T3vi

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@pukerrainbrow 100x100= 10k ya moron xd

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@venom1s strong and independt its actually time to work for a living.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@noorrietje 11 old Noor buying Solana before it was even lauched

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@KenraalitSuomi and think it's cool to not remember finnish words and instead sound more intelectual by "mastering two language". while everyone knows english isn't any flex.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@nxzhangxm @elsathora @grok xd

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 land mammal doesn't turn into a whale by losing structure. the evidence like with the electric fish is entirely inferential. we observe variation within an existing body plan (wolf → dog), rest is whatever one prefers to believe in or want to be true.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@drpikabook @NotEvolution1 abiogensis--> evolution is only scientific aspect that is being pushed as "fact" without any caveats. probably/arguably/ we can't know for sure. Instead you get: "you dumb fak" if point out the reality

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@drpikabook @NotEvolution1 unlike the reality that demonstrate that dead chemistry fails to turn into even less complex rna-protocel. they have never seen spotaneous formation of living cell that would be ready enough to replicate.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 why always giving this same example of sticklebacks as evidence for positive physical mutation accepted by a population even though as said, they lost traits.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 sticklebacke gained nothing new, they lost pelvic bones, losing traits doesn't explain forming novel ones.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 any case example of population accepting any novel physical mutation? There is no such case,
we observe nature deleting any physical mutation even if it was extra digit.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 it's still merely mofifying shape and size of what's already in genetics, it doesn't explain the variety of animals of all kinds

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 it's very silly belief actually

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@alfbennymedia @lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 adaptation and natural selection isn't evidence of positive mutations leading fundamentally to new physical structure. We can selective breed given animal millions+ years and dog won't become a bear.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@lifelongteac @NotEvolution1 we can observe and test gravity?

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@MMAUNCENSORED1

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@benmooreau @NotEvolution1 yes, hard to imagine. for the modern science it's literally anything but divine designer. We look at introcate software, we know there must be a coder. Dna is incredibly extensive, each gene serving it's purpose. how isn't that alone a clear evidence.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@NotEvolution1 adaptation within species and novel physical traits producing positive mutations, are NOT the same thing. And only one is observed biological fact.

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@KaspaSilver @put_inw0rk how long until its centralised by wallet number 1?

[T3vi @T3vi2]

@Tokamak31 @NotEvolution1 complexity of abiogenesis