what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution? Implications on worldview are entirely nihilistic. every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out. Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.
Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.
in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:
1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"
2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"
same with homosexuality: 1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival 2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth
are not actually scientific terms. science is an open anti authotarian system. todays science is not like a religion, but is a religion. for answer how did we come to this watch this pls.
often, you heard arguments about children born with tail as proofs that species we evolved from once had them. that kind of reasoning is incorrect since the same logic should apply to annencelophaly and people borned with oversized heads, more than 5 fingers etc. yet selectivly it only applies to tailbones/tails
we've literally seen evolution happen in real time, you'd have to be retarded to not belive that the same doesn't happen to humans. also, what do you mean evolution is not falsifiable? It is. You just have to define what it is first, then test it. For example, evolution says that if some individual of a species is more suited to its environment, then its more likely to reproduce. We could test this by putting a bunch of fish in water and a bunch on land and see if one group is more successful than the other. Or if we want the same environment, we could take a group of monkeys with hands and another without hands, and put them in a forest. Evolution also says that species offspring are very slightly genetically different than their parents. This is obviously true. However, if you don't think that the above have any effect over time, then one thing we can do is get a fast reproducing species so we can observe many generations of it within our lifetime. that has been done, and predictably we see large changes, like insects learning to eat the plastic of the cage theyre in.
Jacob Mitchell
nigger, you're not supposed to believe as an adult that you came from an ape and live on a spinning ball. this is just mainstream bullshit to separate sheep from the thinking folks.
Hunter Murphy
No, you haven't. You've seen natural adaptation and selection: the birds with the long narrow beaks survived in the land with long tubular flowers where they got their nectar, and the birds with short beaks died because their beaks couldn't reach the nectar.
>We could test this by putting a bunch of fish in water and a bunch on land and see if one group is more successful than the other. Or if we want the same environment, we could take a group of monkeys with hands and another without hands, and put them in a forest.
that would test NATURAL SELECTION - observable and testable mechanism, not evolution. evolution is natural selection multiplied by 5 billion years.
>/leftypol/
are you out of your mind? Feyerabend was ourguy to the core.
>literally wasting your energy to argue with braindead zombies toplel, dede it's like arguing with a cat
Jason Garcia
>Feyerabend
Your really need to go back to /x/. This is a board of Science and nobody cares about your repulsive fairy tales.
Oliver Reed
Great I luv listening to retards without any understating to basic biology "debunking" evolution
Carter Reed
We all know that Indians have all kinds of mutations that include tails, oversized heads, extra limbs, more fingers and toes. Heck people born with 6 toes is something that isn't unheard of even outside of India.
The real reason is that Indians bathe in and drink corpse water.
Julian Bailey
>Feyerabend
what are your thoughts about pic rel? Feyerablend called that shit decades in advance.
oh, we have a rationscientistTM in the thread. please enlighten us
I'm on the fence about this so I'll play Devil's advocate. If small changes occur over small periods of time due to natural selection, why wouldn't natural selection cause larger changes over longer periods of time?
By larger changes I mean a multitude of small changes over very long periods of time adding up to a "big" change (evolution into a new being)
Nolan Gray
Natural selection enforced by humans (aka "artificial selection") has been observed many many times. Now we know this principle is in action, what is stopping all out evolution? Does god just say "oh look they are evolving into something else entirely! better stop this!")? I don't think god does that. If so, explain your theory.
Blake Gonzalez
>what are your thoughts about pic rel? Feyerablend called that shit decades in advance.
That's not scientism. The pic in your post shows same postmodernist/social constructivist shit that Feyerabend, (((Kuhn))), (((Lakatos))), the (((Frankfurt School))) etc. preached for decades.
Tyler Thompson
Get back to the loony bin with the rest of the quacks croat-cuck.
Hunter Martinez
If you want a based philosopher check out David Stove.
Owen Bailey
Schizophrenics exist and can still communicate with you whether or not you think it's satisfactory.
Noah Brooks
The appendix stores tons of probiotics and lymphatic fluids. The fuck are you talking about nigger?
