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

Re #41: I wasn't criticizing Sanford's book, since I haven't read it. I was criticizing the general tendency (predating Sanford's book) to simply claim that RM+NS inevitably leads to deterioration and inevitable extinction without backing that up with a model. What Kimura curve are you talking about? I'm looking at my Crow and Kimura (1970) right now. Is it in there?

I have to agree with great_ape that fluctuating population dynamics of finite populations almost guarantees that a species will go extinct sooner of later. That seems to be a sufficient explantion. Whether it is necessary, I don't know. I could well imagine that many extinctions are caused by one species outcompeting the other (a form of NS). Species are usually well adapted to local conditions (including other species), but when new species arrive from far away, the invasive species can cause massive extinction. Look what happened in Lake Victoria when a new predator was introduced. Bye bye cichlids. There are many more examples. I have no idea how important this has been in the history of life, but it might have been quite significant. These two factors together (i.e. random population dynamics and competition) might well account for 99% of species having gone extinct.

You admit you have no idea if your claims of extinction mechanisms are important in past extinctions or not but you're still going to discount what's at least an equally valid proposal for extinctions - deterioration of the genome through nearly neutral evolution. You appear to have an irrational bias in your thinking. Please explain. -ds Raevmo
June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PST

Hi Guys,
Here comes a question from Ignorance:
I always assumed that the signal to noise ratio had been shown to be in favour of demonstrating that deleterious mutations were not so frequent that information was lost more than gained-if information was lost more than gained -how could small changes moprphological or otherwise ever lead to anything at all ?
Sorry if this question leaves you slack jawed weak kneed and doubly incontinent but I had to ask .
cheers,
Wormherder

how could small changes moprphological or otherwise ever lead to anything at all ? That's the whole point. They didn't. Something else did. The only answer that makes any sense to me is a front-loaded evolution. Life on earth began from a seed which was programmed to diversify in a more or less fixed sequence just like a fertilized egg cell is programmed to diversify in a fixed sequence into all the different cell types, tissue types, and organs that make up the adult form. -ds WormHerder
June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PST

For what it's worth, world class geneticist Brian Sykes gives the human race 100,000 years before male extinction. Though I'm skeptical of some of his reasons, geneticist Sykes (by no means an IDer), is at least in line with Sanford's outlook. See: Adam's Curse

Adam's Curse

Well-known Oxford geneticist Sykes (The Seven Daughters of Eve), in this lively and thought-provoking book, gives a genetic twist to the battle between the sexes.
....
Sykes concludes by noting that, as evidenced by declining sperm counts and high percentages of abnormal sperm, among other variables, the Y chromosome is a genetic mess and is deteriorating so quickly that men could become extinct.

At least Sykes gives a more interesting twist regarding the future: as males grow extinct, there will come a time there will be ten women for every man.

