re: Darwin’s Doubt: the mathematical problem of evolution and DNA

quote:

---

But if they really do worship science, then they should adhere to the teachings of scientific method. And if thy do that, the only logical explanation is that the theory of evolution as we know it today simply cannot explain macroevolution.

---

quote:

---

Seems there are a few problems with accepted science

---

quote:

---

That isn't necessarily the case. You can hold the view that a single ancestral 'kind', like the original feline, possessed far more genetic diversity than any cat alive today. As that one group branched out and specialized into lions, tigers, and cheetahs, they 'devolved' in terms of total genetic potential, but multiplied in terms of the number of species. It’s not that the number of animals is shrinking from a starting point; it’s that the original, rich genetic code is being sorted into many different, specialized boxes.

---

quote:

---

Science is never "settled".

---

quote:

---

In my mind I question all theories

---

quote:

---

The "strawman" claim is both ironic and hilarious because Meyer's thesis is almost entirely built on a straw foundation.

His core arguments misrepresents evolution as a purely random hunt through all possible DNA or protein sequences, then deems it mathematically impossible. But evolution isn't like that. iIt's cumulative and builds on existing sequences. New traits emerge via gene duplication, tweaks, recombination, regulatory shifts, and repurposing old parts. Treating it as blind randomness simplifies the math and ignores the actual biology.

And the strawmanning continues: He blends "random mutation" with "non-random selection" into one process, pretends variation has no origin, and calls evolution "chance alone" which no one argues. Most novelty comes from remixing existing genes, not starting from zero.

If anyone's using strawmen, it's not his critics.
quote:

This is actually getting to a significant point of the debate, but the article doesn’t nearly approach the topic with the scientific skepticism that is due. The fact of the matter is that it ignores the very salient points made by Meyers and others. The possibility of very basic building blocks of proteins being randomly generated is a far far cry from even basic coded DNA sequences.

This is the classic creationist goalpost shift. Abiogenesis (origin of life) isn't part of evolutionary theory, which strictly addresses how life diversifies once self-replicators exist. Lacking an abiogenesis model doesn't undermine evolution. It's a whole separate fricking field. Creationists conflate them to attack evolution dishonestly, but you can debate abiogenesis without challenging evidence for common descent or selection. Mixing them just confuses arguments which is why hucksters like Meyer do it.
quote:
Um, what? What are these “non-random” changes? What creates the significant variations between which natural selection is making the selection? Kinda skips right over that point!

This confuses steps in the process. Variation isn't "non-random" in purpose, but it stems from clear mechanisms: replication errors, recombination, duplications, transposons, and regulatory changes. No design needed.

Selection is the non-random part: It favors variants that reproduce better under environmental pressures. "Non-random change" means this filtering, not mutations with intent. Nothing's skipped. Variation comes from known biology, selection directs what sticks. Calling this a gap is either a misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation, not a critique.

---

quote:

---

But what about Fauci lying to us about masks? What about THAT?

---