- 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 12/30/25 at 9:51 am to UltimaParadox
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:51 am to UltimaParadox
quote:
Just another intelligent designer pusher, plenty of stuff out there arguing counter points.
Scientific American 15 counter points
This article, like almost all I’ve seen, simply attack a straw man of Meyer’s arguments. The few points that aren’t straw man attacks are poorly reasoned and don’t take the argument seriously.
They evolutionists are projecting their belief system, yes belief system, into the debate more than those who question the current theories.
quote:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth. The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.
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.
quote:
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
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!
2
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:55 am to UltimaParadox
That video is an embarrassment. I can’t believe you posted it. Myers has already responded convincingly.
Instead, watch the debate directly between Meyers and Dawkins.
Instead, watch the debate directly between Meyers and Dawkins.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:56 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I fully anticipated that. They cannot argue against the points the guy in the video made, but their religious belief in the theory of evolution will not allow them to accept anything that goes against it. Thus, all they have left to them at that point is a meaningless down vote.
Oh ffs. You're a man in search of information to match your own narrative. And out of tens of thousands of scientists who have researched evolution, you found the one idiot who says what you want to hear.
And now that you've found him, despite him being amongst 0.001% of scientists who dispute evolution, you cling onto him like he's the best scientist in the world. Because of a video. A 10 minute video. From a podcast.
More conspiratorial bullshite that you people cling onto because contrarianism makes you feel smart for the first time in your pitiful lives which have been spent being disrespected for your lack of intellect.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 9:57 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:56 am to N2cars
quote:
How did human life form here?
We evolved.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:56 am to cgrand
quote:
This argument is not new. In fact Carl Sagan spent a great deal of time talking about it way back in the 80s. There is much we still do not know about the mechanism of natural selection but natural selection remains the best explanation for the conditions of life that we are able to observe and more importantly, prove using the scientific method. The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming while the evidence for some other supernatural phenomena is still speculative at best
As I said, the Theory of Evolution is good at explaining microevolution, things like how the myriad of dog breeds came from the wolf for example.
But what it can’t do is explain how (supposedly) all life started from a single cell organism and though countless random mutations, became billions of individual species, ranging from single celled bacteria to human beings. That’s the whole point of the video I posted and the book he wrote. If the mutations are actually random, then the vast majority of these mutations would be pure genetic gibberish that leads to the breakdown of DNA and not the creation of a new and different life.
He uses the example of computer code, which is a series of 0s an 1s, and very similar to genetic coding. If you randomly change the sequence of these 0s and 1s, you’re going to destroy, not change, the code. It becomes gibberish. The odds of making random changes in code are incredibly small. Thus, considering the number of genetic mutations necessary to take a single cell organism and have it evolve into a complex life form like a human being would require an astronomical number of mutations that don’t destroy the genetic code but instead simply change it into something that is still workable but different.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:57 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
They evolutionists are projecting their belief system, yes belief system, into the debate more than those who question the current theories.
I doubt that's possible.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:58 am to Darth_Vader
quote:what explains it better?
But what it can’t do is explain how (supposedly) all life started from a single cell organism and though countless random mutations, became billions of individual species, ranging from single celled bacteria to human beings.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:58 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
microevolution
You've never even heard of this word until listening to this idiot. Yet you're here acting like you're some sort of expert? FOH, dumbass.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:58 am to Mo Jeaux
So, the theory of evolution, then...
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:00 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
I doubt that's possible.
Questioning theories is now impossible? Please explain
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:00 am to Darth_Vader
Meyer's a pseudoscience creationist who's being interviewed by Shapiro. Both extremely intelligent people who can make any argument sound reasonable. It's mental masturbation, not science.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:01 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
Questioning theories is now impossible? Please explain
That’s not what he said.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:01 am to Alyosha
quote:
I’ve worked with Stephen on a number of occasions at Cambridge. It’s easy to write him off as “just another ID guy” from a keyboard, but continuously and presently Cambridge, Oxford, and the Royal Society do not. He’s well respected within the scientific community for such discussions.
Some here don’t like this because it flies in the face of their dismissal of him being some random “YouTuber”.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:02 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
Questioning theories is now impossible? Please explain
Read it again. Slowly.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:02 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
If the mutations are actually random, then the vast majority of these mutations would be pure genetic gibberish that leads to the breakdown of DNA and not the creation of a new and different life.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that this is exactly what happened and for every new species that evolved there were countless failed "genetic gibberishes" that never moved on.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:03 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
You've never even heard of this word until listening to this idiot.
Oh my good Lord! What an imbecile you sound like? You think Myers invented the term microevolution, or that it’s some obscure term?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:03 am to JohnnyKilroy
No thank you
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
You've never even heard of this word until listening to this idiot. Yet you're here acting like you're some sort of expert? FOH, dumbass.
I’m not close to being a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be an expert. But I have studied the subject of evolution, both macro and micro. You don’t like that I’ve come to a different conclusion than you though and so you resort to insults.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
You think Myers invented the term microevolution, or that it’s some obscure term?
I'm talking about the OP, Champ.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
You don’t like that I’ve come to a different conclusion than you though
What's your conclusion?
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News