Sal

scordova
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PST
When I was an evolutionist, I also was, at heart, a eugenecist....In light of a deteriorating human genome, should eugenics be re-examined. Unfortuately, this is already happening.... John Sanford
Greetings DonaldM, (I regret to say, I'll be away for the weekend, so my visits to this thread will be limited. bummer.) That said, it would helpful to compare and contrast Sanford's work to that of the other IDers. Behe outline broad barriers to Darwinian evolution and did some quantitative work on the improbability of protein evolution. Bill Dembski focused on design detection and mathematics that would be useful to researchers trying to assess if a physical object is designed. Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyers wrote extensively on difficulties facing morphological evolution as well as the problems in the paleontological record. Barrow, Tipler, Gonzalez, Richards, and others touched on cosmological-ID. Sanford and ReMine demonstrate mathematically from existing knowlege and that even under generous theoretical assumptions Darwinian evolution does not have the physical resources to fixate the vast number nucleotides in the genome. We know the limits of information transmission in modems and the speed of information infusion into hard disks. We also know whether a signal is sufficiently strong enough to overcome the noise in a given environment. Extending these valid concepts of information theory into the question of information in the genome is therefore natural. But what Sanford discovered is that Darwinian evolution is theoretically inadequate to solve the problem of information increase and maintenance. The numbers simply do not justify any acceptance of Darwinian evolution. Furthermore, Sanford's claims have some verification in the lab, and is open to further empirical testing! Much like Kepler's celestial mechanics supplanted epicycle theory in the prediction of planetary trajectories, I think Sanford's model will be far more successful in predicting genomic trajectories. The ideas are testable in principle, and if biologist will be open-mindend with the data, they've been seeing confirmaiton of this all along. For example, if the degeration is as high as he claims, we won't need to wait millions of years to measure it. Our resolution may be at the point we can actually test his ideas in the not too distant future. Furthermore, there are already some papers supportive of his thesis. From a practical standpoint, Sanford's work has important medical implications. It's amusing to think much of the food in our grocery stores may have been affected by his gene-gun technology, and now our outlook and treatment of the genome may also be affected because of his pioneering work. Much of his work simply makes inferences from well accepted sources of information. I think he was one of the few simply bold enough to come forward and say, "the emperor has no clothes". The bulk of his claims were already in existing peer-reviewed literature which had been swept under the rug as a problem to be resolved in the future. As he pointed out, the deteriorating genome is already somewhat privately acknowledged by the eugenecists. Sanford simply re-visits the problems and argues scientifically why these unresolved problems with naturalistic evolution will never be solved. Sanford is one of the few individuals with such a stellar reputation and who is independently wealthy (because of his biotech firms) that he could withstand the backlash quite comfortably. I'm very grateful he came forward, and I hope the issues he put on the table will be discussed seriously in the scientific community. Salvadorscordova
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PST
This sounds like a good book to get and read. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Sal. For years the Darwinists response to anyone who questions how small scale adaptations can accumulate to large scale evolutionary changes is to ask "what's the barrier to genetic change?" Implied in the question, of course, is that since no one can identify any such barrier to genetic change, then clearly none exists (forgetting thier own maxim that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!"). I wonder if Sanford's book and the problems he discusses represent that just such a barrier exists and here it is! Any thoughts?DonaldM
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PST
Some random quotes:
If you want to receive a message on the radio, you need to limit the amount of "noise", or static. If there is a strong interfering signal-the message is lost....Turning up the volume on your radio does not help overcome the static. We just wind up amplifying the static as much as the signal. To ensure minimal loss of information, there must be a favorable signal-to-noise ratio... In genetics, the signal-to-noise ratio is often expressed in terms of "heritability". If a trait has high heritiability, this means that most of the variation observed for that trait is genetically heritable, and so this trait will be easy to select for. The essence of this concept of heritability is simply the ratio of heritable versus non-heritable variation. Non-heritable variation is largely due to variation within an organism's individual environment, and is the source of "phynotypic noise". So a genetic heritability value for a trait is essentially equivalent to a signal-to-noise ratio. For example, any observed difference in the intelligence of two people will be partly due to heritable genetic differences (genic differences which can be passed from parent ot child), and partly due to environment (i.e. nutrition, the quality of training, etc.)...This is equally true for height, speed, weight, etc.... If Kimura's estimate is correct that fitness typically has a heritability of only about .004, then only about 0.4% of phenotypic variation for fitness is selectable. This represents a signal to noise ratio of 1:250. One way of expressing this is that 99.6% of phenotypic selection for fitness will be entirely wasted. This explains why simple selection for total phenotypic fitness can result in almost no genetic gain. .... Another major source of noise--probability selection, not threshhold selection... .... There is a third level of genetic noise...which I'm going to call gametic sampling.... ..... There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989)... Poly-constrained information, and poly-constrained DNA. DNA, like word puns, word palindromes, and word puzzles contains poly-functional letters, words, and phrases. Such sequences can only arise by very careful design.... John Sanford
And the book has so much more great stuff! Salscordova
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PST

Raevmo wrote:

Anyhow, to claim confidently that RM+NS automatically leads to degeneration is premature. Verbal arguments like that are just not very convincing when not backed up with mathematical models.

You mis-represent the argument.

Sanford claimed no such thing, he points out that known parameters about biology would not permit RM+NS to do the wonderful things it claims, he does not say it's an automatic, but rather a consequence what constrains RM+NS in the real world.

And before insinuating the argument was verbal rather than mathematical, you might do well to actually have the book in hand and be more specific in your criticisms.

For example, do you have any objections to the variation of Kimura curve which Sanford offored on page 32? Or how about his claim on page 103 regarding the effective amount available withing the human population for selection is less than 1% based on the fact that noise overrides selection pressures?

Salvador

scordova
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PST

"Incorrect. Only a small fraction of extinctions are attributable to mass extinctions. The background rate of two to five taxonomic families every million years accounts for the vast majority of extinctions." --ds

Alright, so maybe I won't be so quick to venture into paleontological speculations next time. Once I stopped to think for a moment, your numbers make much more sense. And once I then stubbornly looked up a review article on the matter--just to be certain, you know--your numbers are in the same ballpark. I had impressive figures like "95 percent of life eliminated at point X" stuck prominently in my brain from some distant lecture, but hadn't properly considered the ongoing diversification/extinction rates over time. I stand corrected. I still contend that the latter part of my argument stands. (so let's just pretend I placed most of the emphasis on this part.) External events (weather,etc.) factor heavily in the random walk of population sizes and distributions. Those sizes and geographic distributions affect extinction risk. Genetic deterioration certainly factors into the risk of extinction, but there is no compelling evidence to indicate it is an unavoidable death sentence.

If a species is weakened by accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations then doesn't it make sense that it won't be able to adapt and/or tolerate stresses like changing weather patterns, predation, etcetera as well it would otherwise? Something is certainly an unavoidable death sentence and 999 dead species of every 1000 that ever lived lie buried in mute testimony of that death sentence. We're just trying to figure out what it is. I think Darwin got it right - there is an unperceived injurious agency constantly at work. The unperceived agency's name is random mutation. Is creative evolution still happening today? How long ago did the last new genus appear? How long ago did the last new mammal species appear? -ds great_ape
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PST

"Do you have any real criticisms of the book or is that the best you got?"

Aight! I put on my robe and wizard hat.

The theory that the genome accumulates defects is nothing new. To say that this implies that variation and speciation cannot occur in the meantime is a non sequitur.

This is analogous to the heat death of the universe. Sure, the universe is winding down, but there's plenty that we can do before then.

He implied that? I think you mistakenly inferred that. Perhaps you should admit up front that you didn't read the book. Do you make a habit of criticizing things you've never seen or did you make an exception for Sanford's book? -ds

samantha
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PST

Apeman A *large* fraction of that >99% extinction rate is accounted for by a handful of cataclysmic global-level events a discrete timepoints.

Incorrect. Only a small fraction of extinctions are attributable to mass extinctions. The background rate of two to five taxonomic families every million years accounts for the vast majority of extinctions.

There are estimated to have been between 5 and 50 billion species. At any one time an average of about 50 million are alive. There have been 5 major mass extinctions. If each took out 100% of the species they would only account for 250 million extinctions or 5% of the lowest estimate of 5 billion species or 0.5% of 50 billion species. Estimates go as high as 20 mass extinctions but as you can see even 20 extinctions of everything alive is still only 25% of the lowest estimate of total species and 2.5% of the high estimate. And of course mass extinctions don't kill everything.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to give you a failing grade on this one.

DaveScot
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PST
Lets extend Lurkers recognition of "The No True Scotsman rides again!" application while awaiting for significant rebuttal to genetic research being prohibited by young earth philosophy. No True Scientist is a Young Earther No True Scientist believes in a Creator No True Scientist believes in Design No True Scientist believes the world was created in 6 days No True Scientist believes a bladder can be created in 40 days No True Scientist believes an appendix is useful No True Scientist believes a diamond can be made in 5 days No True Scientist believes you can speed up a processMichaels7
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PST
"So how do you explain the extinction of 99.9% of all species that ever lived and the average lifespan of families being about 10 million years? I'm all ears." -ds Of course I'll have to give it the old college try... A *large* fraction of that >99% extinction rate is accounted for by a handful of cataclysmic global-level events a discrete timepoints. One in particular took out nearly everything alive up to that time. I can dig up the numbers and eras if you'd like. These are "environmental" (external) catastrophies and they account for a big chunk of extinctions. These events, like the infant mortality rate in humans, weigh significantly in calculating the average persistance of all families during across time. As for the remaining component of extinctions, populations can--in the rosiest of scenarios--max out at the population size supported by their niche. They can never "fix" like an allele can in an abstract population. At the other end of the scale there is N=0. Caput. Irreversible. Once you hit that absorbtion boundary, it's over for a given lineage. Populations, from generation to generation, go on a more or less random walk contingent on environmental conditions, genetic conditions, etc. You can always fall from the top in terms of population size, but you can never recover from N=0. So yes, the playing field is skewed in favor of extinction. Part of the downward nudges do come from accumulated genetic mutations that haven't been purified and consequently impact effective population size. It's a nudge, and in some cases it may be the last nail in the coffin for a lineage, particularly since the effect grows worse in smaller populations. But the argument being put forth here, as I see it, is that it is an inevitable death-sentence and, as a consequence, is damning evidence against darwinian evolution. It is that last proposition I take issue with as it remains conjecture at this point. In my understanding of the scientific method you do not discard theories b/c conjectures (even plausible ones) are understood to be counterfactual. Something more rigorous is generally required.great_ape
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PST
If one accepts an old earth, one has a long sequence of organisms to explain, (99.9% of which are extinct, as you point out), but if one accepts a young earth and the creation of all kind of organisms at the same time, then what one has to explain is different.
Jack, Don't mean to pile on. Feel free to ignore this and not respond if you so choose. I'll understand. Are you saying that the number of extinct species one has to explain depends upon whether one holds to a YEC or old earth view? Why?Mung
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST

My last comment didn't get through for the most part, but I was trying to say: Muller's Ratchet says asexual species are doomed because of accumululation of bad mutations. Sex (recombination) can get rid of bad mutations (as great_ape said). In addition to recombination, sex allows sexual selection: females may prefer to mate with males that show evidence of not having too many bad mutations. This also lowers the genetic load of bad mutations. Whether all this is enough in practice, who knows? A big problem is that early life had no sex (well, so it is claimed anyway), so how did they avoid extinction? Possible answer: massive horizontal transfer of genetic information. Anyhow, to claim confidently that RM+NS automatically leads to degeneration is premature. Verbal arguments like that are just not very convincing when not backed up with mathematical models.

Feel free to offer a better explanation for why 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. -ds Raevmo
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST

ds, 99% of my comment is missing.

That's the way I found it. -ds Raevmo
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PST

It's true that slightly deleterious mutations can easily accumulate in populations, and even mildly deleterious mutations if the population size is small (Kimura: if Ns

Raevmo
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PST
Jack as per posts 5 and 21 -- I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter.'[/Sanford quote] . . .“For the record, Sanford doesn't accept an old earth or common descent. And I take his point as being they don't really matter and aren't worth arguing about unless they start being used in a metaphysical context.tribune7
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST
Jack Krebs said, "I do think that one's opinion about the age of the earth and common descent is going to be relevant to whatever ideas one has about the role of genetics in evolution." Please elucidate for the simple minded(me) specifics. Why does it matter and please point to actual issues that would stop Dr. Sanford from creating sound scientific research. Once you've done this, we can review his accomplishments again in light of your observations. "If one believes in a young earth and special creation, as Sanford does, then the phenomena one is trying to account for are very different than those addressed by the old earth common-descentist, even if the old earth common-descentist is an IDist, such as Behe or Dembski or DaveScot." Again, please clarify specifics in regards to genetics or genetic modification, genetic research and how Dr. Sanford cannot or could not progress as well as any scientist by any other stripe. Maybe you do not fully understand young earth views in relation to genetic research. Maybe none of us do? I know I don't fully understand them. I humbly cannot think of any practical application of your logic that would prohibit Dr. Sanford from excellent research. Maybe it would be good to make a list of facts why someone who is a young earth creationist cannot do genetic research as excellent as someone who is an old earth evolutionist. I'll start the list... 1) Most YECs believes rocks are younger than 7000 years(just making up an age boundary), therefore YECs would never discover magnesium or iron in the human body or blood cells. 2) Most YECs believe humans have been on earth 6000 years, or in the case of Judaism, 5766, in that case, approximaly 3761 years BC, the earth was created. Therefore, YECs would never discover cellular apoptosis. 3) YECs believe the earth was made in 6 days and the Creator, God rested on the 7th. Every old earth evolutionist knows ATP was created on the 8th day ;-) therefore young earthers would never find, understand, or research ATP, plus there's no way God could create a giraffe, let alone an amoeba in 6 days.Michaels7
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST

Dave, I don't see at all where I have implied any guilt to Sanford, by association or otherwise. My point is that if one has doubts about evolutionary theory, and especially if one ever wants to offer alternative explanations to be considered, it surely makes a difference whether one thinks that the earth is old or young, and whether common descent is true or not. If one accepts an old earth, one has a long sequence of organisms to explain, (99.9% of which are extinct, as you point out), but if one accepts a young earth and the creation of all kind of organisms at the same time, then what one has to explain is different.

This is not an accusatory statement, I don't think, but rather more or less a statement of fact: whatever alternative to evolutionary theory one might have, the context of the age of the earth and the truth or not of common descent is essential background for ones ideas.

Unless his work includes statements reflecting these things it's irrelevant. Ideas are judged by their merits not by the people who hold them. You just couldn't resist dragging Sanford's religious beliefs into his book which as far as you or I know contains no religious concepts whatsoever and is entirely based upon good scientific method and empirical data. Just for the record, you're a YEC bigot. -ds

Jack Krebs
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST
bFast: "I am a bit concerned at the suggestion that John Stanford is a young earther." Let me clarify my view on the effects of Sanford being a young earther. We are all entitled to a little error. In fact I very much dislike people who don't respect their own ability to err. However, I have seen a lot of evidence that "young earth" is in error. If Sanford has a brilliant work, but muddies it with a significant error like young earth, then his brilliant work is likely to become the proverbial baby thrown out with the bath water.bFast
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST

John Sanford said, "When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time."

In the natural world, natural selection will eliminate the most harmful deleterious mutations. However, humans are often protected from the full consequences of some very harmful mutations, and people with some bad mutations often survive long enough to reproduce. But even among humans, there is a limit to how harmful a deleterious mutation can be and still allow the person to survive long enough to reproduce.

Most random mutations are not deleterious enough to be under significant selection pressure. Google the "nearly neutral theory of evolution". -ds Larry Fafarman
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PST
For the record, can you explain how this is relevant to Sanford's knowledge of genetics...
Did anyone else read the cross-examination? How much of it questioned Sanford on any aspect of his scientific specialty? Too bad it wasn't a court in which Sanford could claim the question to be outside his area of expertise and the examiner could be required to show relevance. But let me think some abobuth Sanford's thesis that these mutations accumulate and cause extinction. What is his evidence for the conclusion that extinction is the effect of the accumulation of these mutations? Certainly, on a young-earth view, there has not been time enough. On a young-earth view, extinctions are the result of the flood. And on a young-earth view, evolution absolutely had to occur in order to account for present numbers of species! YEC is incoherent.Mung
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PST

ds,

I wasn't trying to be contrary so much as bring attention to some key forces at work which would oppose genetic deterioration and *possibly* avert extinction. When there are conflicting forces at play, the ultimate outcome is clearly dependent on the relative strength of each. While Darwin is commendable for understanding that imperceptible damage does occur, he had no idea the ultimate magnitude nor the ability of organisms/populations to counterbalance them via various means. For that matter, neither do we at this stage. So I think it's a very important topic for us to be discussing, but ultimately a definitive answer can't be drawn IMO b/c pertinent data and theory is still lacking (particularly in regards to the influence of recombination). It is incumbent upon evolutionists to make a strong case--preferably sooner rather than later-- that under a robust range of conditions genetic doom is avoidable from a mutation/popgen perspective. This is another hole in the current evolutionary framework in my opinion and one of the most critical ones. Currently this hole shows a incompleteness in evolutionary theory, but it can *not* be considered an evidentiary contradiction to the theory until all the relevant forces and magnitudes are properly accounted for. If this should prove impossible, then it can never be presented as counterfactual argument against evolution/darwinism. At the same time, its unresolved status will remain a crucial structural weakness in the inductive case for evolution/darwinism.

So how do you explain the extinction of 99.9% of all species that ever lived and the average lifespan of families being about 10 million years? I'm all ears. -ds great_ape
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST

Dave --

First, thanks for letting me on the post list! I am very honored!

Second, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about natural limits of variation, but I wanted to add something else. I think that we are going to find that there is a lot _more_ non-morphological variation that goes on from generation-to-generation than morphological variation. Perhaps much of this is wrapped up in development, but I also think that some of it will be found to be passed on in genetics. That is, while we remain morphologically stable, perhaps our biochemistry adapts to changing conditions (obviously limitted by internal semantic constraints).

In fact, I think that we will find something else in biological change -- that the way in which different organisms change depends greatly on the need within the environment as a whole -- that organisms are designed to create ecosystems. By sensing other plants and animals in the area, they have specific adaptations for different conditions, which attribute to the environment as a whole. You may even be able to go as far as using data on variation to hypothesize the purpose behind different organisms, though I think the reverse might be more fruitful for those who dared to go there:

http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006/03/stasis-of-baramin-purpose-and.html

Shades of Lynn Margulis... Follow the Gaia links if you aren't aware of it already. -ds johnnyb
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST
So we shouldn't trust Sanford at all because he isn't sure about the age of the earth? I'm no YEC, but that kind of reasoning leads to disasterous conseqeunces. Should we reject Godel's results because he thought people were trying to poison his food and thus starved himself to death?LowenheimSkolem
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PST

In comment 4, tribune 7 wrote,

"[Sanford wrote,] 'In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter.'[/Sanford quote]

Exactly!!!

The age of the Earth and common descent are parlor games. Entertaining and interesting but nothing to take so seriously that one should upon it base a system of values or replace another system of values.

So I wrote, "For the record, Sanford doesn't accept an old earth or common descent. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo4.html#p1803,"

and then DaveScot wrote, "For the record, can you explain how this is relevant to Sanford's knowledge of genetics or are you just playing the guilt by association card because you have nothing else? Do you have any actual criticism of the book? -ds"

Dave, I was responding to tribune7's comment, and I started "for the record." I wasn't discussing, much less criticizing, the book - I was just responding to tribune7.

I haven't read the book, but I did listen to Sanford when he spoke at the Kansas BOE Science Hearings in May, 2005. I do think that one's opinion about the age of the earth and common descent is going to be relevant to whatever ideas one has about the role of genetics in evolution. If one believes in a young earth and special creation, as Sanford does, then the phenomena one is trying to account for are very different than those addressed by the old earth common-descentist, even if the old earth common-descentist is an IDist, such as Behe or Dembski or DaveScot.

Note well that I am aware that one can criticize, as I gather Sanford has done, evolutionary theory as an issue separate from offering an alternative model, and I am not offering any comments here on Sanford's work because I am only vaguely familiar with it based on his presentation in Kansas.

But given that at some point criticizing a theory and offering an alternative have to intersect, the fact that Sanford is a young-earth special creationist might at that point be relevant.

Your comment was in the moderation queue when I responded to it and since you didn't specifically address tribune I had no way of knowing you were responding to him. Nonetheless, in this comment you confirm that I was right about you playing the guilt by association card. Sanford appears to be accounting for empirical evidence as far as I can tell. You're Christian, Jack. Should I consider your opinions about everything else biased by you needing to justify your belief in some sort of immaterial immortal soul that gets a passkey into heaven by declaring your faith in a man that claimed to be the son of God? Maybe you should display the same courtesy for Sanford that I do for you and not try to discredit him by aspersions to belief in miracles and supernatural beings. Gil got you pegged alright. Any port in a storm. Shame on you. -ds Jack Krebs
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST

"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

I would very much like to read this book, but I fear the electronic evidence of its purchase would place me on the top secret government "people to not let in the bunker when the asteroid strikes" list. So I generally refrain from making such purchases. I once bought an "edible wild plants" book once from Amazon and have since received advertisements that would suggest I've been placed on the "probable right-wing militia member" list. Then again, I'm posting here, so perhaps it's too late for me already. In any case, I would like to examine the work in detail b/c I would very much be interested to know how Sanford deals mathematically with 1) the ability of recombination to alleviate some of the "deleterious burden" of these mutations over time and 2) epigenetic interactions among these "slightly deleterious", supposedly un-purifiable negative mutations.. W. Rice's lab has shown empirically [see, for example, Science. 2001 Oct 19;294(5542):533-4.], and others theoretically, that recombination in sexual organisms alleviates some of the burden by "freeing" quality genomic segments from being dragged down to extinction along with deleterious alleles. The question here, of course is: "Is it enough in a given situation?" The devil, as they say, is in the details. And the details here are so complex that I'd like to know how he deals with them because, last our checked, theorists were still struggling to work out the full ramifications of recombination on popgen. Maybe, out of moral compulsion, he'll ultimately publish the whole thing freely onine for the enlightenment of all. Then again, maybe I could just buy it with cash from a bookstore so it couldn't be traced.

