Casey Rollins 🔵 @realcaseyrollins@qoto.org

@lis@niu.moe IDK man...it's rough, but employers gotta have rights too, I guess.

(to @p_@niu.moe's point IDK if this is legal either)

@arteteco

1) You are correct on this point (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138435)

2) There is a big list here (https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdf) but it's actually a whole lot, even more than I was expecting. Most of them have PhDs in Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Biology, among others.

(I unfortunately am not familiar with all their critiques of evolution, however.)

3)
a) “Counter to the expectations of early embryonic conservation, many studies have shown that there is often remarkable divergence between related species both early and late in development.” “despite repeated assertions of the uniformity of early embryos within members of a phylum, development before the phylotypic stage is very varied.”

(https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_8_diffe/)

b) I think the point here is to say all life did not evolve from a single organism, as it does not refuse evolution per se, but disagrees with the concept of all of life descending from a singular life form.

c) What is the evidence for macroevolution?

@arteteco That's fair.

Here's an excerpt from one of the resources that serves as a pretty good case against it, listing issues in the evolutionary theory:

(1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are “explosions” of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory.
(2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features.
(3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak:
a. Vertebrate embryos start out developing very differently, in contrast with the drawings of embryos often found in textbooks which mostly appear similar.
b. DNA evidence paints conflicting pictures of the “tree of life”. There is no such single “tree.”
c. Evidence of small-scale changes, such as the modest changes in the size of finch-beaks or slight changes in the color frequencies in the wings of “peppered moths”, shows microevolution, NOT macroevolution.

@arteteco And I'm not at all being ironic when saying that the Bible is the most reliable text of all time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6R29xwgENQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikVdhp0YFs

My personal favorite evidence for the scriptures' reliability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLI7W4bnVpA

@arteteco Only half of people believe in evolution anyways, so I'd say a 50/50 balance in a neutral search result would be fair.

https://www.businessinsider.com/christian-jewish-religious-evolution-2016-9

Here are a few resources if you're interested in learning more:

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/what_are_the_to/
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

@spike Okay this is art

@arteteco

1) Google has done this sort of censorship before, which is why I think I is likely.

https://youtu.be/YOByUDv1ftQ
https://youtu.be/G-dh5wpXNA0

2) Also, the theory of evolution is not comparable to the existence of cells; one is a theory and the other can be proven imperically.

Now not everyone supports evolution, and even those who do have different opinions on how it works. Besides, the most reliable texts of all time, the Bible, already tell us how the world came into being.

@shibaprasad @design_RG Firstly, the fascists are not the ones spewing hate speech, they are the ones suppressing it.

Secondly, the only reason right wing speech zones are prevalent online among the right wing community is because the real fascists keep banning them.

(Without banned alt-righters, conservatives and other ideological extremists, Gab would be either dead or boring.)

I do understand wanting a kind online community, but this makes all free speech zones very mean, in effect.