Why evolution cannot produce species

Dr Hugh Ross explains why evolution does not add up!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Hugh
• Ross
• evolution
• Darwin
• mutation
• Christianity
• God
• creationism
• atheist
• faith
• science
• Lenski
• biology
• kswiatlo
• fossils
• genetic
• creation
• Dawkins
• reasons
• to
• believe
• ReasonsToBelieve1
• bible

[Casshyr]

Ugh...Dr. Ross..how can you made such elementary mistakes?? Most mutations are NEUTRAL, not damaging. And mathematical models actually do support a common descent. A simple look up in the field of bioinformatics will tell you that.

[kswiatlo]

@Casshyr

You guys hear what you want to hear, not what has been said. Hugh say there are more negative mutations than beneficial ones. Likelihood is at best 1:10000. Neutral are... neutral - have no influence.

[nsugathadasa]

This guy is a joker.

Any good mathematics student will understand the as the change caused by a mutation or particular gene combination in a pool approaches 0, the probability that it results in a positive change one approaches 0.5. Since natural selection is very sensitive to even minute changes, evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path. If you do not understan, please ask questions. I am happy to explain.

[kswiatlo]

@nsugathadasa

"evolution will take place and it will be taking a very gradual path" - that idea has been abandoned by prominent evolutionists 1:05 overwhelmed by fossil record. That is why you have a very improbable model of Punctuated Equilibrium.

[wholtone]

Only in America.

[Casshyr]

@greatgulffixed The argument is that negative mutations are too common such that it prevents evolution from happening. This is obviously wrong, since most mutations are neutral. If most mutations are beneficial, then you would expect evolution to happen at a much faster rate. But we know the timescale of evolution is in the order of millions of years, and this correspond to the idea that most mutations are neutral, and beneficial mutations are rare.

[greatgulffixed]

@Casshyr

Neutral mutations would have NO selective advantage whatsoever. The proportion of negatives to positives is what is important.

[nsugathadasa]

@kswiatlo Evolution taking a gradual path is not abandoned by evolutionists. One must remember transitions happen relatively fast and the stable states last for longer hence much more fossils of stable states than the transition ones. The other fact is that with overwhelming DNA evidence that support evolution, one does not even need fossils at all to prove the evolution fact.

[Casshyr]

@kswiatlo ah ok i just re-heard it again. Yes you are correct. Although i gotta say, ignoring neutral mutation when talking about mutations is a big no-no, consider they make up majority of the mutations. Sounds like he is purposely leaving out certain info to emphasis on the point he wants to get across (i.e. sneaky). And also i'm very interested to see where he gets that likelihood from, if it is actually cited in any peer-reviewed articles.

[Casshyr]

@budgerigar42 yea and notice how he, like all non-evolutionists, like to assert claims as if they are facts, yet if you look up those claims in peer-reviewed journals, they are not supported at all. But at least he believes world is not 6000 years old....unlike Hovind the greatest retard of all.

[budgerigar42]

He did not help me to find how evolution doesn't exist. I personally think that Richard Dawkins has way more evidence than this little clip of 2 minutes that had him yabbering on about something he didn't even know for sure.

[oneadamtwelve86]

sigh, i almost had some respect for hugh ross learning he is an old earth creationist, but of course hes retarded after all