Dion

It's just because the way you spoke, it seemed like evolution went that way because it was needed, but evolution goes by "random" natural selection, not because something is or isn't needed. My Biology teacher hated when people made statements that way, he used to say that was a Lamarckist way of thinking. Even though I never saw a close relation to Lamarckism in that way of speech, I wanted to have a laugh at you by being picky

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

Well, it is a fact that people are more attracted to people whose DNA differs from theirs substantially, or something in that sense (immunological/immune [?] system different). Everyone can assess that kinda of instinctively/unconsciously, by smell/pheromones. Even though we can't be sure of that consciously, I believe that's a big part of what people call chemistry in the relationship.

The way you put it sounds a bit like Lamarckism, even though I get what you tried to say. The process would be more like: people who would be attracted to their brothers/sisters would have "defective" offspring more often, thus their children would have difficulties to pass on their genes (which didn't have a mechanism of repulsion for siblings) or even survive (due to problems result of recessive genes pairing) and in the long run the genes that "turned off" attraction to people with similar DNA to yours would prevail, because the offspring of these individuals wouldn't suffer from the same problems.

That's what I thought too.

Probably no. Not that I wouldn't be tempted. Actually, depending on the situation I'm not sure I could say no.

Neither did I, still, don't you guys in Australia have geography classes in high school?

LMAO, seriously?

I know, it's the same in brazilian poverty areas. Especially in rural areas. They will have a lot of kids but most of them won't go to school because family will need them to help farming (if it's in a rural area) or help in the family income (if in urban areas).

Yeah. That's right. But I was only considering European Russia (until the Ural Mountains, if I recall geography classes right).

Even then, I don't know if it is bigger. In the pictures you used there was no Scandinavia or Russia. I'm pretty sure they're connected to Europe by land.

It's missing parts of Europe. Europe: 10,180,000 km2 Australia: 7,692,024 km2

Having so many people now is bad. But it will result in a big consumer market with good management, because as soon as all these people are able to get some tangible income, there's no other country who can compete with that, bar China. You guys will surely be a top economy.

Obviously. Because Brazil is hors concours.

Yeah, maybe Belgium could be the second best footballing country in the world then

Australia isn't bigger than Europe. The only bigger country is Russia. Not even Canada is.

Belgium is so small. I used to mock my belgian friend about that, hahahaha. I mean, São Paulo (the city, not the state) has about as many people as your whole country.

Dude, your country has more people than my continent. We would still have to bring like half Europe here just to equalize.

You'll see when you come. There's nothing like our BBQs

Wow, that's even worse than those online broadcastings.

HAHAHAHA, was it that bad? I think I watched it on Globo.

D. Luiz was god in the tournament. His long passes were only surpassed by his amazing save on the line. He could easily have gotten some assists there. I was very, very, very impressed with him.

I like their Beirute .__. People talking about BBQ... Honestly I think no one does BBQs better than brazilians and argentinians. This is Brazil: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/travel/brazilian-barbecue-guide

Habib's?

27-30 degrees and everyone is dying? Welcome to my everyday life.