We KNOW that creatures evolved through macroevolution. The evidence is in the DNA. It is crystal clear established fact. Why do you think DNA tests work in criminal court? Why do you think we can trace genetic lineages? We can read DNA like a book and we can find evidence of the evolutionary tree of life right there in the code. We can trace our origins to earlier ancestors and map those to relatives. This is all well established.
Then Meyers comes in, completely ignoring all of the above, and just says, "probabilistically, its really hard to organize amino acids into useful proteins, hence intelligent design."
Did you notice that nothing in Meyers argument above debunks macro-evolution? Meyers argument above merely proposes guided macro-evolution. But EVERYONE citing Meyers walks away with the conclusion that macro-evolution is wrong.... Why is that? Is it a coincidence that everyone who listens to him draws the wrong conclusion?
No, Meyers is a sophist who is intentionally guiding people to the conclusions that he believes that they want. He knows that his fundamentalist Christian base wants an excuse to disbelieve in macro-evolution, so all he has to do is poke just enough holes, and word things in just the right way to guide them to that conclusion.
Meyer's mathematical argument is INCREDIBLY problematic and rests on layer upon layer of faulty assumptions. Meyer appeals to layman logic comparing DNA to language (information). The problem with this is that he thinks specificity is important to DNA code just as it is for language or computer code. This is one faulty assumption. Proteins are flexible and adaptable and don't require specificity. Sometimes you can lose 80% of the structure of a proteins code but the protein retains its functionality.
Compounding on the above error, Steven's mathematically analysis filters upon looking for proteins with a specific structure as opposed to a specific function. So the entire foundation of his argument is wrong. We don't need specific structures for evolution, we need specific functions.
Furthermore, low probability is not evidence of impossibility. Negative arguments from probability can be easily dismissed with the anthropic principle. Just because someone draws a royal flush in poker doesn't mean their selection of cards was intelligently designed. It means they got lucky.
Meyers constantly makes false arguments about how hard it is for new useful genes to arise, appealing to the false creationist bias that things like eyes are irreducibly complex, but there are many studies that show how robust natural adaption is. In the study on pseudomonas aeruginosa, in just DAYS, bacteria were able to naturally evolve to eat a man-made substance that they never had access to before. The bacteria literally had to evolve a new enzyme (i.e. protein) to solve the problem. So much for a "mathematical impossibility"...
Prijambada, I. D., Negoro, S., Yomo, T., and Urabe, I. (1995). "Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution" Applied And Environmental Microbiology. American Society for Microbiology. Url at https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.61.5.2020-2022.1995.
Here is more evidence that Meyers conveniently ignores...
Copley, S. D. (2000). “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265. PubMed
Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). “‘Antifreeze’ glycoproteins from polar fish.” Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392. PubMed
Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). “Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.” J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232. PubMed
Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed
Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130. PubMed
Patthy, L. (2003). “Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.” Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231. PubMed
Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2. PubMed
Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). “Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.” Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244. PubMed
Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). “Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.” Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753. PubMed
One of the most egregious things he does is pretend that the only theory of evolution is the Darwinian one, and hence strawman the robust network of theories for how evolution works. Darwin had no idea about epigenetic factors, yet epigenetics is proving to be an essential aspect of evolutionary theory. Why does Meyers never talk about epigenetics? Is it because he is ignorant of it? Or is it because Meyers is a sophist who knows that creationists are clueless about epigenetics and it would be better to leave them in the dark since epigenetics deals quite a blow to his thesis?
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/meyer.cfm