Evolutionists, please respond.

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists, qv @ 1:05:00 - 1:06:00 and please respond -- thank you.

John Ankerberg - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Hugh Ross 1 of 3 - YouTube

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

'Most mutations are negative'

Stopped listening right here. Like all creationists, this person has no clue what he's talking about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would disagree with the man's statement. His mathematical limits seem to be created ad hoc to axiomatically preclude the theory of evolution - he knows that the most famous examples of evolution and speciation come from microbiology, so he makes up these imaginary boundaries, saying that beneficial evolution only occurs for microscopic, quick-breeding organisms.

This is false.

What we actually see is that most mutations are simply neutral, affecting the host neither beneficially nor detrimentally. Around 3 in 175 (~1.7%) human mutations are detrimental (source), and about 1 in 150(~0.6%) E. coli mutations are beneficial (source).

Obviously these figures vary; what makes a beneficial mutation beneficial is whether it helps the host or not (or rather, whether it promotes its own proliferation). Mutations are slightly more useful in hosts with otherwise poor genes, and are slightly less useful in hosts with otherwise good genes. The rate of mutation also varies from species to species, as does the nature of the types of mutations. Nonetheless, the research shows that most mutations are neutral (refuting the tired Creationist canard about genetic decay due to the Fall), with only a few being detrimental (which natural selection omits) or beneficial (which natural selection keeps).

In other words, Dr. Ross is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Around 3 in 175 (~1.7%) human mutations are detrimental (source),

Or more precisely, around 1.7% change an amino acid in a protein. These are assumed to be detrimental for purposes of comparing synonymous to non-synonymous mutations (if I am understanding population genetics correctly).

But as you say elsewhere in the post, most mutations are neutral. We each have 50 to 100 mutations, as do our direct ancestors. In just 10 generations this is 500 to 1,000 mutations. Last I checked, I am not suffering from 500 genetic diseases.

 

[sfs]

Evolutionists, qv @ 1:05:00 - 1:06:00 and please respond -- thank you.

John Ankerberg - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Hugh Ross 1 of 3 - YouTube

My response: I don't watch hour and a half long videos unless they're really good movies. I absolutely, positively do not watch hour and a half long videos of a debate about biology between two people whose combined knowledge of biology is roughly that of my beagle. I also don't watch videos of people with no training in Hebrew discuss the interpretation of Hebrew texts, or people who are simply nuts discussing the age of the universe.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

"When they do [go extinct], he [god] makes new ones."

 

[AV1611VET]

My response: I don't watch hour and a half long videos unless they're really good movies.

Did I ask you to?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did I ask you to?

It was implied by the title "Evolutionists, please respond".

 

[AV1611VET]

It was implied by the title "Evolutionists, please respond".

Under the title of this thread is a sentence that requests you to watch one specific minute of a video that is 1:29:48 long.

Someone steps over that sentence and says:

I don't watch hour and a half long videos unless they're really good movies.

... and you then step over the same sentence to say it was implied by the title?

 

[Herman Hedning]

What the xxx does body size have to do with anything? (As is claimed in the video.)

 

[sfs]

Under the title of this thread is a sentence that requests you to watch one specific minute of a video that is 1:29:48 long.

Someone steps over that sentence and says:

... and you then step over the same sentence to say it was implied by the title?

Sorry, I missed your sentence about the one minute. I'll listen to one minute of almost anything . . .

Okay, having watched the minute -- whoever's talking there (that's Ross, right? it sounds like something in one of his books, at any rate) is completely wrong about what mathematical modeling of evolution says. It's simply a string of falsehoods. Deleterious mutations are only a problem for sexually reproducing species if their rate is very high (not the rate relative to beneficial mutations, but the absolute rate) or if the population size is very small (at least less than a hundred for a sustained period, say).

 

[sfs]

What the xxx does body size have to do with anything? (As is claimed in the video.)

It doesn't have anything directly to do with anything. It's correlated with large population size, so it can serve as a proxy for it, but if you're already specifying large population, there's no point to mentioning it.

 

[The Engineer]

What we actually see is that most mutations are simply neutral, affecting the host neither beneficially nor detrimentally. Around 3 in 175 (~1.7%) human mutations are detrimental (source), and about 1 in 150(~0.6%) E. coli mutations are beneficial (source).

This.

To me, it looks like Dr. Ross is a dirty liar. I just don't understand how someone could get the numbers so incredibly wrong, especially a scientist.

That said, AV1611VET, when are you finally going to comment on the fact that Dr. Ross has been proven wrong?

 

[OllieFranz]

My response: I don't watch hour and a half long videos unless they're really good movies. I absolutely, positively do not watch hour and a half long videos of a debate about biology between two people whose combined knowledge of biology is roughly that of my beagle. I also don't watch videos of people with no training in Hebrew discuss the interpretation of Hebrew texts, or people who are simply nuts discussing the age of the universe.

