Count The Wrong! Nelson and Ontogenetic Depth

Looks like we won’t have Paul Nelson to kick around anymore! He seems to be trying to make good on his promise to provide details on ontogenetic depth. I know, I’m shocked too, but, well, there it is. Says Paul:

Rather, building animals de novo by known biological (evolutionary) processes is an evolutionary problem. Common descent by natural selection is the main theory on the table in 2010. It’s the theory that, in this OD 2.0 series, I hope to show does not

Coffee, says I! At any rate, how many errors can you spot in that short paragraph?


2 Responses

  1. The first problem is that Paul cannot seem to get out of the rut of nonevolutionary thinking as he says “building” (a construction term following a “design”) followed by “de novo” and somehow links that to “evolutionary.” The argument of evolution from random occurences is simply alien to him, and the statement reveals this clearly.

    He also associates “natural selection” as the common theory, but does not note that it is an hypothesis of a mechanism (not THE mechanism) of evolution. He has thus created a boogeyman: Now all he needs to do is punch a hole in “natural selection,” ignore any other potential mechanism for evolution, and BAMM! no more evolution.

    Finally, you’d think you have to have an OD 1.0 to have a OD 2.0…

  2. He does have an OD 1.0, but the rest is pretty much what I had in mind.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: