Bret Weinstein

It's just not powerful enough, and they're not wrong. They're detecting something real. And frankly, Tucker is the layperson example of this. You've had Stephen Meyer on. You know, he's actually he's a scientist who's quite good. And he's spotted that the mechanism in question isn't powerful enough to explain the phenomena that we swear it explains. And so he's catching up.

It's just not powerful enough, and they're not wrong. They're detecting something real. And frankly, Tucker is the layperson example of this. You've had Stephen Meyer on. You know, he's actually he's a scientist who's quite good. And he's spotted that the mechanism in question isn't powerful enough to explain the phenomena that we swear it explains. And so he's catching up.

It's just not powerful enough, and they're not wrong. They're detecting something real. And frankly, Tucker is the layperson example of this. You've had Stephen Meyer on. You know, he's actually he's a scientist who's quite good. And he's spotted that the mechanism in question isn't powerful enough to explain the phenomena that we swear it explains. And so he's catching up.

But that's really on the Darwinists for not admitting what they can't yet explain and pursuing it, which is what they should be doing.

But that's really on the Darwinists for not admitting what they can't yet explain and pursuing it, which is what they should be doing.

But that's really on the Darwinists for not admitting what they can't yet explain and pursuing it, which is what they should be doing.

It's not a force. So I don't know how much of this I've made clear. But if you fill in the missing layer, it's purely Darwinian. None of this establishes that Darwin had it wrong. But it's just a different mechanism. It's another Darwinian mechanism. Right? I mean, and let me, this is, there's nothing strange about this.

It's not a force. So I don't know how much of this I've made clear. But if you fill in the missing layer, it's purely Darwinian. None of this establishes that Darwin had it wrong. But it's just a different mechanism. It's another Darwinian mechanism. Right? I mean, and let me, this is, there's nothing strange about this.

It's not a force. So I don't know how much of this I've made clear. But if you fill in the missing layer, it's purely Darwinian. None of this establishes that Darwin had it wrong. But it's just a different mechanism. It's another Darwinian mechanism. Right? I mean, and let me, this is, there's nothing strange about this.

If you think about the way a human being works compared to, let's say, a starfish, right? A human being has a software layer, a cognitive layer, in which the human being is born into an environment. And that environment could be a hunter-gatherer environment of 10,000 years ago, or it could be a modern environment.

If you think about the way a human being works compared to, let's say, a starfish, right? A human being has a software layer, a cognitive layer, in which the human being is born into an environment. And that environment could be a hunter-gatherer environment of 10,000 years ago, or it could be a modern environment.

If you think about the way a human being works compared to, let's say, a starfish, right? A human being has a software layer, a cognitive layer, in which the human being is born into an environment. And that environment could be a hunter-gatherer environment of 10,000 years ago, or it could be a modern environment.

And the human being doesn't have to be modified at the level of its genome in order to function differently in those two environments. It has to be sensitive to the information in those environments so that it can become adapted to them developmentally. Right. So development is one trick that the genome uses to make a human being more flexible than other creatures. Right.

And the human being doesn't have to be modified at the level of its genome in order to function differently in those two environments. It has to be sensitive to the information in those environments so that it can become adapted to them developmentally. Right. So development is one trick that the genome uses to make a human being more flexible than other creatures. Right.

And the human being doesn't have to be modified at the level of its genome in order to function differently in those two environments. It has to be sensitive to the information in those environments so that it can become adapted to them developmentally. Right. So development is one trick that the genome uses to make a human being more flexible than other creatures. Right.

You do not come out of the womb being ready to do human stuff. You are profoundly hobbled by not having a complete program. But it means that the program you develop can be highly attuned to your particular moment in time and location in space. That is the Darwinian mechanisms that store information in the genome solving an evolutionary problem in a different way.

You do not come out of the womb being ready to do human stuff. You are profoundly hobbled by not having a complete program. But it means that the program you develop can be highly attuned to your particular moment in time and location in space. That is the Darwinian mechanisms that store information in the genome solving an evolutionary problem in a different way.

You do not come out of the womb being ready to do human stuff. You are profoundly hobbled by not having a complete program. But it means that the program you develop can be highly attuned to your particular moment in time and location in space. That is the Darwinian mechanisms that store information in the genome solving an evolutionary problem in a different way.

So this is already a second layer that doesn't function like that random mutation layer.

So this is already a second layer that doesn't function like that random mutation layer.