Comment by bavell

Whew boy, your comments are great examples of not being curious, understanding or promoting civil discussion.

> You obviously know they can't be trusted, you just said so.

A baseless accusation with no supporting evidence. I never asked anyone to trust anyone else. I didn't even assert the idea was true, just interesting to consider. I merely thought the idea was interesting as a layman with little knowledge of evolutionary biology.

> Why not just say that as a disclaimer to the video

Because you're putting words in my mouth that I don't believe.

> What "certain crowds" would that be

Curmudgeons like you.

> When you uncritically recommend and parrot bullshit

Really? I recommended something? I thought I said I enjoyed a video talking about a pet theory relevant to the topic at hand, which I had recently learned of.

This whole "framing is a huge tell", and "reliably revives strawmen, Intelligent-Design-adjacent language, and manufactured doubt, while producing zero new knowledge" shtick is boring and wrong. I've been atheist since I could critically think for myself and it's silly how off-base you are.

Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject and confident in your position, can you point me to something I can read instead of just taking your word for it? Otherwise you're no better than them. I skimmed a few wikipedia pages [0][1] and didn't find the morphology "variables" Brett was discussing.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you just pattern matched on Rogan/Weinstein, typed out your reply and don't actually know what was being discussed. The tone and tenor of your comments so far would seem to indicate so. Your entire objection boils down to "I don't like them and no one should listen to them". Light on substance, heavy on the ad hominem - not exactly persuasive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA