Hugh Ross statistical claim about evolution

[datnaem]

I was recently watching a video (linked below) about a debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross about Creation. When asked whether Evolution had any place in Creation (about 5:30 in the video), Hugh Ross made the extraordinary claim that Evolution is impossible unless "The species exceeds 1 Quadrillion individuals, has a body size of less than 1 centimeter, and generation time less than 3 months".

I have never heard this claim before, and after scouring the internet, I could not find any mention of this statistic anywhere other than Creationist blogs who seem to have just copied it from this debate. However, I still think that he might have gotten this statistic from somewhere and not just pulled it out of his ass.

Has anyone ever heard this claim before, and if so, where did it originate? I would really like to find a source.

Here is the video (claim is made at 5:30):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf9GE6LFZtY

 

[Proteus]

I was recently watching a video (linked below) about a debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross about Creation. When asked whether Evolution had any place in Creation (about 5:30 in the video), Hugh Ross made the extraordinary claim that Evolution is impossible unless "The species exceeds 1 Quadrillion individuals, has a body size of less than 1 centimeter, and generation time less than 3 months".

I have never heard this claim before, and after scouring the internet, I could not find any mention of this statistic anywhere other than Creationist blogs who seem to have just copied it from this debate. However, I still think that he might have gotten this statistic from somewhere and not just pulled it out of his ass.

Ross is pulling it out of his ass, but from which part I don't know since speciation has been observed in larger organisms with longer generation times than that. An excerpt from my personal list of directly observed instances of speciation...

Domestic Rice​

Rice domestication is a well documented and evidence from genetics, archaeology, and ancient literature indicating domestication began about ten thousand years ago with the modern form Oryza sativa emerging from the wild parent O. rufipogon in Yangtze China. Modern Asiatic domestic rice has two main strains, japonica and indica, which when crossed produces rigorous first generation hybrids, but F2 generation are weak and infertile demonstrating the beginning of a post-zygotic mating barrier. Genetic tests have shown that F2 hybrid breakdown is due two recessive alleles and the emergence of two new species.
Source: Matsubara, K. et al (2003) "A Gene Block Causing Cross-Incompatibility Hidden in Wild and Cultivated Rice" Genetics 165:343-352
Ouyang, Y. et al (2010) "Hybrid sterility in plant: stories from rice" Plant Biology 13:1-7
Molina, J. et al (2011) "Molecular evidence for a single evolutionary origin of domesticated rice" PNAS 108:8351-8356

Blackcap birds​

Researchers have identified the initial stages of speciation in blackcap birds (Sylvia atricapilla) due to changing migratory patterns and food availability. These species have split into two main populations, one of which migrates from southern Germany to Spain, termed SW migrants, and another from southern Germany and the United Kingdom, termed NW migrants.

The SW migrants are morphologically distinct from the NW migrants which have broader beaks for a specialized frugivorous diet, contrasted with the NW migrants which have longer, narrower beaks as well as round wings better adapted for maneuverability but not for long distances travel. Both forms are also slightly distinguishable by color, specifically the NW migrants have a brownish tinge whereas the SW migrants have a grayish tinge.

These forms are also temporally reproductively isolated since they arrive at their German breeding grounds at different times. Genetic samples already support weak reproductively isolation and the different forms can be distinguished visually 85% of the time. This divergence may be being promoted by residents in the UK who provide bird seed for immigrant blackcaps.
Source: Rolshausen et al (2009) "Contemporary Evolution of Reproductive Isolation and Phenotypic Divergence in Sympatry along a Migratory Divide" Current Biology 19:2097-2101

Monkey Flowers​

Metals, like copper, are toxic to most plants even in small quantities. However when copper mines where opened up in California in the eighteen sixties two small populations of yellow monkey flower were found afterward to be resistant to copper which had contaminated the soil surrounding the mines. The newly evolved flower, M. cupriphilus, shows several morphological differences most notably in the roots and flowers, as well as ecological and genetic differences which have contributed to post-zygotic reproductive isolation. When crossed with their parent species, M. guttatus, hybrids become necrotic and "nearly always die rapidly".

Years prior to its formal species description McNair and Christie (1983) report that they have elucidated through cross breeding that the barrier to hybridization between the two species (termed in the paper Cerig and Copperopolis populations) is either one mutant gene or a pleiotropic effect of a mutant gene on others contributes to post-zygotic isolation.
Source: McNair, M. R. (1989) "A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California" Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100:1-13
McNair and Christie (1983) "Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus?" Heredity 50(3):295-302

 

[Pirate]

Hugh Ross seems to think that evolution takes so long that you would need a massive population, reproducing very rapidly. As if only a very small species with a population greater than one-quadrillion, reproducing every three months could evolve. There's no reason why a larger species with a smaller population and longer generations could evolve, if it had enough time. It's like saying you would only be able to walk across America if you could walk at over 40mph. Given enough time, anything that reproduces with error can evolve.

 

[Onomatopoeia]

Hugh Ross seems to think that evolution takes so long that you would need a massive population, reproducing very rapidly. As if only a very small species with a population greater than one-quadrillion, reproducing every three months could evolve. There's no reason why a larger species with a smaller population and longer generations could evolve, if it had enough time. It's like saying you would only be able to walk across America if you could walk at over 40mph. Given enough time, anything that reproduces with error can evolve.

What I don't get is how people can just ignorantly turn away from a fact that has been proven.

 

[datnaem]

Ross is pulling it out of his ass

I knew someone was pulling it out of their ass. It's such a specific figure though, and I thought it might have originated elsewhere. Are you sure Ross is the creator of this statistic?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I knew someone was pulling it out of their ass. It's such a specific figure though, and I thought it might have originated elsewhere. Are you sure Ross is the creator of this statistic?

It might be tough to track down, but being very specific doesn't mean the person isn't lying. Most lies work better if they are stated in an absolute way, with complete confidence.

Of course, the estimate of the total number of bacteria on earth is five million trillion trillion. They are obviously smaller than a centimeter, and a [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#Growth_and_reproduction]bacteria population can double as quickly as ever 9.8 minutes[/url].

So even by his stupid standard, evolution must be an accepted, obvious fact. That's what happens when stupid people pull numbers out of their stupid asses: they don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about, and they'll wind up contradicting themselves if you let them ramble long enough.

 

[Laurens]

Absolute nonsense. Evolution is inevitable if you have; a heritable trait that has a non-zero effect on reproductive success, among a population where reproductive success is variable, and there is variation in traits...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I believe this claim comes from the fact tht creationists don't understand natural selection (the mechanism by witch evolution takes place). They are very often under the delusion that everysingle possible organism must be capable to live and reproduce which couldn't be further from the truth. They simply look at the complex organisms of today and try to calculate every single possible combination of genes with a string long enough to produce that living creature, and ofcourse that is absurd.
What in fact happens is, things start simple, there will be those tha live and those that don't. Those that do live pass their genes to the next generation which will have a modified version based on the living gene. Those that don't live don't go out to pass to pass their genes to the next generation, and there will be no next generation with a modified version of the dead gene.
Now if you put this into prespective with the branching caracteristic of evolution you won't endup with quadrilions of individuals with every possible combinations, because the vast majority of combinations are part of branches that have been cut by the chainsaw of natural selection very near to the root and all the way to many of the branching fork.
So what you endup is just seeing a very narrow population of awsome things that work, and why you don't see the the quadrilions of other idividuals representing other branches? Because they couldn't exist to beggin with.

 

[datnaem]

Okay thanks for the info guys. I guess the claim did originate from Hugh Ross then.