@IAmHotize So instead of sound science that has been looked at and revised and improved upon for over 300 years, you propose we indoctrinate our children with 2000 year old desert mythologies about a cosmic Jewish zombie who could walk on water and turn it into wine?
I wondered why if Haekels embryos were such a big issue why Behe or one of the other biologists dont do a set of pics and donate them to textbook publishers. Show me the letters that have been sent to publishers as well.
@IAmHotize Dogmatic dullard. I'm hoping, for your sake, you're just trolling. Until you begin to think critically you are doomed to ignorance. Good luck.
Stupid libtards trying to indoctrinate children shoving their bullshit theories down our children's throats, along with promoting the far left militant homosexual agenda. This is truly sad. We'll never make progress so long as you morons continue to brainwash our children and turn them away from our Lord, Jesus Christ in favor of pseudo-scientific paganism. Trust in the Lord and the science of our Lord. Jesus Christ reveals all, science reveals nothing.
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
Haeckel's embryos are presented as factual in the book Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland which has a copyright date of 2002.
@Mortison77577 They are 'factual' as comparisons of commonality in embryology, but they do not reflect their ontogeny does not "recapitulate" reflect their phylogeny in the manner which Haeckel described.
@Mortison77577 Wrong. They merely emphasis commonalities to portray their existence. Much as if they were actual photographs with a zoom lens over the area of similiarity.
This nonsense with Haekels drawings has gone on too long. Haeckel most certainly did not forge hos drawings, as Luskin believes. Some features were exagerated and some were played doen, but they are all there!! If Haekel was alive today, Luskin and everone else at the DI would be sued as what they are saying is an outrageous lie.
Mortison has no other issue. He trots it out like somehow the entire ToE is invalid because Haekel may have "fudged" a drawing or two.
Haekel also drew blastophores, but no one complains about their accuracy.
Mortison is a joke. He thinks this one issue somehow disproves evolution and proves...what exactly, I have no idea, since he never proposes his own positive assertions regarding anything.
Middlekk, my favorite Haeckel fanboy, how's it going? Haven't heard from you in a while. No, you got me wrong, I'm not saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong, I'm just saying it's got a lot of holes. Don't get too worked up about Haeckel's embryo's. The whole theory doesn't rest of them. It's just one of the holes in some books.
Haeckel fanboy, I mean middlekk, google "Evo Devo is the new buzzword" and click on the first link. What do they say: "Embryology was divorced from evolution, devo from evo. Even the discovery in the 1950s of the nature and role of DNA did not bring them back together. In the late 1970s, however, all began to change as several revolutions in theory and technology produced a mind shift as dramatic as the one that followed Darwin's The Origin of Species". No straight line from Haeckl to Evo Devo.
Saying the Haeckl had some important ideas or that other drawings he did were not inaccurate it completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the issue here.
Yeah, Haeckl did fudge his drawings. It's a mistake in science textbooks to present them as factual. Google "Kenneth Miller Haeckel's embryos." Science should be about a search for the truth, not a political fight with creationists. Turning science in politics just demeans and perverts science.
Most of the time, they arent Haeckels originals, but updated computer models or photographs.
Haeckel fudged certain aspects of his drawings (not forging, although still very unscientific, which is why I actually agree that they shouldnt be in textbooks)
Stephen J. Gould described them either as "forgeries" or "fraudulent" or something similar. Sometimes the ones in textbooks are slightly better, but often they are incorrect for essentially the same reason. Check out Josh Rosenau's Thoughts from Kansas blog post on this topic. Everything he types is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Interestingly he files it under the head "culture wars".
Alright, middlekk now you're the one bringing out a bunch of red herrings. Gould died in 2002, but that's not the point. The point is that he openly admitted that the drawings are a mistake and they shouldn't be in science textbooks. Unlike other people, he didn't just view it as a fight with creationists. He was honest. It's amazing to see so many people on youtube trying to defend Haecke's embryos just because creationists are taking the opposite stance. You're just like the creationists.
The reason why Haekel's embryos are forgeries is because they are forgeries. He didn't draw them from embryos, he made them up, or he used an embryo from one species for all of them, or he just drew what he wanted to see - I don't know the details. But they are fraudulent. And no, the drawing themselves do not invalidate the TOE. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a mistake in textbooks and science books intended for the general readership and maybe even in scientific papers.
Middlekk, you're the one missing the point. The point is not about the theory of evolution generally or really about Haekel generally. It's about honesty and integrity in science. Just coming up with any excuse that one can think of to not grant creationists any point on any issue shows a lack of integrity. It shows that some people don't really view evolutionary biology as a science unto itself, but rather as a fight against creationism.
Name a CURRENT EDITION of a science book that presents the ORIGINAL Haekel drawings as "factual".
The BEST you've come up with are old editions of texts where OTHER representations of Haekel are presented.
And it must be pointed out that Haekel died in 1919. And NOTHING discovered since that has invalidated his science. And NOTHING about the drawings invalidates the ToE.
Middlekk, I can't name a 2010 edition of any book that has Haekel's embryos in them presented as factual. I have seem them presented that way in books that are in print and in bookstores. I saw two of those books in a Barnes and Nobel. They are presented as factual. But it's not a meaningless point. You're the one making meaningless points about how "well, those are exactly Haekel's and it doesn't really matter" and all that. And yes, lots of things have invalidated Haekel's ideas.
Middlekk, Haekel was not right about the science. He was to a large extent WRONG about the science. Embryos do not pass through a stage in which they resemble the adult forms of their ancestors in terms of gross morphology. It's just not true. The biogenic law was disproven. Everyone working in EvoDevo acknowledges this. You're not doing a good job of supporting evolutionary theory if you say that Haeckel was right on about everything. He was wrong, but not completely wrong.
Hey middlekk, I highly recommend that you respond to this nice little quote from PZ Myers: "Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected."
