The Limits of Neodarwinism: Stephen Meyer Discusses Evolutionary Debates | Joe Rogan #2008

Join Stephen Meyer as he delves into the debates surrounding neo-Darwinism, discussing the five major explanatory deficits pointed out by Austrian biologist Gerd Muller. Explore the limitations of the mutation-selection mechanism and its role in optimizing pre-existing forms while falling short in explaining the origin of major animal groups. Engage in this thought-provoking conversation about the intricacies of evolutionary theory and the quest for understanding life's diversity.

[humanseekingtruth]

This is a serious issue, the mechanism works for small changes, but won’t work for larger changes

[dennisboyd]

We know that God is the creator & it is only He who gives Life.

[mepoopnU]

I wanna see Tim Mackie from Bible Project on JRE. I think Rogan would appreciate Tim humility and knowledge of the original Greek and Hebrew

[DLover]

Darwinism 'explains' microevolution fairly well. Microevolution is a fact (Darwin's finches). But the issue is macroevolution. The tendency to explain macroevolution as just more microevolution is a flawed explanation. It is not variations in the beaks of Darwin's finches (microevolution) that is the issue, it is how we got the finches in the first place (macroevolution).

[darknite]

As Stephen Meyers points out this point about Darwinian evolution, that it is good at explaining modifications for pre-existing organisms but not so good at explaining how that organism came to be. In Meyers view, how does he propose that those organisms came to be? He mentioned elsewhere about DNA being like the compiled code of a program (the 0s and 1s). In other words just like a high level programming language gets compiled into binary, he is saying that this DNA is like the "binary", the compiled code of God's programming language. But how does God inject the different programs for the different species? What dictates the injection of a new program/species?

[matthewhowze]

I wonder if meyer is misrepresenting what this scientist said. Ill bet a million.

[ow]

"I expected that it would be easy to point out how Meyer is misrepresenting the arguments I gave in my Royal Society lecture, but he doesn't actually misquote me. He speaks about our dissatisfaction with neo-darwinism and the explanatory shortcomings of the conventional mutation-selection mechanism, how this good a good job at fine tuning and optimising existing forms by generating small-scale variation, but does a poor job at explaining the origin of the forms that undergo variation. If one wouldn't know what his true intentions are, one could believe that he is an evolutionist himself. Of course he is using the royal society meeting and my lecture to indicate that even conventional evolutionary biologists disagree about the mechanisms of evolution in order to sow doubt about biological evolution itself. But disagreements about the theory of how evolution works do not can the facts of
Biological evolution into doubt. This is where most intelligent design advocates make a jump in their argument that is simply not warranted.

[...]
In a sense, Meyer argues like a gene reductionist and then concludes that this doesn't work and consequently evolution by natural means must be wrong. This, of course, is very different from our argument which doesn't assume that mutation and selection don't take place in evolution but that for the creation of specific complex phenotypes (e.g. morphological novelties) other mechanisms are causally responsible (cellular physics, dynamics of multicellular interaction, tissue self-organisation, topological factors, etc). In our scenario the function of genetic evolution is to harness generically originating structures by streamlining and fixating the molecular mechanisms that faithfully reproduce them in subsequent generations.



So, in the section of the interview I can access, Meyer is quite careful not to misquote me. But, of course, he doesn't use my criticism of the standard theory in the sense that it was intended."

- Gerd Müller, the actual scientist that Meyer is talking about from the 2016 conference, on how Meyer is full of shit in this JRE interview

[mikebaum]

they were created at very close to, if not exactly, the same instant..., male and female...or no procreation would have happened. ( no offspring)

[daverj]

Birds came from dinosaurs via intermediate species as is well established, just as reptiles evolved from fish via amphibians. What's so hard to understand?

[LuciolaSama]

Dude forgot the element of time. Billions of years is plenty to come up with novel features through accumulation of

[mrsmagandelatour]

Sorry dude but God’s will. Trump educated guess scientist we did not evolve from apes