not about playing. It's about learning.
You need practice of course, but practice is not at all the same thing as playing. Playing without reviewing your games is useless. Most professionnal players spend about as many times studying theoritically as they spend time playing.
You don' tjust play. You play, record the interesting hands, review them afterwards.
You watch other people play.
You experiment with different ranges.

Playing is not important, studying and practicing is.

My answer to you is: there is nothing like macro evolution and no scientist defends something as macro evolution I don't even know what you mean by macro evolution.

Until you define what you mean by the term macro evolution I can't help you because for me macro evolution isn't a scientific concept.

You don't make any sense. A whole species saw a gene being replace by another gene. If that's not the definition of evolution then stop fooling around and give a proper definition of evolution.

Cambridge definition of evolution:
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years

This example fits perfectly the Cambridge definition. If you have a definition on your own bring it here or stop talking in the void.

ICO = scam

That's not so difficult to understand.
There is nearly no exception.
And whatever, 500 BTC to make development on a betting website? WTF? Are you goin to build a website worth 500k$? That's a hell of a website!
That was stupid and you did the right thing to call the scam when you detected it.

Don't put your money on project making no freaking sense.

Peppered moth is the most known.

Before industrial revolution the moth was white. After the industrial revolution, the moth became brown, if that's not evolution then what is it?

Sadly no.
The decision is announced at the European council... Council made of ministries of all the EU countries.
Senate and National assembly have no place in this decision. The "law part" would be AFTER president (through its government which he directly appoints) takes the decision. But National assembly and senate would have no choice in the fact that France is leaving.
You're completely wrong again. They ARE allmighty, they just decided to not bother so much to not cause a revolution.
That can pass whatever bill they want without asking anything to anyone, that's what article 13 is all about. And previous president did it several times, including laws that no one wanted neither in the population or the national assembly.
It's just that most president are here for the money so they don't bother, but if they want they CAN.
No problem on the phrasing part, political subjects are always heated and I'm not the last to write too fast.

Concerning all what you're saying, I agree with pretty much everything but you failed to mention the one important question: how do you bring those changes?
You're pretty much saying "hey wouldn't it be best to slowly give the power to the people by making them learn how to handle it and take the time to change the culture of everyone concerning responsaibilities over political discussions and decisions?"

Yeah sure it would be better than a suddent change from no power at all to all the power to the people and no representants.

But how do you handle a slow transition? People having the power right now will NOT give it willingly. That's what the yellow vest movement is all about (more referendum) and the answer from the government is obviously "get back to work little shit don't think you can decide anything".
They will not give the power willingly, we'll have to take it by force... And you can't take "parts of the pwoer" by force, you either win the battle and take it all or lose and take nothing.

If you have an idea on how to do it please be my guest, but all you've been saying was "it would be best to go slowly by more referendum and more implication" and yes, but referendums and political implications are mainly decided by the people currently holding power. Why would they accept to hand it to us little by little when they can keep it?

You mentionned it but didn't show any evidence simply because it doesn't exist

Here is what Europe does and why it's a cancer:
-It's a bottom levelling tool. By saying "free market everywhere" it means that the lowest standards are competing against the highest. Why would a company accept decent working conditions in France when they can take the Eastern Europe slaves to do the same thing without any repercussion?
-By removing any border you allo all companies operating in Europe to centralize their profits on one country. The 40 biggest corporations of France pay nearly 0 taxes in France simply because they transfer their profit to Benelux or Ireland. There is nothing that can be done against that.
-You remove any kind of immigration control. This cannot be a good thing. Having people move freely anywhere without any condition means the state loses control over its population, that means it loses control on itself.
-Centralizing the power means even less people are taking decisions for even more people, that means it's even easier for big companies to use lobbying and corruption to reach their goals. Did you ever go to Bruxells' European Center? It's 4 buildings of European Union in the middle of 20 buildings owned by lobbyists. For every European Deputy there are approximately 5 professional lobbyists influencing them on a full time schedule. (https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/04/A/50304)
-Centralization of the currency allowed banks and big companies to take over the currency of every country in the EU... They decide, we obey, and that concerning every aspect of the currency.

And that's what I can think of in 2 minutes. Now the actual advantages I can see are:
-Ensured peace. But that can be promoted with a European Alliance, no need for a Union.
-Scientific work promotion, but again no need of a Union here. Switzerland is part of the most important scientific works groups of the EU and isn't in the EU
-Population exchanges and ability to move arround. That's cool but you just need to get rid of the Visa obligation, we do that with tons of countries already

So please if you think EU is useful, explain what can balance those montruous cons I've listed 

Ok you're dumb and put on ignore. Cheers.

You haven't define the difference you make between evolution and adaptation. If you don't we can't discuss because from my point of view you're just saying "blue isn't really blue there is no proof that blue is blue".

Evolution = adaptation of a species to its environment over the course of time.

If you want to talk about something else you'll have to define what you mean by evolution or adaptation.

Bah, don't think it will ever be the case.

I mean what could possibly be the point of BTC in real life?
Paying for daily things? Thanks we do that already with fiat and it's just perfect.

Bitcoin is here to store value, gamble, trade, exchange value anonymously or by large distance.
That's all, and that's pretty impressive already.
There is no need to find something else, for me it's enough as a use case.

Hey!

My next numbers will be:
25 - 27 - 59 - 62 - 87

That settles it then. There is nothing absolute.

I find it perfectly ok for the wife to kill her husband in that case, that's just self defense.

Leaving is not an option when you're deeply under the material and psychological control of someone.

You find it wrong. I find it normal. We don't have the same definition of morality.

No moral is absolute. Nothing is absolute in fact, but especially not what is linked to ethics or morals.

Yeah that's like... The basic definition!
If some parts of the species adapt well to an environment they will have more offsprings hence spreading their genes faster hence it leads to the evolution os the species Oo

If you accept adaptation BADecker then you accept evolution for the simple reason that they are the same thing.

Or be my guest and define what is different between adaptation and evolution...

What?
But... Adaptation IS evolution.
That's like literaly the same thing.
Evolution is the selection of species based on what is most adapted to its environment...

What would be the difference between adaptation and evolution for you? Because evolution is EXACTLY adaptation but on bigger time frames.

Lol I know you answered to af_newbie but that's a forum of public discussion so anyone can jump in the conversation you know? 

murder = premeditated attempt to take someone's life. Great.
So if a woman raped daily by her husband, beaten nearly to death everyday, finally decides one day to poison her husband, it's absolutely immoral? No difference with a psycho serial killer?

If someone is drunk and takes the wheel and crashes in someone else and kill them, it's not premeditated so it's not murder?

There are THOUSANDS of grey areas that don't fit your narratives. That's why there is nothing absolute.