Is this a steaming pile of poop?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I was just browsing through Reasons to Believe's so called testable creation model (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml?main) by Hugh Ross. He wrote:

Crude mathematical models indicate that a species capable of significant evolutionary advance rather than doomed to eventual extinction, must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations.

Now I'm not a biologist, but just reading this set off my bullshit detector in a variety of ways. First off, I'd be very surprised if some field study can actually confirm that an evolutionary advance must have "one quadrillion individuals," "generation of 3 months" and 1 cm body size. How the hell do you set up the experiment? I don't know what source Ross used, but I strongly suspect some wild misrepresented or quote mined article. Either that or some dubious "tornado in a junkyard" probability argument that depends on absurdly selective assumptions.

Any thoughts?

Jason

[Sci_Fidelity]

"Crude mathematical models". Crude indeed. :rolleyes:

[Mageth]

I found this rather interesting comment on Ross' claim on, of all places, AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0209Ross_YE_v_OE.asp

1. dac [Day-Age creationism; Ross' position] : Natural biological evolution fails at all levels except for those species numbering more than about one quadrillion individuals with generation times less than three months and body sizes smaller than one centimeter.

This is an amazing statement—one wonders what this astronomer’s [Ross'] source of such biological nonsense could be. This fixity of species view goes well beyond the Biblical text and is disproved by operational science—see Q&A Speciation.

Even AiG finds Ross' claim rather fantastic and unbelievable.

[Dhaeron]

So, uh, does he claim that new organisms are constantly created out of nothing to keep todays species alive? Or what else is the result of a species that doesn't meet his criteria?

[Roland98]

I found this rather interesting comment on Ross' claim on, of all places, AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0209Ross_YE_v_OE.asp

Even AiG finds Ross' claim rather fantastic and unbelievable.

The folks at AiG are definitely not fans of Ross'--he "compromises" with the eeeevil evolutionists and puts many "Bible-believing Christians'" faith in jeopardy. It's actually pretty funny to read the back-n-forth between Ross' group and AiG, like this tirade. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp)

[Mageth]

The folks at AiG are definitely not fans of Ross'--he "compromises" with the eeeevil evolutionists and puts many "Bible-believing Christians'" faith in jeopardy. It's actually pretty funny to read the back-n-forth between Ross' group and AiG, like this tirade. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp)

What's strange is that, in this case, they're siding more with the "evolutionists" and against Ross. :huh:

[uncool]

Obviously bullshit...the 1 centimeter thing has nothing to do with anything else
And probably forgot that populations expand. Probably what a person should do is make a "values" thing - that is, a "graph" of how good a certain genetic sequence is, and then start out with certain preset strings, and then let it mutate and continue to grow and mutate.
-Uncool-

[RBH]

Though he gives no references, I suspect that Ross is referring to Walter ReMine's (http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm) obsession with "Haldane's Dilemma", so-called. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html) for commentaries.

RBH

[ecco]

Ya gotta love this site. First he gives the 11 steps of creation – ‘course he doesn’t say how he came to eleven steps – but, what the hell.

Steps 10 & 11:
10. creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: a) short-legged land mammals, b) long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and c) long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame—all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
11. creation of the human species

Now, I always thought these two steps were only a day apart. But, he goes on…

Genesis offers this explanation for the survival of large animals: God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases, the new species were different from the previous ones because God was changing Earth's geology, biodeposits, and biology, step by step, in preparation for His ultimate creation on Earth—the human race.

Hmmm, god created the earth, god created the animals, then god went back and changed the geology etc. of the earth and killed off species he had just created and made new ones and changed the geology etc. of the earth and killed off species he had just created and made new ones and changed the geology etc. of the earth and so on and so forth.

Ya’d think an omni-all could have gotten it right the first time.

Anyway, according to this guy, there are seven factors that:

limit the capacity of animals … to adapt to environmental changes. (The) deleterious mutations and environmental stresses drive most animal species to extinction. Crude mathematical models indicate that a species (not) doomed to eventual extinction, must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter.

Kinda makes ya wonder how only two humans with a generation time of one year and a body size of 5-6 feet ever made it!

[Phil McCracken]

Even AiG finds Ross' claim rather fantastic and unbelievable.AiG occasionally gets things right by accident. They correctly denegrate the Lady Hope myth, and get a lot of things right on the Intelligent Design movement:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
(Scroll down to "AiG’s perception of IDM’s weaknesses")

They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?

Their failure to identify themselves with a story of the past (e.g. Genesis) is partly tactically-driven, but is also a necessity, because they do not agree within themselves on a story of the past. However, this failure only reinforces the perception by the establishment that they are really ‘creationists in disguise’. The attacks on the IDM have thus been virtually as ferocious as any on Genesis creationists. Thus, the belief that agreeing to ‘keep the Bible out of it’ would serve to keep anti-religious hostility out of the arena has not been confirmed in practice.

Some who are prominent in the IDM appear to be sympathetic to the Bible’s account of Creation. However, if the movement should ever make the strategic inroads it hopes for, then our concern would be that any of its leaders who might later identify themselves with Genesis belief would lay themselves open to charges of having been publicly deceptive.

[Coragyps]

a) short-legged land mammals, ..... specifically designed to cohabit with humans.
Wolverines, perhaps?

[Mageth]

Wolverines, perhaps?

Rats and mice?

[judanne]

perhaps Ross' mathematics is modelled after the number of doctrinal mutations undergone by Protestant Xtians in the past 500 years

[Nero's Boot]

perhaps Ross' mathematics is modelled after the number of doctrinal mutations undergone by Protestant Xtians in the past 500 years

HA!

--I would like to subscribe to your newletter, good ma'am NB

[ecco]

After reading a little more of the site, I have to give the guy some credit, at least a little more than most fundies. He has a page dedicated to defending his views against the ultra-literalists. He even finds radiometric dating to be valid and scientific.

[RBH]

After reading a little more of the site, I have to give the guy some credit, at least a little more than most fundies. He has a page dedicated to defending his views against the ultra-literalists. He even finds radiometric dating to be valid and scientific.Yup, Ross's background is astronomy (Ph.D. from Toronto, IIRC). He's an old-earth progressive creationist, if I've got the taxonomy right.

RBH

[Berthold]

That's interesting. Also Sir Fred Hoyle made wrong assumptions on evolutionary mechanisms (the only respectable person I know of who did so; bishops etc. don't count for me when making statements on this subject).

[Sven]

Rats and mice?
Not, he definitely means cockroaches. Oops, this was about mammals. But how many creationists can tell the difference anyway? :p

And, BTW, questions like the one in the thread title can quite confidently answered with "yes" in most cases without even looking at the topic. :D