- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 10:56 pm to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:56 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:I get you’re trying to be sarcastic by caricaturing “evolutionists,” but the joke collapses if you crack a dictionary and compare the definitions of “genesis” and “evolution."
How did human life form here?
We evolved.
1
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:02 pm 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.
Luckily we don’t have to calculate the chances of it happening, because it is thoroughly documented to have happened and continues to happen.
Micro and Macro evolution are just arbitrary words anyway. How does one definite micro and macro? How does one even classify “species”? There’s a lot of gray area. Are a coyote and a poodle the same species? Maybe, maybe not. They produce perfectly viable and fertile offspring. The normal convention though is to classify dogs and coyotes as separate species. Regardless, all life on earth that we know of all ties back to a common ancestor and this is confirmed through many scientific areas of study including morphology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and more.
quote:
namely that the amount of mutations at the DNA level necessary to create single cell life
Totally separate from evolution. No one knows how life began. Could have been a god or gods or aliens or random chance. It doesn’t matter. Biological evolution or species is fact, regardless. If we know anything using science, we understand evolution better than any other phenomena including gravity, plate tectonics, magnetism, etc.
quote:
The video is a little under 10 minutes, well worth the watch
It’s not. And Ben Shapiro is a smart guy - so smart that he can delude himself into believing whatever he wants to believe despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. But Ben isn’t a biologist or a scientist, and he doesn’t understand the subject matter.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:36 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Mo Jeaux
Recycled intelligent design arguments.
Not at all. Meyer isn't some nutbag hack - he is a scientist, deep from within the scientific community, who provides the math to back up his assertions that our existence simply cannot be by chance. I have been following Meyer's work for years and he is excellent IMHO.
Meyer doesn't even tell you WHAT to specifically believe, and he espouses no particular creed or religion - he simply lays out why it cannot be mere coincidence or chance. And thus, the only option viably left is intelligent design - and even so, he only provides a broad framework.
Maybe some here don't like that the OP interview is with Ben Shapiro - fair enough, Shapiro is not everyone's cup of tea. But there are plenty of other resources online and on youtube about Meyer's arguments that are not Shapiro-centric. I would suggest some background gathering not just on "Darwin's Doubt" but also "The Signature in the Cell".
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:51 pm to Darth_Vader
I've just never understood why there is such difficulty reconciling evolution with the existence of God. If God is what everyone says he is then there is no issue whatsoever with imagining the entire natural process being designed with all the "end" results known beforehand. It could very well be that we are just the first species intended to recognize God and that the next one that comes after us will understand him even more. Or it could be that we are the only species that ever will recognize him and what comes after us isn't capable of it. There could be other civilizations in other galaxies recognizing the same thing. Or we could be the only ones in the entire universe.
If you're the kind of adherent that has to fit your cosmology into the exact literal words of an ancient text written by humans living in a very different time, then 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.
Things like the existence of matter over the lower energy state of void, the incongruence between the laws of Newtonian physics and quantum physics, and the DNA replication / evolutionary process did more to convince me of divine existence than any text or theological argument ever did.
If you're the kind of adherent that has to fit your cosmology into the exact literal words of an ancient text written by humans living in a very different time, then 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.
Things like the existence of matter over the lower energy state of void, the incongruence between the laws of Newtonian physics and quantum physics, and the DNA replication / evolutionary process did more to convince me of divine existence than any text or theological argument ever did.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 11:54 pm
Posted on 12/31/25 at 1:09 am to Darth_Vader
quote:In my discussions with you, I’ve always found you to be reasonable and acting in good faith, so please take this in the same spirit. That said, I have to strongly disagree with all of this.
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.
There are a few separate issues being blended together here, and that blending is what makes the argument feel stronger than it actually is.
First, the micro vs. macro distinction isn’t something evolutionary biology recognizes. It’s a rhetorical category used primarily by people arguing against evolution. Microevolution (small changes over generations) and what’s labeled macroevolution (large-scale divergence over long timescales) are driven by the exact same mechanisms: mutation, selection, drift, and time. There isn’t a known boundary where those processes suddenly stop working. Saying “micro works but macro doesn’t” is like saying erosion can shape pebbles but not canyons. The difference is scale and duration, not kind.
Second, the moment abiogenesis gets introduced, the discussion quietly leaves evolutionary theory altogether. Evolution does not attempt to explain how the first life arose; it explains how life diversifies once it exists. Whether life began via chemistry, divine action, or something else entirely has no bearing on whether populations change, branch, and specialize over time. Conflating abiogenesis with evolution is a category error, even though it’s a very common one in videos critiquing evolution.
Finally, the computer code analogy seriously misrepresents how genetics actually works. DNA isn’t a flat string of random bits where any change breaks the whole system. Most mutations are neutral, many are redundant, some are harmful, and a small fraction are beneficial depending on context. Genetic systems are robust, modular, and heavily buffered. Code written by humans is brittle because it’s optimized for precision, which is all the computers we’ve developed are capable of interpreting.
Biological systems evolved under constant noise and error and are optimized for survivability. Brute force is preferable to precision in gene propagation, where redundancy, tolerance, and selection over vast populations and timescales outperform fragile exactness. Random mutation doesn’t act alone anyway; selection filters relentlessly, preserving workable changes and discarding failures over immense spans of time.
Once those distinctions are clarified, the argument loses its force.
I get why the analogy sounds persuasive. I grew up steeped in these arguments. On the surface, it feels intuitive. But it’s built on assumptions about randomness, fragility, and probability that don’t actually apply to biology as we understand it. None of this requires rejecting faith, but it does require keeping these concepts separate and not attributing claims to evolutionary theory that it doesn’t make.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 2:47 am to Darth_Vader
Adaptation (microevolution) is a thing.
Darwin’s theory of Evolution doesn’t hold water. (macro evolution)
Darwin’s theory of Evolution doesn’t hold water. (macro evolution)
Posted on 12/31/25 at 5:40 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
I get you’re trying to be sarcastic by caricaturing “evolutionists,” but the joke collapses if you crack a dictionary and compare the definitions of “genesis” and “evolution."
What? I was not making a joke. He asked about human life, not life in general.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 5:45 am to iglass
quote:
Meyer isn't some nutbag hack - he is a scientist, deep from within the scientific community
He’s a philosopher, not a scientist.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 5:57 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
I've just never understood why there is such difficulty reconciling evolution with the existence of God.
quote:
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.
This. Every living thing that’s ever existed did not all exist at the same time since the beginning. So something introduced new species constantly across that time frame.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 6:55 am to weagle1999
quote:
Do you understand the definition of the word "theory"?
quote:
Do most of the people who believe in evolution?
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.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 6:57 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
“I didn’t come from no monkey”
Right. Every time I hear that, I cringe. The theory does not imply that. Nor does any of the evidence.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:08 am to Rebel
quote:
Adaptation (microevolution) is a thing.
Darwin’s theory of Evolution doesn’t hold water. (macro evolution)
Your problem with this argument is that if you accept A (microevolution), then given enough time you are logically committed to B (macroevolution). There is no hard boundary where small genetic changes suddenly stop adding up. “Speciation,” as defined in biology, is simply reproductive isolation and genetic divergence between populations over time. Once populations can no longer successfully interbreed, a new species exists, no new mechanism is required beyond the same mutation, selection, and drift seen in microevolution. Macroevolution is therefore not a different process, but simply the long-term result of microevolution accumulating across many generations.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:26 am to iglass
quote:
Meyer doesn't even tell you WHAT to specifically believe, and he espouses no particular creed or religion
what? Meyers states his goals quite openly and freely:
quote:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
LINK
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:27 am to northshorebamaman
As always, intelligent discourse from you...
And, ultimately, I agree: the two "beliefs" do not have to be mutually exclusive, and I think many scientists have come to the same conclusion.
And, ultimately, I agree: the two "beliefs" do not have to be mutually exclusive, and I think many scientists have come to the same conclusion.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:31 am to Rebel
quote:
Adaptation (microevolution) is a thing.
Darwin’s theory of Evolution doesn’t hold water. (macro evolution)
So if no new species can ever form then we have to have significantly fewer species than we did when we had "all of them" because we know they can go extinct. 99.9% that have ever existed are extinct. So you'd have to believe that humans existed when the first organisms existed.
There is no evidence to back this notion
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:40 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Recycled intelligent design arguments.
You got eeeem!!
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:41 am to Darth_Vader
I don’t care either way. Evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God in any way.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 7:43 am to McLemore
quote:
You got eeeem!!
I mean he even expressly states that he’s an ID proponent.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 9:18 am to icecreamsnowball
quote:
I don’t care either way. Evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God in any way.
If you’re a Christian, and most people here are, evolution calls into question the fall of man, the need for Jesus, and the fault of God in the struggles of being human.
If life evolved, then things like death and suffering were already in place from the very beginning. There is no fallen world. Our first ancestors (regardless of how good or righteous they might have been) were going to suffer and die in a tough world because that’s what they inherited. Children don’t get cancer because Adam sinned thousands of years ago. They get it because cancer has been around for millions of years.
To me, evolution is a theological strike against Christianity.
Posted on 12/31/25 at 9:39 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
It is a theory because it is unproven.
You sound like a backwards retard saying shite like this.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News