I made it to the one hour mark. Ross started saying that Neanderthals were not human, and Hovind was arguing that they were. That was when they lost me. And just before that Ross said that there was no evolution (not even making the usual disclaimer for micro-evolution), except for micro-organisms like viruses ad bacteria. And he had a real reason for the barrier, something I've never heard before from any Creationist. A real reason that was bad science, but, still, a real reason. (You need a certain astronomically high population count, and the required number increases geometrically as the mass of the average individual member of the population increases.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

This.
To me, it looks like Dr. Ross is a dirty liar. I just don't understand how someone could get the numbers so incredibly wrong, especially a scientist.

I've watched a lot of Hugh Ross videos (including the entire 2-on-2 debate where he joined Walter Kaiser against Ken Ham and Kent Hovind I think it was) and I've listened to a lot of his radio programs along with one book. He is capable of excellent science and passable Bible exposition. But I've seen a number of excerpts like this one which absolutely ASTOUND me. I don't know him well but I think he is a general honest fellow. (And certainly a very cordial and friendly guy, far more pleasant than convicted felon and prison inmate Hovind or.........[To stay within CF forum rules I have deleted my comments about Ken Ham.])

Hugh Ross is certainly not the pathological liar that Kent Hovind is famous for being (and which got him some 52+ felony counts.) Dr. Ross is definitely subject to the foibles of pontificating far outside his field (Ph.D. in astronomy.) But I marvel that he doesn't check more of his ideas against the many scientist colleagues he's known. Ross is comfortable within academia and has lots of friends and contacts. He could easily get feedback to correct his astoundingly glaring factual errors.

Many of these guys are subject to extreme compartmentalization of their thinking. I have no doubt that Ross sincerely believes everything he states. In no way do I think he's the cash-dipping ministry thief who Hovind proved himself to be in the federal courtroom. But after seeing some of Ross' video interviews where he talks about his struggles with autistic tendencies and his Asperger's Syndrome, some critics have wondered if the mixed limitations+advantages of that syndrome may skew and explain some of his thinking. (I have too little knowledge of Asperger's to assess that possible correlation.)

Clearly, Ross needs a remedial tutorial on the theory of evolution and especially mutations. Even as someone who is neither a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist, I was struck by the enormity of his errors----many of which are extremely outdated creationist propaganda from the 1970's.

This.
That said, AV1611VET, when are you finally going to comment on the fact that Dr. Ross has been proven wrong?

When we AV1611VET that Walter Brown is a loon [watch Brown's hydroplate animation video sometime] and he cites Henry Morris of all people for his claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was created by God AFTER Adam sinned. Of course AV1611VET forever dodges simple questions like how the other laws of thermodynamics somehow apply without the 2nd Law being in operation----nor can he explain why we should ignore the obvious meaning (deduced from context) of the Apostle Paul's statement that "creation groans" and accept Morris' claim that it is a direct reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But for that matter, AV1611VET claims that the waters of Noah's Flood ended up on Neptune---and insists it is not a joke. [Yes, I think many readers have figured out that he is portraying a character to get laughs.]

 

[Loudmouth]

But for that matter, AV1611VET claims that the waters of Noah's Flood ended up on Neptune---and insists it is not a joke. [Yes, I think many readers have figured out that he is portraying a character to get laughs.]

Not to mention that our bodies would cease to work if there was no 2nd law of thermodynamics. Without the 2nd law there would be no way to pull toxins out of our blood stream, pull oxygen out of the air, metabolize sugars, etc.

 

[chilehed]

He's obviously an intelligent man, but he says a bunch of really, really stupid things. Maybe he got his degree from some mail-order place?

 

[AV1611VET]

He's obviously an intelligent man, but he says a bunch of really, really stupid things. Maybe he got his degree from some mail-order place?

And where did [home schooled] Francis Bacon, the creator of empiricism and founder of the Baconian method (a.k.a., the scientific method), get his degree?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And where did [home schooled] Francis Bacon, the creator of empiricism and founder of the Baconian method (a.k.a., the scientific method), get his degree?

An education can come from a university or from elsewhere, but it does not come from a diploma mill.

 

[Jade Margery]

In the single minute of this that I watched, as suggested by AV, was crammed more stupidity and ignorance than I could have thought possible to condense into a mere sixty seconds. I'm pretty sure that every single thing that man (Ross?) said was either factually incorrect, wild conjecture, religious propaganda, or just plain idiocy.

Thankfully, I see that others have already totally demolished his statements, so I see no point to repeating their efforts. I can only say that I feel sorry for anyone believing a word out of that man's mouth.