Did you read the paper from my 2nd link? There seems to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that is indeed possible:

Similar to the increase in the prevalence of persistent median arteries of the forearms, the prevalence of other anatomical features such as spina bifida occulta (Henneberg & Henneberg 1999; Solomon et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010), tarsal coalitions (Solomon et al., 2003) and fabella (Berthaume et al., 2019) has increased over the last 2–3 centuries. Evidence indicates that changes in the natural selection pressures acting on these specific anatomical features could have caused microevolutionary processes, leading to the observed increases in prevalence rates (Henneberg and Henneberg 1999; Solomon et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010; Rühli and Henneberg, 2013; Berthaume et al., 2019).

Obviously actual research would have to be done to confirm or deny it in this case, and I probably should have stated my original thought a bit more skeptically.

I was reading over the paper and found the source of that particular usage:

Furthermore, in a study by Henneberg and George (1995; Am J Phys Anthropol 96, 329–334), has suggested that increasing prevalence of the median artery during the 20th century was a ‘possible secular trend’.

LOL. I kinda want to follow that citation for the full quote.

Edit: I found the original source that gives some further context:

The occurrence in historical times of changes in human body size and in the timing of events in postnatal development, such as, for instance, sexual maturation, is well known and documented. Such changes occurring from century to century or decade to decade are known as "secular trends."

So I guess it's actually domain specific jargon.

Well good thing I also left you an actual paper to read that is in a reputable source then, isn't it?

Seriously. I've seen letter openers more threatening than that "sword". Was it dumb? Sure. Does he deserve a slap the wrist, absolutely. But prison?? No way. What the actual fuck?

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm laying down. If all previously extra-judicial actions are now potentially on the table, that opens new avenues for changing the members of SCOTUS.

Except that we know for a fact the refs are incredibly biased against specifically one team.

The ref's just gave either team the power to choose new refs that are biased against the other team.

Except it does. Microevolutions can absolutely occur on time frames of under a hundred years.

https://news.sky.com/story/human-microevolution-sees-more-people-born-without-wisdom-teeth-and-an-extra-artery-12099689

https://www.sci.news/biology/median-artery-08939.html

I mean, it makes sense. With widespread adoption of vision correction, there's no longer an evolutionary advantage to having naturally good vision.

My better judgement is wrestling with my morbid curiosity, but what on earth is that sign: "BLEACH BLONDE BAD BUILT BUTCH BODY"

Little do you know, my dog is an unpaid Facebook moderator.

Being cringe A.F., as the kids say, is a power that grows with age. (:

It should be the media's responsibility to thoroughly fact check both parties. If that means they have to pre-submit their primary answers and read them off a teleprompter, then so be it.

You're right, it wasn't a win, but it should have been.

I'm not really a golf person, but from passing knowledge, he said his handicap was +8 IIRC. I think that means that on an average course, he'd typically hit 8 strokes above par.

Trump seemed incredulous of his claim, so I'm guessing that means Trump has a higher handicap?

Perhaps. I wish that were the reality we lived in. I also wish Gore won over Bush and we nipped Global warming in the bud. Alas...

I mean, he certainly did say that he wants to increases taxes on the ultra-wealthy.

It's not a foreign policy issue, but it's one that would be unpopular with any rich donors so it perhaps demonstrates some amount of integrity.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the US. Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.

He did, and I'm not trying to downplay that in any way. He also called for peace, though, whereas Trump said he was also pro-Israel but thought Israel should finish what they started.

I didn't even realize where we were until I read your comment.

I don't know... I see what you're saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I'm being too naïve about what's realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation's leader.

He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

In 2009, CNN's current CEO and chairman was called the 65th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.

I wonder if he'd have any financial incentive one way or the other?