It's actually part of their contract isn't it? It straight up says "You'll defend THIS idea! If you stop believing it, you'll LIE AND KEEP DEFENDING IT, if evidence says otherwise YOU'LL DEFEND IT ANYWAYS or you will be fired and lose your livelihood"
But if we are is simply mutated pond scum, then what exactly is lying? What other animals care about lying? And what is truth...because according to your worldview, there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
I don't always reject entire scientific disciplines on the word of a few kooks, but when I do, I look for kooks represented by a guy with no training in the field!
Then look for the ones who actually DO have training in the field and research what they say. I feel we are in the same situation as Galileo. The majority of the scientists of his day claimed that the sun went around the earth. He presented evidence to the contrary, yet they rejected his interpretation of the data. By the way, it was not the Catholic Church which was against him. The Ptolomeics got the Church to do their dirty work.
@@HarryNicNicholas One should go to the one sharing Truth. The issue with the materialist, is that there is no such thing as Truth…there is only opinion. Not even science claims Truth. All it can claim is temporary proof, until newer knowledge comes along. Besides, if all we are is mutated apes,, why all the concern for Truth? No other species cares about it…
I immediately assume they had to be lying and not ignorant since all these refutations had been pointed out repeatedly over decades and the creationist points are still used, regardless.
They're all lying by default simply by presenting themselves as experts. For the amount of study it takes to be a real expert, they have no excuse to misunderstand difficult things, let alone simple things
It's one thing to not understand something or to make a mistake in your understand, but when you resort to lying, you've destroyed any credibility you may have had. I agree - I don't see any way out of the conclusion that he's just lying now.
Shoulda made this a "Creationists Behaving Badly!" though to be fair this is fairly mundane dishonesty, not, like, minimizing domestic abuse, directly promoting christian nationalism, or lying about a thing you did not actually read. But yeah, coulda gone in that series...
If the pattern holds true, if enough of a stink is made about this, we should expect some kind of response in about a month or so. It won't really address the problem. There will probably be a bit of motte and baileying going on at some points. But it will be obvious to those on the outside that whatever their approach, DI's response will be solely directed at their audience. Geared more towards assuaging doubt rather than correcting errors. i.e. It will be a non-response. If they weren't lying, I'm not sure why they'd have a playbook for how to respond to these upsets which they roll out every time this happens.
I...think they might be done with me. The last couple articles on this didn't mention me, and the most recent, from just today, seemed to be going after www.youtube.com/@jamesdownard1510 instead of me.
@@rainbowkrampus Here is evidence that when faced with true facts bout coal that does not jive with "established orthodoxy" stubbornness gets in the way. ruclips.net/video/duUR6sWRAJQ/видео.html The part more appropriate to this issue is towards the middle onward. I hope this will open your mind to the truth.
On the ERV's and psychiatric 'diseases': those psychiatric diseases seem to be common in prophets, hearing voices and such, so in fact the 'disease' state can be viewed as functional, at least when present in individuals who also have genes that make them charismatic.
That's actually a legit hypothesis behind a bunch of conditions! That in your early hunter-gatherer kind of society it's adaptive to have a small % of people who experience this or that condition.
@@CreationMyths It's a big reason why mutations to allow such conditions even exist. It's beneficial to experiment through a range of human conditions, because you never know when one will become beneficial. This is actually what made me understand why people think it's conceptually wrong to try and cure most forms of neurodivergency- someone pointed out that such variation is natural and important for evolution, and eliminating it is potentially eliminating a beneficial human condition.
I don't know if there's going to be one! My guess is that this is going to nix any chance I had at another chat with Luskin, and the two recent articles on this topic - in one they tagged me but didn't mention me (though they did specifically reference an argument I made), and the other was about www.youtube.com/@jamesdownard1510. So Luskin might be done with me.
I understand the desire to see the best in people. I try to do it as often as I can and assume a good faith misunderstanding when they just seem to consistently fail to engage with or mischaracterize an argument I’ve made, especially when it’s scientific. I know I use jargon, I know I’m not always clear. But when you are as clear as you have been, when your words are as clearly understood by other non-scientists as yours have been, you have to wonder if the problem is with him.
I think the only notable exception I can think of, at least in his generation, is Todd Wood. But he acknowledges the strength of the evidence for evolution and that he rejects it on faith. So I think he checks all three boxes. The exception that proves the rule.
@@CreationMyths He is honest that he is using faith... but in doing so he is admittedly throwing knowledge out the window...which is kinda being self-dishonest too. Still 2/3 at best.
@@CreationMyths tbh I didn't coin that, that would be Viced Rhino (I think.) He could be an exception 🤷🏻♂ I like young earth creationism as by conflating creationism with Christianity, it makes falsifying Christianity so much easier, as you just have to falsify creationism. Didn't Jesus have something to say about building a house upon sand? 🤔
@@johnburn8031 not really, the YEC just goes over to the evolution believing Christian camp. But to me that's harder to justify in a Christian framework because you have to explain why a benevolent god would create all the creatures via billions of years worth of predation, disease and 5 mass extinctions instead of just doing it in a week as written. The suffering involved is gargantuan.
@@leslieviljoen those are valid points. However, it seems to me that YEC does undermine Christianity. Animal suffering is an issue for evolution accepting Christians and as I was one, I honestly don't know why that issue never bothered me. 🤷🏻♂
His geology work since he became a YEC is also very shallow and appears to ignore a lot of things that aren’t known by the general public but which any first year geology student has seen modelled many times and in different ways
Wow. Everyone I have heard from DI is a liar. Every time anyone of them says anything I have heard it is a lie. Rumours say that there is one secretary and one janitor at Discover Institute that aren't liars.
It's good to be able to admit when you're wrong, but also we can recognize that you were wrong for good reasons. I'm also very reluctant to assume malice when incompetence is sufficient, but with some of these excusegists you just have to call it like you see it.
_"Writing stuff on the board while I scream is the only way to prove your science is correct! ~I~ can write things on the board! Why can't YOU, Mr. Farina?!"_ What a clown.
@@usapatriot444 For the record, yes. Prof. Dave demonstrated his misrepresentations (and full-on lying) over and over, and all Tour did was yell more and point at the chalk board as if it was important. EDIT TO ADD: And if you are ever asking "was James Tour wrong" or the like, assume the answer is "yes". Saves you some trouble.
After McToon's "Gotta lie to flerf" I think we at this point really need to also say "Gotta lie to intelligent design" Add-on after watching the rest of the video, especially regarding the last two points. It seems that "something does anything, no matter what it is and under which circumstances" implies functional in his eyes.
I will say, it was much better in the longrun to give him the benefit of the doubt, because we would all eventually learn he's dishonest, and it led to you dismantling all of his points anyway. For anyone unconvinced of a side, this is a much better saga, with plenty of evidence for why you shouldn't take DI arguments seriously.
Yeah, I mean, I don't want to start from a position of "they're being dishonest". It's always better to start at the opposite. If that proves to be wrong, as it did here, then that's an extra bit of weight in my favor.
Yes, you’re right. Don’t let it consume you too much. Yes, it’s frustrating when they seem to repeatedly “misunderstand” points, or like here, say things that they should already reasonably know are wrong. And as a scientist excited about your own subject, it’s natural to want to show them what’s right and why. It’s a spiral which can get out of control, so make sure you remember to keep it in perspective and look after yourself.
Of course he lies. Do you remember the Dave Farina video on Casey Luskin? They manipulated a Nova film clip to claim Owen Lovejoy faked a fossil in order to give "Lucy" the status of a human ancestor.
The combo of a video cutting him a lot of slack, and then one revisiting things he's said publicly afterward showing he really is just lying, is probably more effective at changing minds. Especially since the algorithm will now probably try to get viewers to watch both, doubling their exposure to evidence of (1) dishonest intent and (2) the actual science. Also, I love that you Columbo'd him in an email.😊
"Also, I love that you Columbo'd him in an email." Oh my goodness that's exactly what I did, I didn't even realize it until you said it but that's what happened.
Just a quick public service announcement: We have a vaccine for HPV, that is currently approved for people up to age 45 in the US. Get vaccinated, get your kids vaccinated.
I’ve been following Luskin for the best part of two decades, and he’s always struck me as being somewhat economical with the truth. I thought that undertaking his PhD may have inculcated a measure of intellectual honesty but that appears not to be the case.
Wait. Wait wait wait wait wait. Dr Luskin is a geologist???? I know creationists operating outside their field is the norm but usually it's somewhat tangential. This is....hooboy.
@@CreationMyths Huh! Weird. You'd think the biologists would want to reply to critiques of their stance on biology-related matters. It's almost as if they don't want to answer because they don't _have_ answers. But _that_ can't be right, because that'd mean they're avoiding being wrong and corrected, which wouldn't be very scientific! /s
Atheists are irrational since they have no answer to the watchmaker argument. That argument is what Intelligent Design supporters use. An honest Atheist knows they are hoping evidence will be discovered to disprove it.
Just a heads up, but the RUclips channel "Smarter Every Day" just did an episode about the flagellum motor and used "irreducible complexity" and creationist arguments at the end of the video. That should be the end of that's channel's popularity with anyone that respects science. Don't give him the clicks or the subscription.
Kudos for figuring this out and admitting to getting it wrong originally. I too try to assume ignorance before malice, but I've become rather good at assessing malice as well (in my opinion), and I believe this is a skill everyone should strive to achieve.
When he was at Harvard at dinner with REAL professional colleagues, he looked like a fool. They had no respect for him. Hes a fool and he knows what hes doing. He gets his bread and butter from the discovery institute.
A geologist talking about things outside of his expertise, while including 'Dr.' on his byline is already skirting the edge of dishonesty. And - of course - this material is not meant to be a scientific paper of any sort - the purpose is to give creationists otherwise ignorant of the science something to bring up in conversation with someone else equally as ignorant of the science. The ultimate goal being the apologetic defense of their particular mythos. Pretty much anyone defending young earth creationism using scientific results is either knowingly, or with complete disregard, using those results in a way that generally contradicts the actual findings - or at least is distorting the findings in a way to support their agenda. That is a fundamentally dishonest position to start from. They are not arguing in good faith, and we should stop pretending they are.
I understand your hesitation at accusing someone of being a liar( even an employee of the Discovery Institute) because inherently honest people such as yourself struggle to do so. But I've been following the DI for about a decade now, and its undeniable that their default is dishonest misrepresentation to further their propaganda.
I think it's the right thing to do: A) To start with giving other people the benefit of the doubt. B) And then to call people out on lying when all generosity has been used up and there is no other conclusion that can be reached. Despite the sad ending, this was a fun and educational set of responses. It does you credit. I'm looking forward to the next one, whatever it ends up being--assuming any of the creationists are brave enough to take you on!!!
That’s actual an incredibly cool topic that not only has to do with methylation, but also with the origins of DNA, the transition from RNA to DNA, and the replacement of uracil with thymine as the base complimentary to adenine. It has everything to do with the inherent instability of cytosine and is legit one of my favorite things in all of evolution.
I'd like to see them apply this 'all the genome is functional' for organisms with whole genome duplications. (I would use the example of the strawberry, but I don't know if that duplication happened in cultivated or wild plants)
I've been following the whole thing from the beginning and it seems that Luskin really has lost himself in a typical "Motte and Bailey" fallacy: 1. Start with a big and specific claim. 2. When confronted with criticism, retreat to a much weaker, more reasonable claim. 3. Repeat. This was very noticeable in your debate with him when his big claims suddenly became very small. Maybe he doesn't even realise it himself but I've given up on it too by now ... I think he's lying.
I'll say...better informed than most, but not equivalent to someone with formal biology training. So like in the neighborhood of SFT? (Is that a compliment or insult?) (We know what it is.)
Dr. Dan @13:40 you were talking about an ERV which is now used by us (and other mammals?) by the placenta. So the function of that ERV has been changed. So my question is how was that change accomplished, was that via one of these virtually non-existent beneficial mutations? You know the ones that creationists what to deny happen?
Thankyou so much for explaining this to me like I’m 12. I was getting lost in this back and forth and it seemed like Luskin was agreeing with you and so didn’t notice the bait switch.
I hope you realize now that you publically called them out, they do their toddler thing, cross their arms and go "no, now I dont want to talk to you anymore", right? Not that it hurts you to not have these liars for jesus on your channel anymore.
@@CreationMyths We all know he will deny lying about anything and continue to lie like he does every time. Its what frauds do. Unless there are legal consequences they wont stop.
@Dan: If I understood Luskin correctly, he does not say that the expression of ERVs is responsible for psychiatric disorders. Rather he notes that any *change* of the *normal* expression level can cause psychiatric disorders.
The normal expression level is "they are suppressed", either virtually entirely, or below a certain threshold, and when they "break out" of that suppression, they cause problems.
