Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about "90% of scientists." Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
post
I do love the "blank slate mammal" look we all seem to share at this stage.
A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.

At what stage are these, uh, stages?
Comparative Anatomy and Embryology - Advanced | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/7DK4c0mlikYsbvPVy
This website is actually pretty helpful for teaching.
Damn, that ended up being a bit of a rabbit hole.
The source for this image was Wikimedia Commons which describes them as "Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings."
I hadn't heard of these fraudulent drawings that were seemingly so notorious that describing them as fraudulent needed no further elaboration, so I went on Ernst Haeckel's Wikipedia page which has a longish subsection about these specific drawings. Apparently some... shall we say artistic license, was taken to make the different embryos look more similar to one another, and by modern standards they're useful mostly for getting the idea across but are not completely true to life.
Wikipedia even has an article specifically about embryo drawings. The short of this story seems to be that there was some controversy back in Haeckel's day mostly by people who rejected Darwinism. In the 90s some scientists noticed that these drawings didn't match what they see in the lab and wrote a paper about it. Their paper was hijacked by people who reject Darwinism (i.e. creationist nutsos) and so there was more controversy than the matter probably really deserved.
Finally, I found this article on the website of the National Center for Science Education that defends Haeckel's drawings, comparing them to modern photographs with any egg yolk removed (as the embryos were originally depicted without the yolk, something Haeckel was up front about) to show that they weren't that inaccurate:

Here you go OP. It’s actually ok to swear on the internet.

Here is a not weirdly censored and un-censored version:

I mean… could I have gone and found the original, maybe. Did it cross my mind, no I jumped straight to do it on my phone and make it look as natural as possible, but of course this was the harder option. 🤦♂️
I also like to reinvent wheels, it's basically a hobby at this point
I like to go the extra mile. I uncensor shit emphatically.
A censored "shit" in a post about Star Trek? "SHIT" in big Star Trek font.
"Cunt" in a post about the UK? Enjoy your "CUNT" dressed in a union jack.
The censored word is "cock"? Here's "COCK" in flesh tones with bulging purple veins on it.
Fucking lean into it.
"Harder". I mean, sure. It's all so low effort anyway. Why not call that harder.
I don't get at all this trend of badly censored words.
They try to be a rebel, but still wanna please facists algorithms. American puritanism BS. Fuck that.
It's to get by censorship algorithms on certain sites. The picture is copied as-is, so it stays even when not needed.
The creators of Lemmy (who also run the Lemmy.ml instance) are huge fans of censorship and propaganda so they use automated swear word filtering to train their users into uncritically accepting censorship.
Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.
hold up....the CCCP supporting fascist loving asscrack of the federation censors posts?!
to hear a ml user, they make it seem like they're having a fucking blast over there... sounds like a fucking gulag.
I'm sure if you're a bootlicking, barely literate troglodyte it is amazing to be on ml
Thank FUCK you edited that horrible FUCKING word, so that my innocent eyes aren't FUCKING desecrated.
Tits.
Pfft, we have a hard time proving people under 1 billion net worth are human live nowadays.
90% of scientists agree
Even if that were true these kinds of people are notorious for discounting the vast majority consensus because some lunatic said otherwise. It's almost like science has no bearing to them unless it validates their preconceived ideas.
Exactly the problem and they all cite a paper written by a pro life conservative who works at the Hamilton foundation which is a conservative 'think tank'.
The paper itself is abysmally stupid. He emailed about 60 000 people with 5 or so confoundingly, unnecessarily complex question (manipulated) and about 30 000 or so responded and then he interpreted the answers and made the conclusion that like 90% of respondents agree that life begins at conception.
Morons say 90% of scientists agree, which is not even what the paper claims at all which itself is not good.
He could have just asked 'does human life begin at conception'? Also he complained (author) in a podcast about the paper about how so many faculty at the college he was st during the paper writing urged him to discontinue the project as for various reasons and then spins that to basically say pro women's rights advocates are in a conspiracy against life and were all democratic demons in a death cult (more or less)
Fucking.
Were these scientists dentists ?
I doubt even 10% of the scientists can tell a human embryo apart from a dolphin.
I really expect nobody from the physics, math, social sciences, history, geology, or almost every other department to do it.
Fun fact: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.
Depending on what species a foetus looks like, you can make a guess for how long it has been present inside a womb.
Source: Haeckel's Embryos.
You are never going to convince me the biggest vilain in the whole world is fucking religion. I hate religious people with all my heart
isn't fucking religion
Or
You are never going to convince me; the biggest villain in the world is fucking religion.
Lot of faith in that analysis, I guess.
I do honestly think land ownership is the greatest evil. Because if houses aren't a commodity then a lot of problems (homelessness, hoarding, environmental damage, corporate bullshit, etc) start to be a lot harder to justify.
I think it's in the top 5:
-
Capitalism
-
Patriarchy
-
Racism (I consider this tied with patriarchy tbh)
-
Religion
-
People who take two seats on public transit with no justification


top 71 comments