Gone Peating
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 1,006
Genetic Entropy was written by John Sanford, a plant biologist who worked at Cornell University. Before his more recent writings Sanford was famous for patenting the "gene therapy gun" that has allowed scientists to create GMOs. (Obviously, now we know this was not a very good idea but the scientist's original intentions were not necessarily bad.) This thread is not about GMOs I only brought up his background to provide some information on who he is and his credibility - please do not begin discussing GMOs I only want to discuss "genetic entropy".
This is one of the most logical, well-written books I have been fortunate to come across. I don't want to make this post too long but I do want to try to do justice to Sanford's book (I strongly believe everyone here should read it as you will know within the first two chapters whether or not you think his central argument is right or wrong, it is only $10). I believe you all should read it because if Sanford is correct that life could not have evolved by natural selection acting on random mutations, then it would have enormous implications for our worldview and how we see one another and all of life around us. At no point in his book (only in the prologue and epilogue) does Sanford bring in religious ideas to bolster his argument, it's all arguing based on science and logic.
Sanford's main argument boils down to this: random mutations and natural selection (how most people today claim life came to be) can never result in the creation of information, and even if they could, they cannot slow down the degradation of genomes or genetic entropy. Mutation can only result in a loss of information, sometimes this loss of information (how GMO corn came to be which just caused the loss of gene that resulted in modern corn being lower in phytic acid and thus sweeter) can be seen to have beneficial effects from our view BUT IT IS STILL A LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION NONETHELESS. He calls the general acceptance of the modern view of evolution "The Primary Axiom" and claims that even though evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the origin of life makes sense IN THEORY, the evidence for how it would go about creating life (genetic information) and maintaining life (mutations can be both good and bad) just simply are not there.
From Sanford's website:
"Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand.
There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population – with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level."
This brings us to his first point, even though mutations could result in beneficial results mutations are almost always negative (they are typically what he terms "near-neutral" mutations in that they usually don't have any effects on our fitness, if you get a random mutation you don't grow a third eyeball-usually nothing happens). But that near-neutral quality of the vast majority of mutations makes them that much deadlier - it's how they are able to accumulate in a species' genome undetected generation after generation.
Natural selection does not sit there with a magnifying glass proofreading all of the little mutations that occur in each animal. Natural selection does not work at the level of the genome, but at the level of the organism. It either accepts or rejects the whole organism/genome - it does not accept/reject certain genes (its ability to accept/reject animals is even overblown, most of life's ability to survive and reproduce is mostly down to luck and he demonstrates this mathematically citing multiple models/experiments). And each organism that natural selection selects for (yes, even the cream of the crop, the Apollo Creeds and the Dolph Lundgrens) come with their own set of mutations that they will pass on to their children and their children will pass those on in addition to mutations they accumulate to their children and so on.
"Apart from intelligence, information and information systems always degenerate. This is obviously true in the human realm, but is equally true in the biological realm (contrary to what evolutionists claim). The more technical definition of entropy, as used by engineers and physicists, is simply a measure of disorder. Technically, apart from any external intervention, all functional systems degenerate, consistently moving from order to disorder (because entropy always increases in any closed system). For the biologist it is more useful to employ the more general use of the word entropy, which conveys that since physical entropy is ever-increasing (disorder is always increasing), therefore there is universal tendency for all biological information systems to degenerate over time - apart from intelligent intervention."
Now, the genome is almost inconceivably complex - it fits more information into a space smaller than a speck of dust than we can fit into all the supercomputers in the world. Keep in mind that when it comes to mutations while a point mutation might not seem like a big deal it really is when you consider how the genome is read. The genome is not read merely like we read a book; it is also read in reverse and the genome even moves into three dimensional shapes to be read. So evn thogh yu can see what this sentence means with those three point mutations, imagine how much more difficult it would be with the sentence also needing to be read in reverse or if somehow we could invent a three dimensional language - the negative effects of the mutation would be compounded dramatically.
If we think of each genome as a nearly perfect set of instructions to build that particular organism, what is the likelihood that random blips in the instructions will lead to the creation of new and better instructions? What is the likelihood that random letter changes in the instruction manual for an airplane would eventually over time lead to the creation of a spaceship? I think that even if you gave that instruction manual a billion years the answer would still be basically zero.
This has not even been a great showcase of what is in his book. Before I read Sanford's book I really had no dog in the fight - I accepted evolution was true and didn't think much of it, but now I realize most of my acceptance of it as true was taken on faith. I can remember back to an evolution course I took in college when the professor was teaching us about Darwin's finches on the Galapagos and how after droughts only those with a certain size beak survived and reproduced. I told her that made sense, but a certain beak size or a certain color scheme on a parrot being selected for seems a lot different than a flagellum coming to form over time (seeing as each individual part of it is essentially useless on its own and if each individual mutation isn't beneficial then how would all 20 or 30 necessary to form the flagellum have been consecutively selected for)? She replied that it was a good question but that given enough time evolution could do it and I just needed to trust her. Sanford also discusses the typical "give it millions and millions of years" argument and shows that it too is a largely inadequate explanation.
