Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome [Paperback]

John C. Sanford (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1599190028 | ISBN-13: 978-1599190020 | Publication Date: October 25, 2005

Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process.

Product Details

• Paperback: 224 pages
• Publisher: ILN (October 25, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1599190028
• ISBN-13: 978-1599190020
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (19 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,132,791 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

162 of 187 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Great Critique of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, December 22, 2006

By 

Saint and Sinner (South Pole, Antarctica) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Paperback)

This is a great popular-level work that analyzes the merits of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (i.e. the theory that random mutation + natural selection working through long periods of time created...oops, I used the `C' word...ahem!...resulted in...the existence of higher forms of life) and shows it to be an illusory solution to the existence of life. Rather than discussing whether or not a completely naturalistic form of evolution happened using such things as the fossil record or experimental laboratory results, Sanford analyzes the merits of the combination of chance and necessity acting on the genome of biological organisms in abstract (i.e. using statistical mathematics). Now, before you jump ship and assume that he is arguing that "the chances of such and such evolving into such and such is one chance in ten to the blah, blah, blah (really big number) power", like a few creationists have, you're wrong. Rather, he looks at the basic assumptions of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (NDET from now on) and compares them to what actually happens in nature. In other words, he contrasts how the ND assumption and the actual workings of nature differ greatly in their results. I will elucidate in my description of some of the chapters below.

Before I get to the review of the chapters, I would like to comment on something. It has been noted that Sanford is a young-earth creationist, and for some reason, that is like the plague to certain people. However, any honest reader of this book will also note that anyone (i.e. Christian and non-Christian) could have written the first nine (out of ten) chapters. Only in the tenth chapter does he make an argument for the historicity of Scripture. Even if it wasn't that way, Dr. Sanford, who possesses a doctorate in genetics and the inventor of the gene-gun, deserves to be heard. Now, to the chapters:

Chapter 1
Here, he discusses the basics of genetics (i.e. genes, nucleotides, genotype, phenotype, etc.) and explains what the neo-Darwinian synthesis is. He then goes through and refutes the famous computer algorithm argument used by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.

Chapter 2
Here is where we start getting into the analysis of NDET. Sanford discusses the statistical distribution of mutational effects (i.e. the magnitude of good and bad mutations affecting fitness) and their frequency. Sanford points out a number of differences between NDET and reality:

A. NDET posits that most mutations are neutral. However, Sanford argues that there is no such thing as a truly "neutral" mutation. Rather, most mutations are "near-neutral" (whether increasing fitness or decreasing fitness). Even a single point-nucleotide mutation in a minor area of the genome disrupts the genetic code to some degree (no matter how small). This is key for the rest of his book.
B. The naïve view of mutational distribution is a bell curve (though many Darwinists recognize that the actual distribution found in nature is nothing like it). The real distribution is a Kimura curve (named after the *Darwinist* population geneticist who created it) where the *vast* majority of the curve is near-neutral. Sanford notes that if the normal distribution (i.e. "bell curve") was true, then an increase in complexity would be inevitable. However, with the Kimura curve, it is hard to see any substantial increase in fitness "getting off the ground" so-to-speak.
C. NDET acknowledges that most mutations are harmful, but doesn't suggest that the ratio is so small as to never allow an increase in fitness that would affect a population. Contrary to that assumption, the actual ratio, as noted by the population geneticists (most of whom are Darwinists!) whom Sanford cites, is so small that population geneticists don't even place the beneficiary curve on the distribution graph! The ratio that Sanford cites (again, from the population geneticists) is between 10,000 to 1,000,000 harmful mutations for every one beneficial (though probably closer to the former figure rather than the latter). Sanford chooses to be conservative, and for the rest of the book, he assumes the 10k ratio. Keep this in mind when the next point is cited.
D. NDET assumes that natural selection will take out all of the bad mutations and leave only the good (notice that that was a near quote of Darwin himself). However, citing the population geneticist, Kimura, for support, Sanford notes that there is a "zone of near-neutrality" on both the beneficial and harmful sides of the curve in which natural selection doesn't select for or against. This is due to the fact that most mutations are point-nucleotide mutations. These only cause an ever-so-slight decrease in fitness that natural selection can't "see" them 99% of the time. It would be like a single pixel on your television screen going out. Would you really be able to tell a difference? Furthermore, since the beneficiary mutations curve is so small (see point C. above), the "zone of near-neutrality" (a.k.a. the "no-selection box") covers 99% of the beneficiary mutation side of the distribution! This ensures that natural selection will never see 99% of the good mutations while allowing the bad (which are vastly greater in number) to accumulate. Thus, the genome will suffer from "genetic entropy" (and hence the title of the book).

Now, a typical reply (which is, in fact, found below in one of the negative reviews) is that biologists have witnessed and documented such beneficiary mutations that have given great benefit to organisms in their environment. However, many biologists are becoming aware that the vast majority of these changes in phenotype are due to "pre-programmed" changes in the genome, not random ones as NDET demands. Secondly, as Sanford points out in Appendix 4, many of these "beneficial" mutations actually end up giving the organism a net decrease in fitness (as in the case of homeostasis in cold-climate creatures to warm climates or drug-resistant bacteria) making them deleterious in reality!

Chapter 3
Here, he starts to go into human population genetics. He cites several twentieth century population geneticists who believed that if there were as many as 0.5 deleterious mutations per person per generation, then the human race would be doomed to extinction. He then cites the actual number of 100 deleterious mutations per person per generation! This is a topic that he comes back to in other chapters of his book. However, from now on, I will concentrate on the implications for NDET. Next, he debunks the junk-DNA and pseudo-gene myth (i.e. those genes really do have a function as scientists are now finding out).

Chapter 4
In this chapter, he discusses the actual power of natural selection as found in nature compared to that which is presupposed by NDET. He notes that most biologists see natural selection as a "magic wand" that eliminates any decrease in complexity while preserving all those changes and variations which give an increase in fitness. Here, he points out a few more problems with NDET when it is contrasted with reality:

E. NDET presupposes that each individual nucleotide is selected for or against. This is a necessary presupposition for all (or even most) deleterious mutations to be selected out (since most mutations are point-nucleotide mutations). In reality, however, it is an entire gene that is selected for or against. In combination with the 10,000 bad to good mutation ratio, this will ensure that for every (random) beneficial mutation that occurs on a gene, there will be (on average) 10,000 bad ones of the same magnitude (as that of the good). This is what Sanford calls "Muller's Ratchet" (named after another population geneticist). Even if a gene with a beneficial mutation is selected for, it will carry many, many more deleterious ones with it. This inevitably causes genetic entropy, not a complexity increase.
F. While he noted, in chapter 2, that natural selection doesn't see most of the mutations that occur in the genome (i.e. the "near-neutral" ones which comprise 70-80% of all the bad and 99% of all good), the problem is actually worse due to environmental "noise". Environmental "noise" is simply the fact that random environmental factors affect who survives to a much greater degree than general fitness. For example, a tree may have greater fitness than that of another tree. However, if the seed of the one with greater fitness lands in a deep valley with little sunlight, and the other lands on a hill that receives proper sunlight, then the one with lesser fitness will survive. In fact, the population geneticist, Kimura (remember: a Darwinist himself), estimates that heritability due to phenotypic superiority (i.e. fitness) is as low as 0.4%! Thus, the "no-selection" box is increased *several* fold, ensuring that the vast majority of all bad mutations will go unnoticed by natural selection, and 99.99% of all beneficial mutations will also go unnoticed. So, while NDET assumes that all (or almost all) selection is due to general fitness, reality says that only about 1/250 of all selection is due to general fitness.
G. While not stated explicitly, NDET presupposes an infinite selection "bank" from which it can assume that all members of a population without a superior genotype can be killed off, leaving only those with superior fitness. [Otherwise, the beneficial mutation would be diluted when it is mingled with the rest of the population.] In reality, however, the selection cost to make a single beneficial mutation (no matter how small) dominant in a population is near extinction! [Sanford cites Kimura who, after doing the math, estimated that each parent in a population must leave about 3.27 million offspring in order to keep up with the selection pressure!] Thus, even if you... Read more ›

