Bort grows ERV and CytB trees!

As much as I make fun of IDiots, I have to say that they really do create great science education outreach opportunities. Stupid shit they say is a perfect place to start talking to your friends about weird shit you do everyday.

For instance, we all know about Casey Luskins (aka ‘Captain Nipple-Slip’) inability to comprehend phylogenetic trees. Well, blogger Bort looked at a tree made almost 10 years ago with primate ERVs, and compared it to a tree he made 30 seconds ago with primate Cytochrome B as the input.

SPOILER: Theyre the same.

He also, accidentally, reminded us of why people laugh at Creationists. To quote Caseytits

… pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.


  1. #1 ngong
    June 5, 2009

    Behe and Dembski claim to accept “common descent.” It seems that the IDiots aren’t anywhere near putting a coherent story together.

  2. #2 Brian
    June 5, 2009

    Putting together a coherent story isn’t even on the agenda.

  3. #3 afarensis, FCD
    June 5, 2009

    But, but, Casey volunteers in soup kitchens and he forgives Bort. Just for Casey.

  4. #4 Joel
    June 5, 2009

    Actually, I think Behe accepts common descent, but Dembski doesn’t.

  5. #5 Mobius
    June 6, 2009

    And they claim there is controversy over the science behind evolution. They can’t even get their own stories straight.

  6. #6 Matthew
    June 7, 2009

    Casey Luskin fails again HILARIOUS

    The guy has never made a valid point, then again…. no creationist has… or ever will

    His ilk are a perpetual source of ineptitude and lulz

  7. #7 BathTub
    June 7, 2009

    What’s the origin of the Casey Luskin/Breasts gag? For those of us who missed the history of it.

  8. #8 Reynold
    June 8, 2009

    If you really want some weapons grade stupidity from a creationist, get a load of this:

    Hermeneutics is far more interesting than digging up the earth and looking for transitional fossils that don’t exist, I’m sure you’ll find.

  9. #9 Lledowyn
    June 8, 2009


    This is relating to a lecture that Luskin gave at ERV’s uni, in which he was BAAAWing about ERV posting a picture asking some troll to TITS or GTFO. Luskin in his usual FAIL fashion, didn’t get it and proceeded to BAAAAW.

  10. #10 Prometheus
    June 8, 2009


    Wow. That is some high proof retard.

    “Hermeneutics is far more interesting than digging up the earth and looking for transitional fossils that don’t exist, I’m sure you’ll find.”

    When I was a wee lad I dug sharks teeth and giant ammonites out of the Grayson Formation.

    This morning I offered a legal opinion on the intent of U.S.C. Chapter 1. Title 17 § 110 Paragraph (5)(B)(ii)(I)(III)(iii)(iv)and(v).

    No. Nope. Hermeneutics are not “far more interesting”. Not even at two hundred bucks an hour.

    I am not even sure it is an indicator of stupidity as much the admission of some dizzyingly bizzare undocumented paraphilia.

    It is like admitting you masturbate to actuarial tables or something.

    it’s sick.

  11. #11 Dustin
    June 8, 2009

    I’ve been gone for a while. What did Casey do to earn his titular tits?

  12. #12 Prometheus
    June 8, 2009

    He has luscious gozongas. Like if you crossed Jane Mansfield with Freida Kahlo and it had a baby with Billy Barty.

    Seriously, he tried to spin ERV’s humorous use of a 9000 year old meme into a pathetic victimology bomb:

  13. #13 Albatrossity
    June 9, 2009

    More Casey Star Wars linkages (but no tits) here, where our hero imagines himself as Luke Skywalker (with better eyebrows), battling the Evil (Darwinist) Empire and Darth (Eugenie Scott) Vader, using the power of the Force (God). This is apparently a post he made on some secret Dembskian listserv a while back, and it is priceless…


  14. #14 slpage
    June 10, 2009

    Nothing new. Creationists have been trying to downplay the relevance of phylogentic trees for a long time, fomr the silly (‘you can use any old data and it will make a tree’) to the absurd (‘unless you knnow what the adaptive relevance of each and every mutation was, then the trees are meaningless’ – that one was from none other than Paul Nelson, who pretends toi actually understand these things)…

    Unable to present anything that actually supports their position, they are relegated to trying to poke holes in everything that supports the position that they’ve been programmed to hate.

New comments have been disabled.