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

He seems a little anthropocentric. Does he dispute that just humans are the product of evolution, or that all organisms are?It seems weird to set humans apart since we're so similar to other organisms. But if that's what he does, then it seems like he's predicated his entire book on a faulty understanding of evolution and biology.Also - do you find it significant that, like everybody else, Dr. Sanford only rejected the copious evidence for evolution after his conversion to conservative, evangelical Christianity? It's curious that it never works the other way around - the evidence for creationism never seems to convince anybody who isn't already under a religious obligation to believe it.And I wonder why there's no evidence of his "deteriorating genome" to be found in any peer-reviewed research.

I really wouldn't consider ReMine a credible source on Haldane's Dilemma.If that's all the book is - Haldane's old dilemma in new packaging - then it's really not worth taking a look at. Haldane's dilemma is no dilemma at all. It was based on assumptions that even Haldane eventually recognized were unjustified, and regardless of what ReMine will tell you, it hasn't presented a challenge to biology for several decades, now.{Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma seems to be our resident "Haldane's Dilemma" topic. - Adminnemooseus adds by edit}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Well, I know you're mistaken about this. I've worked in genetics fields now for several years, I'm close to a number of researchers working in genetics, and absolutely nobody I know calls it "junk DNA". That's a popular term used in the media but it's not a conception that's used in the field. It's certainly not some kind of conspiracy; every biology freshman learns that the majority of our genes are sequences that get spliced out of the mRNA product. "Introns", they're called. I guess I don't know what argument you're talking about.