@Mortison77577 im guessing thats a quote mine and that the next sentence explained it. the similarities ARE THERE they are simply exagerated which was bad but again, the similarities ARE THERE. evolution is a fact you need to get the fuck over it
No, that's not a quote mine, read it for yourself on PZ Myers' blog. They jury's probably still out on what the similarities mean when it comes to vertebrtae embryos. And yeah, to a certain extent evolution is a fact, but facts should be defended honestly, not with a bunch of propaganda. Google "pharyngula haeckel's embryos".
@Mortison77577 ok, it may not be a quote mine but the similarities are ALL there, haeckel exagerated them but they are there. i know the similarities dont prove evolution but ERV's, DNA, phylogonies, homologies, atavisms, geographic distribution, fossil record all of them perfectly fit with evolution without anything out of place
Not all of the similarities are there, it's clear that they don't mean what Haeckel thought they meant even if the drawings were accurate, and they don't provide evidence for common ancestry in that members of the same taxonomic category do not always appear to be more similar during early stages of development. There may be some examples of that. One photograph that looked impressive compared possums, humans, birds, and snakes if I remember right.
When it comes to "ERV's, DNA, phylogonies, homologies, atavisms, geographic distribution, and the fossil record all perfectly fitting with evolution without anything out of place".....that's not entirely the case. Not everything fits perfectly and some stuff is out of place. Nevertheless, I do agree that the evidence with that stuff is pretty strong.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
Nevertheless, it seems difficult to describe a series of steps that would cause lungs to develop. At one point they thought lungs came from the swim bladder, but I don't know if that has been disproven. Either way, it seems hard to explain how an evolutionary process would allow muscles to gradually change their function so that they could come to play a role in breathing.
@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.
Middlekk, are you going to respond to my comment about that article that I told you to google or are you going to continue to insist that it's a "straight line from Haeckel to EvoDevo even when that's probably not true?
Haeckel's embryos are also presented as factual in the book What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr which has a copyright date of 2001 and is still in bookstores. He mentions that Haeckel switched a dog embryo with a human embryo for at least one drawing, but he still presents them as factual.
Most of them are factual? What is greatly distorted is the real early stage pictures seen in textbooks where the embryos look nearly identical when in fact, in reality they look quite different. In that sense, creationists do have a legitimate point because the evidence for common ancestry for that aspect of embryology is being exaggerated. Ken Miller, Stephen J. Gould, and Talk Origins openly admitted that it's a mistake and PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott did as well, but more grudgingly.
After being SCHOOLED over and over and over again?
Haekel was a visionary scientist. The accuracy or inaccuracy of his drawings in NO WAY diminishes his seminal scientific findings, which DIRECTLY led to MASSIVE improvements in our understanding of embryology and evolutionary developmental biology.
Amazingly, Haeckel's embryos are presented as factual and as evidence for common ancestry in the book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism publish by Stanford University press and written by Tim Bera who was or is a full professor at Ohio state. It's copyright 1990, but the book is still in print. I saw it in a bookstore today.
I agree they there are similarities. What they mean is not something that's really well worked out as far as I know. In terms of what they put in the textbooks, a good case could be made that they should just use the pharyngeal pouches and all that.
No. They're not. If the most-recent example you can find is from 2001, then you're wrong.
Your last example was an edition of a text that 1) did not have Haekel's drawings, and 2) was FOUR editions old.
Besides which, as we have discussed, the drawings are irrelevant. The scientific concept Haekel discovered was correct, and an entire field of scientific enquiry - evo-devo - has developed as a consequence.
It's 6 or 7 years old, but still, it's possible that some schools are using them. The only way to found out is to call the schools and see. Really, Casey Luskin should have done that before going on the news and saying they're still in schools, because he can't claim to know that with certainty. And the innaccuracy of the drawings invalidates SOME of what Haeckel said, but not ALL of what he said Google "Pharyngula Haeckel's embryos".
The POINT was that anything is "possible". Anytime you say something is "possible", what you're REALLY saying is "this is so darned unlikely as to be completely unbelievable, but I want someone to swallow it hole."
I know what you meant, I was just making a joke. I was basically saying that I want to have sex with Miley Cyrus. And it's spelled "moron" not "moran". You might want to work on your spelling a little bit, tough guy.
No. The inaccuracy of the drawings invalidates NOTHING about what Haekel said.
150 years of scientific advances makes our understanding of the processes of embryogensis and evolutionary developmental biology more sophisticated.
Again. As with Darwin, Haekel was the FIRST, not the LAST. His findings were seminal, but by no means have they EVER been posited as the end of our understanding of the field.
Heh. I read PZ regularly. And again, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
The issue of Haekel's drawings is a red herring argument, a logical fallacy. The inaccuracy of the drawings in no way invalidates his findings or the findings of 150 years of scientific progress in the field of evolutionary developmental biology that have come since those early days.
Haekel should be HONORED as a pioneer and a great scientist.
It is a DIRECT LINE from Haekel to modern evo-devo.
That makes Haekel a visionary and an exceptional scientist.
I'm a fan of the truth. Haekel's discoveries were seminal.
And if you've never seen the "Get a brain, moran" sign, then you have to get out of your mom's basement more often. Created by a someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution, no doubt.
Hey, middlekk, are you descended from Haekel or something? I think that's what going on here. He's family and you don't want to tarnish the family name.
I'm a fan of the truth. The truth is that Haekel was a brilliant scientist and a visionary. His findings were seminal and have led directly to modern evolutionary developmental biology.
You've lost. Your lame attempt to discredit the modern theory of evolution by raising red herring issues has failed.
BTW: I work for myself and can keep this up indefinitely. So, if you think you'll get the "last word" on this subject, think again.
I wasn't trying to discredit the theory of evolution here, I was just pointing out that Haeckel's embryos are in recent textbooks when they shouldn't be. Just go to the talkorigins site and see what they have to say about it. But seriously, ease up on the whole Haeckel thing. I mean, I know the guy was good, he made some great pictures. Have you seen the ones of bats? But he's not all that. He was a pioneer, but he was no Newton. All right, I'm out on this one.
"And did you think that by NOT replying to me, but starting a new thread, you would somehow escape notice."
I don't get what you mean by that. I did reply to you. The last thing I typed was my reply to you. I didn't start a new thread. You can't start new threads on youtube. You can only post comments on videos that others have created.
Hi people, I come from down under, we dont have any of this nonsense in this great wide brown land, and I thank my lucky stars, good luck to america, with fools like Luskin you need it, amen,,,,,,,oops
@frednoname1 How is that intolerant? Do you know what a hypocrite is? You are a disgusting person full of hate for anyone not far right fundamental christian...I'm just telling the truth - about 99.9% of New Zealanders are smart enough to laugh at this guy. Creationism is something that only America seems to believe in still as it was debunked 200 years ago....
@frednoname1 I NEVER said Christians are freaks!!! Stop putting words in my mouth! I said Ray Comfort is a freak of NZ. It is an insult to Christians to compare all of them to him. He is an idiot. There are many christians (even the Pope!) who think that what he says is ridiculous! Evolution and Christianity are NOT mutually exclusive!!! I have nothing against Creationists, but YOung Earth Creationists who take ppls money and spew lies deserve our wrath
You did call them freaks, right on this page. Nice hate there. Being an athetist, you are hardly in a position to tell anyone what christians are any more than you are in a position to comment on american politics. When you get out of the fact world of college and into the real world,you will found out what I am talking about. Untill then I will simply pity your ignorance.
@frednoname1 You are just so typical of a far right hate monger. Adjust what people say to make them look bad, and then continue to say it over and over even though you have been proved wrong. Just look back at comments and you will see. But you don't care for 'facts' - you just like to bang your head against the wall - and will do so for the rest of your ignorant hate filled life I'm willing to bet
@frednoname1 No: you said that I said 'Christians are freaks' I never said that. I said 'He (Comfort) is not representative of NZ. He is a freak.'. You have to be the biggest moron in the world to think that me saying that means that all Christians are freaks. That's the best argument you can make against anyone: lie. Because you have no logical argument. What you said was a logical fallacy. Did you mean 'arrogant'? You missed two whole letters for christ sake!
He is a christian is he not? You called him a freak didn't you? Clearlyyou know little about the religon. He is more representative than you seem to think.
@frednoname1 Logical fallacy you idiot. It is the same as if I take you calling me ignorant means that all white women the world over are ignorant? Or all atheists are idiots? Or all people disagreeing with organised religion are idiots? It's not a logical argument you MORON!!! And no, me calling you a moron is not me calling all far right nut jobs morons, just you. Because you are.
@frednoname1 For you to call him representative of the 'religon' (lol you've done that twice) is an insult to Christians. It is a fact that most Christians are not Young Earth creationists. Most Christians are intelligent people and know this isn't the case. In fact, the largest Christian group is the Catholics, and the official Catholic stance is Young Earth stuff is just plain stupid. That's the stance of the largest group of Christians in the world.Get it?
@frednoname1 And I NEVER said it was because of the picture. It is because you are one of the most offensive horrible people on YouTube and the things you say about Islam
@frednoname1 No. You don't speak the truth. I blocked you because you are just spewing abuse at me and others - and people shouldn't waste their time with your type. You CAN say what you want. BUT I will point out how wrong you are and what a dick you make of yourself when you do it.You are so stupid that you think me calling one person a freak means that I think all Christians are freaks? IDIOT.Yes that 'FACT' world is fucked up isn't it HAHA! btw I'm not in college
@frednoname1 You should really check facts with the person before calling them a liar. I only have to write a thesis to finish off my Masters, which I am doing whilst I am working full time. I am actually not officially a student anymore and this is very common here with post grad students. I haven't set foot at the uni in well over a year.
Yous atheistic darwinian evoltionary mind puppets need to stop making stuff up to further the lies of a godless way. And I have had it up to my ankles with this stuff about heckles embrios, it is so obvious to any free thinking christian that just because you draw somethink doesnt very often even make it halve true, please all athieistic values to youselves from now on, I sick of hearing evolution this evolution that, and furthermore, darwin wanted the superior so called white races to ruel blak
@gregelliselizabethno You know that MOST christians believe in evolution and most evolutions also believe in God? Darwin wasn't a racist, and you are not free thinking as you obviously cannot interpret facts for yourself. I just feel bad for you, you will never listen to reason
I used watch fox news, thinking that they were the only semi-unbiased news organization out there. I now believe that all news organizations are completely dishonest, and enjoy presenting utter bullshit to the public.
Darwin knew nothing about DNA, so I don't see how he could be wrong about how prokaryotes transmit genes in a horizontal manner. It would still be evolution, the genetic transfers would make for variation in a species and the variation would be selected for or against. And from what I understand HGT does not apply to eukaryotes anyway.
I'm not you. I like my TV. It has the amazing ability to bring far away views to me, with little effort on part of myself! It's kind of like an international network of ideas.
Sweet bone-gnawing Christ, why does every single Creationist I've seen so far have such a fucking annoying voice? This guy sounds like his balls never dropped. I keep expecting him to start bawling like a toddler and crying for his mommy. It's bad enough he's an ignorant religious moron.
Casey Luskin has been called the Discovery Institute's attack gerbil.
He's revealed that he goes around googling his own name, looking for people who say unkind things about him in the web so he can send legally threatening email to these people.
Unfortunately those nasty evolutionists are a little smarter than he is and rather than be cowed by the threats they just post them and reveal him to be the gutless wonder that he is.
Just to say- in my Genetics, Embryology, and even BASIC zoology courses in an accredited university we have seen, and discussed at length, the lies and truths of the embryological drawings mentioned. We went over the fact that they are incorrect and "smoothed over" in many ways. This is because the basis of Science is to correct itself over and over... and not stick its fingers in its ears and go "Nya, nya, nya..."
Of course we're not doing it at all. Faith has to be the single worst method of understanding reality ever conceived. Any "theory" (and I use the word more generously than is deserved) which requires faith to be believed is wrong virtually by definition.
Creationism is so frustrating, because it's so childish, arrogant, and wrong on so many levels you just don't know where to start. Comparing the scientific value of Evolution and Creationism is like comparing the nutrition value of apples and crack.
That's awesome. Not only do they fail at science, even a spell-checker is too mystically advanced for these guys to understand.
That's okay, we all know those fancy software developers are a bunch of liberal intellectual hippie types, Fox would be all too happy to close the loop on that conspiracy.
FOX ftw lol
managarm1349 3 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von AronRa
@IAmHotize So instead of sound science that has been looked at and revised and improved upon for over 300 years, you propose we indoctrinate our children with 2000 year old desert mythologies about a cosmic Jewish zombie who could walk on water and turn it into wine?
Spocktacular96 5 months ago
I wondered why if Haekels embryos were such a big issue why Behe or one of the other biologists dont do a set of pics and donate them to textbook publishers. Show me the letters that have been sent to publishers as well.
SqueakerAlpha 5 months ago
@IAmHotize
Joking right?
viiScorp 7 months ago
@IAmHotize Dogmatic dullard. I'm hoping, for your sake, you're just trolling. Until you begin to think critically you are doomed to ignorance. Good luck.
tvanklee 7 months ago
Stupid libtards trying to indoctrinate children shoving their bullshit theories down our children's throats, along with promoting the far left militant homosexual agenda. This is truly sad. We'll never make progress so long as you morons continue to brainwash our children and turn them away from our Lord, Jesus Christ in favor of pseudo-scientific paganism. Trust in the Lord and the science of our Lord. Jesus Christ reveals all, science reveals nothing.
IAmHotize 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
dharmastipulate 1 year ago
Haeckel's embryos are presented as factual in the book Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland which has a copyright date of 2002.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 They are 'factual' as comparisons of commonality in embryology, but they do not reflect their ontogeny does not "recapitulate" reflect their phylogeny in the manner which Haeckel described.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
They're not factual as comparisons of commonality in embryology because they show commonalities that do not exist.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 Wrong. They merely emphasis commonalities to portray their existence. Much as if they were actual photographs with a zoom lens over the area of similiarity.
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
The spokesmen and women of religious organisations are charlatans.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
"Hundreds of ye....decades" I'm no professor but isn't a decade only 10 years?
xShadowxPhoenix 1 year ago
Ugh man, that little wiener's face is annoying, almost as annoying as his spewed out words
xShadowxPhoenix 1 year ago
Fox news MUST CLOSE!
PatRibsey 1 year ago
Step 1-- Open luskin's mouth
Step 2-- Jam funnel down throat
Step 3-- Allow him to "discover" the feeling of battery acid in his stomach. Fuckin swine. I fucking HATE TV!
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
This nonsense with Haekels drawings has gone on too long. Haeckel most certainly did not forge hos drawings, as Luskin believes. Some features were exagerated and some were played doen, but they are all there!! If Haekel was alive today, Luskin and everone else at the DI would be sued as what they are saying is an outrageous lie.
j0kerman2 1 year ago
Mortison has no other issue. He trots it out like somehow the entire ToE is invalid because Haekel may have "fudged" a drawing or two.
Haekel also drew blastophores, but no one complains about their accuracy.
Mortison is a joke. He thinks this one issue somehow disproves evolution and proves...what exactly, I have no idea, since he never proposes his own positive assertions regarding anything.
middlekk 1 year ago
blastopore, not phore.
middlekk 1 year ago
Middlekk, my favorite Haeckel fanboy, how's it going? Haven't heard from you in a while. No, you got me wrong, I'm not saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong, I'm just saying it's got a lot of holes. Don't get too worked up about Haeckel's embryo's. The whole theory doesn't rest of them. It's just one of the holes in some books.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Haeckel fanboy, I mean middlekk, google "Evo Devo is the new buzzword" and click on the first link. What do they say: "Embryology was divorced from evolution, devo from evo. Even the discovery in the 1950s of the nature and role of DNA did not bring them back together. In the late 1970s, however, all began to change as several revolutions in theory and technology produced a mind shift as dramatic as the one that followed Darwin's The Origin of Species". No straight line from Haeckl to Evo Devo.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@middlekk
Saying the Haeckl had some important ideas or that other drawings he did were not inaccurate it completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the issue here.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@j0kerman2
Yeah, Haeckl did fudge his drawings. It's a mistake in science textbooks to present them as factual. Google "Kenneth Miller Haeckel's embryos." Science should be about a search for the truth, not a political fight with creationists. Turning science in politics just demeans and perverts science.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Most of the time, they arent Haeckels originals, but updated computer models or photographs.
Haeckel fudged certain aspects of his drawings (not forging, although still very unscientific, which is why I actually agree that they shouldnt be in textbooks)
j0kerman2 1 year ago
@j0kerman2
Stephen J. Gould described them either as "forgeries" or "fraudulent" or something similar. Sometimes the ones in textbooks are slightly better, but often they are incorrect for essentially the same reason. Check out Josh Rosenau's Thoughts from Kansas blog post on this topic. Everything he types is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Interestingly he files it under the head "culture wars".
Mortison77577 1 year ago
You DO realize that Gould has been dead for many years, right?
How could Haekel's drawings POSSIBLY be "forgeries"? He drew them...he didn't copy someone else's drawings.
And HOW does ANY of that invalidate his work or raise even the merest concern over the ToE?
Doesn't.
But your insistence on using a red herring argument is clear evidence that you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand that point.
middlekk 1 year ago
Alright, middlekk now you're the one bringing out a bunch of red herrings. Gould died in 2002, but that's not the point. The point is that he openly admitted that the drawings are a mistake and they shouldn't be in science textbooks. Unlike other people, he didn't just view it as a fight with creationists. He was honest. It's amazing to see so many people on youtube trying to defend Haecke's embryos just because creationists are taking the opposite stance. You're just like the creationists.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
The reason why Haekel's embryos are forgeries is because they are forgeries. He didn't draw them from embryos, he made them up, or he used an embryo from one species for all of them, or he just drew what he wanted to see - I don't know the details. But they are fraudulent. And no, the drawing themselves do not invalidate the TOE. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a mistake in textbooks and science books intended for the general readership and maybe even in scientific papers.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Middlekk, you're the one missing the point. The point is not about the theory of evolution generally or really about Haekel generally. It's about honesty and integrity in science. Just coming up with any excuse that one can think of to not grant creationists any point on any issue shows a lack of integrity. It shows that some people don't really view evolutionary biology as a science unto itself, but rather as a fight against creationism.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Name a CURRENT EDITION of a science book that presents the ORIGINAL Haekel drawings as "factual".
The BEST you've come up with are old editions of texts where OTHER representations of Haekel are presented.
And it must be pointed out that Haekel died in 1919. And NOTHING discovered since that has invalidated his science. And NOTHING about the drawings invalidates the ToE.
Red Herring argument. Meaningless.
middlekk 1 year ago
Middlekk, I can't name a 2010 edition of any book that has Haekel's embryos in them presented as factual. I have seem them presented that way in books that are in print and in bookstores. I saw two of those books in a Barnes and Nobel. They are presented as factual. But it's not a meaningless point. You're the one making meaningless points about how "well, those are exactly Haekel's and it doesn't really matter" and all that. And yes, lots of things have invalidated Haekel's ideas.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
That's because they don't exist. It's a meaningless argument.
Haekel was RIGHT about the science.
middlekk 1 year ago
Middlekk, Haekel was not right about the science. He was to a large extent WRONG about the science. Embryos do not pass through a stage in which they resemble the adult forms of their ancestors in terms of gross morphology. It's just not true. The biogenic law was disproven. Everyone working in EvoDevo acknowledges this. You're not doing a good job of supporting evolutionary theory if you say that Haeckel was right on about everything. He was wrong, but not completely wrong.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Hey middlekk, I highly recommend that you respond to this nice little quote from PZ Myers: "Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected."
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 im guessing thats a quote mine and that the next sentence explained it. the similarities ARE THERE they are simply exagerated which was bad but again, the similarities ARE THERE. evolution is a fact you need to get the fuck over it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
No, that's not a quote mine, read it for yourself on PZ Myers' blog. They jury's probably still out on what the similarities mean when it comes to vertebrtae embryos. And yeah, to a certain extent evolution is a fact, but facts should be defended honestly, not with a bunch of propaganda. Google "pharyngula haeckel's embryos".
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 ok, it may not be a quote mine but the similarities are ALL there, haeckel exagerated them but they are there. i know the similarities dont prove evolution but ERV's, DNA, phylogonies, homologies, atavisms, geographic distribution, fossil record all of them perfectly fit with evolution without anything out of place
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
Not all of the similarities are there, it's clear that they don't mean what Haeckel thought they meant even if the drawings were accurate, and they don't provide evidence for common ancestry in that members of the same taxonomic category do not always appear to be more similar during early stages of development. There may be some examples of that. One photograph that looked impressive compared possums, humans, birds, and snakes if I remember right.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
When it comes to "ERV's, DNA, phylogonies, homologies, atavisms, geographic distribution, and the fossil record all perfectly fitting with evolution without anything out of place".....that's not entirely the case. Not everything fits perfectly and some stuff is out of place. Nevertheless, I do agree that the evidence with that stuff is pretty strong.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 whats not in pefect place?
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 i looked it up and yeh they had a good explanation but thanks for showing me that
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@Mortison77577 i found the other phylogeny but i cant find the "catchfly flower" phylogenies, can you tell me where to find them
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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
shadowrideer 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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.
shadowrideer 1 year ago
@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.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@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.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@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 1 year ago
@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.
shadowrideer 1 year ago
@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
shadowrideer 1 year ago
@shadowrideer
Nevertheless, it seems difficult to describe a series of steps that would cause lungs to develop. At one point they thought lungs came from the swim bladder, but I don't know if that has been disproven. Either way, it seems hard to explain how an evolutionary process would allow muscles to gradually change their function so that they could come to play a role in breathing.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@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.
shadowrideer 1 year ago
Middlekk, are you going to respond to my comment about that article that I told you to google or are you going to continue to insist that it's a "straight line from Haeckel to EvoDevo even when that's probably not true?
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Middlekk, why the hell didn't you respond to the quote of PZ Myers that I posted? I don't appreciate you trying to weasel your way out of this one.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Haeckel's embryos are also presented as factual in the book What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr which has a copyright date of 2001 and is still in bookstores. He mentions that Haeckel switched a dog embryo with a human embryo for at least one drawing, but he still presents them as factual.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Most of them are. Haeckel only 'accentuated' certain features of a half dozen of the hundred such drawings he did.
AronRa 1 year ago
Most of them are factual? What is greatly distorted is the real early stage pictures seen in textbooks where the embryos look nearly identical when in fact, in reality they look quite different. In that sense, creationists do have a legitimate point because the evidence for common ancestry for that aspect of embryology is being exaggerated. Ken Miller, Stephen J. Gould, and Talk Origins openly admitted that it's a mistake and PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott did as well, but more grudgingly.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
they do look identical, that is the point
ajgrovery 1 year ago
Are you STILL on this red herring?
REALLY?
After being SCHOOLED over and over and over again?
Haekel was a visionary scientist. The accuracy or inaccuracy of his drawings in NO WAY diminishes his seminal scientific findings, which DIRECTLY led to MASSIVE improvements in our understanding of embryology and evolutionary developmental biology.