That's enough text for now, this was more to peak curiosity than to serve as an argument against evolution - for that you really will need to read the book! I promise, within the first two chapters he will have made his central thesis and you will pretty much know whether you think his argument is sound or not. Hope this was not too long and boring! I also don't really want to argue about this unless you have read at least the first two chapters of his book, so please don't start attacking me for being "anti-science" or "creationist" or something like that until you have read the book. Thank you!
This is one of the most logical, well-written books I have been fortunate to come across. I don't want to make this post too long but I do want to try to do justice to Sanford's book (I strongly believe everyone here should read it as you will know within the first two chapters whether or not you think his central argument is right or wrong, it is only $10). I believe you all should read it because if Sanford is correct that life could not have evolved by natural selection acting on random mutations, then it would have enormous implications for our worldview and how we see one another and all of life around us. At no point in his book (only in the prologue and epilogue) does Sanford bring in religious ideas to bolster his argument, it's all arguing based on science and logic.
Sanford's main argument boils down to this: random mutations and natural selection (how most people today claim life came to be) can never result in the creation of information, and even if they could, they cannot slow down the degradation of genomes or genetic entropy. Mutation can only result in a loss of information, sometimes this loss of information (how GMO corn came to be which just caused the loss of gene that resulted in modern corn being lower in phytic acid and thus sweeter) can be seen to have beneficial effects from our view BUT IT IS STILL A LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION NONETHELESS. He calls the general acceptance of the modern view of evolution "The Primary Axiom" and claims that even though evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the origin of life makes sense IN THEORY, the evidence for how it would go about creating life (genetic information) and maintaining life (mutations can be both good and bad) just simply are not there.
From Sanford's website:
"Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand.
There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population – with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level."
This brings us to his first point, even though mutations could result in beneficial results mutations are almost always negative (they are typically what he terms "near-neutral" mutations in that they usually don't have any effects on our fitness, if you get a random mutation you don't grow a third eyeball-usually nothing happens). But that near-neutral quality of the vast majority of mutations makes them that much deadlier - it's how they are able to accumulate in a species' genome undetected generation after generation.
Natural selection does not sit there with a magnifying glass proofreading all of the little mutations that occur in each animal. Natural selection does not work at the level of the genome, but at the level of the organism. It either accepts or rejects the whole organism/genome - it does not accept/reject certain genes (its ability to accept/reject animals is even overblown, most of life's ability to survive and reproduce is mostly down to luck and he demonstrates this mathematically citing multiple models/experiments). And each organism that natural selection selects for (yes, even the cream of the crop, the Apollo Creeds and the Dolph Lundgrens) come with their own set of mutations that they will pass on to their children and their children will pass those on in addition to mutations they accumulate to their children and so on.
"Apart from intelligence, information and information systems always degenerate. This is obviously true in the human realm, but is equally true in the biological realm (contrary to what evolutionists claim). The more technical definition of entropy, as used by engineers and physicists, is simply a measure of disorder. Technically, apart from any external intervention, all functional systems degenerate, consistently moving from order to disorder (because entropy always increases in any closed system). For the biologist it is more useful to employ the more general use of the word entropy, which conveys that since physical entropy is ever-increasing (disorder is always increasing), therefore there is universal tendency for all biological information systems to degenerate over time - apart from intelligent intervention."
Now, the genome is almost inconceivably complex - it fits more information into a space smaller than a speck of dust than we can fit into all the supercomputers in the world. Keep in mind that when it comes to mutations while a point mutation might not seem like a big deal it really is when you consider how the genome is read. The genome is not read merely like we read a book; it is also read in reverse and the genome even moves into three dimensional shapes to be read. So evn thogh yu can see what this sentence means with those three point mutations, imagine how much more difficult it would be with the sentence also needing to be read in reverse or if somehow we could invent a three dimensional language - the negative effects of the mutation would be compounded dramatically.
If we think of each genome as a nearly perfect set of instructions to build that particular organism, what is the likelihood that random blips in the instructions will lead to the creation of new and better instructions? What is the likelihood that random letter changes in the instruction manual for an airplane would eventually over time lead to the creation of a spaceship? I think that even if you gave that instruction manual a billion years the answer would still be basically zero.
This has not even been a great showcase of what is in his book. Before I read Sanford's book I really had no dog in the fight - I accepted evolution was true and didn't think much of it, but now I realize most of my acceptance of it as true was taken on faith. I can remember back to an evolution course I took in college when the professor was teaching us about Darwin's finches on the Galapagos and how after droughts only those with a certain size beak survived and reproduced. I told her that made sense, but a certain beak size or a certain color scheme on a parrot being selected for seems a lot different than a flagellum coming to form over time (seeing as each individual part of it is essentially useless on its own and if each individual mutation isn't beneficial then how would all 20 or 30 necessary to form the flagellum have been consecutively selected for)? She replied that it was a good question but that given enough time evolution could do it and I just needed to trust her. Sanford also discusses the typical "give it millions and millions of years" argument and shows that it too is a largely inadequate explanation.
That's enough text for now, this was more to peak curiosity than to serve as an argument against evolution - for that you really will need to read the book! I promise, within the first two chapters he will have made his central thesis and you will pretty much know whether you think his argument is sound or not. Hope this was not too long and boring! I also don't really want to argue about this unless you have read at least the first two chapters of his book, so please don't start attacking me for being "anti-science" or "creationist" or something like that until you have read the book. Thank you!
Last edited:
