Added: Jun 11, 2009
From: AronRa
Duration: 9:15
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."
Channel: People
Tags: donexodus2 discovery institute creationism evolution intelligent design fox news haeckels embryos horizontal gene transfer casey luskin
Rating: 4.83 (1935 ratings) Views: 20887 Comments: 371
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 3, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 4, 2010 - 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.
AronRa Says:
Mar 4, 2010 - Most of them are. Haeckel only 'accentuated' certain features of a half dozen of the hundred such drawings he did.
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 4, 2010 - 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.
j0kerman2 Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - 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.
ajgrovery Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - they do look identical, that is the point
middlekk Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - blastopore, not phore.
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 5, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 7, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 7, 2010 - @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 Says:
Mar 7, 2010 - @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.
j0kerman2 Says:
Mar 8, 2010 - 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)
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 8, 2010 - @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".
middlekk Says:
Mar 9, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 9, 2010 - 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.
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 10, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 10, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 10, 2010 - 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 Says:
Mar 10, 2010 - 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.
mmmmmarcus Says:
Mar 13, 2010 - 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!
middlekk Says:
Mar 15, 2010 - That's because they don't exist. It's a meaningless argument. Haekel was RIGHT about the science.
Mortison77577 Says:
Mar 15, 2010 - 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.
types10000 Says:
Mar 3, 2010 - @Mortison77577 - Heckels embryos are an example of fraud because they overemphasise similarities. - however to claim that there is NO similarities is an outright lie.