Re: [asa] Anybody familiar with Sanford's book?

I was sent an enthusiastic email about the book from an occasional
creationist friend of mine too. (Yes, I regard creationists as my friends
rather than just accusing them of telling lies which doesn't exactly build
bridges). Here is what he said. Don't shoot the messenger. As my friend
has a PhD in molecular biology, I wasn't exactly in a position to debunk
what he said. (However I did take him to task over his "exponential curve"
for the ages of the Patriarchs - it doesn't look anything like an
exponential curve, and if that sort of evidence "blew him away" then I'd say
he was easily impressed).

Iain

----
I've recently read a cracking book by John Sanford, a leading scientist in
applied genetics and who also happens to be a Christian. It's a great book
and I thought of your recent emails about mutations etc so I fully recommend
getting this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/1599190028/sr=1-1/qid=1172077998/ref=sr_1_olp_1/026-2875415-0931642?ie=UTF8&s=books
the above link is the cheapest I could find.
The book really is the most convincing evidence against evolutionary theory
I have read (and I've read quite a few!). It takes the stance of assessing
the *inability* to remove negative and near-neutral (very slightly negative)
mutations from the genome over time and also that natural selection acts on
the *entire* genome as a whole, not individual nucleotides (the latter
assumption is one of many that underpins population genetics). DNA is
actually most minimally inherited in large chunks - recombination of alleles
[versions of genes e.g. eye colour] within chromosomes - and so rarely can
negative mutations be separated from positive ones. Since it has been *
demonstrated* that more negative mutations occur than 'positive' ones
(within our lifetimes; disease, etc), this fundamental principle shows that
progressive evolution could not have built complex genomes.
Because near-neutral mutations cannot be selected against (selection for
fitness or unfitness of a trait is actually a very weak process when you
factor in noise, such as environment, luck, predation), they will build up
and their additive affects will eventually condemn the genome to extinction.
This is an inescapable fact just like if you kept introducing typos into a
book – the book will be understandable for a long time but eventually it
will lose sufficient meaning to convey the message (extinction). Each
nucleotide represents an infinitesimally amount of information but add them
up and they sum an entire genome's information – it's that simple.
No mutation can claim to be truly neutral, as it takes up space in the
genome – spacing itself (e.g. between regulating elements and their genes)
is important. 'Junk' DNA is rapidly revealing itself to be functional in
ways we never considered. Because of the relatively low fertility rate of
mammals (have complex genomes) and high mutation rate per individual (up to
100-300 per person per gen), there is no way enough 'negative-mutant'
individuals can be removed/out-competed from the population (i.e. stopping
mutants mating as well as producing enough non-mutant offspring to maintain
the species). This last bit is supported by the 'cost of
substitution/selection' theory I fwd to you both.
So, where did the genome come from? (HoHo) How can 'beneficial' mutations
build a genome in the first place, in the face of all this decay?
Sanfordargues that whilst there may be short term 'benefits' in some
mutations,
which can be significant (e.g. Arctic dogs can adapt to very hot
environments by a single mutation that reduces coat thickness – a fitness of
zero to 1 in one mutation), these are only ever *losses* of already existing
information (turning-off of a gene, etc). 'Beneficial' mutations simply
reduce the rate of inevitable genome decay. Evolution requires not only
complete halt of genome decay but active building.
He also argues that gene duplication cannot explain genome-building. Gene
duplication is the current perceived saviour of evolutionary theory. If you
create a copy of a gene then one version remains functional, and the other
is 'free' to evolve.
However, firstly, wherever the free copy is inserted it will instantly
affect something else (reduce information) in the genome by simple
positioning (even if quite small affect – it will never have zero effect).
Secondly, the amount of that gene product would be instantly increased (the
free copy would also have to be 'on' in order to be selected for an
alternative function) leading to an imbalance in gene product and therefore
function; this could have a profound impact on other genes and/or pathways –
it will very unlikely have no impact.
Thirdly, which copy is to become the 'back-up'? Any recombination-exchange
between the two copies over time will likely contaminate each other with
their own mutations – actually quickening decay.
Fourthly, genetic drift of the free copy could easily lead to a dominant
negative affect on the 'back-up' (i.e. the new 'free' version will interfere
with the originals' function).
Fifthly, how would the first several mutations in the free copy be selected
for – this is irreducible complexity at the most fundamental level –
nucleotides function within the context of the surrounding nucleotides,
which obviously are in place for their original function – not anything new
(makes it more likely to become a dominant negative mutant).
Sanford makes a nice point in the book about probability and mega-mutations.
I think it's Dawkins who coined the phrase 'Mount Improbable' for the theory
of evolution. If one is climbing such a mountain, and is prone to 'tripping
over' (mutation) occasionally it seems logical that you'd rarely trip-up the
mountain very far. On the other hand, tripping in a downward direction seems
more likely, and it's possible to fall a great deal further!
One of the implications of the general deterioration of the genome is that
life spans could quite easily have been in the 100s as per Genesis.
Apparently, when you plot the age of individuals (who died of old age)
against number of centuries post-flood (from Noah onwards) you get an
exponential curve!!!! This blew me away – how could anyone make that up? If
they (Moses?) did, what are the chances of getting an exponential curve?
Lots to think about! Get this book!
 ---
On Dec 17, 2007 7:41 PM, <steamdoc@aol.com> wrote:
> An occasional creationist correspondent of mine is bragging on this book:
> Sanford, John C. (2005). *Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome*.
> Ivan Press.
> Apparently the thesis is that the genome is deteriorating, accumulating
> bad mutations at a rate that means it could not be very many generations
> old, even had it been created perfect.
>
> Anybody familiar with the book or the thesis in general?  Know of a good
> review by somebody who actually knows the science (blurbs for the book are
> from Behe and Johnson)?
> The fact that the other thing my correspondent lifted up in the email was
> the RATE project does not inspire confidence in this book, but I should not
> assume guilt by association.
>
> Allan (ASA Member)
> ------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO, steamdoc at aol dot com
> (usual disclaimers here)
>  ------------------------------
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>
-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.