J.C.Sanford: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

No mystery, really. With the term "Entropy" in the title, you know how this one has to end. I just spent the last 2 days on this book.Dr. Sanford was a professor for Cornell University. Ah why bother. Here's a bio link to wiki:
John C. Sanford - WikipediaDr. Sanford, a former Darwinist, begins like a veteran: "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." No quibbling about "change" here. He defines his target.Some may contend that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution; in that case they won't shed any tears over this book. After defining his target, Sanford takes only a little time to deal it a death blow. But he's just getting warmed up. The fatal blows continue. Can't blame him.And this book is so readable! Unable to fault the science, some critics put it down on this account. Don't you just love it! Sanford's experience as a teacher shows. He's able to communicate complicated scientific concepts using uncomplicated language (usually) and vivid, accurate analogies.Here's an overly simplified analogy of my own, so as not to steal from the author. Evolution can't make much progress taking 50 steps backward for every step forward. That's something I've long believed, but I haven't proven it myself.How convincing is this book? Here's a link I found to an evolutionist in crisis. Read carefully: He's forced to categorize ALL mutations as beneficial in order to save his faith! Then he criticizes Sanford for failing to "understand evolution".
That's Bull$#!%And for the record, Sanford's models and math assume beneficial mutations. He's pretty consistent about giving his target the most generous estimates scientifically available.I should give links to some other reviews, since I'm a rookie.http://www.amazon.com/...ford/dp/customer-reviews/1599190028
Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book – Uncommon DescentEdited by CTD, : Deleted an OT remark which was intended as humour, but really was not funny.

The book uses very up-to-date sources, as well as Dr. Sanford's own work. The Human Genome Project (or whatever they're calling it these days) has given us a large amount of information about human genetics. I assume it is disproportionate to the information about animals.The book focuses primarily on humans, apparently for this reason. Later in the book animals are discussed as well.I'm not aware of the chronology. I know there are already ad-hom responses that neglect to mention Dr. Sanford ever was anything other than a creationist.The following links are doubly relevant. They may give insight into your last question, and it also explains why a few of Dr. Sanford's references in the book are from the 60's and 70's, yet they are the most up-to-date sources available on specific topics.http://www1.minn.net/~science/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm
http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htmI'm still googling for responses to the actual science in the book, but I've had no success. I'm curious what talkdeceptions and the others will come up with.

No, that's hardly the case. Haldane's Dilemma is listed in Appendix 1, along with notes. But Haldane's deals primarily with "good" mutations, and the primary focus of this book is entropy. There's a later chapter (maybe two) which deal with the problems in selecting for "good" mutations, and Haldane's is explained there also.I would be interested in how Haldane's is to be currently solved, since the number of "genetic units" is now known to be 3 million, much greater than Haldane or anyone else was aware of in those past decades.Or should the observations of the Human Genome Project be discarded in cases like this?Indeed, Sanford isn't the only one aware of the entropy issues. One of the main reasons they're reluctant to admit "junk DNA" might not be junk is because it gives them a statistical landfill for bad mutations. But the landfill isn't big enough, so it's a wasted effort.But you don't need to read the book to find that out. Just watch 'em argue over every percentage point.

Good to know. I have trouble keeping up-to-date. And to be fair, I've long suspected it was partly due to "We finish in triumph" vs. "We need an excuse for more funding" issues.As you might expect, I consider junk DNA about as common as vestigial organs.Edited by CTD, : Deleted remark which was not as humerous as I intended.

I don't dispute the observation that we have not mutated ourselves out of existence. Dr. Sanford does not dispute it either.Due to copyrights & other issues, I'll not be publishing the book here. As I see it, Sanford is using accepted evolutionary formulae and models; and plugging in the numbers. Evolutionists have already obtained similar results. For example, he cites Dr. J.F. Crow 1997 {PNAS 94:8830-8386}. Crow maintained that harmful mutations are accumulating and fitness is declining. Sanford maintains that the selection model Crow applies to 'solve' the problem is "unrealistic".I would tend to agree. If Crow's selection model (I haven't read it) is realistic, why isn't it solving the problem already?The book does not rely on one single line of reasoning. It will not be easy to dismiss without throwing out the latest observations, and contemporary evolutionary models.It has been maintained that anyone who scientifically overturns a predominant paradigm WILL receive a Nobel prize. Somebody better get busy, if that statement is to stand up to the evidence.

Ha! The link's there for all to see. The writer's meaning is clear: when mutations pile up, evolution advances. There's no race at all between constructive and destructive, and only a creationist would ever be so ignorant as to assert such a thing.Under this reasoning, inbreeding's a shortcut to utopia!And I wonder how surprised Muller, Kondrashov, Crow, Kimura, and the rest would be to find out that their studies are just misguided creationism! Oh yeah? Well I'm not going to take YOUR word that you aren't going to take my word, so there! 50 to 1 is not a realistic ratio, if that's what you mean. But I don't have reason to believe anyone can formulate an argument that would convince you, including the names listed above.

From the link: So you interpret "the theory of evolution" from his term "an almost mystical faith"?I maintain that the closest term to "the theory of evolution" in his sentence is "the Axiom". He doesn't say "the Axiom" is a faith, but rather that it is upheld by faith instead of science.Twist that, if you can.

If Sanford should succeed in merely disproving the "Primary Axiom", I should be satisfied to call his effort a success. In Appendix 5, Dr. Sanford considers the objection that evolution can get by without it.He only devotes one page to this, and he may not have fully considered history. It may be that the "theory can evolve". One should consider the host of innovations that other "sciences" have embraced before one dismisses the Darwinists' capacity to speculate.I, myself think they're more likely to remain mute on the science of which he speaks. You know, lead by example: ignore it, and hope their followers do so as well. The opinion of others may differ from my own.