Brayden Gutierrez
>If small changes occur over small periods of time due to natural selection, why wouldn't natural selection cause larger changes over longer periods of time?
why would it? extraordinary claims like cross-species evolution require extraordinary evidence. You havent seen a dog evolve to a tiger trhough time, nor you have the proof of it ever happening. For that you are usually shown ONE fossil - however from one fossil you cant claim that those were eithe the mean or the outlier of the time.
this is the "proof" you are presented with - not one complete fossil, and more importantly, not one fossil with vestigial organs (smth like pic rel unironically should have been found)
another thing is carbon dating - which is a cool method if mixed with other but just recently a recently killed seal was dated 1200 years ago, when they date fossils they date them as if carbon emissions are constant which just rediculous. here
>The pic in your post shows same postmodernist/social constructivist shit that Feyerabend, (((Kuhn))), (((Lakatos))), the (((Frankfurt School)))
how dare you put Feyerabend with FS in the same sentance?
>le smug lefty non argument
get more aids you anti-intelelctual possie
>The appendix stores tons of probiotics and lymphatic fluids.
AMEN! yet it was practice in medicine to remove a healthy appendix since evolution claimed it vestigial. look at the list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
Agreed Nobody here is retarded enough to deny evolution or anthropogenic climate change
Ayden Phillips
I'm not antiscience senpai. Go read about personality theory (Maslow, Rogers, Adler, etc. are good starts). Take note of the linguistic theory named Sapir-Whorf Theory as well.
Nicholas Morales
>how dare you put Feyerabend with FS in the same sentance
both were openly anti-science scum.
Anthony Gomez
did you even read?
the point is, features like appendix used to be pointed to as evidence of evolution because they were "vestigial". Now that it seems clear they serve a purpose the consequence isn't any sort of falsification of evolution, even in part, but "Oh, yeah. Ha ha. The appendix is a useful evolutionary development".
Carter Moore
>Go read about personality theory (Maslow, Rogers, Adler, etc. are good starts).
>psychoanalysis >good start
you are antiscience and your intellectual food is mcdonalds level. Psychoanlyisis is pseudospsychology.
>both were openly anti-science scum.
rediculous. Do you think Popper and Kuhn were antiscience?
>"Oh, yeah. Ha ha. The appendix is a useful evolutionary development".
it gets worse, soon theyll claim that lowering og IQ is an "evolutionary adaptation".
Sir I won't tolerate your shitposting about my supposed being of an antiscience camp. Get fucked.
Nathan Carter
Furthermore, Maslow is third force psychology (first is psychoanalysis, second is behaviorism) that reconciles the first two and give way for fourth force which is transhumanism.
John Thompson
>Sir I won't tolerate your shitposting about my supposed being of an antiscience camp.
Im not the one pushing for the pseudoscientific CULT of freudian psychoanalitics and its offspring, go back to your anti-intellectual safespace.
based croat evolution is a theory after all and there are about 7 missing links between us and apes >BUT WE WUZ APES AN SHIEEET
Noah Evans
science has become a cult science never accept absolute truths it only crosses out absolute falses based on experiments and evidence also you fucks all blindly believe some kikes who sit up there and preach their shit just to label you as an animal which humans arent
Justin Peterson
>why would it? Because one would assume that a being would continue to adapt because of environmental pressures and the compounded changes could eventually result in a life form unlike the original if given enough time (millions of years)
Again, I am playing devil's advocate I have never personally witnessed this happening because I haven't and won't live long enough to.
Xavier Ortiz
>first is psychoanalysis, second is behaviorism
OH NON NON ONONON both infalsifiable and pseudoscientific. Skinner went to the other empirical extreme and rejected hypothesis testing.
>transhumanism >psychology
>transhumanism >science
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA funny how you havent mentioned BASED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY and other legitimate movements in psychology but stuck to memes.
thanks Germany for giving birth to Feyerabend and other great philosophers.
no problem, just ask. The thing is that billions of unobservable years requite more evidence, how do you know that for instance Troy existed? You have a myth, you have archeological evidence. How do you know that we existed for billions years? you dont have much evidence for it and the one you have can be interpreted otherwise.
I agree with you about the carbon dating method but holy shit you are a fucking retard! HAHAHAHAHA! You are not serious!
> You havent seen a dog evolve to a tiger trhough time, nor you have the proof of it ever happening That is not how evolution is theorized to work, user... But ok I can see what point you are trying to get across. >I can't observe it DIRECTLY so there for it does not exist >I don't care about reasoning and logic when it does not fit my narrative so I am just going to ignore the argument
>Pic If you are serious about pic, I can not take you serious. You clearly have no understanding on the theory of evolution.
Nathaniel Howard
I wish only more people would actually dwell into it and not take anything for granted doubt everything
Juan Campbell
Well that's the thing. I don't know. But despite the lack of proofs (there is evidence but no proofs) I can see how environmental pressures and small naturally selected traits MIGHT add up over millions of years to create something new. But maybe also a being created the universe 8,000+ or - years ago and gave the created beings the ability to adapt so they could survive better. Maybe we aren't even from this dimension. Being a born skeptic is a curse.
Zachary Carter
>I'm a naturalist.
as were Popper and Kuhn...and Feyerabend (if you interpret him correctly).
>>I can't observe it DIRECTLY so there for it does not exist >>I don't care about reasoning and logic when it does not fit my narrative so I am just going to ignore the argument
nice strawmens, is that the best you have brainlet?
>I wish only more people would actually dwell into it and not take anything for granted
not even pol is immune to being cuck for anonymous redpolloed points.
>Well that's the thing. I don't know. But despite the lack of proofs (there is evidence but no proofs) I can see how environmental pressures and small naturally selected traits MIGHT add up over millions of years to create something new.
but you should parsimonically choose the better explainable option. option with billion of years and circular logic isnt.
Adam Hall
Are you saying Christian creation theory is the better explainable option or are you referring to something else?
Jaxson Brown
For what it describes it is poorly defined. Take natural selection, or as it is applied as a mechanism, 'selective pressures'. It has good descriptive power for what already exists, but is inadequate when describing the emergence of life itself as we currently understand it. What selective pressures existed to shape complex organic molecules into something that (a) resists the laws of entropy, and is (b) self-replicating? In essence it describes change and predicts speciation, but lacks a good origin story. The mechanisms by which it operates are constantly being updated as well, which shows how little we understand of it. So given (a) and (b), the question becomes what was the environment like that allowed for such a thing to occur? And by environment, I'm not just talking about matter as we know it today, but how that matter behaved. Just as we look at crocodiles and sharks today as living fossils that give us a glimpse into what the world was like millions of years ago, we can look at DNA itself to catch a glimpse of what the world was like billions of years ago. Ever try to figure out a good blackjack strategy OP? Probability...
Jow Forums has become an influx of r_tDonald faggots and normies which came here during the election
Nolan Young
What's the problem, OP? Does science lead to nihilism? Make the case that it does.
People get a hold of scientific though en masse and throw away transcendental values. The task of all red pilled folk ought to be aimed at reconciling this. Science rules, but so do "higher values."
Colton Johnson
>What selective pressures existed to shape complex organic molecules into something that (a) resists the laws of entropy
That is the definition of life: Self-replicating molecules which slow down the universal increase of entropy.
Christopher Myers
evolution is an ambiguous term, but most people agree it is a scientific theory. you probably agree it's a scientific theory.
the issue with "evolution" is it accepts, a priori, the premise that Common Ancestry/Descent is true. organisms 'change' over time, how much and how fast are interesting questions but this change is presupposed to be very large due to 1st believing the earth must be very old (something no one knows or probably can know) and 2nd believing that all life comes from a common ancestor. remove either one of these two pillars and you simply would have no issue with "evolution."