Must do some $work now, but here's something for folks to ponder. Although any given slightly deleterious mutation may have too small an effect to be purified, any given individual whose genome--essentially a chimera of what's available from in the population--collectively had many fewer such mutations would overall fair better reproductively. *Particularly* if those deleterious mutations acted epistatically. Repetition of such reproductive success would ultimately-- depending on the *specific* numbers involved (recombination frequency and distances, population size, mutation rate, distribution of mutation effects,etc.)--reduce the frequencies of these slightly deleterious mutations (un-purifiable on their own) and could serve to hold off genetic doomsday. Details, details, details, and some of these details we've little chance of knowing. Population genetics, when applied to real flesh and blood organisms, is terribly difficult. We do, however, have a masterful knowledge of how multi-colored beans behave in jars.

C'mon apeman. Here I'm trying to say to Darwin got something right and you question it! :roll:
It is most difficult always to remember that the increase of every living being is constantly being checked by unperceived injurious agencies; and that these same unperceived agencies are amply sufficient to cause rarity, and finally extinction.
The unperceived agency is random mutation. Which of course is no longer unperceived. Darwin got something right! I've been saying for a long time Darwin was also probably right about Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters being the primary source of adaptive change. That shoe is dropping as we speak. The next shoe to drop should be the notion that the amount of change that can be produced in any given species is bounded internally and is generally constrained to scale and cosmetics. To quickly know what kind of limits I mean by scale and cosmetics look at the range of variation in dogs. There's no difference between a dachshund, a chihuahua, and a wolfhound that isn't simply a matter of relative feature size and cosmetics. Those are the limits of allelomorphism. Now you might ask what is then responsible for the big creative changes that include novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Those were all front loaded and their expression is under developmental control - the phylogenetic stem cell! Nothing in macroevolution makes sense except in the light of phylogenetic stem cells. -ds great_ape
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST
>I had a major discussion with my brother just last summer about signal to > noise ratio. Dispite he being an electrical engineer, I was not able to > communicate the signal to noise equation to him. This equation is very > valid. I think I need this book, and need to give my brother a copy of it. > What do you mean exactly by "signal to noise equation"? > I am a bit concerned at the suggestion that John Stanford is a young > earther. Trying to climb this mountain too is a lot. Its like trying to > fight a war on two fronts, especially when one of those fronts is surely a loosing cause. The evidence for an old earth is not the “house > of cards” that NDE is. What's the problem? As a catholic I've no problem with old earth and I maintain that it's right. But the real front is against NDE K.kairos
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PST
Wow, this is the fastest growing thread I've seen on this site! I personally was most intrigued with the following statement:
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.
I had a major discussion with my brother just last summer about signal to noise ratio. Dispite he being an electrical engineer, I was not able to communicate the signal to noise equation to him. This equation is very valid. I think I need this book, and need to give my brother a copy of it. I am a bit concerned at the suggestion that John Stanford is a young earther. Trying to climb this mountain too is a lot. Its like trying to fight a war on two fronts, especially when one of those fronts is surely a loosing cause. The evidence for an old earth is not the "house of cards" that NDE is. I actually believe that NDE went along for the ride as the old earth and common descent became established.bFast
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
#16 I completely agree, but unfortunately it is as easy to realize that ND is deadly wrong (not by darwinists, obviously...) as it is extremely difficult to give it the KO punch. If you consider that the trivial work by Lenski, Pennock etc. has been trumpeted as a final proof that M+S is able to generate complex information ... ! #14 Sal, I will read carefully the book as soon as I will receive it (package dispatching to Europe is quite slow). K.kairos
June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST
1 2 3 4