" I cannot argue the details but it did seem to me that the writer went on to say much the same thing only in different terminology"


Seriously? What Blount is saying flies in the face of creationist twaddle. Nye (and his expert) misrepresented his work - that is what Blount is talking about. They did it in a way that is basically a lie.

Blount couldn't be any more explicit in his condemnation of Nye's misrepresentation of his research. He has seen evolution in action, and observed how novel information is created via the duplication of genes. This is undeniable fact, peer-reviewed and testable. Nye's contention in the debate wasn't just wrong, it was a lie. The bloke wot did the work is telling this.

I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. If you're rejecting Blount's research and ignoring the points made in the post, along with the description of the mechanism of how this process takes place, then you are denying an objective truth.

That's fine, but don't start saying the science is wrong if you a) don't make the effort to understand it, and b) you don't accept the results of the research as presented by the person who is and expert and is presenting his research. You can't take Nye's word over Blount's, because to do so would be to bear false witness, and that would be deeply unchristian.