As far as I know, FR is the only site with an ongoing dialogue on the "crevo" issues.... I learned a lot from both sides.
Me, too, <1/1,000,000th%. If anything, the "crevo" debates have increased my appreciation of, and interest, in science issues, and I've learned so much from the correspondents on such threads, on both sides. So I was disturbed to learn that some eminent FRevos have decided to more or less boycott the crevo threads. This came as very sad news. We all lose when stuff like that happens. FWIW.
I recently read a couple of "I'm leaving" posts and I still don't understand the reasons for given for leaving. In general if someone said anything out of the bounds of reasonable thought [scientific or otherwise] or appropriate humor on either side someone would shoot it down rather quickly. Having two sides who disagree is in many more ways more interesting then a bunch of people nodding their head yes. I doubt that Darwin Central would be all that interesting for this reason, as it tends to ban people who disagree quickly.
DaveLoneRanger was banned after only a day for trumped up charges of trolling. Having read many DaveLoneRanger posts, I can say I have never seen a post of his that would classify as a troll.
Anybody can find one-sided well written books on the subject, a dialogue is rare. FreeRepublic is unique in that it fosters freedom of intellectual inquiry. Philosophical arguments and arguments related to scientific theory are interesting because after an argument will be stated, there will objections, there will be counters to those objections, other objections etc. The initial argument may not have really been that interesting, but the objections and arguments to counter objections are almost always are interesting.
Maybe they are tired of a constant barrage of the shelling and counter arguments and it is a calculated retreat, but it seems more like an emotional response similar to a child "I don't want to play anymore", so I will go and play over here rather then someone who is really intersted in intellectually analyzing what view is probable or what view doesn't contradict the world I observe?