Dawkins, et al, have repeatedly made the astute observation that Naturalistic Origins is inherently atheistic. You can't believe in N.O. and God, one makes the other irrelevant. N.O. is a premise that if you take to its logical conclusion produces a form of solipsism wherein you only have the illusion of choice and are merely a pre-programmed automaton. Many people attempt to reject his and accept common ancestry by way of evolution, which is not how it works. evolution among organisms is undeniable, it's based entirely on the observation of unique progeny. the universe creating itself (and perhaps other universes; multiverse theory) and everything else is absolutely preposterous and is not and will never be scale-able or falsifiable.
Benjamin Bennett
i don't disagree
Alexander Edwards
Let me break it down for your tiny little "brain". Just because you can not directly observe something is not proof it does not exist. When people could not observe atoms, they did not say "oh well that disproves the existence of the atom! Well lads lets pack it up, our job is done here! You are the one strawmaning. You still have not addressed the question you quoted.
Zachary Howard
The Biblical Gospel is that Jesus Christ(GOD in human form) DIED on the cross for our sins, He was BURIED (officiating His death), and He was RESURRECTED from the dead three days later.You don't have to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If you receive the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as payment for your sins, then you are saved instantly, securely and eternally.That is it.
seems like it. better explainable option is non cross-species history of life on earth. 6k, 8k, or whatever has more scientific evidence than 5 billions and cross species mutation, or to put it more precisely, proofs of 5 billion years cross species mutation are seriously lacking. my observation is negative, you choose a positive.
>Does science lead to nihilism?
I should have been more precise. Scientism ala Michio Kaku et alle is nihilism. I unironcally love scientific method.
>but most people agree it is a scientific theory. you probably agree it's a scientific theory.
Im not even saying it isnt true, but it definetly isnt scientific. Its circular and infalsifiable.
>Let me break it down for your tiny little "brain". Just because you can not directly observe something is not proof it does not exist.
another strawmen. go back to place you dwelled in before pol became cool you total queer noob.
>Just because you can not directly observe something is not proof it does not exist. and that's how this shitty science cult came together to justify their shit
Ethan Howard
I agree! but this isnt a thread for theological arguments, my objections to evolution are secular, materialistic and naturalistic.
Daniel Reyes
> another strawmen. >Continues to avoid the original question and defend his arguments
You are not very good at this debating thing
Isaiah Parker
I think you misunderstood me, you dont have to directly observe smth to prove it, its advisable to observe it for better proof - like natural selection.
but, if you cant observe it, you have to give additional strong evidence and explanations like discovery of Troy. Look up this concept en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
its not unscientific to claim that smth existed you have no phisical proof of, like IQ, you only know the effects of IQ from which you imply a proof, but evolution doesnt have that.
piss of faggot, you didnt offer any questions, just basic bitch re**it talking points all of which I adressed in good faith.
>Im not even saying it isnt true, but it definetly isnt scientific. Its circular and infalsifiable.
sure it is, you can test change. you may not be able to define it, but you can observe that it occurs every time an organism gives birth. that's a pattern. let me show you, from Berkeley.edu
>Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
ok, we can all agree. but here's the bait and switch, a few sentences later,
>The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
indeed, the central "idea" (read: not science) is Common Ancestry. these are not actually inclusive ideas at all, they are conflated by design because Common Ancestry is a premise that works only as far back as your family tree in terms of "observation," and only as pure imaginary extrapolation beyond the scope of humans. You can get rid of Common Ancestry/Descent entirely and still have evolution, i.e. the mechanisms of change.
Evan Lee
The basic concept of evolution is that organisms that are better suited to survive in their environment will. It is entirely falsifiable. Just give an example of an organism that is well suited to survive in it's environment, yet dies off anyways, whether due to competition, predation, etc. Also scientific theories are predictions of natural phenomena. They are not like laws which are universally true.
Angel Jackson
has life emerged more than once? if so which version survived? did more than one version survive? if not than why not? all questions to consider if the emergence of life hasn't replicated itself naturally, this is a problem. just spitballin'
Evan Collins
Why would you want to disprove something that is core to our understanding of how life came to be on this planet?
I have nothing against religion, but to try to systematically disprove basic facts, is absolutely retarded.
Sebastian Harris
>that organisms that are better suited to survive in their environment will. It is entirely falsifiable. >you can test change. you may not be able to define it, but you can observe that it occurs every time an organism gives birth.
I agree, but you are talking about natural selection (=observable and falsifiable) not 5 billion years of evolution (=(natural selection + also unobservable cross species mutation) x 5 billion)
>Also scientific theories are predictions of natural phenomena
good point! evolution hasnt predicted ANYTHING. IQ drop , pic Evolution is actually historiography and it explains things backwards, not forwards as science should.
Two final points, you do not want to hand wave away "evolution" because it is a legitimate scientific question. it is important to know how and why organisms change through genetic inheritance regardless of whether or not you accept Naturalistic Origins to life and the universe(s).
Lastly, Science is a methodology. It is a series of steps to obtain data. nothing else. If you want to crystallize why Common Descent is not Science and can never be Science, you have to differentiate between history and future. Science can never deal with the past, by definition. it can only deal with something that repeats and will repeat (into the future). This is why Common Ancestry/Descent is not science, while 'evolution' most certainly is.
Bentley Morris
Zero genetic variance after 1000 generations
That's all you need.
Ryan Morris
Ye did fuckin not!
original post > Natural selection enforced by humans (aka "artificial selection") has been observed many many times. Now we know this principle is in action, what is stopping all out evolution? Does god just say "oh look they are evolving into something else entirely! better stop this!")? I don't think god does that. If so, explain your theory
You failed to explain an alternative theory as to how natural selection would be limited or confined. You did not challenge the mechanisms of natural selection if you disagree with it. You did fuck all but spout unrelated diarrhea and avoided the question. Then you resorted to "stupid redditz fag go back!"
What a waste of time. I'd be safer talking to a fucking dog
Benjamin Garcia
Oh user, you truly are a pathetic waste of air if you believe a theory that has had evidence supported for it time and time again that it is true, is in fact not true. It is literally impossible at this point to disprove evolution, there is simply too much info supporting the theory than there is against it
Ian Lopez
>I agree, but you are talking about natural selection (=observable and falsifiable) not 5 billion years of evolution
If evolution is just natural selection over a long scale, and you agree that natural selection is falsifiable, then you must accept that evolution, by consequence, is falsifiable
>good point! evolution hasnt predicted ANYTHING.
But it does? Scientists have theorized links between species that were yet to be found, but had to have existed due to the large changes in physiology. And lo and behold, "missing links" were discovered some time later.
Michael Allen
>If evolution is just natural selection over a long scale, and you agree that natural selection is falsifiable, then you must accept that evolution, by consequence, is falsifiable
expand on that:
evolution =(natural selection + OBSERVABLE WITHIN SPECIES MUTATION + unobservable cross species mutation) x 5 billion)
so it makes it very different than simple natural selection of wild species or selective breeding of dogs.
>You did not challenge the mechanisms of natural selection if you disagree with it.
I dont disagree with it. I disagree with the logical jumping from OBSERVABLE natural selection to gigantic claim of 5 billion years with faulty carbon dating just because you can make a hypothesis about it (but cant provide proof...and the proof your provide is often provided retroactivly like with my OP post about appendix)
dude, you gave me the currect year talk, history of science and medicine is filled with that. read about Ignaz Semmelweis and where current year in science can get you.
>as were Popper and Kuhn...and Feyerabend (if you interpret him correctly).
Nope. All worked within the Kantian framework.
Camden Turner
>All worked within the Kantian framework.
inform me about that, Im not familiar with Kant that much and what do you mean by it (but even that isnt a reason to dismiss them and side with postmodern quasipositivism)
John Hughes
Yeah, it is mostly a thought play if you go back millions of years as a timeframe. Best 'hard' example for it working as proposed might be the radiation of the HOX gene cluster which controls lateral body organization.
>Best 'hard' example for it working as proposed might be the radiation of the HOX gene cluster
Im totally unfamiliar with that method, but however method you prove 5 billion years age it shouldnt be taken seriously until your provide aditional evidence since you deal with such a gigantic almost mythological timeframe - archeologists usually adhere to stricker standards to dating than biologists who date fossils.
>You should read
dont give me that, I explained my stance and gave a tldr here on everyhing, pls do the same.
Zachary Perry
Now we are getting somewhere.
I think it is good to never buy into any idea, theory completely and always keep an open mind. Even when provided "solid proof" because you just never know everything. You are right to have some scepticism about it, as I do. You should never block ideas out or stay loyal to them. However, the theory of evolution seems plausible to me. I can't think of a reason why evolution would not follow natural selection given enough time. It seems to me like the same process and not really a jump, but I don't really know anything, nor does anyone.
Wyatt Jackson
Well, comparison of genes radiating by either mutation or shuffling around of whole stretches of DNA (as replication of DNA can be a messy process with lots of potential for freak errors ... also not forget mobile genetic elements like endogenous retroviruses which sometimes 'hijack' host DNA as their copy/paste mechanism is also error prone) is not really useful for exact dating as you can only roughly estimate the mutation rate per generation. But HOX for example is interesting as all 'higher' life forms rely on them somehow to determine their body axis. If you are interested this article about it is quite ok although a bit dry to read:
As I said, HOX gene cluster has experienced quite a bit of variation but if you compare the arrangement etc of the individual copies/variations of HOX that compromise the whole gene cluster you can trace them back to some ancestral proto-HOX which radiated by several events of gene duplication and later mutational adaption. You can see that effect with a lot of gene families. Seems we had one, most likely unicellular eukaryontic progenitor which already had almost all the gene families we use today, only in a simpler form. You then see some strange shit happening on the molecular level ... eg. the genes and mechanisms governing the synapses connecting our neurons look like they have evolved from an ancient amoeboid food scavenging and uptake mechanism. Freaky shit I tell you. Again, does not 'prove' evolution but you should take that stuff into consideration. I like it when people do not accept the shit that is pushed down their throats, that is what determines a 'good' scientist.
So to conclude my statement: on the molecular level of biology you see quite a bit of stuff that at least LOOKS like it came about using the proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Anthony Gutierrez
>I can't think of a reason why evolution would not follow natural selection given enough time.
Its thesible, but if you give yourself that huge timegaps, you have to give more evidence, that if you claim, Troy existed 2k BC or whenever. Giving just one fossil of a certain species isnt actually a proof of it being a transitional species since you dont know what is outlier and what is the mean...really, you have to be knees deep in fossil to prove the contemperary version of evolution
>the genes and mechanisms governing the synapses connecting our neurons look like they have evolved from an ancient amoeboid food scavenging and uptake mechanism. Freaky shit I tell you. Again, does not 'prove' evolution but you should take that stuff into consideration.
I agree, that is smth to be taken into consideration, but it pisses me of when I read stuff like "genetic similarity between humans and apes is 70% therefore 5 billion years", infact I expect to see the same logic soon about the mechanism of synapses and amoebas and a jump to 5 billion soon in popsci portals.
also >the genes and mechanisms governing the synapses connecting our neurons look like they have evolved from an ancient amoeboid food scavenging and uptake mechanism.
could they be a literal living organism like good bacteria in your gut that helps digestion but this time with neural signals?
Brody Foster
If evolutionists can't explain the mechanism where DNA (complex coded information) is spontaneously created so macroevolution can happen then it is a scientific dogma garbage
This is why you don't like the idea of evolution? Lad, if anything it is in our favour. They say we all share the same ancestor so we are all the same, and there may be some truth to the statement that we "all came from the same ancestor" (it is more complicated than the liberal paradigm however and not as convenient for them) It is certainly not true that we are all the same and evolution is a good reason why. We evolved into different races because we lived in different environments and exposed to different circumstances. We are different now even if at one point we were or not. Evolution is a good explanation as to why we are different and why niggers are so dumb and why our differences matter.
Some ((("scientists"))) try to make evolution fit with the liberal paradigm for political reasons but they have been BTFO when challenged. Truth is, evolution does not serve them politically. Alternative Hypothesis on YT is good with this stuff. m.youtube.com/user/fringeelements