Discovery Institute articles are most likely generated and/or vetted by a committee. Whose job is to maintain their Intelligent Design Universe official canon. Their only interest is to maintain the internal consistency of their model and will ignore, and lie about anything that threatens this. They have internal subject "experts" that the rest of them have to bow down to, if they want to keep their jobs.
They don't manage a universal cannon because that would limit their ability to contradict themselves when needed. It's like having a detailed list of how every known animal fits into a kind. Or even worse, just a timeline for all known events.
It's amazing that you thought that he misunderstood something. Their income depends on intentionally not misunderstanding and misrepresenting everything i.e. lying.
8:41 This step has a non-sequitur, which isn't necessary for the whole argument to still be an argument to raise doubts against "mainstream science". So if you steelman the argument, what you would conclude isn't that *all* DNA has a function, but instead, that scientists have been going overboard with calling things junk, because according to premise 1., they said that all non-coding DNA is junk, even though according to premise 2., some non-coding DNA should not be called junk. This conclusion really does follow from the premises of the argument, and it does this so naturally that someone doesn't even need to make it explicit, as long as they get an audience to accept the premises 1 and 2. What's important is that this argument is a steelman of the argument that you described, but still is equally debunked by recognizing that premise 1. is a misrepresentation and should not be granted. So in the future, I think it would make sense to just address this one instead.
20:00 can you explain to me how this doesn’t shatter the evidential utility of the statistical argument for ERV placements within the Chimpanzee / human genome supporting evolution? In my debates with creationists I was forced to dig up data showing that while there are hot spots in the genetic code. Each ERV could have embedded in one of many insertions sites. So the fact that the same ERVs occur in the same sites was best explained by a single infection event in a common ancestor. But right now you seem to be saying that HPV consistently binds to a single site stimulating the nearby region that leads to cancer. Is that because HPV is not an ERV? Thanks.
Or is it that HPV doesn’t always bind in that specific site and the times when it does are associated with cancer. Which brings to mind another question How do the viruses know to implant only once. How do they know not to infect the genetic code in all the possible binding regions once they begin reproducing within our body?
@@isidoreaerys8745 , I'm not a specialist, so don't take my answer as fact. My understanding is that the HPV incertion doesn't need to occur in a specific place to stimulate certain genes to activate, but that a byproduct or how it works does. Maybe a protein from the virus causes the interaction that leads to cancer. Once again, that's my understanding as a designer that is curious about biology.
It's disappointing when a discussion arrives to the point where you realize your interlocutor is deliberately being dishonest or at least intellectually dishonest. Especially during professional interactions, the last thing I want to do is think the worst of someone. It's commendable that you gave Luskin the benefit of the doubt until direct evidence sufficiently demonstrated otherwise. Were I you, I wouldn't have done anything differently as long as there's no risk of harm to me or anyone else. Regarding risk, as much as I like to think the best of people, I don't put myself in a position to be taken advantage of. Hurting my feelings is an acceptable risk -- moving on from the offender is easy -- anything more, however, is not. Considerable harm to anyone's mental health is likewise unacceptable.
Regarding the viral enhancer argument: My lay-idiot understanding of what was represented here is that in order for something to be 'enhanced', there needs to be a base function there to get enchanced. If there's no function, then there's nothing to enhance. That's how I understood it, and I'm only speaking from the top of the Dunning-Kruger skislope, of course. I don't even have a geologist's knowledge of biology, so I defer to your expertise and only offer this as a way to help smart people understand dumb ones like me. :)
Right, the thing getting enhanced is the gene that's adjacent to the insertion site. That's a protein-coding gene, everyone agrees it's functional. The question is about the insertion site itsef. *Pre-insertion* what's it doing? Nothing! The *virus* landing there and causing cancer is a bananas reason to claim the underlying target site is functional.
As an English-speaking non-biologist, it seems to me that something that functions is functional. That is, it produces an effect. Whether the effect is positive or negative is a value judgment. (As a crass example, one might well consider as positive a change in one'e mortal enemy's DNA that gives them cancer.) By extension, non-functional DNA would be inert, neutral, and incapable of producing an effect. As soon as such DNA is shown to reliably produce an effect, positive or negative, we would know that it is fact functional, and producing that effect is how it functions. At least, that is how I interpret those words. So this might all come down to yet another instance in which a lay person is confused by specialized jargon that is homonymous with ordinary language
I disagre, and I'll use an analogy to explain why: Imagine I make a train wagon and I mistakenly (I wasn't trying to sabotage it) add a piece that when allowed to move can lead to the emergency breaks to stop working. Without that piece everything works, with that piece, the breaks may stop working. Then I add a lock to hold the piece, so it doesn't move and it doesn't interfere with the breaks. The unintended piece has an effect, but it doesn't have a function. The only way I would call those genes functional would be if someone placed them there as an intentional sabotage.
@@thomasfplm I don't get the example. In the DNA situation, no person is trying to do anything. Intention has nothing to do with it. We are just combing through the innards and trying to find functional-cause and effect-relationships among the constructs we develop in our research. If we were examining your modified train example, it would be much the same: moving this piece causes this effect (so its function is to move and cause its effect); this piece blocks that piece so it can't move, so blocking that piece from moving is its function. It is we, the researchers, who infer all of: what is a “piece”, what it does, what effects can doing whatever it does produce, and so on. We don't want to go all teleological and conflate “function” with “purpose”.
@@gshenaut, my point is that having an effect is not the same as having a function. If a tree falls across a river and people use it as a bridge because it created a shorter path, it has the the effect of being a shortcut, but it is not the function of a fallen tree. If you get hurt stepping on a Lego piece, is it the function of the piece to hurt you? Or back to the train. The piece was useful to hold the wheels in place, it broke, but tanks to redundancy the train still works. But there is the risk of, because it is moving erratically it might damage the breaks, so I put some silvertape to hold it in place. It no longer works for holding the wheels, so it isn't functional for tgat anymore, it might have the effect of damaging the breaks if it can move. Does the broken piece has the function of damaging the breaks? The silvertape is functional. What I disagree is with the use of the word function for something that could be an accident.
@@gshenaut _"In the DNA situation, no person is trying to do anything. Intention has nothing to do with it. We are just combing through the innards and trying to find functional-cause and effect-relationships among the constructs we develop in our research."_ Are you trying to say that a person who suffers from an autoimmune disease is actually suffering from something that is genetically functional? Because that's pretty terrible.
That's what I think he's saying. I have to listen again but it sure sounds like if a virus takes over an inactive part of the DNA and that turns into a disease that kills you, it's functional.
I don't understand what is meant by "functional" DNA - If HERVs aren't functional because they cause issues when they are expressing, how is that not function? I don't understand biology concepts very easily, and I'm stuck in colloquial territory for the word "functional", i.e., if it's doing something, it has a function. Obviously from what you're saying, the word functional in this context means something else.
In biological systems, "functional" means that it accomplishes something for the organism, it does something that affirmatively helps the organism. ERVs are suppressed, and when they break out of that suppression, they can cause problems. So they're "functional" in the sense that they're doing something, in the same way that a leaking coolant pump on my car is spraying coolant on the surrounding area, but they sure as heck aren't helping the cell do whatever it's doing.
It’s fair enough to forgive people for not knowing stuff that’s outside of their field, BUT if it’s outside of his field, why is he writing articles and debating it? I appreciate you being charitable and assuming he was mistaken rather than dishonest, but even if that had been the case, people speaking on topics they don’t understand is also an issue; it’s the reason movements like antivax and flat earth have spread on social media.
Isn't there a different definition of functional here? Disfunction is also a kind of function, a bad one. So there must be a difference between the colloquial term of function (have a function) and the genetics term of having a positive function. No?
A function to harm the organism? I assume functions would all need to perform something that helps maintain the life of the organism. Especially if you want to make a case for intelligent design.
A biological function in the genome is something a specific part of the DNA does that is beneficial to the organism and therefore maintained via selection. Creationists say the "maintained by selection" part of the definition is making "evolutionary assumptions" or something but it's not, it's purely descriptive. That's how we tell if the thing that's happening is beneficial - is there a cost to losing it? If yes, then it is maintained by selection. It's doing something that affirmatively helps the organism. It's functional.
I wonder how much one of my genes is worth?🤔 Who knows, it could be a lot!😕 Of course I'd sell em' by the dozen, and make it worth a gene smith's money, and get repeat business for having "The Better Gene"!😁
This just goes to show that you should never be so naive to give ANYONE from D.I. the benefit of the doubt, don't you know their motto is Jesus Enim Mendacem (Lying for Jesus)
Someone? From the DI? LYING??
This is my shocked Pikachu face.
It’s almost like that’s all they know how to do.
OMG I’m in the pic! 🤣
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on in here!
(ruclips.net/video/HMIyDf3gBoY/видео.html for the youngins)
@@CreationMyths Your winnings, sir.
It's actually part of their contract isn't it? It straight up says "You'll defend THIS idea! If you stop believing it, you'll LIE AND KEEP DEFENDING IT, if evidence says otherwise YOU'LL DEFEND IT ANYWAYS or you will be fired and lose your livelihood"
Well, Luskin does have a long history of lying, so it's hardly surprising when he lies.
I do agree that this would not be the first time, but this is the first time directly involving *me*...and why would he be mean to *me*?
@@CreationMyths😂
But if we are is simply mutated pond scum, then what exactly is lying? What other animals care about lying? And what is truth...because according to your worldview, there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
You cannot make a man change his mind when his livelihood depends on not changing it.
That's how I see Kent Hovind. He's got his gimmick so dialed in and perfected that he's not about to deviate from it. It makes him too much money.
Or he believes he will be tortured if he changes his mind.
Applies to people.on both sides of the debate.
@@thetabletopskirmisher No, the evidence only supports one side. You don't debate facts.
There is science, then there is everything else...
Maybe now they will get Gunter to attack you like Prof Dave and Erica.
Bring it, Gunter.
Creationist, honest, or well-informed: choose 2.
Creationist twice
All three
@@johnglad5 That would exclude the intelligence option.
@@johnglad5 being the latter two precludes the first
The first excludes the other two.
I don't always reject entire scientific disciplines on the word of a few kooks, but when I do, I look for kooks represented by a guy with no training in the field!
But... But he's a Doctor!
Then look for the ones who actually DO have training in the field and research what they say. I feel we are in the same situation as Galileo. The majority of the scientists of his day claimed that the sun went around the earth. He presented evidence to the contrary, yet they rejected his interpretation of the data. By the way, it was not the Catholic Church which was against him. The Ptolomeics got the Church to do their dirty work.
yes it's kinda interesting that people go to a religious propaganda site for science information. penrose or turek, who should i choose?? :)
@@HarryNicNicholas One should go to the one sharing Truth. The issue with the materialist, is that there is no such thing as Truth…there is only opinion. Not even science claims Truth. All it can claim is temporary proof, until newer knowledge comes along. Besides, if all we are is mutated apes,, why all the concern for Truth? No other species cares about it…
I immediately assume they had to be lying and not ignorant since all these refutations had been pointed out repeatedly over decades and the creationist points are still used, regardless.
I don't *want* to assume that, but...you're not wrong.
They're all lying by default simply by presenting themselves as experts. For the amount of study it takes to be a real expert, they have no excuse to misunderstand difficult things, let alone simple things
Thank you for admitting I have been right for a long time!
I do recall some choice words about Casey going back quite a ways, now that you mention it.
It's one thing to not understand something or to make a mistake in your understand, but when you resort to lying, you've destroyed any credibility you may have had. I agree - I don't see any way out of the conclusion that he's just lying now.
He's not lying, he's saving souls with alternative facts.
Alternative facts, there’s a throwback
It’s not lying when you’re doing god’s work. 😐
@@davidmgilbreath Which is always a weird excuse, because, like...what kind of asshole God do they follow, if that's the case?
I think I know who will be featured in the next 'Creationists Behaving Badly' video.
Shoulda made this a "Creationists Behaving Badly!" though to be fair this is fairly mundane dishonesty, not, like, minimizing domestic abuse, directly promoting christian nationalism, or lying about a thing you did not actually read. But yeah, coulda gone in that series...
If the pattern holds true, if enough of a stink is made about this, we should expect some kind of response in about a month or so. It won't really address the problem. There will probably be a bit of motte and baileying going on at some points. But it will be obvious to those on the outside that whatever their approach, DI's response will be solely directed at their audience. Geared more towards assuaging doubt rather than correcting errors.
i.e. It will be a non-response.
If they weren't lying, I'm not sure why they'd have a playbook for how to respond to these upsets which they roll out every time this happens.
I...think they might be done with me. The last couple articles on this didn't mention me, and the most recent, from just today, seemed to be going after www.youtube.com/@jamesdownard1510 instead of me.
Sounds just like what we'd expect the evolutionists to do when faced with evidence that goes against the "accepted" model.
@@usapatriot444 God you people are weird.
@@rainbowkrampus Here is evidence that when faced with true facts bout coal that does not jive with "established orthodoxy" stubbornness gets in the way.
ruclips.net/video/duUR6sWRAJQ/видео.html
The part more appropriate to this issue is towards the middle onward. I hope this will open your mind to the truth.
On the ERV's and psychiatric 'diseases': those psychiatric diseases seem to be common in prophets, hearing voices and such, so in fact the 'disease' state can be viewed as functional, at least when present in individuals who also have genes that make them charismatic.
That's actually a legit hypothesis behind a bunch of conditions! That in your early hunter-gatherer kind of society it's adaptive to have a small % of people who experience this or that condition.
@@CreationMyths It's a big reason why mutations to allow such conditions even exist. It's beneficial to experiment through a range of human conditions, because you never know when one will become beneficial.
This is actually what made me understand why people think it's conceptually wrong to try and cure most forms of neurodivergency- someone pointed out that such variation is natural and important for evolution, and eliminating it is potentially eliminating a beneficial human condition.
I can't wait for the next chapter in this ongoing saga!
I don't know if there's going to be one! My guess is that this is going to nix any chance I had at another chat with Luskin, and the two recent articles on this topic - in one they tagged me but didn't mention me (though they did specifically reference an argument I made), and the other was about www.youtube.com/@jamesdownard1510. So Luskin might be done with me.
You gave him the benefit of the doubt and he decided to remove all doubts.
That's a very good description of what happened here.
I understand the desire to see the best in people. I try to do it as often as I can and assume a good faith misunderstanding when they just seem to consistently fail to engage with or mischaracterize an argument I’ve made, especially when it’s scientific. I know I use jargon, I know I’m not always clear. But when you are as clear as you have been, when your words are as clearly understood by other non-scientists as yours have been, you have to wonder if the problem is with him.
Basically, yeah. Oh well. That'll teach me.
As a longtime reader of Pharyngula, I will always just assume Luskin is lying. I always assumed he was incompetent 20 years ago.
Grifters gotta grift 🤷♂️ I do like how kind hearted you are to give him the benefit of the doubt
Next step: you need to shed that mistaken respect for Casey Luskin. He doesn't deserve it.
Apparently
You can only be two of those three things:
1. A creationist
2. Honest.
3. Knowledgeable.
I think the only notable exception I can think of, at least in his generation, is Todd Wood. But he acknowledges the strength of the evidence for evolution and that he rejects it on faith. So I think he checks all three boxes. The exception that proves the rule.
@@CreationMyths He is honest that he is using faith... but in doing so he is admittedly throwing knowledge out the window...which is kinda being self-dishonest too. Still 2/3 at best.
@@CreationMyths tbh I didn't coin that, that would be Viced Rhino (I think.)
He could be an exception 🤷🏻♂
I like young earth creationism as by conflating creationism with Christianity, it makes falsifying Christianity so much easier, as you just have to falsify creationism.
Didn't Jesus have something to say about building a house upon sand? 🤔
@@johnburn8031 not really, the YEC just goes over to the evolution believing Christian camp. But to me that's harder to justify in a Christian framework because you have to explain why a benevolent god would create all the creatures via billions of years worth of predation, disease and 5 mass extinctions instead of just doing it in a week as written. The suffering involved is gargantuan.
@@leslieviljoen those are valid points. However, it seems to me that YEC does undermine Christianity. Animal suffering is an issue for evolution accepting Christians and as I was one, I honestly don't know why that issue never bothered me. 🤷🏻♂
His geology work since he became a YEC is also very shallow and appears to ignore a lot of things that aren’t known by the general public but which any first year geology student has seen modelled many times and in different ways
That surprises me not even a little.
Discovery Institute: Bad Arguments made disingenuously, for Jesus. Or someone like him. The end.
Wow. Everyone I have heard from DI is a liar. Every time anyone of them says anything I have heard it is a lie. Rumours say that there is one secretary and one janitor at Discover Institute that aren't liars.
"You really think people would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?"
It's good to be able to admit when you're wrong, but also we can recognize that you were wrong for good reasons. I'm also very reluctant to assume malice when incompetence is sufficient, but with some of these excusegists you just have to call it like you see it.
Thank you, exactly. I hope it's clear that in this case, it's really, really hard to reach a different conclusion.
Another Deityhead!😅
Knowing that ANY concession would jeopardize Luskin’s income, I concluded that he was lying from day 1.
It's a good rule to assume ignorance/stupidity rather than malfeasance when it's a possibility until proven otherwise.
Mr Farina! Here, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go! You don't do it! Show me the chemistry! Come to the board and write!
_"Writing stuff on the board while I scream is the only way to prove your science is correct! ~I~ can write things on the board! Why can't YOU, Mr. Farina?!"_
What a clown.
All the while the raving lunatic completely ignores the chemistry schemes being projected above his head...
For the record...was Dr. Tour wrong?
@@usapatriot444,
He showed Mr. Farina was correct in calling him a lying preacher, lol. So, yes, he was wrong.
@@usapatriot444 For the record, yes. Prof. Dave demonstrated his misrepresentations (and full-on lying) over and over, and all Tour did was yell more and point at the chalk board as if it was important.
EDIT TO ADD: And if you are ever asking "was James Tour wrong" or the like, assume the answer is "yes". Saves you some trouble.
An apologist is a person that must adhere to a specific conclusion, observation and reason be damned. Lying for jesus is still lying.
After McToon's "Gotta lie to flerf" I think we at this point really need to also say "Gotta lie to intelligent design"
Add-on after watching the rest of the video, especially regarding the last two points. It seems that "something does anything, no matter what it is and under which circumstances" implies functional in his eyes.
🤡ID ,ten ,T #GottaLieToYEC ©2024 mojo 🤡
You're welcome. And absolutely right, they lie as easily as breathing, just like flerfs.
When you read the "Creationist Bible", you will find that the "9th Commandment" has been scratched out.
Changing meanings or using multiple definitions interchangeably are common amongst Apologists.
I will say, it was much better in the longrun to give him the benefit of the doubt, because we would all eventually learn he's dishonest, and it led to you dismantling all of his points anyway. For anyone unconvinced of a side, this is a much better saga, with plenty of evidence for why you shouldn't take DI arguments seriously.
Yeah, I mean, I don't want to start from a position of "they're being dishonest". It's always better to start at the opposite. If that proves to be wrong, as it did here, then that's an extra bit of weight in my favor.
Respect for giving him the benefit of doubt for this long
My assessment made it into the video :D
Yes, you’re right.
Don’t let it consume you too much. Yes, it’s frustrating when they seem to repeatedly “misunderstand” points, or like here, say things that they should already reasonably know are wrong. And as a scientist excited about your own subject, it’s natural to want to show them what’s right and why. It’s a spiral which can get out of control, so make sure you remember to keep it in perspective and look after yourself.
Of course he lies. Do you remember the Dave Farina video on Casey Luskin? They manipulated a Nova film clip to claim Owen Lovejoy faked a fossil in order to give "Lucy" the status of a human ancestor.
Oh, THAT was Casey Luskin? I think I was mistaking him for Michael Behe this whole time.
Yeah, screw that guy.
The combo of a video cutting him a lot of slack, and then one revisiting things he's said publicly afterward showing he really is just lying, is probably more effective at changing minds. Especially since the algorithm will now probably try to get viewers to watch both, doubling their exposure to evidence of (1) dishonest intent and (2) the actual science.
Also, I love that you Columbo'd him in an email.😊
"Also, I love that you Columbo'd him in an email."
Oh my goodness that's exactly what I did, I didn't even realize it until you said it but that's what happened.
Just a quick public service announcement: We have a vaccine for HPV, that is currently approved for people up to age 45 in the US. Get vaccinated, get your kids vaccinated.
Yes yes yes a million times this.
Luskin is just like Meyer. Skillful at taking an inch of truth and stretching it a mile.
I’ve been following Luskin for the best part of two decades, and he’s always struck me as being somewhat economical with the truth. I thought that undertaking his PhD may have inculcated a measure of intellectual honesty but that appears not to be the case.
Yeah nope. Guess not.
Well-informed, honest, creationist. You can only pick two.
Again and again, it's really hard to find an exception. Todd Wood and that crew, perhaps.
Wait. Wait wait wait wait wait.
Dr Luskin is a geologist????
I know creationists operating outside their field is the norm but usually it's somewhat tangential.
This is....hooboy.
Yeah, geologist and lawyer. DI has biologists on staff, but none of them were interested in chatting.
@@CreationMyths Huh! Weird. You'd think the biologists would want to reply to critiques of their stance on biology-related matters. It's almost as if they don't want to answer because they don't _have_ answers. But _that_ can't be right, because that'd mean they're avoiding being wrong and corrected, which wouldn't be very scientific!
/s
@@CreationMyths
Well. That's...definitely a way to do science.
Aww.
He went and overlapped the magisteria.
What? An apologist lying? I'm shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED! Well not that shocked...
Creationists and ID'ers are dishonest, what's new
Atheists are irrational since they have no answer to the watchmaker argument. That argument is what Intelligent Design supporters use. An honest Atheist knows they are hoping evidence will be discovered to disprove it.
Huh? Are they politicians? Evolutionists have been caught lying as well, you know....
Just a heads up, but the RUclips channel "Smarter Every Day" just did an episode about the flagellum motor and used "irreducible complexity" and creationist arguments at the end of the video. That should be the end of that's channel's popularity with anyone that respects science. Don't give him the clicks or the subscription.
There isn't a single honest or intelligent creationist.
It honours you being so generous, but they live from lying to their flock. If they stop lying, they go broke
Not an unfair point. The history with DI in general is pretty clear.
How dare you, sir. A creationist lying? That almost always happens! We will most certainly stand for your coming to this conclusion! Take my like!
I happily take your like, thank you. Dislikes also acceptable.
Kudos for figuring this out and admitting to getting it wrong originally. I too try to assume ignorance before malice, but I've become rather good at assessing malice as well (in my opinion), and I believe this is a skill everyone should strive to achieve.
yep, his pants are so on fire
🔥 ➡️ 👖
When he was at Harvard at dinner with REAL professional colleagues, he looked like a fool. They had no respect for him. Hes a fool and he knows what hes doing. He gets his bread and butter from the discovery institute.
This isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing happen with Case Luskin.
I’m hearing about all the other times now that it’s my turn!
A geologist talking about things outside of his expertise, while including 'Dr.' on his byline is already skirting the edge of dishonesty.
And - of course - this material is not meant to be a scientific paper of any sort - the purpose is to give creationists otherwise ignorant of the science something to bring up in conversation with someone else equally as ignorant of the science. The ultimate goal being the apologetic defense of their particular mythos.
Pretty much anyone defending young earth creationism using scientific results is either knowingly, or with complete disregard, using those results in a way that generally contradicts the actual findings - or at least is distorting the findings in a way to support their agenda. That is a fundamentally dishonest position to start from. They are not arguing in good faith, and we should stop pretending they are.
I understand your hesitation at accusing someone of being a liar( even an employee of the Discovery Institute) because inherently honest people such as yourself struggle to do so. But I've been following the DI for about a decade now, and its undeniable that their default is dishonest misrepresentation to further their propaganda.
I think it's the right thing to do: A) To start with giving other people the benefit of the doubt. B) And then to call people out on lying when all generosity has been used up and there is no other conclusion that can be reached. Despite the sad ending, this was a fun and educational set of responses. It does you credit.
I'm looking forward to the next one, whatever it ends up being--assuming any of the creationists are brave enough to take you on!!!
18:00
Wow id love to learn about the way the epigenome evolves to suppress these harmful coding ERV regions. Fascinating.
That’s actual an incredibly cool topic that not only has to do with methylation, but also with the origins of DNA, the transition from RNA to DNA, and the replacement of uracil with thymine as the base complimentary to adenine. It has everything to do with the inherent instability of cytosine and is legit one of my favorite things in all of evolution.
Wow!
I'd like to see them apply this 'all the genome is functional' for organisms with whole genome duplications. (I would use the example of the strawberry, but I don't know if that duplication happened in cultivated or wild plants)
Pretty sure it was post domestication, and linked with enlarged fruits.
Thanks Dr. Dan!
You're very welcome
Enhancer regions are actually really tricky to identify. It's mortally hard to identify regions to which transcription factors will bind. I've tried!
I've been following the whole thing from the beginning and it seems that Luskin really has lost himself in a typical "Motte and Bailey" fallacy:
1. Start with a big and specific claim.
2. When confronted with criticism, retreat to a much weaker, more reasonable claim.
3. Repeat.
This was very noticeable in your debate with him when his big claims suddenly became very small. Maybe he doesn't even realise it himself but I've given up on it too by now ... I think he's lying.
Do you think KC Luskin is well informed? Otherwise he's at only one point on the creationist triangle
I'll say...better informed than most, but not equivalent to someone with formal biology training. So like in the neighborhood of SFT? (Is that a compliment or insult?)
(We know what it is.)
Isn't there a bible verse about lying?
Hm... think think think... Hm... Was there? Sounds familiar, duz'nit? Hm... I wonder where I heard something about lying in that book...
😆
Thats only metaphorical.
/s
Dr. Dan @13:40 you were talking about an ERV which is now used by us (and other mammals?) by the placenta. So the function of that ERV has been changed. So my question is how was that change accomplished, was that via one of these virtually non-existent beneficial mutations? You know the ones that creationists what to deny happen?
🎶 Don't gohhhhhh... changinnnnn
🎶 Just cuz ya skeez meeeee
Ya neverrrrr... 🎵
Stuck to facts 🎵
Beforrrrr 🎵
🎶 🎶 EWww wwww ww ww ww
🎶 Don't imagine...
🎶 There's no religiunnn.
Oh wait. 🎵
That's a different 🎵
Songgg! 🎵
🎶 🎶 Ooo ooo ooo ooo ooops!
*surprised pikachu*
Ask Inspiring Philosophy:
WHO made the Moabite Stone ❓
Without lies, religion dies.
Thankyou so much for explaining this to me like I’m 12.
I was getting lost in this back and forth and it seemed like Luskin was agreeing with you and so didn’t notice the bait switch.
Great video, Dan!
Thanks you.
I hope you realize now that you publically called them out, they do their toddler thing, cross their arms and go "no, now I dont want to talk to you anymore", right? Not that it hurts you to not have these liars for jesus on your channel anymore.
I anticipate something like this, though I hope Casey might still be open to a follow-up chat.
@@CreationMyths We all know he will deny lying about anything and continue to lie like he does every time. Its what frauds do. Unless there are legal consequences they wont stop.
@Dan: If I understood Luskin correctly, he does not say that the expression of ERVs is responsible for psychiatric disorders. Rather he notes that any *change* of the *normal* expression level can cause psychiatric disorders.
The normal expression level is "they are suppressed", either virtually entirely, or below a certain threshold, and when they "break out" of that suppression, they cause problems.
Discovery Institute articles are most likely generated and/or vetted by a committee. Whose job is to maintain their Intelligent Design Universe official canon. Their only interest is to maintain the internal consistency of their model and will ignore, and lie about anything that threatens this. They have internal subject "experts" that the rest of them have to bow down to, if they want to keep their jobs.
They are a group of bloggers who write useless books to sell on amazon. They have no institution, labs, building or other staff like a committee.
They don't manage a universal cannon because that would limit their ability to contradict themselves when needed. It's like having a detailed list of how every known animal fits into a kind. Or even worse, just a timeline for all known events.
It's amazing that you thought that he misunderstood something. Their income depends on intentionally not misunderstanding and misrepresenting everything i.e. lying.
Dr. Casey might want to check his closet, all of his pants are burning white hot.
Spontaneous coulotte combustion?
That "simple argument" is fallacious on its face, irrelevant of any misrepresentation of history.
8:41 This step has a non-sequitur, which isn't necessary for the whole argument to still be an argument to raise doubts against "mainstream science".
So if you steelman the argument, what you would conclude isn't that *all* DNA has a function, but instead, that scientists have been going overboard with calling things junk, because according to premise 1., they said that all non-coding DNA is junk, even though according to premise 2., some non-coding DNA should not be called junk.
This conclusion really does follow from the premises of the argument, and it does this so naturally that someone doesn't even need to make it explicit, as long as they get an audience to accept the premises 1 and 2.
What's important is that this argument is a steelman of the argument that you described, but still is equally debunked by recognizing that premise 1. is a misrepresentation and should not be granted. So in the future, I think it would make sense to just address this one instead.
20:00 can you explain to me how this doesn’t shatter the evidential utility of the statistical argument for ERV placements within the Chimpanzee / human genome supporting evolution?
In my debates with creationists I was forced to dig up data showing that while there are hot spots in the genetic code. Each ERV could have embedded in one of many insertions sites. So the fact that the same ERVs occur in the same sites was best explained by a single infection event in a common ancestor.
But right now you seem to be saying that HPV consistently binds to a single site stimulating the nearby region that leads to cancer.
Is that because HPV is not an ERV?
Thanks.
Or is it that HPV doesn’t always bind in that specific site and the times when it does are associated with cancer.
Which brings to mind another question
How do the viruses know to implant only once. How do they know not to infect the genetic code in all the possible binding regions once they begin reproducing within our body?
@@isidoreaerys8745 , I'm not a specialist, so don't take my answer as fact.
My understanding is that the HPV incertion doesn't need to occur in a specific place to stimulate certain genes to activate, but that a byproduct or how it works does.
Maybe a protein from the virus causes the interaction that leads to cancer.
Once again, that's my understanding as a designer that is curious about biology.
Oh hoh, i clicked this one so fast
It's disappointing when a discussion arrives to the point where you realize your interlocutor is deliberately being dishonest or at least intellectually dishonest. Especially during professional interactions, the last thing I want to do is think the worst of someone. It's commendable that you gave Luskin the benefit of the doubt until direct evidence sufficiently demonstrated otherwise. Were I you, I wouldn't have done anything differently as long as there's no risk of harm to me or anyone else.
Regarding risk, as much as I like to think the best of people, I don't put myself in a position to be taken advantage of. Hurting my feelings is an acceptable risk -- moving on from the offender is easy -- anything more, however, is not. Considerable harm to anyone's mental health is likewise unacceptable.
Regarding the viral enhancer argument: My lay-idiot understanding of what was represented here is that in order for something to be 'enhanced', there needs to be a base function there to get enchanced. If there's no function, then there's nothing to enhance. That's how I understood it, and I'm only speaking from the top of the Dunning-Kruger skislope, of course. I don't even have a geologist's knowledge of biology, so I defer to your expertise and only offer this as a way to help smart people understand dumb ones like me. :)
Right, the thing getting enhanced is the gene that's adjacent to the insertion site. That's a protein-coding gene, everyone agrees it's functional. The question is about the insertion site itsef. *Pre-insertion* what's it doing? Nothing! The *virus* landing there and causing cancer is a bananas reason to claim the underlying target site is functional.
Greetings, my dear. Could you make a response to Platinga’s argument in the future?
Can you articulate exactly what you want him to argue against given current evidence?
Not to be *that guy* but... I sorta called this one
Oh hey look it's me! xD 2:34
As an English-speaking non-biologist, it seems to me that something that functions is functional. That is, it produces an effect. Whether the effect is positive or negative is a value judgment. (As a crass example, one might well consider as positive a change in one'e mortal enemy's DNA that gives them cancer.) By extension, non-functional DNA would be inert, neutral, and incapable of producing an effect. As soon as such DNA is shown to reliably produce an effect, positive or negative, we would know that it is fact functional, and producing that effect is how it functions. At least, that is how I interpret those words. So this might all come down to yet another instance in which a lay person is confused by specialized jargon that is homonymous with ordinary language
I'm not sure why having a virus activate a non-functional part of the DNA to give the host cancer should be considered a function.
I disagre, and I'll use an analogy to explain why:
Imagine I make a train wagon and I mistakenly (I wasn't trying to sabotage it) add a piece that when allowed to move can lead to the emergency breaks to stop working.
Without that piece everything works, with that piece, the breaks may stop working.
Then I add a lock to hold the piece, so it doesn't move and it doesn't interfere with the breaks.
The unintended piece has an effect, but it doesn't have a function.
The only way I would call those genes functional would be if someone placed them there as an intentional sabotage.
@@thomasfplm I don't get the example. In the DNA situation, no person is trying to do anything. Intention has nothing to do with it. We are just combing through the innards and trying to find functional-cause and effect-relationships among the constructs we develop in our research. If we were examining your modified train example, it would be much the same: moving this piece causes this effect (so its function is to move and cause its effect); this piece blocks that piece so it can't move, so blocking that piece from moving is its function. It is we, the researchers, who infer all of: what is a “piece”, what it does, what effects can doing whatever it does produce, and so on. We don't want to go all teleological and conflate “function” with “purpose”.
@@gshenaut, my point is that having an effect is not the same as having a function.
If a tree falls across a river and people use it as a bridge because it created a shorter path, it has the the effect of being a shortcut, but it is not the function of a fallen tree.
If you get hurt stepping on a Lego piece, is it the function of the piece to hurt you?
Or back to the train.
The piece was useful to hold the wheels in place, it broke, but tanks to redundancy the train still works.
But there is the risk of, because it is moving erratically it might damage the breaks, so I put some silvertape to hold it in place.
It no longer works for holding the wheels, so it isn't functional for tgat anymore, it might have the effect of damaging the breaks if it can move.
Does the broken piece has the function of damaging the breaks?
The silvertape is functional.
What I disagree is with the use of the word function for something that could be an accident.
@@gshenaut _"In the DNA situation, no person is trying to do anything. Intention has nothing to do with it. We are just combing through the innards and trying to find functional-cause and effect-relationships among the constructs we develop in our research."_ Are you trying to say that a person who suffers from an autoimmune disease is actually suffering from something that is genetically functional? Because that's pretty terrible.
… is he possibly claiming that functional=does anything including destructive things under at least one condition?
That's what I think he's saying. I have to listen again but it sure sounds like if a virus takes over an inactive part of the DNA and that turns into a disease that kills you, it's functional.
Creationists lying? Isn't that a requirement for being a creationist?
I don't understand what is meant by "functional" DNA - If HERVs aren't functional because they cause issues when they are expressing, how is that not function? I don't understand biology concepts very easily, and I'm stuck in colloquial territory for the word "functional", i.e., if it's doing something, it has a function. Obviously from what you're saying, the word functional in this context means something else.
In biological systems, "functional" means that it accomplishes something for the organism, it does something that affirmatively helps the organism. ERVs are suppressed, and when they break out of that suppression, they can cause problems. So they're "functional" in the sense that they're doing something, in the same way that a leaking coolant pump on my car is spraying coolant on the surrounding area, but they sure as heck aren't helping the cell do whatever it's doing.
To make an analogy, if you have a damaged wire and it has the risk of causing a fire, does the wire has the function to cause a fire?
The super religious people believe that the ends justify the means, so when he lies for his faith it's actually a good thing.
You think, that process lies outside your world view. Fits the Christian world view perfectly.
Every creationist who's done more than two debates, and is still a creationist, is actively lying and deliberately so.
It’s fair enough to forgive people for not knowing stuff that’s outside of their field, BUT if it’s outside of his field, why is he writing articles and debating it? I appreciate you being charitable and assuming he was mistaken rather than dishonest, but even if that had been the case, people speaking on topics they don’t understand is also an issue; it’s the reason movements like antivax and flat earth have spread on social media.
So you were overdue in instituting this discovery?
Deciding sooner FTD! (For The darWin.)
Creationists have to lie, its part of their religion.
Isn't there a different definition of functional here? Disfunction is also a kind of function, a bad one. So there must be a difference between the colloquial term of function (have a function) and the genetics term of having a positive function. No?
A function to harm the organism? I assume functions would all need to perform something that helps maintain the life of the organism. Especially if you want to make a case for intelligent design.
A biological function in the genome is something a specific part of the DNA does that is beneficial to the organism and therefore maintained via selection. Creationists say the "maintained by selection" part of the definition is making "evolutionary assumptions" or something but it's not, it's purely descriptive. That's how we tell if the thing that's happening is beneficial - is there a cost to losing it? If yes, then it is maintained by selection. It's doing something that affirmatively helps the organism. It's functional.
Is an exposed wire functional because it might start a fire?
save yuorself a lot of time. Assume educated creationists are lying unless proven otherwise.
I wonder how much one of my genes is worth?🤔 Who knows, it could be a lot!😕 Of course I'd sell em' by the dozen, and make it worth a gene smith's money, and get repeat business for having "The Better Gene"!😁
If this annoys you, wait until you see the creationist nonsense about epigenetics.
“Dr” Luskin?
To be fair, he has a legit Ph.D. in geology.
All professional creationists are hucksters.
Having a hard time finding a reason to think otherwise.
This just goes to show that you should never be so naive to give ANYONE from D.I. the benefit of the doubt, don't you know their motto is Jesus Enim Mendacem (Lying for Jesus)
It is a good thing. Assume good faith, and when they confirm otherwise, it is that much more damning.
I sure hope you aren't an ex Christian, because even I know they lie all the time. It's called "lying for God!"