At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so.
In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.

That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively.
We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years.
Not squeaking much.

On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all.
Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now.
There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species.
Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.

But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago.
My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side.
She had a grandmother who lived to be 102.
Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.

But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of.
Unlike rats.

It is... but it isn't. It adds up.
100+ calories spent through exercise once a week don't seem much on their own... BUT.

It boosts one's BMR.
So those 100+ calories spent doing exercise once a week boosts one's daily calorie requirement from those magical 2000 calories to 2290 calories.

And that adds up.
290 * 7 + 100 = 2130
That's about a pound lost (or not gained) in about 12 days. About 30 pounds in a year.

Now, sticking to one's daily calorie requirement and weekly exercise routine... that's another ball game entirely.

From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.

Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.

Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.

Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.

But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.

Sure.

But HFCS in Coke or Pepsi is not seasonal fruit.

That's like saying salted almonds occur naturally.

High Fructose corn syrup is called HIGH fructose because it contains a higher concentration of fructose, not because someone thought it would be cute to be friendly to it.
"Hi Fructose! :)"
It's a 55 to 42 mix for HFCS55 and 42 to 53 mix for HFCS42.

Guess which one is used in sodas? One that has 30% more fructose than glucose.
I.e. 30% more sugar that goes to fat to be used later than the sugar that goes to immediate use and into glycogen for inter-mediate use.

On top of that, fructose which occurs naturally tends to be bound to fiber, i.e. indigestible cellulose.
Which fills up your tummy sending the "I'm full" signal to the brain.

Meanwhile, fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose at 50 to 50 mix which must be broken in the body through the use of a(n) enzyme(s).
I.e. A catalyst produced by the body as a tool for speeding up and controlling the chemical reaction.
By feeding the body a blend of already hydrolyzed sugars, we are letting the chemical process in a factory somewhere predigest our food for us.
Sorta like the difference between eating baked bread and eating raw wheat.

So, we end up taking 4 molecules of "sugar for later" with every 3 molecules of "sugar now", instead of 1 molecule of "sugar for later" with every molecule of sugar for immediate use.
On top of that, 55-42 mix provides almost a fifth of "sugar now" LESS than sucrose - so to get the same glucose boost, body will take up 19% more of the the 30% enriched mix of "sugar for later".
So it ends up being not even 4 to 3 fructose to glucose mix, but a 2 to 1.

I.e. 200% to 100%, with control of absorption of sugars relegated to a factory somewhere (HFCS), instead of a 50% to 50% mix with control being done by the body (sucrose).

Except that's the energy that goes on top of the stack, for immediate consumption, while fructose gets converted to fat which is moved to the end of the queue.

Also, glucose goes as glycogen into muscles, blood, brain...
Fructose goes into fat, waiting for you to use up the stored up glucose OR to produce some sperm, which uses fructose.
Hmm... Maybe Dr. Shukan Tokuho wasn't completely wrong?

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Also, knocking me down to -1 won't bring you the love of your father or the respect of your superiors which you crave.

That teacher ASKED for "markers and glue" because she and her students NEED "markers and glue".

The problem is NOT that they "missed the Google gravy train and will have to settle".
They are, like all others, asking for what they DON'T HAVE, do NEED, but CAN'T AFFORD.

IF the inequality of monetary value of donations really IS a problem (after all, they are all asking for what they think they need), it lies in the underlying inequality of 1) economic conditions in those schools and/or 2) inexperience of teachers in "the begfunding game".
Because you can't blame donors for voluntarily donating $5 or $50000 of their own money, nor can you blame the charity for making it hard to ask.
And since both the "$56,742 trip to Europe" kids AND the "$258.93 markers and glue" kids are FROM THE SAME SCHOOL...

All we are left with is looking for the problem with the teachers who didn't ASK FOR MORE, instead of choosing realistic goals and funding for things they really need.
"There's your problem. You were not greedy and unrealistic enough with your demands."

I'm having a feeling that the REAL problem here lies is in the outsiders perception of unjustified entitlement.

If we're talking about porn stars.

Yes, it is quite popular to watch that. Or so I hear.

Does it have a watermark?

Photos are taken from a wrong angle due to someone holding the phone wrong.

After all... It's the word of Steve. A known benefactor of humanity, through past and future incarnations as an Earth Sprite.

...that they are holding it wrong?

You're still wasting time on this? Good.

That sounds like something a gazelle might say.

He's not the real owner of that ID.
Notice the sudden change in the pattern of posting?
Which was sporadic with months between posts, and then suddenly he gets into a daily argument over a well known internet meme?

The real owner of that ID has long been digested by dogs or fish.
That's why you should not live alone, away from the civilization.
Someone will notice that, will come to your door, kill you, and take your slashdot ID.