I suppose I wasn't as clear as I could've been. According to the book, Dr. Crow found that fitness is decreasing. He then proposed (or applied) a model of selection to 'remedy' this finding. I don't have direct knowledge of the particulars. Dr. Sanford devotes a chapter to discussion of this selection model.Then I said I was wondering why the problem should even exist if the selection model is comparable to what is naturally taking place. In other words, if there is actually a solution in place, why isn't it working? So if I say that man is not merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, you & the rest would not disagree? Fine. Consider it said.

I can't say which type of entropy is to be preferred. But it would be typical of Dr. Sanford to give NS (and thereby the Primary Axiom) every reasonable advantage. It's the only way to make it sporting, and it was still a mismatch if you ask me.Edit:
Saw your other post. You seem to have quite the perspective!Edited by CTD, : No reason given.

I'll tell you what's sophomoric: trying to pretend this is anything other than disagreement. I'm not fooled, how 'bout the rest? Anyone fooled by this stinking, rotten garbage? Does anyone believe for one instant that Jar does not disagree with my statement?Come on! One of you known, habitual liars please claim that you are. Isn't that exactly what you're here for? I'm talking about you cats that anything you say on any topic, I don't even have to bother looking it up to know it's false. One of you slimes make Jar feel better and say you're deceived.I could pity those here who are fighting for a lost cause, but only if they were honestly deceived and searching for truth. Maybe God knows how to pity you jokers, but I don't think I can manage.Honestly, any child who gives a few minutes of thought to the issue can see that entropy's going to outpace natural selection. Dr. Sanford's done the math now, using evolutionist's own formulas - and that which is obvious has now been proven scientifically. How you choose to deal with it is up to you. Men of character don't deal with such things by changing the subject or spouting lies.I don't know what kartasik is carrying on about. I saw nothing wrong with Sanford's book in relation to scripture. If it offends people to know what direction the scientific evidence points, let them be offended. Just because some people don't want to deal with the truth is no reason to omit something. And if everything that even hinted at the bible or religion were removed, the odds of that book becoming a textbook in any public school or college are about as good as... well, I know you folks and probabilities. Any odds can be overcome just by wishing hard enough, right?I think I'll go now. Maybe check those links. Judging by Dr. A's denials, it's a safe bet what they said. "You just made that up" is not what most folks use as a synonym for "That's the fact, Jack!" or "Amen brother, tell it like it is!" But we're all individuals. I try to adjust.

Read the links. Pack of lies, more blatant than expected.Dr. Sanford's argument is not that there are no beneficial mutations. He mentions this, but for all models he uses evolutionists' own estimates - and he shades toward what they'd call "optimistic" at that. It seems his generosity only to be spurned by the evolutionary community. They're not grateful at all.The arguments are mischaracterized further, and the author seems content to resort to the familiar "straw man" theme.I shall not waste any more time here discussing it. I'm sure this joker will be applauded, and if he's judged to be a big enough liar they'll even make his speil permanent over at talkdeceptions. What else have they got?No scientist will publicly repeat this nonsense if he cares at all about his reputation.But let me guess.. "he didn't say that at all".Well, he did. Are his own words sufficient evidence that he did indeed say that? We'll see. I most certainly did not, would not, and could not make that up in my own head. My mind doesn't work that way. Even if I were setting out to deceive someone, I'd try to do a quality job of it. This bozo, he's just hoping nobody's read the book. I'm not even going to try to pity him. It ain't my job.I try as a matter of policy and habit never to underestimate any adversary. But I continue to underestimate people's boldness in telling blatantly obvious lies. Does everyone really want to be president that much?

Indeed! Physical entropy and informational entropy are two different things. I almost wish the term "degradation" would just replace "entropy".Information is usually thought of as being lost due to copying errors. It can also be lost when the medium is damaged or destroyed (as when a book burns). Information is real, but it is not physical, and never can be.Perhaps I should not have said entropy is going to outpace selection. It would be better to say it is outpacing it. We have more defects than we can count, and they're continually increasing. On the other hand, we see no evolution among humans or any other living things. The race is so lopsided it's no contest.Evolutionists (the less truth-averse variety, at any rate) are always saying the reason we can't see evolution is because it works so slowly. Our genes aren't deteriorating slowly; it can be seen from one generation to the next. It has been seen, and measured. (The rate is much higher than the speculations or "educated guesses" of decades past.)The only way around it is blind faith that some undetected force will somehow dictate that evolution wins the race. I lack such faith.I got a particular kick out of that one clown "faulting" Dr. Sanford for not taking into account (imaginary) long eons. Let's see... if we launch one rocket out into space at 18,000 MPH, and launch another one on the same vector at 17,000 MPH... does it matter how many years or millions of years we calculate their travel? The slower rocket will never catch up no matter how much time we allow.No person with a lick of sense would even bother to ask. But those who'd like to change the subject, maybe they'd have a motive to ask. And pray to their gods of nothingness and untruth that folks are too stupid to catch on...Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually get around to Dr. Sanford's science.

I see it may bear repeating that Dr. Sanford gives evolution every benefit of the doubt in his models.It's pointless to quibble over mutation rates when he's using a very low rate (bordering on unrealistic). He's generous with the mythical "beneficial mutations", whether he believes in them or not.Let no reader be misled by whiners or liars. There's a lot of hard work behind this book, and it's solid. One who prefers evolutionism to truth will probably not enjoy reading it; but for others I recommend it without reservation.The purpose here was to review the book. I think that's been accomplished.