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
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!rvb8
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
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!Pindi
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
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?J-Mac
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
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...J-Mac
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
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.groovamos
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Fortunately there are serious scientists working on real problems that affect many people, instead of wasting time on pseudoscientific bzdury. http://www.nature.com.edgesuite.net/news/personalized-cancer-vaccines-show-glimmers-of-success-1.22249Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
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).Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Galapagos Finches remained birds… turtles remained turtles… antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain bacteria… even people remain people… what else?Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
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/articles/what-darwin-didn-t-know-2-09Dionisio
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
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.Bob O'H
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
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.rvb8
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
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.Dionisio
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
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.rvb8
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
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.mike1962
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
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.EricMH
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
"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.'rvb8
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
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?Truth Will Set You Free
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
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...J-Mac
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
News, Does "slightly harmful genome" serve a purpose? What could that be? Does it have a biological function?J-Mac
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
J-Mac at 3, "slightly harmful" is not the same thing as "useless."News
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
"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?J-Mac
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
"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...J-Mac
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
"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).Dionisio
July 5, 2017
July
07
Jul
5
05
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply