Paul Nelson has argued against macro-evolution, and I sense that some folk here want to discuss it. So here’s a thread where we can do that without taking other threads off-topic.
First, some references. There are three UD threads on this:
- Video: Paul Nelson At Saddleback (by News). This thread includes a link to the 40 minute video (which I watched a few days ago).
- Jerry Coyne and Poisoning the Well (by johnnyb). This thread criticizes Jerry Coyne’s response to the video.
- Larry Moran defends Paul Nelson! (by vjtorley). This discusses some comments that Larry made on Jerry Coyne’s post.
There has also been some commentary on the video by evolutionists:
- A Marshall McLuhan moment with creationist Paul Nelson (by Jerry Coyne). This is the post that johnnyb criticized. It has extensive comments (260 at the moment), including comments by Larry Moran (alluded to in the vjtorley title), and comments by Paul Nelson.
- It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy (by PZ Myers).
A couple of comments have appeared at TSZ, here and here (and I probably missed others).
Open for discussion.
The issue appears to still exist. It looks like you can comment only if you use the Reply option to respond to an existing comment.
“But what constitutes a large change seems to be relative. Teacup dogs certainly have rather large developmental differences from wolves, and some rather large changes in Silver foxes were produced in a mere 50 years. Changes resulting entirely from variation and selection.”
That’s right. And Nelson argues that changing frequencies in traits is different in kind from the changes required for body plan evolution. And this is one of the points for which he cites his sources. The question is, are these developmental differences (particularly early in development), or changes in frequencies in traits already present in the population? If someone wants to attack Nelson’s argument that might be a good place to start.
My guess is that he’s arguing the same thing he argues in his posts on ontogenetic depth over at ENV but simplified for a church audience and time constraints. If that’s the case I feel it falls short of the intent. Read the articles at ENV.
Hey, Mung, that’s dirty pool you’re playing. You’re the one who keeps complaining around here about people (like keiths) not “quoting” or providing “arguments” …
So pony up! Get over to ENV and dig out some of the quotes that convinced you that Nelson has any idea what he’s talking about.
Don’t give us your godblessed guess. Give us some evidence!
The comment you made just before this went into the moderation queue. That’s probably because it contained only the one word “test”. As it happens, it was a comment that you made pushing the “Reply” button on another post (your own post). Incidentally, I am going to trash it (move it to trash), since it has no content.
Let’s recap, just for grins.
Neil made certain assertions. I demonstrated why those assertions were false. I invited a response, None was offered.
Nelson offered evidential support for his claims.
Did anyone take him up on his offer, or did you all just prefer to stay in the dark?
Early in development of what? Development applies to individuals.
Unless Nelson has done some direct research, all he will have are a bunch of selective quotes from the scientific literature. I can get spammed by Ba77-clones any time I choose, but I tend to scroll on.
I watched the video, and all I saw was a bloke misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the science and scientists. The people he quotes do not agree with him.
You seem convinced without further inquiry that he must have something Big. Have you checked? Or is his possessnion of a basic anti-evolution stance good enough for your inquiring mind?
Assertions were made. Those assertions were false.
Is “false” meaningless here at TSZ?
I’d have to know what you were talking about to assess that one. You have asserted that assertions were made, and have asserted that those assertions were false. But given that you are currently showing up about once a week to append your moniker to old threads, I’m not inclined to do the leg-work to try and piece together your argument for you. The video is an hour long, I watched it a month ago now, and he said a lot of things, many of which I could take issue with. I don’t know which specific claim you are talking about when you say you ‘demonstrated those [Neil’s] assertions were false’.
Well gee Allan, I never meant to put you out.
Feel free to ignore anything that might be true if it conflicts with your beliefs.
Dembski was told by his theistic university employers that he was not free to ignore the story of Noah’s Ark even if it conflicted with his scientific beliefs that the global flood, could not literally have been true.
Do you support Dembski’s science or the church’s beliefs?
Well gee, Mung … I am merely perplexed as to what specifically you are talking about. You made some airy assertions. I can hardly find out what I need to ignore due to its conflict with my beliefs if you won’t tell me what it is, can I? 🙂
So Dembski is doing science?
Well gee, Alan, I try hard not to be specific about anything.
otoh, the claims made by Neil were rather explicit. But false.
When called out, he never responded.
Are you now his surrogate?
I was merely attempting to find out what you were referring to. You think it clever to post but not actually to say anything. Meh.
Anybody is doing science if they are doing science. Dembski has done science. Even I’ll admit that. Sure, it might have been poor science but science it has been (at times) nonetheless.
Now, will you answer the question asked or will you run?
: Now, will you answer the question asked or will you run?
What was the question?
Can I not run and not answer the question?