- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darwin’s Doubt: the mathematical problem of evolution and DNA
Posted on 12/31/25 at 9:56 am to Tigerlaff
Posted on 12/31/25 at 9:56 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
OK. But if God is omniscient and omnipresent then there is no reason whatsoever to see the evolutionary process as anything other than a miracle of creation.
For a lot of Christians, the real issue with evolution isn’t science so much as theology. If evolution fully explains how we got here and Adam isn’t a real figure whose fall introduced sin, then it’s hard to see why Jesus is necessary in the way Christianity claims. Without a real Fall, the whole redemption story starts to lose its coherence.
0
Posted on 12/31/25 at 10:31 am to iglass
quote:
Not at all. Meyer isn't some nutbag hack - he is a scientist
he is a nutjob hack that works for the Discovery Institute
Posted on 12/31/25 at 10:33 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
I cannot speak on behalf of all people who believe in evolution.
I believe that the theory is generally correct, but it has gaps.
It is a theory because it is unproven
Complete lack of understanding of what a "Theory" (capital T) is in scientific nomenclature
A scientific Theory can also be Fact.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 10:43 am to Powerman
quote:
But at the species level of taxonomy most species that have ever existed have already gone extinct. So at the species level it is estimated that 99.9% of all species to ever exist are extinct. So at that level we're constantly shrinking and never adding if evolution is not possible.
Is the family level increasing or decreasing over time? Think of that as the kind level and the species is just the first level of sorted boxes in the following:
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.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 11:08 am to Powerman
quote:
So you'd have to believe that humans existed when the first organisms existed.
I don’t have to believe that. I don’t believe anything. I don’t know how it all played out. Neither do you. But don’t feel bad. Darwin got it wrong too.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:56 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:fair point
What? I was not making a joke. He asked about human life, not life in general.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:58 pm to Darth_Vader
The math doesn’t matter because of two things:
- evolution has been proven
- human evolution has not been proven
- evolution has been proven
- human evolution has not been proven
Posted on 12/31/25 at 3:42 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:You’re saying human evolution hasn’t been proven. Proof means evidence that fits a clear pattern without better alternatives. That pattern exists.
The math doesn’t matter because of two things:
- evolution has been proven
- human evolution has not been proven
Humans share core skeletal traits with other primates: opposable thumbs, forward-facing eyes, similar limb structure. These aren’t random. They line up with gradual modification over time.
We carry vestigial traits. The tailbone serves no modern function but matches the base of a tail in animals that have one. Occasionally humans are even born with tails. That’s an observable throwback, not theory.
Embryonic development follows stages. Human fetuses briefly form tails and gill-like slits before reshaping. That only makes sense if the design is inherited and modified, not invented from scratch.
Genetics match the same pattern. Human and chimp DNA overlaps base-by-base, with small differences tied to things like speech and upright posture. That’s exactly how incremental change looks in code.
The fossil record lines up too. Skulls show increasing brain size, jaws shrink, features shift gradually with no sudden jumps. Mechanical adaptation, not magic.
If this still “doesn’t prove it,” say precisely what evidence would. Otherwise you’re not skeptical, you’re just empty-handed.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 3:54 pm to northshorebamaman
Similar doesn’t mean same. DNA can be very close, yet miles apart.
Correct. Evolution has been proven. Human evolution has not been proven.
Correct. Evolution has been proven. Human evolution has not been proven.
This post was edited on 12/31/25 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 12/31/25 at 3:55 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
BigNastyTiger417
quote:
If this still “doesn’t prove it,” say precisely what evidence would. Otherwise you’re not skeptical, you’re just empty-handed.
Did you miss this part? You didn’t respond to this part.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 3:59 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You’re saying human evolution hasn’t been proven. Proof means evidence that fits a clear pattern without better alternatives. That pattern exists.
Humans share core skeletal traits with other primates: opposable thumbs, forward-facing eyes, similar limb structure. These aren’t random. They line up with gradual modification over time.
We carry vestigial traits. The tailbone serves no modern function but matches the base of a tail in animals that have one. Occasionally humans are even born with tails. That’s an observable throwback, not theory.
Embryonic development follows stages. Human fetuses briefly form tails and gill-like slits before reshaping. That only makes sense if the design is inherited and modified, not invented from scratch.
Genetics match the same pattern. Human and chimp DNA overlaps base-by-base, with small differences tied to things like speech and upright posture. That’s exactly how incremental change looks in code.
The fossil record lines up too. Skulls show increasing brain size, jaws shrink, features shift gradually with no sudden jumps. Mechanical adaptation, not magic.
If this still “doesn’t prove it,” say precisely what evidence would. Otherwise you’re not skeptical, you’re just empty-handed.
Yeah, there are so many things you can see evidence of that make no sense towards the "intelligent design" argument.
there's nothing intelligent about the nerve in a giraffes neck looping around it's heart. It's like that because the neck evolved to be longer after the nerve was already positioned that way
This post was edited on 12/31/25 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:24 pm to sgallo3
Sure, but don’t you remember the little arrows directing traffic in Wal mart aisles during COVID? That makes your giraffe argument invalid now
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:46 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
problems with the theory of evolution as is commonly accepted today; namely that the amount of mutations at the DNA level necessary to create single cell life and have it evolve into the vast diversity of complex life we see today, which includes us, simply does not add up.
"Evolution" is the one of the most impossibly stupid theories ever proposed. DNA mutations degrade and damage the organism genetics; NOT advance or create superior DNA -- nevermind morphing it into another species altogether like magic (or supernaturally).
This refutation has been the simple way to discredit Darwinism from the get-go. How got any traction at all to form a consensus from so-called contemporary "Scientists" at the time is of great mystery (unless one considers those who literally bought, owned "scientists" and their opinion -- while creating THE "Halls of Science" in the middle of the 19th century.)
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:54 pm to NawlinsTiger9
There is no proof. That is precisely the point.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:55 pm to BigNastyTiger417
That wasn’t the question, though.
Just answer the question.
Just answer the question.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:55 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Embryonic development follows stages. Human fetuses briefly form tails and gill-like slits before reshaping. That only makes sense if the design is inherited and modified, not invented from scratch.
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 4:59 pm to Rebel
quote:
But don’t feel bad. Darwin got it wrong too.
Says who?
Posted on 12/31/25 at 5:22 pm to NawlinsTiger9
I answered the question. If I didn’t, please put the question you would like answered.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:12 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Says who?
The scientific method.
Page 15 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News