Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute lying on the TeeVee



Uploaded by: AronRa
Video Description:
I'm mirroring this video for DonExodus2, because I debated Casey Luskin briefly, until I proved he was lying on multiple points. Then he broke off the discussion saying that I was being mean to him. This is the same willfully ignorant shit-head who says that paternity tests don't work because if they did, they would challenge his religious nonsense. Now he's lying through his teeth on national TV. DonExodus2 caught him on it, as you can see, and the amoral bastiches at DI filed false -and illegal- DMCA against him. No. It ain't that easy.
Casey comments on Haeckel's embryos. Please see my video on the 13th foundational falsehood of creationism for more accurate information about that.
The Luskin/wrist bone comedy can be found here: pharyngula/2009/05/casey_luskin_smirking_liar.php
From New Scientist:
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."


Tags for this video: DonExodus2 discovery institute creationism evolution intelligent design fox news haeckels embryos horizontal gene transfer casey luskin

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by AronRa

Related Videos
Ida KnowAnswering AbdultheImpailler1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
ida-know.htmlida-know.htmlida-know.html
The Texas Board of IndoctrinationWhaddya say RayEvidence Against Evolution (DiscoveryInstituteID mirror)
ida-know.htmlida-know.htmlida-know.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
@Mortison77577 ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 whats not in pefect place?
@patrickledford420 ... ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
Sometimes different molecules produce different phylogenetic trees, the anatomical data conflicts with the molecular data, it's unclear whether or not features of organisms are homologous or due to "parallel" evolution, in some cases there may be no discernable relationships, some examples of analogous features may seem too similar and too specific to have arisen by chance mutations and natural selection (at least it seems that way to me), fossils out of order, etc.
@Mortison77577 no, ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 no, there is not even one molecule that makes a different tree, this is what we want people to prove evolution wrong with but it never happens. if you think there is then tell me what animal is out of place. fossils are never ever out of place, show me even one that is out of place. if you have ever looked it up you would know that there is no conflicting data.
@patrickledford420 ... ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
Google "Do Different Genes Mean Different Phylogenetic Trees?" Apparently the molecule cytocrhome B puts that cats and the whales in the wrong place relative to the primates. On that one, if they just moved the whales onto the same branch as the cats and then moved the tarsiers over a couples of branches it would be consistent, I think, so it's not devastating. And apparently they have some explanation, but it is a bit of a contradiction nevertheless.
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
It looks like another example would be the SlX1 and SlY1 genes in "catchfly flowers". Here's a quote:
Increasing evidence from DNA sequence data has revealed that phylogenies based on different genes may drastically differ from each other.........two parts of the same gene (SlX1/Y1) show conflicting phylogenies within Silene (Caryophyllaceae). SlX1 and SlY1 are sex-linked genes on the sex chromosomes of dioecious members of Silene sect. Elisanthe.
@Mortison77577 i ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 i looked it up and yeh they had a good explanation but thanks for showing me that
@Mortison77577 i ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 i found the other phylogeny but i cant find the "catchfly flower" phylogenies, can you tell me where to find them
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
Just google "DNA conflicting phylogenetic trees". They may have done some sort of "meta-study" where looked at all the molecules and different trees to see just how common these conflicting phylogenies really are. If they're very rare compared to ones that don't conflict, then that seems more important than the question of whether they can explain the anomaly. Still, there's things like the so-called "Hox Paradox" which is considered to be problematic as far as I know.
@patrickledford420 ... ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
The flower one might not be too serious because those genes still produce trees that place all of those plants within the same general grouping and the conflicts are closer to the species level, whereas the cytochrome B one involved entire orders of mammals being in the wrong place. Something that seems to be a bigger problem is sea urchins and starfish being more closely related to mammals than insects are, when insects and mammals seem to have greater body-plan similarity.
@Mortison77577 the ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 the sea urchin and mammals being more related then insects even though physically its the opposite is not a problem at all. physical similarities are not used that much except in transitional fossils but its been known that we are more closely related to sea urchins and starfish then we are to insects. also, do you accept evolution? i cant tell by our conversation
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
I accept common ancestry, but not necessarily the mechanisms of evolution, and I don't think that evolution is a very well understood thing. On the sea urchin thing, it's still not what we would expect given how different the body plan is for a sea urchin compared to a vertebrate.
@Mortison77577 what ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 what do you mean, you dont accept natural selection ect or you think there is more to it? no, the sea urchin thing is exactly what we would expect to see, physical similarities are not the best way to look at relatedness
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
What I mean is, I don't think we can claim to know that natural selection can really do what the theory requires it do. Nobody ever proved that it could and the scientists have been telling lies to the public because they don't want to admit that the whole thing is still a mystery. Google Fred On Everything Evolution. The guy's pretty naive, but he sums it up in a good way. With regard to sea urchins, how is a worm-like thing supposed to be transformed into a sea urchin?
@Mortison77577 ... ( 2 months ago by patrickledford420)
@Mortison77577 natural selection is not the only mechanism, you do know this, right? what lies have the scientists been telling? i never said a worm-like creature EVOLVED (not transformed) into a sea urchin. the "whole thing" is not "still a mystery" there are still gaps in our understanding of some things but we pretty much have it settled
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@patrickledford420
I know that there are as many as nine different evolutionary mechanisms depending on how you count it. And they are all incapable of explaining how sea urchins and starfish evolved from an organism with bilateral symmetry. They can't explain how this change in body plan would occur as far as I know. I disagree when people say it's pretty much settled. I think it's still a mystery because the theory doesn't really explain what it purports to explain.
@Mortison77577 ... ( 2 months ago by shadowrideer)
@Mortison77577 natural selection is kinda common sense. its pretty naive of you to think that natural selection has even the slightest ground to be fought against. it is still occuring today at noticable rates to finches in the galapigos, i know i probably spelled that wrong, islands. it isn't arguable because you can say show me and scientists will show you population statistics of differerent finches there and it proves evolution and natural selection
Array ( 2 months ago by Mortison77577)
@shadowrideer
I'm not saying that natural selection doesn't occur, I'm just questioning whether or not it really has the power to do what evolutionary theory says it does (working in concert with the other evolutionary mechanisms of course). The small changes with finches don't prove the larger chances that take place among larger taxonomic categories of organisms.
@Mortison77577 its ... ( 1 month ago by shadowrideer)
@Mortison77577 its not small changes with the finches, it is actually quite large changes. there are different varietys of finches and they specialize in eating idfferent kinds of nuts if they are ground finches, depending on the climate that year dif nuts grow and that affects the dif types of finches on a large scale, this is easily applied to other spieces, supply and demand my friend, if the climate changes and a species is better suited for it its gonna out live the one that isn't.
Array ( 1 month ago by Mortison77577)
@shadowrideer
I don't know the details of the whole finch thing. Apparently they played a role in the development of Darwin's thinking and there were about 13 species. And maybe a new one emerged sometime in the last 100 years or so? I wasn't clear on that. Nevertheless, to go from changes like that and extrapolate to changes like the development of lungs in amphibians is a totally unwarranted extrapolation. They don't know that known evolutionary mechanisms have the power to do that.
Array ( 1 month ago by Mortison77577)
@shadowrideer
Also, they haven't necessarily isolated the genetic mechanisms responsible for the changes in the phenotype of the finch. Supposedly they know something about the developmental pathway that causes the beak to change size and/or shape and they know that calcium and at least one particular protein play a role, but beyond that, I don't think they really know all that much. It would be interesting to see if they did genetic studies by breeding finches.
Array ( 1 month ago by Mortison77577)
@shadowrideer
What would be more impressive as a large change in the finches would be the behavioral changes that cause them to find different foods not just the fact that the beaks have different sizes or shapes and the two populations will no longer interbreed.
@Mortison77577 but ... ( 1 month ago by shadowrideer)
@Mortison77577 but see behavior changes in a single finch is not evolution, that is adaption, which is different. a organism cannot evolve, only species can evolve because once genes are made they cannot change unless by radiotion or chemicals or other environmental factors like that. and the finches are showing how different characteristics standout in different environments. amphibians developing lungs is a much more complicated route though, i do agree.
@Mortison77577 but ... ( 1 month ago by shadowrideer)
@Mortison77577 but the best explination i can think of is that amphibian did come from purely water dwelling creatures, we all did, humans evolved from water dwellers with lungs. There must have been creatures that had genetic mutations that caused them to be able to breathe air, and that allowed them to move over land to better feeding and breeding grounds causing that mutation for lungs to be passed on because of better conditions for survival and breeding. It really is simple, hope this helpd
@Mortison77577 your ... ( 1 month ago by shadowrideer)
@Mortison77577 your right it is extremely difficult to explain, and i understand your confusion over this process because even i am not completly clear on the whole picture of how animals came from only breathing underwater to having lungs, which is why i probably am not the absolute best person for explaining this. All i know is it most likely started from chance gene mutations that caused a large difference and some how created lungs. i am glad we have been able to peacefully debate this.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code