Darwinism Evolution Genetics Intelligent Design

John Sanford: Darwin a figurehead, not a scientist

Spread the love

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

84 Replies to “John Sanford: Darwin a figurehead, not a scientist

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    “a figurehead, not a scientist”?

    Maybe a pseudoscientist over-extrapolator? 🙂

    Galapagos Finches remained birds… turtles remained turtles… antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain bacteria…
    even people remain people… what else?

    Until the evo-devo literature shows valid macroevolution cases that satisfy the formulation described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?” all they’re doing is produce irrelevant archaic pseudoscientific hogwash (a.k.a. low grade bovine excreta).

  2. 2
    J-Mac says:

    “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.”

    Before GMOs there was enough food to feed more than there were people on earth and millions were starving…Now with GMO’s even more food is produce and millions are still starving…What’s changed? Companies like Monsanto have more money and power?

    I’m not judging those who support GMOs because history will…and not very distant one…My bet is that GMOs are going to be proven to be responsible for the disorders related to human organism not being able to properly digest GMOs, such as autism…

    Whenever humans try to “correct” what ID originally designed, it’s doomed to fail… GMOs are no different…

  3. 3
    J-Mac says:

    “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”.

    Isn’t this what Moran, Graur and others have been claiming all along that this is proof for junk DNA and that ENCODE must be wrong if they claim that 80% of human genome is functional?

    Don’t they claim that natural selection acting on genetic variation can’t explain evolution? Isn’t it why Moran insists on random genetic drift?

  4. 4
    News says:

    J-Mac at 3, “slightly harmful” is not the same thing as “useless.”

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    News,

    Does “slightly harmful genome” serve a purpose? What could that be? Does it have a biological function?

  6. 6
    J-Mac says:

    I think that Darwin was a scientist and he explained some issues about life and the natural world…He also attributed OOL and at least the start to evolutionary change to God…

    What he didn’t explain was the origins of species or what we today recognize as the origin of new kinds of organisms; new body plans. i.e. the mechanism for land animal to transform into an aquatic one…etc…

    Atheists and other who hated the domination of religion in the world of science used Darwin and his theory to pursue their own goals…as it is the case today…

  7. 7

    J-Mac @ 3: Is Moran’s “random genetic drift” the prevailing view among a/mats these days, now that natural selection has fallen out of favor?

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    “The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms.”

    Darwin’s insight; clearly unscientific and poorly researched.

    “The Power of Movement in Plants.”

    No, no painstaking years of slow detailed research there!

    “The Structure and Distribution of Reefs.”

    Meh! Guess work.

    What ever you do don’t google his bibliography. For this non-scientist to have been so massively prolific puts modern scientists with all their various advantages to shame.

    This is the John Sanford the YEC, wo testified in 2005 at Kansas and, ‘humbly offered…that we were created by a special creation, by God.’

  9. 9
    EricMH says:

    Supposedly most of Darwin’s material was taken from other researchers in the field and was not his own. He was primarily a popularizer of evolution.

  10. 10
    mike1962 says:

    The evidence of Darwinism (blind watchmaker) at best is genetic drift adaptations. No other evidence exists. None. From an engineering standpoint it is ridiculous that die-hard ideologues put so much faith in it. It’s like a religion.

    Let’s talk about OOL and protein domains if you really want to get down and dirty about the engineering required for life. Otherwise, these knuckleheads should really just learn to shut up. Nobody with 1/2 a brain is fooled.

    P.S. I’m not religious.

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    No, EricMH,

    his work on establishing how coral reefs formed was his own and groundbreaking.

    Spending years observing the movement of plants; his own,no one else touched it, he invented the field.

    Likewise he invented the field of, what we today call Biogeography. Two chapters in Origins was the germ for this.

    He discovered the utter importance of earthworms to life.

    And like I said EricMH, this is a tiny sample of the man’s original contributions to science.

    If he never wrote Origins, if he never postulated RM+NS=Change, he would still be a great historical scientist, and contributor to man’s understanding of the natural world.

    Like I said, don’t google his bibliography it is truly volumonous.

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    Isaac Newton was a scientist, who worked out his theory based on evidences, not assumptions. We still use his formulae in many engineering calculations.
    Darwin was a pseudoscientist because made gross extrapolations of built-in variability frameworks seen within biological systems.

  13. 13
    rvb8 says:

    Dio,

    Newton was indeed a genius and with genius you often get stark raving lunacy, which he also had in no small ammount.

    Darwin did explain the indespensible role earthworms played in a healthy soil ecosystem; he was the first.

    He did explain how coral reefs formed before anyone else attempted this.

    He did write academic work on barnacles and their lifecycles.

    He wrote on cross and self fertalisation in the vegetable kingdom.

    He did write on geological observations in Sth America.

    Among many, many, many, other learned works. None of these would be controversial to creationists, except that he suggested coral reefs would definately need longer than 6000 years to form.

    I’m saying if these works, and many of his other polymath interests were all he did, and he did not produce ‘Origins…’, or, ‘The Descent…’, he would be remebered as a great contributor to science.

    Very happily for us however, these are generally the works which are ignored, for his far greater achievements.

  14. 14
    Bob O'H says:

    rvb8 @ 11 –

    Likewise he invented the field of, what we today call Biogeography.

    Err, no. Biogeographers consider Humboldt one of their own. Plus, there’s this guy called Wallace, who had a line named after him.

    BTW, Darwin also wrote a magnum opus on barnacles. It slowed down some of his other work a bit.

  15. 15
    Dionisio says:

    The famous guy grossly speculated based on biased assumptions supported by huge ignorance. That’s an unscientific attitude.
    The true scientist is humble enough to refrain from writing archaic pseudoscientific hogwash as their allegedly main contribution to science.

    A sage once said, “It’s not what you know you don’t know that’s the problem; it’s what you don’t know that you don’t know.”

    When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of biological evolution, there was a lot of biology he didn’t know. Some of it he recognized. But there was much he never even thought about.

    http://www.reasons.org/article.....-know-2-09

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    Galapagos Finches remained birds… turtles remained turtles… antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain bacteria…
    even people remain people… what else?

  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    Until the evo-devo literature shows valid macroevolution cases that satisfy the formulation described @1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?” all they’re doing is produce irrelevant archaic pseudoscientific hogwash (a.k.a. low grade bovine excreta).

  18. 18
    Dionisio says:

    Fortunately there are serious scientists working on real problems that affect many people, instead of wasting time on pseudoscientific bzdury.
    http://www.nature.com.edgesuit.....ss-1.22249

  19. 19
    groovamos says:

    RVB: He did explain how coral reefs formed before anyone else attempted this.

    I’m impressed that corals got “explain(ed)”. Just like that. He was a good story teller for sure.

    Very happily for us however, these are generally the works which are ignored, for his far greater achievements.

    Of course his greatest achievement was coming up with the circularity “the fittest survive” in the 5th edition of “Origin” because apparently he noticed that to survive you have to be “fittest”. He didn’t get around however to “explaining” what happens to the ‘fitter’ or even the ‘fit’ or even if those are ‘good enough’. But this even makes his achievement that much grander, that he could bamboozle the intelligentsia into a messiah role for himself, and sweet talk his way to Figurehead-dom using a trite circularity.

    It takes a certain kind of brilliance to sweet talk your way into the history books, like Obama did, with no concrete achievement. But Darwin even went one better by attaining cult figurehead status in the academy. And in so doing help people like RVB “very happily” get through the day with the soulless philosophy of scientism.

  20. 20
    J-Mac says:

    Truth Will Set You Free,

    Is Moran’s “random genetic drift” the prevailing view among a/mats these days, now that natural selection has fallen out of favor?

    Good question!

    It’s not… and even if it becomes one, it doesn’t make it true does it? Moran and others can claim all they want but I’ve pinned him and others down many times to prove it and he banned me…You can try the same…

    However, creationists do have a dilemma…IMV…

    Miro-evolution withing 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…

  21. 21
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    Do you believe that natural selection is a real process? I think you do… Darwin did expound it and it can’t be denied… He’s theory was incomplete and he knew it himself…Today we know that natural selection can’t account for origins of new kinds…He was wrong about that but natural selection is real…

    Newton’s theories still apply to some degree but most of them have been replaced by Einstein’s theory of general relativity… Does that make Newton a pseudo-scientist?

    While some aspects of GTR seem true it has its limits and Einstein knew it as it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics… Entanglement proves that “information” between entangled particles can travel faster than light Does that make Einstein a pseudo-scientist?

  22. 22
    Pindi says:

    Dionisio:

    “The famous guy grossly speculated based on biased assumptions supported by huge ignorance. That’s an unscientific attitude.
    The true scientist is humble enough to refrain from writing archaic pseudoscientific hogwash as their allegedly main contribution to science.”

    This betrays your true nature. Your shtick is the humble, ignorant, diligent but not very clever observer, but as this shows you are really profoundly arrogant and opinionated. Although the not very clever bit probably still applies.

    Rvb8 referenced some of the major work Darwin has done. Bob mentioned his opus on barnacles. Have you looked into that? Have you checked his bibliography? You insult a very dedicated and hard working scientist from a position of profound ignorance driven by your religious fervour and hatred of one aspect of Darwin’s work.

    For shame!

  23. 23
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac,

    I don’t understand your comment @21.

    However, since my comment 17 was posted before your comment @21, let’s follow the chronological sequence:

    Do you understand my comment @17 well?

    Can you explain it (comment @17) here so we all can read it?

    Thank you.

  24. 24
    rvb8 says:

    BobO’H @ 14,

    I thought it was his chapters 11, ‘Geographical Distribution’, and 12, ‘Geographical Distribution Cont’,in ‘Origins’, that were considered the well spring for the origins of Biogeography?

    I may well be wrong as you point out, but they were certainly an important contribution to the field.

    groovamos @19,

    you said, “I’m impressed how corals got explain(ed)..”

    When will creationists ever fairly quote people? Read what you quoted me saying @19: “He explained how coral reefs formed.”

    ‘How they formed…’. Not, ‘how corals got explained’.

    He noticed corals were animals not plants as everyone else thought, he explained their secretion of calcium and how this morphed into hard rock like corals which appeared to grow.

    He explained coral reef formation, NOT, ‘he explained corals’;

    Good grief!

  25. 25
    Dionisio says:

    Pindi,

    I don’t understand your comment @22.

    However, since my comment 17 was posted before your comment @22, let’s follow the chronological sequence:

    Do you understand my comment @17 well?

    Can you explain it (comment @17) here so we all can read it?

    Thank you.

  26. 26
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    Since your comment had no link, I only answered what i’d thought you meant…

    If you want some to engage, ether copy and paste your comment or provide a link…

  27. 27
    Pindi says:

    Dionisio,

    No I don’t understand your comment and not interested in that subject.

  28. 28
    rvb8 says:

    Dionisio @17,

    your question is irrelevant because you have no credibility to frame the debate with your;

    “Until the evo-devo literature shows valid macro-evolution cases, that satisfy the formulation described @1090 in the thread, ‘A Third Way for Evolution’…”

    So your assertion is that, evolutionary biologists must trek to this site, read the afore mentioned thread and answer the critiques put there?

    Guess what, they probably won’t waste their time, they’re probably in their labs following genetic linneages, comparing related fossils, and disintangling the evolution of blood clotting.

    They may not see the value in comming here to answer your game changing, devasting questions.

    BTW, they also make no distinction between macro/micro evolution, they use these terms as useful discriptors only. It is creationists that cling to the belief that the forces that drive micro evolution are actually different to those driving macro-evolution.

  29. 29
    Dionisio says:

    Darwin explained many things right, but failed to explain the most important things. Actually, he did it worse, because he dared to explain –without knowledge or hard evidences– how biological systems appeared at the macro-evolutionary level. He claimed things that have not been proven even today, many years after his claims were published. Even worse, some of his major claims have been weakened by the recent research discoveries. Other claims he made have been rejected, disproved or put to doubt, on the basis of available data. There have been long discussions on this subject in this website. Books have been published on this subject.
    Some folks see it, others don’t. Some agree, others don’t. That’s fine.
    It’s not my intention to convince or persuade anybody.
    But if someone wants to discuss with me, we have to find a common ground, which includes real biology issues from peer-reviewed literature.
    BTW, I’m an outsider to biology. I tip my hat to the serious biology researchers out there who are dedicated to the advance of that science. I look at the research papers to learn some specific aspects of biology from them, according to the advice I received from friends who are biology researchers themselves.
    However, I believe that what is written in the first chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians explains my situation. That biblical text seems to imply that God may use an ignorant nobody like me to teach a lesson or two to some folks who may have academic or scientific degrees highly recognized by this world. Because God made everything and knows exactly how. We don’t. We can’t know it. We don’t have the capacity to understand it.
    What does this mean? Well, at least it means that when someone engages in a discussion with me, it’s really engaging in a discussion with the One Who Designed and Made all. I’m just in the middle, totally irrelevant, completely insignificant. All credits go to God. None to me. OK?

    My comments @23 & @25 have to do with all of this. The formulation referenced @1090 in the mentioned thread is taken from the peer-reviewed evo-devo literature. It’s not mine. I have no capacity or knowledge to come up with anything like that. OK?

  30. 30
    Pindi says:

    Dionisio:

    “All credits go to God. None to me. OK?”

    That’s pretty insulting to God.

  31. 31
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac @26:

    Since your comment had no link, I only answered what i’d thought you meant…

    If you want some to engage, ether copy and paste your comment or provide a link…

    This is what I was referring to @17:

    Comment posted @1090 in this thread:

    “A third way of evolution?”

    If you copy that question and enter it in the main “Search” key-in field within this website it shoud take you to that thread, then scroll to the post # 1090.

    Here’s the link to that thread:

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-621816

    Do you understand it? What does it mean?

  32. 32
    rvb8 says:

    Dionisio,

    after reading @29 I feel this discussion should end.

    Suffice to say, Darwin is recognised as one of humanity’s great thinkers. And ‘1 Corinthians’, has no place in this discussion.

  33. 33
    rvb8 says:

    Dionisio,

    I actually wasted my time and visited your comment @1090 at the thread you mention. Here is what I found:

    Your first comment is @9 your final comment is @1279.

    Inbetween there are around 10 or 15 other commenters, this means you wrote around 1200 comments in this thread.

    99.9% of your comments get no response but you just go on and on like an unstoppable, but entirely blind charging bull.

    Dio, no one is responding.

    Now if exactly none of your fellow IDers find anything worth replying to in your gargantuan private effort of narcissistic commentary, how do you have the gall to demand evolutionary biologists must answer your (your personal that is) clueless speculations.

    I’ll give you credit though that was a massive output, puts Kairos to shame.

    Who the hell do you honestly think is going to wade through that incoherrant, poorly organised, mildly psychotic gibberish?

  34. 34
    Dionisio says:

    Pindi @27:

    No I don’t understand your comment and not interested in that subject.

    What subject you’re not interested in? Can you elaborate?

  35. 35
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8 @32:

    after reading @29 I feel this discussion should end.

    Why should it end?

  36. 36
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8 @32:

    ‘1 Corinthians’, has no place in this discussion.

    Why?

  37. 37
    Dionisio says:

    Pindi @30:

    That’s pretty insulting to God.

    Why?

  38. 38
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8,

    What you wrote @28 reveals tremendous misunderstanding.

    Perhaps the last few sentences in my comment @29 should help you to clarify your confusion in this particular subject.

  39. 39
    rvb8 says:

    I have no confusion Dio.

    Your the one who wrote 1200 unanswered and unresponded to posts.

    That’s clarification enough.

    Cheers!

  40. 40
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8 @33:

    I actually wasted my time and visited your comment @1090 at the thread you mention. Here is what I found:

    The rest of your comment @33 does not seem related to what was written @1090.

    Can you explain?

  41. 41
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8,

    For your (and your party comrades’) information:

    The threads “Mystery at the heart of life” and “A third way of evolution?” combined have been visited (as of today) 8,321 + 5,477 = 13,798 times. The combined number of posted comments is 3,492 + 1,279 = 4,771.
    The number of visits unrelated to comments is over 9,000.
    Considering that these threads have been up for around 3 years, over 3,000 “quiet” visits have been detected per year, 250 visits monthly, some 8 visits daily.

  42. 42
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8 @33:

    I actually wasted my time and visited your comment @1090 at the thread you mention. Here is what I found

    Did you understand that comment @1090?

    Can you explain what it means?

  43. 43
    Dionisio says:

    rvb8 @33:

    For your (and your party comrades’) information:

    Most of the papers referenced in the threads “Mystery at the heart of life” and “A third way of evolution?” have been collected for a project I’m working on. It doesn’t bother me to mention them in this website.

    BTW, have you ever used https://www.zotero.org/ ?

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    Dionisio @ 29

    Darwin explained many things right, but failed to explain the most important things. Actually, he did it worse, because he dared to explain –without knowledge or hard evidences– how biological systems appeared at the macro-evolutionary level. He claimed things that have not been proven even today, many years after his claims were published. Even worse, some of his major claims have been weakened by the recent research discoveries. Other claims he made have been rejected, disproved or put to doubt, on the basis of available data.

