This is not a competition, but I debunked Vox Day’s stupid evolution “disproof” in one fairly short written post. If you want a lot more, Gutsick Gibbon has put up a 3½ hour video that makes the same criticisms at greater length and with more math from Zach Hancock.
I listened to the whole thing while working on class stuff…at 1.5x speed. It was good, if verbose, but as someone who is not a population geneticist, I did learn a few details, so that was worthwhile. I haven’t been following her series with the creationist Will Duffy, because I’m on of those people who think he is disingenuous and dishonest, and he’s not worth the time, and I also think those videos are poor representatives of good science communication (way too long, with way too much time given to the lying twit), and I’d rather see videos like this one, where two smart educated people have a conversation. But apparently, Erika’s mother likes them, so that’s reason enough to keep doing them.
Pox Bay having one last stab at relevance before fading into oblivion.
I like Erika’s stuff, but I can’t handle three hours of creationists. I’m out after 15 minutes
I’m 90 minutes in and ready to give up. I really wish someone would attempt to tackle this properly, I don’t have the background in maths or genetics to do so. Does no one actually read the book? I read the first edition from a layman’s perspective and even I apparently understood it better than these two.
It begins with laughing at Vox D’A.I., fair enough. “Red flag”. His apparent inability to find work on effective population sizes that had already been done decades ago, again funny, (it appears he more or less derived that on his own). “Red flag”. Put to one side that taking into account effective population actually strengthens the main argument, rather than weakening it. “Red flag?”
All those red flags and finally, just over 90 minutes in, baldidiot starts trying to tackle the main argument and he’s already fucked it up. Vox is assuming “sequential fixation” he says. NO. The number derived from the bacterial experiment was a measurement – it has parallel fixation baked in and any theory of genetic change you think might be operating.
This argument was expected, actually written about IN the book and preemptively dismantled. But they must not have read it.
The people who do have a background in math and genetics are telling you that he is wrong, but you, who has no background in math or genetics, are begging for someone else to tell you he’s correct? That’s not how this works.
Although…I sympathize with one point. We’re not going to reach the people who know nothing about math and science with a 3 1/2 hour math and science lecture.
dangerousbeans @ 2
I do not have the patience to watch the whole thing, but anyone who has the preserverance to make a looong video debunking creationists should have some kind of award.
1) Anyone who calls himself the Voice of God (Vox Dei) has got to have ISSUES!.
2) Gutsick Gibbon’s posts are WAY too long. If it takes 3 1/2 hours to prove that an idiot is an idiot, then a neutral observer might conclude that a) Gutsick Gibbon is in love with her own voice, or b) he is not an idiot, or c) that the pro-evolution crowd is hiding something. Being an informed observer I know that b) and c) are wrong, but I sympathize with conclusion a).
PZ Myers @ 5
Ted Lawry @ 7
Film makers have a saying for editing their films: “kill your darlings”.
The segment you like most might not fit well together with the whole, or it might duplicate something. If it is not essential for the whole, it has to go.
(It is different for grifters making a film, they have to pad it to reach a certain length)