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
Dionisio, Congratulations! No problem... Take your time..J-Mac
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
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?J-Mac
July 7, 2017
July
07
Jul
7
07
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Seversky @44:
Were I still Christian,...
Were you ever?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:16 PM
10
10
16
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?
Why should God do things your way instead of His way? Can you explain?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Pindi @45:
Because you are making him/her/it responsible for your tedious ramblings.
Where did you get that from?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Dionisio @37: Because you are making him/her/it responsible for your tedious ramblings.Pindi
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
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.Seversky
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
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/ ?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
I have no confusion Dio. Your the one who wrote 1200 unanswered and unresponded to posts. That's clarification enough. Cheers!rvb8
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Pindi @30:
That’s pretty insulting to God.
Why?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
rvb8 @32:
‘1 Corinthians’, has no place in this discussion.
Why?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
rvb8 @32:
after reading @29 I feel this discussion should end.
Why should it end?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
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?rvb8
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
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.rvb8
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Dionisio: "All credits go to God. None to me. OK?" That's pretty insulting to God.Pindi
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
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?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
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.rvb8
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Dionisio, No I don't understand your comment and not interested in that subject.Pindi
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
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...J-Mac
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply