Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

John Sanford: Darwin a figurehead, not a scientist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Sal Cordova at Creation-Evolution Headlines:

Dr John C. Sanford, an elite scientist and inventor of 40 years at Cornell, an Ivy League School, made American history by inventing the Gene Gun in the mid 1980’s. This invention has been used for a highly substantial proportion of all the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on planet Earth, allowing food genes to be intelligently re-designed. As a result, millions of individuals have been able to avoid starvation. His invention also increased our ability to study genomes and thus further scientific understanding. For these accomplishments, one of his inventions became part of the collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. More.

Sanford is the author of Genetic Entropy: The episode articulates many of the reasons he eventually rejected Darwinian evolution.

From the publisher, FMS Publications: Genetic Entropy presents compelling scientific evidence that the genomes of all living creatures are slowly degenerating – due to the accumulation of slightly harmful mutations. This is happening in spite of natural selection. The author of this book, Dr. John Sanford, is a Cornell University geneticist. Dr. Sanford has devoted more than 10 years of his life to the study of this specific problem. Arguably, he has examined this problem in greater depth than any other scientist. The evidences that he presents are diverse and compelling. He begins by examining how random mutation and natural selection actually operate, and shows that simple logic demands that genomes must degenerate. He then makes a historical examination of the relevant field (population genetics), and shows that the best scientists in that field have consistently acknowledged many of the fundamental problems he has uncovered (but they have failed to communicate these problems to the broader scientific community). He then shows, in collaboration with a team of other scientists, that state-of-the-art numerical simulation experiments consistently confirm the problem of genetic degeneration (even given very strong selection and optimal conditions). Lastly, in collaboration with other scientists, he shows that real biological populations clearly manifest genetic degeneration.

Dr. Sanford’s findings have enormous implications. His work largely invalidates classic neo-Darwinian theory. The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms. Dr. Sanford shows that not only is mutation/selection incapable of creating our genomes – it can’t even preserve our genomes. As biochemist Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University writes in his review of Genetic Entropy, “…not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn’t even have answers for how it could remain there.” Dr. Sanford has coined the term “genetic entropy” to describe this fatal flaw of neo-Darwinian theory. This fundamental problem has been something of a trade-secret within the field of population genetics, with the rest of the world largely being kept in the dark. Fortunately, this book finally discloses this very serious problem, using language that is for the most part accessible to all scholars and students having a basic understanding of biology.

This new edition of Genetic Entropy includes numerous new lines of evidence supporting Dr. Sanford’s thesis. Much of this new evidence is from recently published scientific papers that are now part of the scientific literature. Genetic Entropy is a must-read for any thoughtful person who in interested in science.
Dr. Sanford ends his book by asking two questions. First, if our genome did not actually arise via the accumulation of genetic “word-processing errors” (as is claimed), how did it arise? Second, if our genomes are undergoing relentless degeneration – where can we possibly place our hope for the future?

See also: John Sanford: Accepting Darwinism’s collapse is a matter of scientific integrity

Comments
critical rationalist @83: Are Darwin's ideas surviving criticism? How? The way Hitler's ideas survived criticism in Nazi Germany? That doesn't qualify as "surviving" in science. Scientific ideas must be proved by empirical evidences. At least that's the case in biology. Perhaps mathematics deals with abstractions. But not biology, where WYSIWYG. And what we are seeing is complex functionally specified information all over, pointing to intelligent design.Dionisio
July 28, 2017
July
07
Jul
28
28
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Attempts to discredit Darwin are irrelevant because it doesn't matter where an idea comes from. What matters is if it survives criticism.critical rationalist
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
J-Mac, Have you seen Pindi, rvb8 and Seversky around lately? If you see them in another thread, please remind them that they have a few questions addressed to them here in this thread. Thanks. :)Dionisio
July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
J-Mac @77: [in reference to @73] [#80 follow-up] For example, the Galapagos finches could have different beak dimensions and shapes depending on their embedded variability framework state. They still remain birds. The same applies to the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are still bacteria. Basically this concept relates to a myriad of different cases in the biological realm. Are you with me on this so far?Dionisio
July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
J-Mac @77: [in reference to @73] The "built-in variability framework" (BVF or BIVar framework) associated with the biological systems, which I also call "embedded variability framework" (EVF or EmVar Framework) is an abstraction in which biological procedures made of combinations of regulatory networks, signaling pathways, epigenetic markers, and various physicochemical mechanisms can be intentionally altered by adding new specified information in order to introduce new functionality or to adjust the system to new requirements. We see many cases of this in the biological systems. The evo-devo formulation summarized @1090 in the thread "A new way of evolution?" must deal with the EVF.Dionisio
July 10, 2017
July
07
Jul
10
10
2017
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
J-Mac @77: [in reference to @73] Yes, will elaborate on the built-in variability framework associated with the biological systems. But I'll try to do it tomorrow. Thank you for patiently keeping our interesting discussion going despite my disorganized approach to commenting. I may use the analogy with the software product I worked on for years.Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
J-Mac @76: [in reference to my comment @74, which was a response to J-Mac @72] We were made to be good. But we were given free will to choose not to be good. Christ is the embodiment of GOOD. Anything that is against His precepts is not good, hence it's evil. Literally ANYTHING. But sometimes God allows the consequence of our evil attitudes to have effect on us or others. Now, back to your interesting questions @72. In a way God could prevent evil from happening, but then none of us would exist. Since I wake up in the morning until I go back to sleep I'm doing evil things. I can provide more details upon request. Just let me know. Thanks.Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Dionisio, Can you elaborate on BVF? ThanksJ-Mac
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Dionisio, Evil like holocaust... The opposite of what's good, upright and kind...J-Mac
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Seversky @44:
If somebody needs to be set straight, why not do it directly? Why take this round-the-houses approach? According to the Bible He used to speak directly to whoever He chose. What’s stopping Him from doing it now?
Sev, there are a couple problems with this thinking. First of all, although it is true that on rare occasions, He did speak vocally to people, but that was not the general pattern. So why take something that was not the general pattern and place restrictions on God? Secondly, even if it were His general way of speaking in the past, why demand that He cannot change? There are plenty of examples in the Scripture of this. His character does not change, but His way of working does change. One simple example of that is the Old covenant and the New covenant. Thirdly, His general way of speaking in the OT was through prophets. He also tells us that He speaks indirectly through nature and He clearly states that He speaks through His Word. And the final means of revelation was through his Son, Jesus Christ. He still speaks through these means. Also, we do hear of many Muslims hearing from God directly - usually in dreams - and they then seek out a Christian, a church, or a Christian organization seeking to learn more about Jesus. So, even today, He sometimes speaks through dreams, although I have never had that experience. This kind of revelation can become a bit subjective and must always be tested against the truth of God's Word. Some people claim to have the gift of prophecy and to receive a word from God. This too can be quite subjective. I have never really had that experience either, and am not sure what to think about it, but God can certainly plant thoughts in our minds to lead us. Anyway, all that to say that you seem to be placing demands on God that He never placed on Himself. We will never be able to fully understand God and there are times that He asks us to trust Him in spite of that. Not that any of this means anything to you, but at least on this point, hopefully you can see that your logic, if you can even call it that, seems to break down upon closer inspection. Peace.tjguy
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
J-Mac @72:
Does the intervening in the affairs of the world make God responsible for the prevalence of evil? How about not intervening in preventing the evils, like the Holocaust? The pope said that when he goes to heaven, he is going to ask God why he allowed such evils…
What do you understand by "evil"? Can you explain? Thanks.Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
J-Mac @72:
The evolution or change within kinds may or may not require a direct divine intervention… If not required, then the mechanism of that change would have to be identified though…
The mechanisms are based on what I call the built-n variability framework (BVF) associated with the biological systems. God created it along with the rest of His creating and He knows exactly how to adjust it for every situation. We see that all over in the biological systems.Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Dionisio @ 69 Or maybe a combination of both? The evolution or change within kinds may or may not require a direct divine intervention...If not required, then the mechanism of that change would have to be identified though... Did you actually look at the breakdown of 10 mil species? God intervenes in the affairs of this world constantly This is a very broad statement... Does the intervening in the affairs of the world make God responsible for the prevalence of evil? How about not intervening in preventing the evils, like the Holocaust? The pope said that when he goes to heaven, he is going to ask God why he allowed such evils... http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/news_articles/Pope%20How%20Could%20God%20Tolerate%20Holocaust.htmJ-Mac
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
J-Mac @52:
So, if you want to do the noble thing to represent God on earth, [...]
I believe God doesn't need me to represent Him anywhere. He graciously gave me true eternal life through saving faith in Christ. He loved me before I loved Him. That's beyond any scientific explanatory capability. Therefore I want to worship God in truth and spirit. I want to enjoy Him forever. God made that possible by His love and grace. Anybody can benefit from that amazing grace. Just have to humbly and thankfully accept it. Then sing Halleluiah and rejoice!Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
J-Mac @52:
So, if you want to do the noble thing to represent God on earth, and attack Darwinism, you also have to be ready to answer the question about the variety of species 10 mil + we have today after the flood… Ignoring this issue will not help your case… If kinds changed after the flood into so many species, by what mechanism did they change? Or, did God intervene and hyper-changed the kinds into so many species?
Well, this is an overloaded question that I'll gladly try to answer as well as I can. Thanks for asking serious questions about interesting issues. It may take more than one comment to cover your question.Dionisio
July 9, 2017
July
07
Jul
9
09
2017
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
J-Mac @52:
“However, as I have written @20 creationists do have a dilemma… “Micro-evolution within kinds had to have happened after the deluge by some mechanism…as we have 10 mil species today… Or… God must’ve intervened somehow after the flood to cause the kinds brought by Noah to the ark to change into the many species we have today…”
Or maybe a combination of both? God intervenes in the affairs of this world constantly.Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Seversky @62:
If He [God] had existed for however long without needing a universe, why the sudden need for one?
Who told you that God is restrained by time? Isn't time associated with this universe?Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Seversky @62:
If He [God] had existed for however long without needing a universe, why the sudden need for one?
Who told you that God made this universe because He needed it? Where did you get that idea from?Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Seversky @62:
If He [God] had existed for however long without needing a universe, why the sudden need for one?
What do the expressions "for however long" and "sudden" mean in the case of the ultimate timeless reality of the eternal God? Can you explain?Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Seversky @44:
Have you asked God to explain exactly how He created the Universe […] I’m all ears.
Dionisio @ 50:
Would you like to know that? Why? What for?
Seversky @61:
I’m curious. Wouldn’t you like to know?
Dionisio @ 65:
I'd like to know it too, but at this point I'm busy trying to understand certain aspects of biology and that's more than enough for me now.
Dionisio @ 50:
Do you think you could understand it?
Seversky @61:
If your God explained it in terms I could understand, yes. He should be able to do that, shouldn’t He?
Dionisio @ 65:
God is able to make people understand things but God does that only according to the purpose of His sovereign will. However, since you're so interested in knowing exactly how He created the Universe, why don't you ask God directly? God is not obligated to answer anybody's question, but you shouldn't lose anything by asking. I've asked God to help me understand certain aspects of biology, despite the fact that I'm so ignorant in that science (and in everything else too). So far, so good, because at least God has graciously let me see things that even some biologists had not noticed. The Christian Scriptures predicted that long ago. For example, the first chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians mentions that. Other biblical passages also refer to that. Actually, I believe that my career switch, from working on software development for engineering design to working on a difficult project that requires studying certain fundamental aspects of biology, was directed by God.
Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Seversky @44: Were I still Christian, Dionisio @ 49: Were you ever? Seversky @60: Yes, were you?
For many years I was not, but now I am. Please, tell me, what does it mean that you were a Christian?Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
J-Mac @ 59
According to rvb8 and the like universe and the existence is purposeless
If there is no intelligent agent to conceive a purpose then there is no purpose, like it or not.Seversky
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Dionisio @ 51
Seversky @44:
Have you asked God to explain exactly […] why He did it 13.8 billion years ago given that He had existed for an eternity without having any need of such a thing or the creatures He chose to populate it? I’m all ears.
What do you mean by “He had existed for an eternity” ?
He has always existed. He has never not existed
How does that relate to (1) the start of this universe,
If He had existed for however long without needing a universe, why the sudden need for one?
(2) how long this universe has been around,
It doesn't. he could have created it 6000 years ago and it would raise the same question.
(3) the concept of “time”?
I didn't mention the concept of time but ask your God to explain how there can be any perception or awareness of existence without time.
Please explain.
I asked first. If you don't know then ask your God to contact me directly so that He can explain things.Seversky
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Dionisio @ 50
Seversky @44:
Have you asked God to explain exactly how He created the Universe […] I’m all ears.
Would you like to know that? Why? What for?
I'm curious. Wouldn't you like to know?
Do you think you could understand it?
If your God explained it in terms I could understand, yes. He should be able to do that, shouldn't He?Seversky
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Dionisio @ 49
Seversky @44:
Were I still Christian,
Were you ever?
Yes, were you?Seversky
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
According to rvb8 and the like universe and the existence is purposeless... The lack of purpose is also included in the arguments by rvb8 with the ones who are privileged to see the purposeful creation...J-Mac
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
J-Mac @54: I'm still looking forward to commenting on the interesting issues you brought up @52. As soon as I have my computer back I'll try to answer your interesting questions.Dionisio
July 8, 2017
July
07
Jul
8
08
2017
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
rvb8 @28:
So your assertion is that, evolutionary biologists must trek to this site, read the afore mentioned thread and answer the critiques put there?
Where did you get that from? Did you make that up?Dionisio
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
According to you, He created this vast mysterious Universe just for us and then left us entirely to our own devices when it comes to trying to make sense of the whole thing. Would it have been to much to provide a User’s Guide? How about some straightforward explanations instead of parables and allegory?
I cannot see how I could ever make sense of existence. I cannot even fathom of how any being could make sense of it all; though, as the Being referenced by the Bible is beyond my reckoning, so be it. That being said, who's to say that an explanation is of any good use? That we can put it to good use? What is the point of God's revelation, if given to those like the Israelites who bowed before a golden calf of their own making after eye-witnessing the incredible miracles on the way out of Egypt? Those who need such proof, those who demand it...perhaps even that simply isn't enough for them. Apart from that, I find the Bible to be an excellent User's Guide.LocalMinimum
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 28: Have you seen and read (at least part of) the 81 part series “The Designed Body” over at the Discovery Institute – it’s at https://evolutionnews.org/tag/the-designed-body/ This series lifts us above the usual microbiological arguments for/against Behe’s Irreducible Complexity (IC) examples such as flagellum, to a level that should convince objective readers and those who claim to go wherever the evidence leads, that much in life is indeed Irreducibly Complex and implies an Intelligent Designer. I would phrase Glicksman’s descriptions as “Massively Complex Synchronicity.” Deniers of IC and ID should be hard pressed to maintain the Darwinian evolutionary view after confronting Glicksman’s Series — that is, if they are willing to give it a look see. What say you rvb8 and others? Willing to take a look through the glasses to see things in ways never before seen? http://enchroma.com/DonJohnsonDD682
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply