Genetic Entropy

[bob b]

New book at Amazon.com :

Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process.

 

[hatsoff]

Sanford is a unique individual. He is perhaps the most qualified YEC proponent ever. It just goes to show even incredibly intelligent people can be blinded by preconceived notions.

 

[bowhunter]

Sanford is a unique individual. He is perhaps the most qualified YEC proponent ever. It just goes to show even incredibly intelligent people can be blinded by preconceived notions.

Which, of course you are not. And I am not refering to not being blinded.

 

[bob b]

I wonder if I will be able to claim partial credit for discovering that the "Primary Axiom" (random mutations plus natural selection) was false, since I came to that conclusion in 1983?

I was so stunned by this revelation that the same week I quickly wrote a short booklet entitled, "Computers and Evolution", an analogy which compared the stored DNA in a cell to a stored computer program, and then the cell to the computer's CPU.

I argued that the computer program could be thought of as the "brains" of its "slave", the computer, just as the DNA was the "brains" of its "slave", the cell.

And I further pondered about who would argue that a computer program could be improved by making random changes to it?

BTW, that booklet was later uploaded to the internet. Try GOOGLE with "Computers and Evolution" theorem

 

[hatsoff]

Which, of course you are not. And I am not refering to not being blinded.

I'll get back to you when I have my Ph.D.

 

[Johnny]

"...Despite this, Sanford argues that in nature, mutations only lead to loss of fitness overall. In support of this thesis, he cherry-picks data (taking the bits that he likes and ignoring the existence of the rest, not a valid way of doing science), subtly distorts the interpretation of real papers, and makes coherent and "logical" arguments in ways that are appealing to a lay audience and whose technical problems can only be spotted by people familiar with the primary literature that he draws from. This is extraordinarily and subtly deceptive.

I can only see this as the human ability to believe something based on its emotional appeal regardless of the physical evidence available, a fallacy that is all too common. What I don't know is whether he is conscious of what he is doing here, and does so because he believes that advancing the idea of an "intelligence" behind evolutionary development is worth a bit of misrepresentation of data; or whether he genuinely misses the evidence against him because it is not important to him.

Either way, despite his work at Cornell this work is NOT a good representation of the science of genetics, nor is it taken at all seriously by others in the field. It is only a good representation of the way Sanford thinks. That may not be a good thing to guide one's own understanding by. If he can only support a thesis by deliberately ignoring available information, then there is something wrong with that thesis." - Amazon Reviewer

 

[bob b]

"...Despite this, Sanford argues that in nature, mutations only lead to loss of fitness overall. In support of this thesis, he cherry-picks data (taking the bits that he likes and ignoring the existence of the rest, not a valid way of doing science), subtly distorts the interpretation of real papers, and makes coherent and "logical" arguments in ways that are appealing to a lay audience and whose technical problems can only be spotted by people familiar with the primary literature that he draws from. This is extraordinarily and subtly deceptive.

I can only see this as the human ability to believe something based on its emotional appeal regardless of the physical evidence available, a fallacy that is all too common. What I don't know is whether he is conscious of what he is doing here, and does so because he believes that advancing the idea of an "intelligence" behind evolutionary development is worth a bit of misrepresentation of data; or whether he genuinely misses the evidence against him because it is not important to him.

Either way, despite his work at Cornell this work is NOT a good representation of the science of genetics, nor is it taken at all seriously by others in the field. It is only a good representation of the way Sanford thinks. That may not be a good thing to guide one's own understanding by. If he can only support a thesis by deliberately ignoring available information, then there is something wrong with that thesis." - Amazon Reviewer

I guess that this settles it beyond dispute. :chuckle:

I think I will decide for myself after reading it. It should be available soon.

 

[Johnny]

I knew as soon as I read he was a creationist

 

[bob b]

I knew as soon as I read he was a creationist

Spoken like a true scientist.

Reminds me of what one reviewer said to another when noting that the first reviewer spent all his ink "bad mouthing" a person expressing an opposite view:

What I'd like to see from critics of this book are SPECIFIC points (fill in the author) makes that are wrong.

Instead we get:

he cherry-picks data (taking the bits that he likes and ignoring the existence of the rest, not a valid way of doing science), subtly distorts the interpretation of real papers, and makes coherent and "logical" arguments in ways that are appealing to a lay audience and whose technical problems can only be spotted by people familiar with the primary literature that he draws from. This is extraordinarily and subtly deceptive.

Sure. And Freud and Marx were never shown to wrong either I suppose.

 

[Johnny]

Spoken like a true scientist.

Why thank you. I agree, it would be nice if the reviewer took the time to spell it out--but in all fairness its an amazon review.

 

[Stratnerd]

The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection.

Bob bob bob,

My God man. I guess you can't learn anything can you? Why don't you point out to us that Dr. Stanford is setting up a straw man?

BTW, what does it mean to evolve upward and how did he show it to be false?

 

[aharvey]

I guess that this settles it beyond dispute. :chuckle:

I think I will decide for myself after reading it. It should be available soon.

I'm guessing you don't actually have to read it in order to render your decision!

 

[aharvey]

Bob bob bob,

My God man. I guess you can't learn anything can you? Why don't you point out to us that Dr. Stanford is setting up a straw man?

How would bob know that? He hasn't read the book, only the promotional blerb put out by the publisher, who is hardly going to give an objective description!

(by the way, bob, the book came out LAST year).

Incidentally, I liked these two lines from a favorable Amazon reviewer's summary of the key points of Sanford's book:

* The examples are largely anthro-centric, but the analysis is generally applicable. (this is a particularly interesting point given his central thesis, but I have class now so I'll have to return later. Point to ponder: what do you think happens at the population genetic level when individuals with harmful genetically based conditions, through intervention, are protected and 'allowed' to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation? What species does this besides humans?)

* Computer simulations are shown to be hopelessly oversimplified and unrealistic. (Sorry, bob!)

 

[bob b]

We shall see. Stay tuned.

 

[chrysostom]

genentic entropy?

 

[chrysostom]

If you understand entropy, you would not put the word genetic in front of the word entropy because it doesn’t make sense. If you are trying to use the entropy law to disprove evolution to prove creation, don’t. Entropy all by itself proves creation. It doesn’t need anything else.

 

[jobeth]

Point to ponder: what do you think happens at the population genetic level when individuals with harmful genetically based conditions, through intervention, are protected and 'allowed' to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation? What species does this besides humans?)

I find it interesting that this reviewer used the word "allowed".

What kind of legislation would we want to enact to "disallow" people with "harmful" genes to breed?

And hasn't that already been tried in Nazi Germany and Communist China with disastrous results?

I disagree with the whole premise that "harmful genetically based conditions" are being passed on to future human generations solely by human intervention working against unrestricted Natural Selection. Rather, I agree with the premise of Genetic Entropy that posits Evolution itself is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

If Evolution itself being the cause is actually the case, and I believe it is, then it is more "natural" to allow the gene pool to deteriorate than it is to artificially restrict the breeding or survival of "undesireables".

 

[Johnny]

I find it interesting that this reviewer used the word "allowed".

What kind of legislation would we want to enact to "disallow" people with "harmful" genes to breed?

Human society allows them whereas nature would not. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant by that.

 

[bob b]

Rather, I agree with the premise of Genetic Entropy that posits Evolution itself is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

More accurately "random mutations even considering natural selection" is the cause of a deteriorating gene pool.

I reason I say this is that the word "evolution" can mean so many things it is better to be more precise.

 

[jobeth]

Human society allows them whereas nature would not. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant by that.

In what way does nature not "allow" people (or frogs or horses) with non-lethal genetic alterations to breed? Isn't the very fact that non-lethal genetic mutations will "naturally" appear the very premise of Evolutionary theory?

Aren't there in fact many examples of "individuals with harmful genetically based conditions" among all living species who are not necessarily reproductively sterile?

Aren't there in fact many examples of bad "mutations" that are none-the-less heritable?

Here are a couple of examples off the top of my head:
myopia
insulin-dependent diabetes
club feet
mental retardation

Aren't there many cases of "bad" genes that are not necessarily "killer" genes?

Why do doctors need to caution certain people (like Type 1 diabetics and the mentally retarded) not to breed if these harmful traits will die off by themselves without our artificially disallowing (or discouraging) them?

Animal breeders are very attuned to this problem of non-lethal deleterious mutations naturally finding their way into their populations, and must be very vigilant in "artificially" preventing what would "naturally" occur from happening.

The whole notion that families with harmful hereditary traits will die out without negatively affecting the entire gene pool over time is disproven by any casual observation of the facts.