Period.
middlekk 1 year ago
Amazingly, Haeckel's embryos are presented as factual and as evidence for common ancestry in the book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism publish by Stanford University press and written by Tim Bera who was or is a full professor at Ohio state. It's copyright 1990, but the book is still in print. I saw it in a bookstore today.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
@Mortison77577
- Heckels embryos are an example of fraud because they overemphasise similarities.
- however to claim that there is NO similarities is an outright lie.
types10000 1 year ago
types10000:
I agree they there are similarities. What they mean is not something that's really well worked out as far as I know. In terms of what they put in the textbooks, a good case could be made that they should just use the pharyngeal pouches and all that.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
love the moment of zen n_n
geometrololi 1 year ago
Casey Luskin is correct on this in that Haeckel's embryos are still in modern textbooks.
Mortison77577 2 years ago
No. They're not. If the most-recent example you can find is from 2001, then you're wrong.
Your last example was an edition of a text that 1) did not have Haekel's drawings, and 2) was FOUR editions old.
Besides which, as we have discussed, the drawings are irrelevant. The scientific concept Haekel discovered was correct, and an entire field of scientific enquiry - evo-devo - has developed as a consequence.
middlekk 1 year ago
middlekk:
It depends on what you mean by "recent". The last one they can document is 2003.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
...And it's STILL 7 years out of date...
And it's STILL a red herring argument, that in NO WAY invalidates Haekel's findings.
middlekk 1 year ago
middlekk:
It's 6 or 7 years old, but still, it's possible that some schools are using them. The only way to found out is to call the schools and see. Really, Casey Luskin should have done that before going on the news and saying they're still in schools, because he can't claim to know that with certainty. And the innaccuracy of the drawings invalidates SOME of what Haeckel said, but not ALL of what he said Google "Pharyngula Haeckel's embryos".
Mortison77577 1 year ago
It's also POSSIBLE the little green men stole your sperm last night and are going to impregnate Miley Cyrus.
Really, you should HEAR the absurdities coming out of your mouth.
middlekk 1 year ago
middlekk:
If my sperm is going inside Miley Cyrus I would rather that it happen the natural way, not with any little green men.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Way to miss the point, moran.
The POINT was that anything is "possible". Anytime you say something is "possible", what you're REALLY saying is "this is so darned unlikely as to be completely unbelievable, but I want someone to swallow it hole."
Really, could you be any more dense?
middlekk 1 year ago
"Way to miss the point, moran."
I know what you meant, I was just making a joke. I was basically saying that I want to have sex with Miley Cyrus. And it's spelled "moron" not "moran". You might want to work on your spelling a little bit, tough guy.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
No. The inaccuracy of the drawings invalidates NOTHING about what Haekel said.
150 years of scientific advances makes our understanding of the processes of embryogensis and evolutionary developmental biology more sophisticated.
Again. As with Darwin, Haekel was the FIRST, not the LAST. His findings were seminal, but by no means have they EVER been posited as the end of our understanding of the field.
middlekk 1 year ago
Middlekk:
Do you google that thing I suggested googling?
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Heh. I read PZ regularly. And again, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
The issue of Haekel's drawings is a red herring argument, a logical fallacy. The inaccuracy of the drawings in no way invalidates his findings or the findings of 150 years of scientific progress in the field of evolutionary developmental biology that have come since those early days.
Haekel should be HONORED as a pioneer and a great scientist.
middlekk 1 year ago
middlekk:
Damn, you sure are a die-hard Haekel fan. What's up with that?
Mortison77577 1 year ago
middlekk:
Actually, I think that EvoDevo is only about 20 years old and for a long time embryology didn't have a lot to do with evolutionary biology.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Now you're just being a moron and a troll.
It is a DIRECT LINE from Haekel to modern evo-devo.
That makes Haekel a visionary and an exceptional scientist.
I'm a fan of the truth. Haekel's discoveries were seminal.
And if you've never seen the "Get a brain, moran" sign, then you have to get out of your mom's basement more often. Created by a someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution, no doubt.
middlekk 1 year ago
Hey, middlekk, are you descended from Haekel or something? I think that's what going on here. He's family and you don't want to tarnish the family name.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Sorry, no.
I'm a fan of the truth. The truth is that Haekel was a brilliant scientist and a visionary. His findings were seminal and have led directly to modern evolutionary developmental biology.
You've lost. Your lame attempt to discredit the modern theory of evolution by raising red herring issues has failed.
BTW: I work for myself and can keep this up indefinitely. So, if you think you'll get the "last word" on this subject, think again.
Troll.
middlekk 1 year ago
@middlekk
I wasn't trying to discredit the theory of evolution here, I was just pointing out that Haeckel's embryos are in recent textbooks when they shouldn't be. Just go to the talkorigins site and see what they have to say about it. But seriously, ease up on the whole Haeckel thing. I mean, I know the guy was good, he made some great pictures. Have you seen the ones of bats? But he's not all that. He was a pioneer, but he was no Newton. All right, I'm out on this one.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Bullshit.
And did you think that by NOT replying to me, but starting a new thread, you would somehow escape notice.'
You're a lying weasel. There are two kinds of people in this world. Weasels and weasel slappers.
Consider yourself slapped, troll.
middlekk 1 year ago
@middlekk
"And did you think that by NOT replying to me, but starting a new thread, you would somehow escape notice."
I don't get what you mean by that. I did reply to you. The last thing I typed was my reply to you. I didn't start a new thread. You can't start new threads on youtube. You can only post comments on videos that others have created.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
No you didn't.
Liar and troll.
middlekk 1 year ago
@middlekk
All right Haeckel fanboy, I think we're done here for now.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Yes, I think we are.
Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
middlekk 1 year ago
Hi people, I come from down under, we dont have any of this nonsense in this great wide brown land, and I thank my lucky stars, good luck to america, with fools like Luskin you need it, amen,,,,,,,oops
arealisticone 2 years ago
@arealisticone ,
yeah, you gave your two whack jobs, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort to us! Thanks a lot!
yogurtking 2 years ago
@yogurtking Comfort is from New Zealand and believe me he is not representative but a freak...
