Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
by John Sanford (October 2005)

Genetic Entropy

In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places.

What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!

To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others revelation.

If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should rationally be placing our hope for the future.

John Sanford

Sanford drew heavily from the work of Motoo Kimura, James Crow, and Walter ReMine. He featured a lot of data I had never seen, and he applied the concept of signal-to-noise ratios (from information theory) to show that the selection pressures are too weak for natural selection to transmit useful information into the genome. He made devastating critiques of naturalistic evolution using standard population genetics. It was a superb book, something one would expect from such a capable scientist. I’m surprised this book is relatively obscure, it ought to be required reading for serious IDers!

Sanford’s Bio: Cornell Professor of 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and genetics. He founded 2 successful biotech firms, Biolistics and Sanford Scientific. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by Sanford. He still holds a position of Courtesy Associate Professor at Cornell.

Here are some endorsements for the book:

In the Mystery of the Genome Cornell University researcher John Sanford lifts the rug to see what evolutionary theory has swept under it. He shows that, 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.

Michael Behe

I strongly recommend John Sanford’s Mystery of the Genome, which provides a lucid and bold account of how the human genome is deteriorating, due the accumulation of mutations. This situation has disturbing implications for mankind’s future, as well as surprising implications concerning mankind’s past.

Phillip Johnson

(thanks to johnnyb for alterting me to this book!)

Comments
http://en.wiki.lesgrandsvoisins.fr/index.php?title=titanium_mens_wedding_rings_-_the_contemporary_appear_for_the_contemporary_man Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book | Uncommon DescentDiamond crosses
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
[…] 12There are far too many resources which powerfully tend to falsify the Darwinian paradigm. Here are a few to start with: The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution http://www.discovery.org/a/24041 and Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/ […]Utah State School Board to Vote on Science: Effects on Local Control, Academic Freedom | COMMON CORE
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
[...] of the months you can produce. Many scientists support his work and they know more than you. Uncommon Descent | Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book Indeed this research below states that most clades showed a bias towards DECREASING complexity [...]Looking for all the missing links - Page 66 - Christian Forums
May 25, 2012
May
05
May
25
25
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Gems form the internet... [...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]…...123456
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
[...] I have mentioned Dr. Sanford previously at UD. See: Respected Cornell Geneticist Rejects Darwinism. [...]ID proponents Seaman and Sanford Peer-Reviewed Article Published! | Uncommon Descent
June 16, 2010
June
06
Jun
16
16
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
[...] by Edward Willet Not by Chance - Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spetner Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. [...]Mark’s Blog » The Human Genome - The Case for a Creator
July 26, 2008
July
07
Jul
26
26
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
[...] by John C. Sanford is available at Amazon. I wrote a little bit about Sanford 2 years ago here: Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
June 11, 2008
June
06
Jun
11
11
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
[...] The human genome project took 3 billion dollars and 13 years to complete. By comparison, Solexa might be able to do a comparable job for a few thousand dollars per person (ideally even less) and in a much shorter time frame. (See the UD sidebar on Solexa Genomics.) Solexa might be viewed as an unwitting research partner of the ID movement. The fine work of two important ID proponents, Cornell geneticist John Sanford and independent researcher Walter ReMine, might finally get slam dunk empirical confirmation if Solexa succeeds in its grand quest. For example, a fundamental consequence of Sanford's Genetic Entropy thesis is that there will be an unabated rise in Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) per generation per individual. If confirmed, this data will be more nails in Darwin's coffin, and then Darwin Day might have to be renamed Darwin Bashing Day (or something else, how about Abe Lincoln Day? Solexa, Inc. is developing and commercializing the Solexa Genome Analysis System, which is being used to perform a range of analyses including whole genome resequencing, gene expression analysis and small RNA analysis. Solexa expects its first-generation instrument, the 1G Genome Analyzer, to generate over a billion bases of DNA sequence per run and to enable human genome resequencing below $100,000 per sample, making it the first platform to reach this important milestone. Solexa's longer-term goal is to reduce the cost of human re-sequencing to a few thousand dollars for use in a wide range of applications from basic research through clinical diagnostics. For further information, please visit www.solexa.com. [...]Solexa: A development which may lead to measuring claims of ID proponents | Uncommon Descent
May 23, 2007
May
05
May
23
23
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
[...] Cornell geneticist John Sanford pointed out many problems confronting the theory of Darwinian evolution, particularly human evolution. (See: Genetic Entropy ) Many of his arguments were subtle. Among them was his discussion of a somewhat obscure paper: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans by Nachman. Nachman writes: [...]Other problems for Human Evolution, Nachman’s U-Paradox | Uncommon Descent
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Raevmo, I am resisting the temptation to respond to your post with searing sarcasm. I want to maintain the decorum of UD but you are making it very very hard ... arrrgh .... must resist ... temptation to be sarcastic .... too late ... can't resist ... already sarcastic ... doh!Jehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Someone questioned how "epigenetics" might affect Dr. Sanford's conclusions regarding genomic degradation. That is something I have been wondering also, since finishing Dr. Sanford's book today, and just yesterday reading an article about epigenetics in the November, 2006 issue of "Discover", with the cover heading: "The New Genetics - DNA Is Not Your Identity".Douglas
October 14, 2006
October
10
Oct
14
14
2006
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Ajl, of course there is now way to remove individual nucleotides, but by removing a block containing the “bad” nucleotides (because the block as a whole is a bad gene) the “bad” nucleotides are removed anyway. The “badness” of a block depends on the number of bad nucleotides within it, and this determines the probability the block will be removed by selection. A population doesn't have to be really infinitely large to be “effectively” infinitely large. What it takes is roughly that effective population size N>>1/s, where s is the selective disadvantage of the deleterious mutation. For smaller population sizes N, noise is important and bad mutations can more easily become established. That's one of the reasons why conservationists are worried about natural populations becoming too small. Genetic erosion might drive the population to extinction. I have no idea what you mean by the “whale to horse” scenario. Did horses evolve from whales? Not to my knowledge. Beneficial mutations (that add information if you like) have been identified many times. Take bacterial resistance genes against antibiotics for example.Raevmo
June 8, 2006
June
06
Jun
8
08
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
"eliminting blocks that contain (slightly) deleterious (point) mutations. In sufficiently large populations there appears to be little risk of extinction through genetic erosion. " sure, but how does it select against it? If there are 20,000 nucleotides with some slightly deleterious ones, how is it able to pick up which ones to remove? It seems to me (and again, I'm no expert in this) that this is just a smaller version of the selection at the whole organism level. But, it still would appear to be too large of a block to identify a few slightly deliterious mutations mixed in with 20,000. Since they are nearly neutral, there really wouldn't be anything to identify to select out, right? Also, there is no way to separate out the good and bad mutations within the block, at least I think. Sanford says "mutational hot spots will give us the mutant we want sooner in that location, but while we then wait for the complementary mutations within teh "cold spots", the hotspots will proceed to back-mutate again. We are forced to keep re-selecting our good mutations within the hot spots, while we wait for even the first good mutation to occur within the cold spots" As to your statement of "sufficiently large populations", Sanford says: "If a population is essentially infinite in size and is perfectly homogeneous, and if "noise" is both constant and uniform, and there is unlimited time - than all noise effects will eventually be averaged out, and thus even near-neutrals might be subjected to selection." However, he goes on further to point out: - population size is never infinite - noise is never uniform So, I have always wondered about the whale to horse scenario. Whales do not reproduce like rabbits - or even gnats, so you have very long gestation periods, and very few offspring in the life of a single whale. It would appear to overcome the effect of noise and mutation, you need to approach infinite offspring, something higher mammals would never do. I know thats alot I've written, sorry about that. But I do have one question that I hope you will answer: we keep talking about beneficial mutations that can add information. However, Sanders indicates that he is just giving the benefit of the doubt on this, and that there really aren't any beneficial mutations that add information out there that we have found. Is this true? (keep in mind, Sanders indicates that a hairless dog does have a "beneficial mutation", but at the cost of actually losing information in the genome to accomplish it. That is, they are loss of function mutations that reduce net information within the genome. So, in terms of information content, they are still deleterious mutations. Thanks for all your great responses. I hope this thread is still of interest to you.ajl
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Raemo, I'm not aware of any free pdf's of his book. I welcome criticism of specific sections of his work as I'm recommending it to the IDEA chapters in Virgnia and New York. I value finding of any error in otherwise fine works of scholarship as well of affirmation of sections that are spot on. After reading graduate level population genetics books and then Sanford's book, I think he makes a very solid case from a very basic, matter-of-fact, standpoint. It is evidenent his versant in population genetics (he's an applied geneticist after all) and highlighted important nuances. Whether one agrees with him or not, I don't think his ideas should be ignored. Salvadorscordova
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
My pleasure Salvador, it was a nice thread. And no, I don't have Sanford's book. Isn't there a free pdf floating around somewhere?Raevmo
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Raevmo, Although we disagree, I find your post substantive, and I appreciate your efforts to make thoughtful contributions along with data citations. By chance do you have Sanford's book? Thank you for participating. Salvadorscordova
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
ajl, sure there are blocks in which no recombination has occurred since the origin of man. Given the size of the genome and the number of recombination events that could have taken place since then, there must be blocks without recombination. And it is known that recombination hotspots exists. But this doesn't *at all* prevent selection from eliminting blocks that contain (slightly) deleterious (point) mutations. In sufficiently large populations there appears to be little risk of extinction through genetic erosion.Raevmo
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Scordova, I'm surprised that as a space station building engineer, you find it hard to imagine how the negative effect of one mutation could be compensated by another mutation.
It can happen if it is by design. Any suggestion that compensatory mutations as a general mechanism without any pre-meditated design for those compensatory mutations is a stretch. That's part of the whole problem here, a mutation happens and the Darwinists are quick to label it as an error! The more reasonable perspective regarding mutations: 1. changes that are part of a designed capacity for change 2. changes inconsistent with the original design, and would be labeled as undesirable Consider evidence for the immune system's designed mutations by my friend Royal Truman: The Unsuitability of B-Cell Maturation as an Analogy for Neo-Darwinian Theory
Proposed evolutionary processes which supposedly produced first bacteria and eventually humans are assumed to not have been driven by intelligent guidance. We must clearly distinguish between true randomness and a purposeful algorithm to cover a search space to converge on an intended goal. (A) Where fired shotgun pellets actually impact is only in an incomplete sense “random”. The gun barrel, triggering mechanism, explosive mixture, size and number of pellets, etc. are organized to solve a class of problem. Although the specific target need not be known in advance, the topology of desired outcome (in time and space) is part of the shotgun design. The design covers a constrained range of possibilities: it cannot kill bacteria nor whales (area), nor destroy satellites (distance) and needs a triggering mechanism (time). This permits a non-random outcome, such as killing a bird at a specific time and place with a high probability, with little risk of collateral damage. The designer of the apparatus need not specify the exact picometer each pellet will end up at. It suffices to ensure within a high probability that when used in the correct context and manner, the “random” behavior of the ensemble of pellets is within the intended tolerance. (B) Construction workers sometimes throw debris down a chute when repairing a building. One cannot predict the precise trajectories nor final location of every object thrown down. Nevertheless, the range of outcomes is constrained by the design which ensures bystanders aren't killed. (C) In molecular modelling studies one wishes to identify an arrangement of atoms in three dimensions with an absolute energy minimum, which would represent the thermodynamic stablest configuration. Mathematical algorithms can guide the computer program down one of many (local) energy minima. How may one ensure there is not a better one? One trick is to store the best result so far, introduce “random” behavior to knock the settings away from the influence of the (local) minimum energy valley to permit other attempts to be made (yet deeper energy valleys). Superficially random search strategies are used commonly by intelligent agencies to explore a space of possibilities. There are many examples. The logic can be programmed into a robot to find its way around a room. Once foraging bees are in the vicinity where scout bees sent them (via a coded "waggle dance" message) to find food, they circle until the target is sighted. The bee uses its best guess as roughly a central point to initiate a “random” search strategy. Anyone not having a full picture of what is involved, and only concentrates on the bee's flight behavior while homing in on the target, could be excused for seeing only “random” change. None of these examples are legimitate analogies for evolution, although superficially based on seemly “random” changes and selection of improved intermediate steps. As we shall see, B-cell hypermutation to home in on solutions within an acceptable tolerance, is another example of only superficially “random” behavior. All necessary equipment has been prepared in advance, and the “random” hypermutations begin only after a careful process of preparation to ensure suitable candidates have locked in on the goal, and they are then carefully guided towards the intended target.
It is not hard to postulate what happens at the organismal level (single organism) is extensible to the population level (evolution of populations). But recall, even in an organism with self-healing mechanism (such as human bodies), there is still eventual genetic entropy (copy errors in somatic cells begin to propagate!). If we extend the limits of self-healing from the organismal to the population level (evolution), we get a good perspective on Sanford's thesis of genetic entropy.scordova
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Raevmo, thanks for the clarification. I looked into the concept of recombination from Sander's point of view (I am not a biologist, so this is just a fun learning environment for me). Below is his perspective as written in his book - perhaps you can provide a sanity check as to whether it makes sense since I haven't a clue (and am not sure I'm even representing it correctly): "Firstly, when we examine the human genome, we consistently find the genome exists in large blocks (20,000 - 40,000 nucleotides) wherein no recombination has occurred - since the origin of man (some references put in...). This means that virtually no meaningful shuffling is occurring on the level of individual nucleotides. Only large gene-sized blocks of DNA are being shuffled. I repeat - no actual nucleotide shuffling is happening! ". From what you know of genomics, is this true? It seems that Sanders is saying that nearly neutral, deliterious point mutations can't get selected out, because the selection happens at the whole organism, and there is no way for the entire organism to single out those mutations (as you acknowledged above). He is now saying that the same problem exists with recombination or shuffling since that occurs in larger blocks, so once again the larger blocks (of 20,000 nucleotides) have no way of selecting for the few point mutations in them. Therefore, it would appear that the 10 bad mutations we've been discussing get lost in the block of 20,000 and pass on through to the next generation. Remember, he is talking not about disasterous mutations, but deliterious, nearly neutral mutations which he surmises can't get selected out. And it seems from Kimura's curve, there is just more and more nearly neutral deliterious mutations that keep getting added in, even if there are a few good ones. Anyway, you seem pretty up on all this, so I wanted to find out from you if Sanders makes a valid point against recombination - heck, as of last week I never even knew shuffling occurred, let alone in blocks of 20,000 :-) BTW, this is one of the best threads on UD in a very long while - don't you think?ajl
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
ajl, you're right that selection usually occurs at the whole organism level. But the reason why it's often still OK to pretend as if selection occurs at the level of the mutation itself is because of sex and recombination. Every generation a reshuffling of the genes takes place, so that individual mutations will be "tested" against various genetic backgrounds. Only those mutations that do well *on average* against different backgrounds get selected in the long term. So your 10 good mutations will no longer be in the company of those 100 bad ones in the next generation, but will be together with other mutations, some bad some good. In a sense that is also a problem for compensating mutations, because if a bad mutation is rare and it happens to find itself in the company of a rare compensating mutation, then in the next generation they will probably no longer be together. Sex also breaks up good combinations. The reason why this couldn't have been a problem in the Lynch experiment is that the bad mutations were fixed; everybody had the bad mutation. As a result, a compensating mutation would always be in the company of a bad mutation whose effects it could compensate.Raevmo
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Raevmo, that is a good observation. I have always wondered about the differences in transcription errors in say books (Sanford uses a technical manual as an illustration for simplicity), and living organisms that don't just change, but respond to effects around them. Perhaps it is the same thing, perhaps not, as you indicate. hopefully Salvadore and provide more light on the subject. But, somewhat related to your question is what Sanford proposes as selection. We keep thinking about these billions of nucleotides that gets selected (say for instance I have 100 bad mutations, but 10 good ones - the best thing to do is select the 10 good ones, and throw away the bad). But, Sanford argues (and I think correctly) that you don't get to select the 10 good ones, as mutation occurs at the point level, but selection occurs at the whole organism level. Therefore, natural selection doesn't work on individual mutations, but has to select all 1 billion or so points. So, if I live and the guy next to me dies, you get my 10 good mutations and my 100 bad mutations, and so on, and so on. How do you think that effects your idea of compensation of good and bad mutations, if at all?ajl
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Scordova, I'm surprised that as a space station building engineer, you find it hard to imagine how the negative effect of one mutation could be compensated by another mutation. A mutation is not the same thing as an "error". The "DNA is software" analogy only goes so far. I find it rather easy to imagine how, for example, the slowing down of one metabolic pathway can be compensated by the speeding up of another pathway by an appropriate mutation (say in a regulatory gene). Just like in space stations, there seem to be lots of redundancies in living organisms. I'm looking forward to the mutations being characterized so we know what we're talking about here.Raevmo
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT

The surprising thing, according to the authors in the Discussion section, is that such a high fraction of deleterious mutations can be *compensated* (as opposed to back-mutated) by other new mutations and that there are potentially a large number of ways to ameliorate the negative effects of a given mutation.

I'm highly skeptical of these claims. Compesating errors by more errors?

Healing happens at the organismal level, and there is reason to expect that it can happen at the population level as well based on discoveries with non-Mendalian inheritance. Such repair would be anything but random.

I'm skeptical of Lynch's characterization that it was a compensatory mutation in an undirected fashion. One might could just as easily invoke a healing mechanism! The thought that one can heal errors with more errors sounds a little implausible. It is more plausible that errors are compensated by pre-programed changes. I think the characterizations by these scientists are a little biased. I mean, after all, are the DNA mutations in the immune system to fight off threats purposeless and undirected and undesigned?

PS
An anecdote about Lynch: I quoted him last fall in a talk I gave at UVa at an IDEA meeting (mentioned here). Somehow, Lynch, 800 miles away was informed that I quoted him! He wrote me demanding I refrain from quoting him from his response to the article where I was featured in Nature (see Who has design's on your student's minds? and Lynch's response ID or intellectual Laziness). Sheesh, does he have nothing better to do than police what is said at IDEA meetings (in Virginia) at schools 800 miles away from him (Indiana).

He gave the usual anti-ID diatriabe in his letter to me. I basically told him to go take a hike (engineers need not worry about reprisals from evolutionary biologists). I said that while we engineers are building space stations, evolutionary biologists are drawing phylogenetic trees that don't even agree with each other, and these phylogenies may as well have been drawn up by kids with crayola crayons (I in effect suggested, "Evolutionary Biologists aren't real sceintists") . I then invited him to circulate my response to him to his Darwinist colleagues. :-)

scordova
June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Jack, thanks for the time and lengthy response. "However, I am also trying to show that if we do so, we need to apply the same standards, so the distinction that Sanford, Calvert and others make concerning operational and historical science need to apply to both hypotheses (young and old earth, common descent and special creation)." This is where the confusion comes in. McEvo's/Old Earthers apply a set of standards across the board based upon "historical science". PZ Meyers called Dr. Skell a crackpot due to his YEC views and then utilizes this to promote the fact good science cannot be accomplished by people with YEC views or in the case of ID - same monotone rant. What I am earnestly attempting to do here is stop this categorization of scientist simply based upon historical science. Certainly, if one is arguing age of the earth, universe, etc., then each side will have to be equally and robustly analyzed. But as to daily scientific inquiry for research, creation of new medicines, etc., it has not one jot to do with current breakthru research. Please note that I am not arguing for teaching of creation science of even ID science. But I am arguing against the current label masters and also against discrimination of tenure or even staffing based upon such views. A YEC today entering into the Genetic research field, who is fully qualified, high marks, with a good Doctoral thesis should not have to worry about his career being squashed by the likes of a PZ. And we should all realize it will not stop science if a YEC enters into the field, or a university to do such research. "My short answer to this question is that I don't think there is any area of genetic research that Dr. Sanford cannot do. Thanks, and this is important for all to understand. Because to much highly inflamatory rhetoric is tossed around(as Tina stated) on both sides. But the unfortunate truth is a label always put forth against YECs is they cannot do good science - simply again because of their view on historical age. This myth is a highly nuanced message propagated thru media on all levels and by scientist. But the most famous hype is It Will Destroy Science. "My disclaimer is that the phrase “based upon his YEC views” is out-of-place here." That's your opinion. It was to make a point and draw a clear line in the sand. It accomplished the task. Being a YEC does not destroy scientific standards and in fact we now see high standards in the case of Dr. Sanford. We should be able to seperate the "operational" as you say and the historical. "From an operational science point of view his YEC views are not an issue, any more than his evolutionary views were involved when he invented the gene gun. He is working with how genes work now, in ways that are reproducible and testable by other researchers around the world, and the fact that he is a YEC makes no difference here." Exactly and thank you for the response. Hopefully, parents with children who believe in YEC can encourage their children to seek scientific careers without fear of discrimination or retaliatory actions at the university level.Michaels7
June 5, 2006
June
06
Jun
5
05
2006
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Johnnyb, thanks.bFast
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Mung and bFast: Let me clarify the terminology. Darwinism states that diversity precedes disparity. That is, animals change a little at a time, this showing up first as just variation within species, then as new species, then only by a buildup of a lot of small changes over time do you actually get disparity -- large-scale differences. The fossil record shows the opposite -- the large changes happen first, and then you get diversity within the larger groups. Darwins prediction: diversity precedes disparity Actual condition of the fossil record: disparity precedes diversityjohnnyb
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Mung: "No organism is ever classified as anything other than a species. I've tried to point this out to you before but you just don't seem to comprehend the point." Ops, we seem to have bumped into an issue of semantics. It sounds that you are saying that a biologist would not find need to make an exhautic tree when there are only 50 to 100 creatures to classify. Lets try this again. If one found two organisms just after the cambrian explosion, two organisms which are now seen to be in two separate phila, would a biologist look at them at that point in time, and say, "hmmm these organisms are very much alike, but a little bit different" like say different like the Indian Elephand and African Elephant are, or would the biologist say, "hmmm, these organisms are very much different, thought they have some core similarities", like say the difference between a lobster and a trout?bFast
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT

Great_ape, I didn't know this work of the Lynch group either, until I stumbled upon it when checking out who had cited another interesting paper: Kondrashov's “Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?” (1995, Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 583-594).

The surprising thing, according to the authors in the Discussion section, is that such a high fraction of deleterious mutations can be *compensated* (as opposed to back-mutated) by other new mutations and that there are potentially a large number of ways to ameliorate the negative effects of a given mutation.

I took you off moderation because you're bright and knowledgeable and not overly offensive. Don't make me regret it. :-) -ds Raevmo
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT

ds, prior to my last two posts, I submitted a somewhat lengthy post responding to the circularity issue you raised above. Was it eaten on my end, or is it stuck in a filter somewhere? I hope I remembered to hit the submit button... It made mention of my beloved "philosophical pillow," and hopefully it hasn't been sent to oblivion.

Tsk, tsk... you used a spam string p-i-l-l. -ds

great_ape
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Raevmo, Thanks for the link to the abstract. I am familiar with some of Lynch's work--he's been quite prolific and tends to address interesting questions--but I had not seen this particular study. While I don't think this will put to rest many of the questions raised here, particularly due to the timescales involved in laboratory experiments vs. the real world, it is at least something in the realm of empirical observation. It suggests that, at least in the laboratory setting in a competitive environment, lineages subject to measurable genetic deterioration via forced bottlenecks, when subsequently allowed to rebound in number, move in a *positive* trajectory in terms of genetic fitness. I find it quite interesting--and you all here should as well--that they describe this as a "surprising" result.great_ape
June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4