0
   

ape to man via genetic meltdown

 
 
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 09:57 am
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6102

Quote:

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford,
Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005

by Royal Truman

I write this review with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, for the first time some key data are being divulged which we need to include in our models, and which honest thinkers who question evolutionist theory need to digest. But I have a problem. In the Prologue professor Sanford wrote, ‘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.’ I know John personally and treasure his intelligence and integrity. In further drawing attention to his book, I may be contributing to having his ties to academia severed, a world to which he has such strong emotional ties and to which he has made so many contributions. I know academics and journalists who have already lost their jobs for questioning Darwinian theory.

He is not exaggerating. I myself have also had my experiences in this matter.

‘I started to realize (again with trepidation), that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion,’ he confides early on. How correct he is. I recently discussed the issue of life’s origins with a dear friend I’ve worked together with for years. He brought up three arguments contra creation which I easily answered on strictly scientific terms. Suddenly he leaped to his feet. Trembling with rage he pointed a finger at me, and yelled that what I was doing was dangerous! The fundamentalists in America are dangerous! They are fighting against tolerance! They refuse to accept science! They are irrational and have no facts!

Dr Sanford is an applied geneticist semi-retired from Cornell University and now with the Institute of Creation Research. He is also the inventor of the ‘gene gun’, widely used in the genetic modification of crops. In this book the reader is confronted with compelling reasons to reject the claim that mutations plus natural selection have led to the marvels found in nature.

Many scientists do not believe man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, what Sanford calls the Primary Axiom. One line of reasoning, that of irreducible complexity, has been very capably championed by professor Behe:1 molecular machines require many complex components, the absence of only one rendering that entity non-functional. Evolutionary processes cannot be expected to provide the necessary building blocks.

Others have argued that the high fidelity of DNA replication leads to very low rates of mutation. Developing humans from an ape-like forefather would just take too long. In a much cited paper, Drake has estimated2 that the rate of spontaneous mutations for humans is about 5 x10"11 nucleotides per generation. In some 6 million years from a claimed split from the chimpanzee lineage, no humans could be generated if this is true.

Sanford was a practising evolutionist and at heart a eugenicist (p. 116), who ‘gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. … Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors’ (Prologue). But we will learn that evolutionary theory fails on grounds most people did not suspect.....


Long and detailed review
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,050 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 11:05 am
@gungasnake,
Meanwhile, the undeniable fact of evolution marches on, getting stronger and stronger every day, allowing us new insights into the natural world and rewarding us with improved medicine and farming practices, while a sad cadre of misguided individuals struggle pathetically to try to deny the obvious reality staring us in the face.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 11:48 am
More "hopeful Creationist crap" . Sanfords work was good enough for the USDA but hes not anywhere near an evolutionary geneticist. The fact is that almost all of evolution does not occur as a result of any mutation at all. This fact seems to slip his logic. The fact that ALL the parallel gene sequences in founder and daughter populations are there is no accident of mutation. Its a respo0nse . Mutation merely keeps the the new morph distinct and its no matter that the gene is mutated or turned off or on.
At least Sanford details the many sequences of what is claimed as mutation. LAst eyar gunga was touting that mutations were all deleterious changes that involve dicrete points of the genome. The majority are merely repeat sequences , transcroiption errors, or simple deletions CLADISTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY A SINGLE GENE.

Also, as ros states, whats Sanford gonna do with all the other evidence that stares him in the face and says "sorry dude but youre all wet"
Being a Creationist and then publishing "objective views" hardly qualifies as good science.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:06 pm
@farmerman,
I see that he testified in the KAnsas hearings and , in testimony claimed that he believed that the earth was between 5000 and 100000 years old. Obviously he doesnt even agree with the ID mainstream on that. His YEC "Beliefs" are hardly scientific and his claim that the genome is deteriorating as per thermo. DUHHH. Why doesnt he compae that of a chimp and human qwhere the same genes sequences are preserved in these two different genera. Or how about marsupials and man. Our genome is about 20% repeted in theirs and even more in placentals (25% in mice and 75 in Lemurids and 99% in chimps) The genome is hardly deteriorating. ITS BEING PRESERVED BY EVOLUTION.

His claims about mutations are correct , however , he fails to explain that, even though a mutation can occur by many means, it doesnt affect all somatic cells at once . Consider the fact that an organism is made of gazillions of cells and mutations are mostly point specific. Anything thats deleterious or neuteral or beneficial has to replicate itself into the entire organism to actually express itself.
Anyway Sanford has blown his cred. His plant genetics inventions are handy ag tools and his area as an applied scientist is recognized. His straying out of his field and trying to sound like an expert in population genetics, evolution, and geology is a bit hard to swallow.
Course gunga buys anything thats covered by ARt Bell.
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:18 pm
Human and chimpanzees only differ by about 1% in their DNA makeup. Not only is this process possible in 6 million years, it's slow! A friend of mine does evolutionary testing for UCLA and you'd be surprised how quickly evolution works.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2008 12:47 pm
@farmerman,
And how much do you want to bet that Sanford's core motivations are religious and not related to promoting better scientific understanding.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 07:08 am
@rosborne979,
You might find the book interesting. What Sanford is saying is that, originally, i.e. in the 'garden of Eden' or whatever that amounted to in real life, there was likely some mechanism in place to prevent genetic meltdown; but in our present circumstances, there is no such mechanism, we likely have somewhere between a few centuries and a few millenia to figure out a way to resolve the problem before we go extinct from it, and we presently lack the intellectual capacity to even try to fix the problem on our own, i.e. that whoever originally set the whole thing up was substantially brighter than we are.

He notes that no imaginable sort of eugenics program could plausibly fix the problem, even if Adolf Hitler and Joseph Mengele were in charge of it and were allowed to run it as they wished.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ape to man via genetic meltdown
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 05:59:21