(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

So from generation to generation, as we accumulate genetic mutations, we actually accumulate one to 200 genetic mutations, or what's known as neutral mutations, per person per generation. And so what that means is that our offspring will have one to 200 typographical errors that we did not have in our genetics. And so population geneticists have all come to the conclusion that our genetics are actually deteriorating as we move on and as time progresses. As we reproduce, our genetics become worse over time as a population. And so genetic entropy is something that evolutionists and atheists will often mock and say that it's a ridiculous idea that our genes could be deteriorating. But I'm sorry if you have one to 200 typographical errors per person per generation, I mean that over time is going to accumulate in the genetic pool and cause us to literally go extinct. Population geneticists know that these errors that are accumulating will have some effect, even if that effect is vanishingly small. So all mutations, all errors in the human genome must have some effect on fitness. And so in 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed, and they found as well that we lose one to 2% of our genetic information as human beings per generation. So our offspring is losing genetic information as time moves on, mutations are accumulating in the genetic code, and this is causing us to go extinct as a population. There are scientific papers that have been written about why we should have been extinct 100 times over if evolution were even true. And so the way that evolutionists try to rescue this is by invoking natural selection. But the problem is that natural selection cannot detect neutral mutations. So these 100 to 200 typographical errors in our bodies that get passed on from generation to generation cannot be detected by natural selection and therefore cannot be weeded out. Natural selection only selects and removes the genes that are most deleterious or the mutations that are the most deleterious. It might enhance your best beneficial mutation and might remove the worst deleterious mutation, but the neutral mutations are completely invisible to natural selection. Selection cannot act upon them. And so natural selection has its limits. And so for evolutionists to claim that natural selection is what's causing us to select beneficial mutations and those beneficial mutations make us better over time, well, even if that were the case, we're still getting one to 200 neutral mutations or typographical errors in our genetics that are building up along with those beneficial mutations, even if you were to grant their argument. And so errors over time will cause death. So for evolutionists to claim that natural selection is going to preserve us as a population, when natural selection cannot even detect these deleterious mutations that are getting added to the genetic pool, it just goes to show that this crowd, these YouTube atheists, are the most scientifically illiterate people that exist. And just the fact that they could believe in Big Bang cosmology or that pond scum turned a human over time or fish turned a fisherman over time or bacteria to biologists, this proves that these people cannot be trusted because people that actually use free thought and that can do scientific empirical methods will not come to such ridiculous conclusions that the world popped into existence from nothing with no cause associated with it. I mean, folks, this stuff is absolutely pathetic on absolutely every level. And as creationists, we should constantly be calling them out. And one of the favorite talking points that I've found that are out there on our side is that we gain these genetic mutations and that they cannot be weeded out by natural selection. That is proof positive that we started out perfect as a genetic species and then we became worse over time. Not a single cell becoming better over time, but the human population being created perfectly in the beginning and then becoming worse over time. And so even if we granted evolution to be true, if there was a single celled organism at the beginning, which all life descended from, that single celled organism would have just reproduced worse copies of itself and it would have died out as it accumulated mutations. And so natural selection only selects information that exists. It doesn't create new information, it simply selects, hence the name natural selection. So even if you had a single celled organism at the beginning, like I said, it would have copied worse versions of itself. Think about it. Nobody would ever go to a copying machine and say that the copy is better than the original. But according to evolution, the copy, yeah, that's way better than the original. you