John Sanford, a Cornell Professor of Genetics for 25 years (semi-retired 1998), published Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome in 2005, and the excerpt over at Uncommon Descent has me literally giddy. Man, I love stuff like this – I’d like to quote passages, but the entire one page excerpt is so good, you should go read it yourself. His conclusion is thought provoking
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.
I read the excerpt. He sounds like a creationist to me. He is probably biased.
Yes, Sanford is a young-earth creationist. He believes that mutations cannot add information to the genome.
He is an accomplished geneticist who looked at evolutionary claims and found them wanting. And he makes reasoned, intellectual scientific arguments about why he doubts that evolution is a reasonable explanation for origins.
So then, are his arguments accepted by the scientific community at large?
He (John Sanford) believes that mutations cannot add information to the genome. Supporting Irrational Entity's point…
"It is unclear how to evaluate this claim without a definition of "genetic information." If the term simply refers to any functional sequence of DNA, then mutations that duplicate functional sequences of DNA obviously can very easily increase the amount of genetic information in a genome. If novelty is also required, then it is worth noting that point mutations to the duplicate sequences can generate novel functions without impairing the original function. This is, in fact, how hemoglobin evolved." -Mark I. Vuletic
So then, are his arguments accepted by the scientific community at large?
Normally, that would be a good measure of what is true. However, many are claiming that there is an evolutionist hegemony that is not borne out by the facts, so in this case, what the "scientific community" accepts is not considered to be good enough – rather than appealing to authority (i.e. orthodoxy), we must take on challengers with reason.
Sanford's work is in part based on the excellent work of Ramine. You can read the story of his attempt to get a paper published at A Tale of Peer Review. He actually includes the comments of the reviewers, which were very positive, yet his paper was not accepted for what he claims are bogus reasons.
This type of thing is what has IDists and creationists crying "foul!", and serves to invalidate the claim to authority (in the case of evolution) of the "scientific community." It will take some time to unentrench evolutionary non-science from the halls of science.
So, the majority of scientists are ignoring the facts and being unreasonable eh? No. Sanford believes "mutations cannot add information to the genome" which is untrue. This is why his work is not accepted.
So, you dismiss his arguments because (a) someone who doesn’t like him says “he believes x” (not confirmed), and just because you disagree on that one point, you dismiss all of his other arguments? Very intellectual.
And as to the “no new information” thing, of course, you have to define what this is and what it is not. Luckily, creationism doesn’t hang on this point. However, Sanford’s and Ramine’s arguments are sophisticated examinations of how natural genetic change does not support evolutionary assumptions.
I swear, you guys are so hard-headed. But the brainwashed always are ;)
So, you dismiss his arguments because (a) someone who doesn't like him says "he believes x" (not confirmed) -Seeker
I confirmed it Seeker. As a Biology degree holder, weren't you able to infer this from Sanford's argument? If not, I have a direct quote of Sanford himself saying "mutations cannot add information to the genome." That's why the genome "irrevocably degenerates over time," right?
…and just because you disagree on that one point, you dismiss all of his other arguments? Very intellectual. (Sarcasm here) -Seeker
That one point is the crux of Sanford's argument correct? "When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. -John Sanford"
Sanford's and Ramine's arguments are sophisticated examinations of how natural genetic change does not support evolutionary assumptions.
Please explain. Luckily, we have you, our most excellent creation expert, to summerize the creationist arguments for us, the unwashed brainwashed.
Fond of I am of Seeker on a personal level, I have decided to stop posting to this and other creationist blogs. What the creationist right seeks is engagement and respectability; I believe the best strategy for those of us who believe in the light of reason is polite disengagement. One cannot reason with faith and it is not productive to try; one can acknowledge it exists and step away. I have enjoyed engaging with you all in the past and have deep respect for Seeker and Aaron as individuals who do, indeed, believe, regardless of my disagreement with their beliefs.
With respect to the post above, Sanford was in the Cornell Agriculture School, as a Associate Professor of Horticulture. He never was fully promoted, and he was never in biology. He does still have a courtesy appointment in horticulture, and he does have some significant patents in biotechnology. His book is based on his faith as a Christian and it a testament to the strength of his religious belief that he can contort his reality and training to make reality conform to his ideas rather than the other way around.
Here's some interesting insight on him: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo4…. (read the cross examination – he's a biblical literalist and young earth creationist first and foremost, not a scientist) http://www.courtshipconnection.net/general/messag…
I think (like Philip Johnson) it's particularly interesting how he found a fundamentalist narrative of the Christian God appealing after a marital breakup / deep personal issues. Therapy might have been better, but whatever works, I suppose.
His book is based on his faith as a Christian and it a testament to the strength of his religious belief that he can contort his reality and training to make reality conform to his ideas rather than the other way around.
His faith may motivate him, but I believe that he is making reasoned, scientific claims that must be addressed on their own merit, rather than on an assessment of his character.
And regarding finding God in times of trial, you may either account for this by claiming mental instabilitly or belief based on comfort rather than logic, or yo umay look at it as coming to one's senses after facing one's own mortality, as well as personal loss.
he's a biblical literalist and young earth creationist first and foremost, not a scientist
That's like me saying "I don't buy his argument because he is a [fill in the blank]." You may be suspicious (which means any atheist who supports evolution may be suspicious in my eyes), but that does not invalidate their arguments.
If Sanford is right, shouldn't we be seeing either an increasing number of birth defects, or declining child birth due to "spontaneous" abortions?
Shouldn't we be seeing confirmable deterioration in the gene pool, if he's right?
Fond of I am of Seeker on a personal level, I have decided to stop posting to this and other creationist blogs. What the creationist right seeks is engagement and respectability; I believe the best strategy for those of us who believe in the light of reason is polite disengagement.
Take care Sean! Your rational arguments were a great counter to the religious irrationality.