Genetic Entropy - Can Random Mutations And Selection Create Information?

[Literally]

>> He dedicates a long chapter to these modern simulations that you mention, and discusses all of the ways that scientists use presuppositions in their models that are highly unrealistic. He then walks you through his own models that have corrected for these unrealistic assumptions. You can find the exact software that they use for their simulations online Mendel's Accountant | Home

All I can say, because I don't have time to write another long debunking here on a subject unrelated to the forum, is that you clearly haven't read or understood the criticism of Sanford including his "Mendel's Accountant" model, which is designed to fail. The model is highly flawed... if you read the criticisms online it's easy to get a basic understanding of why. At a deeper level, he ignores (i.e. doesn't counterargue but completely ignores) the mathematics of parallel schema selection that been known in information theory since the early 90's. Look up the Royal Roads for schema selection in genetic algorithms, e.g. https://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mm/ecal92.pdf If you wanted to construct a model that demonstrates a willful ignorance of this principle it would be Sanfords.

Some more specific problems with "Mendel's Accountant" are summarized here. As someone who has written numerous genetic algorithms, I had to laugh at this list Sanford has crippled his model, so of course it doesn't show fitness improvement. To do this, he had to turn off a bunch of features that have been added to other models because they are directly observed in nature. For example, he disables crossover (sexual selection). The work is so full of holes that it seems almost like a joke (although I believe he's sincere). What is everything wrong with Mendel's Accountant? : DebateEvolution

The bottom line is that being convinced by arguments like this requires an active ignorance of the competing ideas. If you have actually studied this area the list of wrong beliefs that Sanford builds into his model without evidence is rather stunning.

This goes into more detail. John C. Sanford: Young Earth Creationist Loon - International Skeptics Forum The errors in his model are severe.

Since Sanford argues that genes are deteriorating at 1% per year, his theory would also seem to require a very young earth. The evidence against a Young Earth is overwhelming to say the least.

BTW one very easy way to see that Sanford's idea of genetic devolution cannot be correct is to think about the inevitable consequences to viruses with very short genomes. At the rate of degradation he proposes, there wouldn't be enough valid information in many viruses to function, after several hundred years. Think about it. Many viruses have just several thousand base pairs of genetic information, encoding just a handful of genes. They would all have stopped functioning if Sanfords ideas were correct.

I thought this was worth searching for after it occurred to me, and Sanford has actually addressed a related argument -- where not the limited size of the genome, but the limited size of a species' life span poses a problem for his theory. Others have pointed out that by his own math, creatures with very short lifespans -- like bacteria and mice -- would also have gone excinct in relatively short order.

Now, I'm not making this up. Sanford wrote a rebuttal to someone who pointed out this latter problem. And he literally states in this rebuttal that viruses can live a really long time, so really old ones without genetic damage resurface. Got that? Viruses don't actually adapt -- lol -- to environmental conditions, they degrade and have to be replaced by ancient viruses. How the mice do it, he wasn't clear on.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Thanks @Literally for providing this info on the debate that already took place.

Astonishing that such a fundamentale flawed theory garnered so much attention and dispute.
I assume it’s because Sanford made this actual useful inventions before.

 

[Literally]

In a way it is not surprising because people do not have time to learn all they need to to evaluate all ideas, and the 'consensus' is not reliable so you never know when it's wrong.

There are also so many cases of brilliant people with odd ideas in a different area than they are known for. Newton spent half his time weird spiritualism and alchemy. The computer scientist in the video link, Gelernter, was famous enough in the history of developing specialized programming to implement parallel computing that I learned about his particular achievement and language (Linda) in school, despite its moment in the sun being brief.

Also the way that an evolutionary process does the same thing as intelligent design, albeit in a very different way, is counter-intuitive. It took a lot to convince me of it, back in the day.

Nowadays the evidence for evolution is so strong. For one thing genetic algorithms have reproduced many human patented inventions, as well as new patentable ones. If you know how, you can read the source code to some these systems and learn how they work... confirm for yourself that (a) the inventions are *not* pre-programmed or baked into the system, (b) the tools are successfully "searching" a huge space of possible genomes to find unknown programs, solutions, inventions, etc. Just as Sanford says is impossible, smile.

There are many other examples in computer science BTW -- not just genetic algorithms -- where humans have successfully obtained information using algorithms that operate over search spaces that are extremely vast. One funny thing about the fact Sanford says it's impossible for a genetic process to handle this search complexity... computer science has thoroughly classified problem complexity. There are examples of humans routinely using algorithms that search even MORE complex problem spaces effectively. For example, many kinds of SMT solvers. Would Sanford say they are not real (which seems hard to imagine) or that people do not gain information from them (ditto)?

I think that a lot of people get into a place where they hate what they are and what they do, so they embrace distractions or a "rebel" identity in a field they don't know much about. It's a lot more fun to have contrarian ideas WITHOUT doing the hard work of deeply researching the basics of the field or the alternative ideas in any depth. The idea becomes part of someone's identity and then they will really fight for it. In Sanfords case, unlimited praise and exposure within his new religious identity, I would think. (I had mistakenly said earlier he was from a religious background because there is another famous Christian named John Sanford, sorry about that!)

 

[LeeLemonoil]

think that a lot of people get into a place where they hate what they are and what they do, so they embrace distractions or a "rebel" identity in a field they don't know much about. It's a lot more fun to have contrarian ideas WITHOUT doing the hard work of deeply researching the basics of the field or the alternative ideas in any depth. The idea becomes part of someone's identity and then they will really fight for it. In Sanfords case, unlimited praise and exposure within his new religious identity, I would think.

A depressing yet probably very accurate observation.

 

[Gone Peating]

None of you have even read the original work yet, you are reading criticisms without reading the original arguments (the critics raise some good points but are also clearly misrepresenting some of his arguments/claims).

You keep citing "most evidence" without actually looking at what Sanford himself has to say. It's as stupid as citing creationist arguments against evolution and determining creationism is the "right" choice without reading arguments for evolution by natural selection first.

You remind me of people on other forums who say "Ray Peat says sugar is bad what a moron" without actually reading his long, well-researched ideas on why sugar might not be bad.

It seems like you already have your minds made up and closed off to the possibility that what you know may not be correct and are scared of the possibility that you may be "wrong"

 

[Literally]

No, I looked at a great deal of what Sanford has said publicly.

I would say you are the one who is hasn't studied the case or evolution, or at least, have chosen not to express these other ideas in a way that would be convincing to someone who has.

Feel free to explain how he has been misrepresented or to summarize his arguments, obviously. The burden is not on us to read every book in existence...

 

[Gone Peating]

No, I looked at a great deal of what Sanford has said publicly.

I would say you are the one who is hasn't studied the case or evolution, or at least, have chosen not to express these other ideas in a way that would be convincing to someone who has.

Feel free to explain how he has been misrepresented or to summarize his arguments, obviously. The burden is not on us to read every book in existence...

I don't want to take the time to, as I mentioned in the OP he is very exhaustive in his argumentation in the book. I would do a disservice to the arguments he makes trying to recite them here. I'm also not going to do the work for you just because you want me to - read the book. He just gives the cliffnotes of his main beliefs on the youtube videos, without exploring the underlying logic backing up those points - you have to read the book to get the "why?" and "how?"

I have taken several courses in college in biology and evolution (i thought i was going to medical school at one point), so i'm not ignorant when it comes to evolution

 

[Literally]

Hmmm, the argument for evolution -- including how it searches an information space and responds to environmental information -- can be expressed clearly and succinctly. If Sanford's theory had any core wisdom to offer, no doubt the same would be true. There are known counterexamples to Sanford's key claims. If you said something wasn't possible that is clearly possible, I wouldn't read your book either.