    That’s right. Like all scientists, he got things wrong. He did the best he could with what was available to him at the time. How could he do anything else? How can any scientist do other than that?

    I don’t see your God doing anything useful to help out. 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? Is that too much to ask?

    However, I believe that what is written in the first chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians explains my situation. That biblical text seems to imply that God may use an ignorant nobody like me to teach a lesson or two to some folks who may have academic or scientific degrees highly recognized by this world.

    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?

    What does this mean? Well, at least it means that when someone engages in a discussion with me, it’s really engaging in a discussion with the One Who Designed and Made all. I’m just in the middle, totally irrelevant, completely insignificant. All credits go to God. None to me. OK?

    No, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who claims that they speak directly with God or that He speaks through them. Were I still Christian, I would think it blasphemous. As an a/mat blasphemy is irrelevant but I would only consider the possibility if the person making the claim were able to impart information that could not possibly be known to any human being of this time no matter how well-educated or intelligent. Have you asked God to explain exactly how He created the Universe or 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.

  45. 45
    Pindi says:

    Dionisio @37:

    Because you are making him/her/it responsible for your tedious ramblings.

  46. 46
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @44:

    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.

    Where did you get that from?

  47. 47
    Dionisio says:

    Pindi @45:

    Because you are making him/her/it responsible for your tedious ramblings.

    Where did you get that from?

  48. 48
    Dionisio says:

    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?

    Why should God do things your way instead of His way?
    Can you explain?

  49. 49
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @44:

    Were I still Christian,…

    Were you ever?

  50. 50
    Dionisio says:

    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?
    Do you think you could understand it?

  51. 51
    Dionisio says:

    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” ?
    How does that relate to
    (1) the start of this universe,
    (2) how long this universe has been around,
    (3) the concept of “time”?
    Please explain.

  52. 52
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    I’ve checked your comment @1090. It makes a valid point.
    Thank you!

    There are many more issues that Darwinist face that totally make their theory look like fairy-tale starting with the fundamentals, like the origins of the fist self-replicating molecule, the first cell, endosymbiosis where some genes are unaccounted for in the evolution of prokaryotic cell into eukaryotic and so on…

    Then there are elephants, giraffes, kangaroos and many, many more that finding their ancestors is going to be impossible unless the mechanism of Darwinian theory gets a “miracle-like injection”…

    But people who have committed themselves to materialistic views have to believe that all those issues will eventually be overcome…These people you leave alone because they have more blind faith than any blind religious you can find… I personally feel sorry for these people because some of them have spent their entire life “preaching” their ideology and now with the new evidence available almost daily they have to retire and pretend that nothing has changed…

    “However, as I have written @20 creationists do have a dilemma…

    “Miro-evolution withing 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…”

    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?

  53. 53
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac,
    I’m in the hospital seeing my newborn granddaughter and her parents.
    Will comment on your interesting questions next time I can use my computer.
    I’m writing from a Windows phone.
    But some of your questions seem related to the built-in variability framework seen in biologic systems.

  54. 54
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    Congratulations!

    No problem…

    Take your time..

  55. 55

    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/

  56. 56
    LocalMinimum says:

    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.

  57. 57
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  58. 58
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  59. 59
    J-Mac says:

    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…

  60. 60
    Seversky says:

    Dionisio @ 49

    Seversky @44:

    Were I still Christian,

    Were you ever?

    Yes, were you?

  61. 61
    Seversky says:

    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?

  62. 62
    Seversky says:

    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.

  63. 63
    Seversky says:

    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.

  64. 64
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  65. 65
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  66. 66
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  67. 67
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  68. 68
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  69. 69
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  70. 70
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  71. 71
    Dionisio says:

    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!

  72. 72
    J-Mac says:

    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/ekkle.....ocaust.htm

  73. 73
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  74. 74
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  75. 75
    tjguy says:

    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.

  76. 76
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    Evil like holocaust…

    The opposite of what’s good, upright and kind…

  77. 77
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    Can you elaborate on BVF?

    Thanks

  78. 78
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  79. 79
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  80. 80
    Dionisio says:

    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.

  81. 81
    Dionisio says:

    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?

  82. 82
    Dionisio says:

    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.
    🙂

  83. 83
    critical rationalist says:

    Attempts to discredit Darwin are irrelevant because it doesn’t matter where an idea comes from. What matters is if it survives criticism.

  84. 84
    Dionisio says:

    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.

Leave a Reply