Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@dave
I'm fashion blind. Does that count?

@Terry
Japanese boobs are extremely dangerous to our democracy.

@polarisera
Not sure what you mean regarding "biologists got osmosis wrong". As far as I know osmosis is a process that has to do with physics. It's not something exclusive to biological systems.

@dave
Truth be told, I wasn't really trying to convince them. I was more mocking them than anything else.
I did try an initial attempt of "here's some stuff you can read that answer some of the things you're asking, if you're honestly looking for answers". Turns out he wasn't honestly looking for answers.

@dave
Really? Huh... I thought the repost, like buttons were those of Twitter. Guess I was wrong. Haven't used it in ages, and never went to Truth Social.
In any case, if that's Truth Social, then the ads make perfect sense.

I'm no expert in biology, even less in evolutionary biology. But it amuses me greatly, that "intelligent design" advocates think they know better than leading figures in the field.
I'm no expert, so I can't claim, nor try, to prove to them evolution is a fact. All I can do is point them to what I've found to be easy to digest sources. But these people, who clearly are less knowledgeable than me, somehow think they can "debunk" the experts. As proof they can do so, they refuse to even consider reading whatever I'd point them to.
I find it hilarious really, but it's probably also a big waste of time to interact with them further.

@natalie
I need to know WHY someone would do this.

@dave
Twitter must be desperate.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
>and not the phenotypical level
Once again, you are completely clueless and hitting yourself in your own confusion. Saying Dawkins doesn't address phenotype is idiotic when he even discusses the cuckoo bird's behavior in one of his books (iirc it should be in The Selfish Gene, but it's been a long time since I've read it). He even has a book literally called Extended Phenotype.

But just as it's fedora level to be an atheist after only reading The God Delusion, it's also fedora level to just say "Dawkins stupid" without knowing a thing about what he worked on.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
Your own little "source" clearly points out how Dawkins has an entire book, The Selfish Gene, that focuses on genes as "units of selection", and you somehow think he places less emphasis on selection?
Again, try not to hurt yourself in your own confusion.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
Be careful not to hit yourself in your own confusion.

@deprecated_ii @GosepthJoebbels
>intelligent design
That literally made me laugh. Glad to see poa.st users keep rising to poa.st standards.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
>in utero
And that's how you can tell when someone doesn't understand evolution by natural selection.

@deprecated_ii
The lie is you pretending you're actually interested in learning. Clearly you're not.

@deprecated_ii
>I already have
You've already proven to be dishonest, so excuse me for not believing you.

@deprecated_ii
You're asking me to explain one of the most complex fields of human knowledge in a fedi post. That's not something I can do. That's not something an evolutionary biologist could do.
I literally gave you the easiest, most mainstream source that can explain the things you proclaim to want to learn. If you were honestly seeking the answers, you would have put them on top of your reading list. But considering your hissy fit, it's quite self evident you're dishonest about it.

@DW2
"it doesn't move the ovaries of the people who read admissions essays" is probably the most accurate thing I've read this week, and the biggest issue with The System.

Also, I've seen cases in my country where to apply to an IT University you need to write an essay... When the IT field is literally dominated by borderline autists, the last thing you want as a qualifying metric is to have them write essays.

@deprecated_ii
So it seems you really are retarded. God bless poa.st for offering you a home.

If you're honest and really looking for answers, I recommend the following books by Richard Dawkins:
The Greatest Show On Earth; Climbing Mount Impossible; and The Selfish Gene.
The Blind Watchmaker should be a good book too, but I personally didn't read it so I can't vouch for it.

Obviously they're not gonna specifically tackle the bagworm moth larvae, or most examples someone might dishonestly throw, but they do a good job at explaining the mechanisms involved, and why "impossible" examples are neither impossible nor unlikely.

@deprecated_ii
Can't tell if you're joking, or really are that massively retarded.