- 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 10:22 am to The Pirate King
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:22 am to The Pirate King
quote:
You have 63,000 posts. I'm not going back 2+ years to find what you know you said and still believe
You can’t provide a cite, because you’re lying. It’s a retarded subject to bring up in this thread regardless, but considering the source, I’m not surprised. Lying retard pretty much sums up you and your character.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 10:22 am
0
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:23 am to The Pirate King
quote:
The Pirate King
Bro you voted for Obama twice. Pipe down.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:25 am to Darth_Vader
Math is the exact reason I have never excepted evolution as a theory for how humans got to 2026. And you will notice along the way all the additions of time that were suddenly "discovered" in the archeological records, in an attempt to build a foundation for the evolution time scale
Dont even get me started on punctuated equilibrium as a run-around to make the the evolutionary time scale believable
Dont even get me started on punctuated equilibrium as a run-around to make the the evolutionary time scale believable
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:25 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But I have studied the subject of evolution, both macro and micro
Your studies should have probably led to the fact that there is no such distinction between the two and that this "distinction" is made up bullshite from creationists.
There is simply evolution, the change of allele frequencies over time. That is it. There is no true scientific distinction between species and large scale evolution
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The theory of evolution can explain microevolution, but when it comes to macroevolution, that’s where the math simply doesn’t math.
You realize this is the same thing right? Like these aren't two different distinct things.
Macroevolution is just multiple microevolutions over time. I get it's hard for us to fathom seeing as we live short life spans and have been studying this for less than 200 years. But man how is this still a gotcha moment.
Microevolution + time = Macroevolution. Yes there are gaps because time machines don't exist. The only reason this is even debated because a bunch of people really like this one really old book that says nu-uh this is what happened.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
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.
have you ever heard of the fossil record? how do you explain the progression of life from simple to complex in fossils within the geologic record starting at the Cambrian explosion until today?
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 10:27 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:27 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Math is the exact reason I have never excepted evolution as a theory for how humans got to 2026. And you will notice along the way all the additions of time that were suddenly "discovered" in the archeological records, in an attempt to build a foundation for the evolution time scale
Right, you shouldn’t accept it. How did all these things evolve over a 6000-year period?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:29 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Dont even get me started on punctuated equilibrium as a run-around to make the the evolutionary time scale believable
I would love to hear your thoughts on this TBH
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:30 am to mindbreaker
quote:thats the gist of it
Macroevolution is just multiple microevolutions over time
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:31 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
I don't understand this comment. Whatcha mean?
Your post implies you think that the word "theory" vs "law" in a scientific context means there is a greater level of uncertainty with a theory vs law. That if it were more accepted, evolution would be a law and not "just a theory"
That's not what those words mean, in this context.
quote:
In science, a law describes what happens (often with math, like F=ma), stating a consistent pattern, while a theory explains why it happens, providing a well-supported framework for those observations, like the Theory of Relativity explaining gravity. Laws summarize, theories explain; a theory doesn't "graduate" into a law, as they serve different purposes, with laws focusing on description and theories on comprehensive understanding
By saying "Well it's just a theory, it's not law" you sound like a backwards retard.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:32 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
have you ever heard of the fossil record? how do you explain the progression of life from simple to complex in fossils within the geologic record starting at the Cambrian explosion until today?
Maybe you should look again. The fossil record emphatically does NOT show that. The gaps are bigger than the one in Michael Strahan’s front teeth.
That’s part of Myers very detailed argument. The majority of species groups seem to appear out of nowhere in the fossil record, and only then start to show microevolutionary changes in a very slow and calculable process.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:32 am to mindbreaker
quote:
You realize this is the same thing right? Like these aren't two different distinct things.
He doesn't. He's just parroting creationist nonsense.
They don't understand what evolution "is" so they come up with these things like there is a force field around species (a grouping humans made up, at that)
Evolution is just changes in allele frequencies over time. Things mutate, they reproduce, and they do this billions of times over 100s of thousands of years.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:34 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Recycled intelligent design arguments
I mean. This is a universe of order. Intelligence. It is only logical to suspect its creator is ordered/intelligent/logical.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:35 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
have you ever heard of the fossil record? how do you explain the progression of life from simple to complex in fossils within the geologic record starting at the Cambrian explosion until today?
He will start to try and play the God of the Gaps with you on this, claiming there is not transitional fossil, and then when you list the literally thousands of transitional fossils, he will just find the gaps in those, of course exploiting how rare fossilization really is.
Modern science, in particular Genetics, have supported evolution to make it beyond any doubt. You are wasting your time.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:35 am to Barbellthor
quote:
This is a universe of order. Intelligence
There absolutely is not
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:36 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
Maybe you should look again. The fossil record emphatically does NOT show that.
Exhibit a
the absolutely do. We have literally 1000s of transitional fossils.
What we have missing is made up in Genetics
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:37 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
How did all these things evolve over a 6000-year period?
Well, first of all, if youre referencing the creation, this is pure stupidity on your part. The 6,000 year guesstimate is not Biblical. One priest threw it together, and the most moronic of the atheists/agnostics latched onto its fallacy. I've attended churches for decades and not once have we been taught the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Grow up
Secondly, an actual creative force wouldnt have to wait millennia for matter to cool, atmospheres to form, and beings to evolve, now would it?
Lastly, the earth and moon (which determines our 24 hr day) wasnt even created until the 4th "day". So clearly there is another method of defining "a creation day" other than 24 hours. Obviously youre not a sci-fi fan, even those atheist writers depicted worlds with varying ways to determine time
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:37 am to JohnnyKilroy
Well I must have been hung over that day in physics class.
quote:
By saying "Well it's just a theory, it's not law" you sound like a backwards retard.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:37 am to Darth_Vader
In high school back in the 90s, there was a moron in my biology class who felt the need to constantly argue with the teacher about this stuff. He used literature he got from his culty church (Bethany in Baker, LA) to try to make this exact argument. It is just religion hedging their bets with the micro/macro nonsense.
Page 5 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News