YouTube told me I needed approval to watch the event. I don’t know what to make of that.
Hmmm that’s strange. It’s a completely public stream. It’s almost over now, but you will certainly be able to watch it later. Spoiler alert, nothing much came out of it.
Is Dr. Mays worth inviting here? If so, does someone what to reach out?
I bet he didn’t point to the TMR4A work, which would have been very hard for Jeanson to explain away.
Absolutely. Dr. Mays would be a great person to add here. His models can answer a lot of questions.
Yes, I’m sure Herman would be worth inviting here. He didn’t point to the TMR4A work.
Want to invite him to an Office Hours? See: Organizing Office Hours. Also, point him to: Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?.
We need to get the word out about TMR4A because it is the autosome analogue of his mito-study, using much stronger mutational rate evidence.
Sure, I’ll reach out and invite him.
Hahahaha, yes you completely ruined it for me!
I disagree. I noted in my brief glances two things.
No one is asking him to engage with TMR4A. Why not? It is a direct falsification of his proposal, using the exact same method on autosomes.
At the very end, Mays pressed him on the AIG belief statement, which obligates him not to acknowledge any falsifying evidence. Mays is cutoff. That should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end. Why not start with this?
This is really not a good thing. Scientists need to do a better job in engaging him. From this exchange, it seems that Jeanson won. He can claim he held his own. That is all he has to do, and it is likely true.
How can you say this? Dr. Mays outclassed him on the science. Dr. Jeanson had no coherent responses.
The work you’ve done with TMR4A is pretty new, I’d be surprised if many people outside of this forum have heard of it yet, much less be familiar enough to present it in a debate. If you write it all up into a paper then it can spread much more quickly.
Yeah that would have been good.
I definitely agree the exhange could have gone better. The opening presentations were mostly useless in the grand scheme of things, I would have preferred to see a 90 minute free-flowing conversation specifically talking about things like mutation rates, coalescence, etc. Really drilling into his arguments rather than presenting more general arguments against creationism. It picked up towards the end though, I think the final 30 minutes were good.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that Jeason appeared to win though, I think most people would recognise how much time he spent dodging questions.
How do you get to the after show party?
It is not about who is right. It is who is trusted and how it is sold. I have no doubt that Mays was right (or at least largely right) on the science, but what concessions did he get out of this? Will anyone in Jeanson’s camp hear this as anything but technobabble? If the answer is “no”, he one the public theatre hands down.
Working on it.
Pretty sure it will be full, but try messaging the hosts on g+, and/or comment in the live chat when it goes live.
My short take:
“You didn’t read the book.”
“You don’t understand population genetics.”
Aaron Ra is the new Christopher Hitchens.
Meh, I’m not so enthusiastic about him. He’s a bit too caustic for my taste. Makes for great “Aron Ra OWNS brainwashed xian!” videos, doesn’t really progress the debate. Nowhere near as eloquent and sophisticated as Hitch.
Atheists do not need another Christopher Hitchens. You guys need some real peacemakers to get some press. That is our moment right now. People are tired of the conflict, and at times even scared about the divisions in society. They want peace.
How about Stephen Pinker?