3122tan 2 years ago
Wow how "tolerant" of you.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 How is that intolerant? Do you know what a hypocrite is? You are a disgusting person full of hate for anyone not far right fundamental christian...I'm just telling the truth - about 99.9% of New Zealanders are smart enough to laugh at this guy. Creationism is something that only America seems to believe in still as it was debunked 200 years ago....
3122tan 2 years ago
LOL who ever said I was a christian???
You attack me for a picture of mohummad yet think its fine to call christians "freaks"
Oh yes, I see the hypocrite here and its not me.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 I NEVER said Christians are freaks!!! Stop putting words in my mouth! I said Ray Comfort is a freak of NZ. It is an insult to Christians to compare all of them to him. He is an idiot. There are many christians (even the Pope!) who think that what he says is ridiculous! Evolution and Christianity are NOT mutually exclusive!!! I have nothing against Creationists, but YOung Earth Creationists who take ppls money and spew lies deserve our wrath
3122tan 2 years ago
You did call them freaks, right on this page. Nice hate there. Being an athetist, you are hardly in a position to tell anyone what christians are any more than you are in a position to comment on american politics. When you get out of the fact world of college and into the real world,you will found out what I am talking about. Untill then I will simply pity your ignorance.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 You are just so typical of a far right hate monger. Adjust what people say to make them look bad, and then continue to say it over and over even though you have been proved wrong. Just look back at comments and you will see. But you don't care for 'facts' - you just like to bang your head against the wall - and will do so for the rest of your ignorant hate filled life I'm willing to bet
3122tan 2 years ago
@3122tan
Wow since you haven't proven me wrong on anything, thats a pretty argoant statement.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 No: you said that I said 'Christians are freaks' I never said that. I said 'He (Comfort) is not representative of NZ. He is a freak.'. You have to be the biggest moron in the world to think that me saying that means that all Christians are freaks. That's the best argument you can make against anyone: lie. Because you have no logical argument. What you said was a logical fallacy. Did you mean 'arrogant'? You missed two whole letters for christ sake!
3122tan 2 years ago
He is a christian is he not? You called him a freak didn't you? Clearlyyou know little about the religon. He is more representative than you seem to think.
OOOHHHH the spelling police. Not impressed.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 Logical fallacy you idiot. It is the same as if I take you calling me ignorant means that all white women the world over are ignorant? Or all atheists are idiots? Or all people disagreeing with organised religion are idiots? It's not a logical argument you MORON!!! And no, me calling you a moron is not me calling all far right nut jobs morons, just you. Because you are.
3122tan 2 years ago
Comment removed
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 For you to call him representative of the 'religon' (lol you've done that twice) is an insult to Christians. It is a fact that most Christians are not Young Earth creationists. Most Christians are intelligent people and know this isn't the case. In fact, the largest Christian group is the Catholics, and the official Catholic stance is Young Earth stuff is just plain stupid. That's the stance of the largest group of Christians in the world.Get it?
3122tan 2 years ago
Comment removed
frednoname1 2 years ago
@3122tan
He is represtitive of his religon. Which is not catholic. There is a difference.
You are still insulting christians by calling them freaks when they differ from you views.
But whatever lets you live with your bigotry and hate.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 And I NEVER said it was because of the picture. It is because you are one of the most offensive horrible people on YouTube and the things you say about Islam
3122tan 2 years ago
I will say what I want about the religon of death and not ask your permission to do so. BTW the religon of peices killed 51 of thier own yesterday.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@3122tan
HA you blocked me, the truth hurts I guess.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 No. You don't speak the truth. I blocked you because you are just spewing abuse at me and others - and people shouldn't waste their time with your type. You CAN say what you want. BUT I will point out how wrong you are and what a dick you make of yourself when you do it.You are so stupid that you think me calling one person a freak means that I think all Christians are freaks? IDIOT.Yes that 'FACT' world is fucked up isn't it HAHA! btw I'm not in college
3122tan 2 years ago
@3122tan
Wow if that isn't the kettle calling the pot black. You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.
frednoname1 2 years ago
If you are not in college then why does you web page say that you are working on your masters??
More lies from the left.
frednoname1 2 years ago
@frednoname1 You should really check facts with the person before calling them a liar. I only have to write a thesis to finish off my Masters, which I am doing whilst I am working full time. I am actually not officially a student anymore and this is very common here with post grad students. I haven't set foot at the uni in well over a year.
3122tan 2 years ago
Comment removed
frednoname1 2 years ago
Yous atheistic darwinian evoltionary mind puppets need to stop making stuff up to further the lies of a godless way. And I have had it up to my ankles with this stuff about heckles embrios, it is so obvious to any free thinking christian that just because you draw somethink doesnt very often even make it halve true, please all athieistic values to youselves from now on, I sick of hearing evolution this evolution that, and furthermore, darwin wanted the superior so called white races to ruel blak
gregelliselizabethno 2 years ago
@ gregelliselizabethno I would like to see you post comments like this more often. It's a nice example of creationist ignorance.
Ansonidak 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno I will take projection for 200.
Stealth4Health 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno You know that MOST christians believe in evolution and most evolutions also believe in God? Darwin wasn't a racist, and you are not free thinking as you obviously cannot interpret facts for yourself. I just feel bad for you, you will never listen to reason
3122tan 2 years ago
You don't use reason, you use generalizations, bias and propoganda.
frednoname1 2 years ago
I love the stupid dumb look this Luskin guy constantly has on his face.
*Big dumb grin* "I'm an idiot!" :D
I love it.
ThroneofEden 2 years ago 2
WTF!! VFX is a minor!! no way! really? A minor. Damn!
mjh012363 2 years ago
Casey Luskin is a wack-job. I bet he can convince himself that the sun goes around Earth.
amorphousguy 2 years ago 2
@amorphousguy
no, that's for certain islamic fundamentalists.There is one suggesting the moon is half the size of the sun, and that they rotate around the earth.
mortuus8 2 years ago
That man makes Seattle look bad...
maslab 2 years ago 2
"Thath exacthly right. Unfortunately, the vatht majority of biology texthbooks today really thenthor from studenths..." lol
Language aside, he's an idiot.
doctormurray91 2 years ago
Any relation to Don Luskin? The crappy half-rate economist?
If so...Then I suppose it runs in the family.
caltrop69 2 years ago
Comment removed
TlogicoP 2 years ago
Journal New Scientist? No, no, no. NS magazine is a prodominantly LAYMAN magazine, it's not a peer reviewed journal. Casey is a fucking moron.
UnknownVisions 2 years ago
i've actually heard that flat earth argument..
i didn't know what to say.
Rob8036 2 years ago
@Rob8036, the person was serious when they said that to you?
Dhesyca 2 years ago
I used watch fox news, thinking that they were the only semi-unbiased news organization out there. I now believe that all news organizations are completely dishonest, and enjoy presenting utter bullshit to the public.
PaperSoapy 2 years ago 4
So Darwin was a little wrong, not completely. New Scientist should not be misleading, but i guess they can't profit enough otherwise.
VCat2006 2 years ago
Darwin knew nothing about DNA, so I don't see how he could be wrong about how prokaryotes transmit genes in a horizontal manner. It would still be evolution, the genetic transfers would make for variation in a species and the variation would be selected for or against. And from what I understand HGT does not apply to eukaryotes anyway.
jhbbunch 2 years ago 5
new scientist likes to post these stories on evolution and darwin as they sell copies
excandersham 2 years ago
you should all get rid of your TV's! i did, long ago
zoskiaist 2 years ago
I'm not you. I like my TV. It has the amazing ability to bring far away views to me, with little effort on part of myself! It's kind of like an international network of ideas.
VCat2006 2 years ago
the internet is amore unbiased source of news for me i stopped watching tv ages ago
excandersham 2 years ago 2
I generally prefer the English of TV subtitles to that of YouTube comments.
VCat2006 2 years ago
how the hell did that guy get on tv?
happyhappy85 2 years ago
Sweet bone-gnawing Christ, why does every single Creationist I've seen so far have such a fucking annoying voice? This guy sounds like his balls never dropped. I keep expecting him to start bawling like a toddler and crying for his mommy. It's bad enough he's an ignorant religious moron.
Omnywrench 2 years ago 3
this gue is a deuch. fuck the bible and fuck its believers. read your fairy tales and get knowhere in life
mattmirage 2 years ago 3
I wish that was in English, I might agree with it if it was :) jk, I'm not a grammar whore.
338dmac 2 years ago
haha i kno. i wasn't paying attention lol
mattmirage 2 years ago
"Darwinism" lol
andeathSWE 2 years ago 3
I'd never heard of or seen Haeckel's Emberyos before today.
Grospoliner 2 years ago 3
Me neither
EarlFaulk 2 years ago
Casey Luskin has been called the Discovery Institute's attack gerbil.
He's revealed that he goes around googling his own name, looking for people who say unkind things about him in the web so he can send legally threatening email to these people.
Unfortunately those nasty evolutionists are a little smarter than he is and rather than be cowed by the threats they just post them and reveal him to be the gutless wonder that he is.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago 5
Anybody reckon Luskin is gay? Nothing wrong with being gay.......unless yer a fundie!
Rockster969 2 years ago 10
Just to say- in my Genetics, Embryology, and even BASIC zoology courses in an accredited university we have seen, and discussed at length, the lies and truths of the embryological drawings mentioned. We went over the fact that they are incorrect and "smoothed over" in many ways. This is because the basis of Science is to correct itself over and over... and not stick its fingers in its ears and go "Nya, nya, nya..."
katzefrau84 2 years ago 2
Science:
If you don't make any mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong.
If you don't accept that you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.
pyxlated 2 years ago 13
haha fuck yes you sound like ms frizzle
NexIuguolo 2 years ago
Perfectly phrased, my friend. Belongs on a t-shirt. lol
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago 2
Religion:
If they say the bible is mistaken, they're doing it wrong.
If they try to provide evidence the bible is mistaken, they're really doing it wrong.
If they don't accept that the bible is right, they're not doing it at.
By religion I mean creationism, of course, not all religious beliefs, but I certainly know which one I support.
Abazigal 2 years ago
Of course we're not doing it at all. Faith has to be the single worst method of understanding reality ever conceived. Any "theory" (and I use the word more generously than is deserved) which requires faith to be believed is wrong virtually by definition.
pyxlated 2 years ago 4
Isn't belief assumption based on lack of evidence?
VCat2006 2 years ago
Give Luskin a hand? Well, no. From me, Luskin will have to settle for a finger. ;-)
upsilon054 2 years ago 10
I'd give him a thumb.
its just as offensive as a finger, only its middle eastern.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
only faux news would interview that bug eyed little twat
kyebean 2 years ago 9
Anybody who doesn't think Luskin lies through his teeth, should google
"cdesign proponentists"
to see how a global change to "Of Pandas And People" went wrong, to turn a creationist text book into an ID one.
GWR3440 2 years ago 4
Creationism is so frustrating, because it's so childish, arrogant, and wrong on so many levels you just don't know where to start. Comparing the scientific value of Evolution and Creationism is like comparing the nutrition value of apples and crack.
kyebean 2 years ago 11
"cdesign proponentists"
That's awesome. Not only do they fail at science, even a spell-checker is too mystically advanced for these guys to understand.
That's okay, we all know those fancy software developers are a bunch of liberal intellectual hippie types, Fox would be all too happy to close the loop on that conspiracy.
jbxenia 2 years ago
They also fail copy and paste. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
LMFAO
He uses DNA, which came from science, to support his own argument against science. wtf what a creationist
BdizzleFaReal 2 years ago 7