141 of 170 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Shows evolution true, but going the wrong way, March 20, 2006

By 

The Professor - See all my reviews

This review is from: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Paperback)

Genetic Entropy was written by Cornel University Professor of Genetics, John Sanford. In his 25 years as a research scientist at Cornell he was granted 25 patents, the most well known one for the gene gun, better known as the ballistic process. It is as a result of this development that I first learned of his important work (I have used this technology in my molecular biology research). I agree with much in this book partly because I have come to the same conclusion as Dr Sanford, only by a very different route. This work for me only further solidified the case for evolution, only evolution the wrong way, downward instead of upward, i.e. the genome is degenerating. Even if half of Dr Sanford's well documented arguments turn out to be incorrect, he has still made his case in this well written, yet packed full of insight, easy to read, book. He makes his case in 10 chapters, any one of which stands alone as clear evidence for genome degeneration. One point that impressed me was the fact that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result, they are not selected out by natural selection. Consequently, they accumulate in the genomes of all life forms so that, as a set, they reduce fitness for the entire species, eventually producing genetic meltdown. This may be one reason for animal extinction. The harmful mutations are not the problem because those that are dominant are usually soon selected out by natural selection. This, as is well documented in this book and elsewhere, is the main role of selection, to help maintain the stability of the genome by reducing the effects of deleterious mutations. Neo-Darwinist today believe that the major means of producing new genetic information is mutations and selection. As Sanford documents, the problem is not the survival of the fittest, though, but the arrival of the fittest because mutations as a whole clearly reduce usable information, not increase it. All other theories of the source of new genetic information, such as Darwin's pangenesis, and acquired traits as developed by Lamarckism ideas, have been discarded. The only viable theory left is mutations. This book will be important in showing that mutations are not only not the answer to the arrival of the fittest problem, but are clear evidence against Neo-Darwinism.

90 of 111 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Emperor is Streaking!, August 12, 2006

By 

David L. Bump "the Old Dreamer" (Flushing, MI United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Paperback)

Comments on _Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome_ by Dr. J.C. Sanford.

Overall:
On its own merits, this is a good book about the insurmountable problems that the study of observed genetics throws in the face of theoretical (evolutionary) genetics. The writing style is a bit unpolished, but still enjoyable and without any unpleasant excesses or errors. It is aimed at a general audience, but it is based on advanced technical information. The message (in general) is not especially new, but the citations (with exceptions of historical interest and importance) are mostly from the 1990s or the 21st century. What sets this book apart is that its author is a geneticist with excellent credentials ("semi-retired" after a stellar career at Cornell, dozens of published papers, over 25 patents, significant contributions) who used to be an evolutionist. He sticks to analyzing scientific studies of genetics. There are hardly any references to papers by creationists, and only a couple references to the Bible, etc. To read the work of someone with this perspective and scientific focus, concluding that naturalistic evolution is contrary to observations of the way life operates, is worth much more than the price of the book.

Key impressions:
* An ex-evolutionist with advanced training, publications, and patents in genetics who agrees that "The emperor has no clothes!"
* Don't let the cover illustration scare you off -- this is not a UFO book. It is solid science.
* It does get a bit technical in places, but not for long, and the main points are illustrated by simple analogies. Sometimes the switch from technical terms to simple analogy seems a bit abrupt.
* Mutations destroy information, and there's no way to compensate for the damage.
* Summary of attempts to accelerate evolution artificially, using real organisms (including polyploid plants): "an enormous failure." The author speaks from experience on this.
* May seem a bit repetitive and elementary for people familiar with advanced genetics. All the better for everyone else!
* Not based on single, biased estimates -- considers ranges of possibilities.
* The neo-Darwinian synthesis was intended "to dispel the belief that Mendelism had killed Darwinism."
* Even granting or overlooking things (to favor evolutionism), things just get worse for the Primary Axiom as more aspects are examined.
* We're ALL highly mutant, compared to our ancestors of just a few thousand years ago.
* The examples are largely anthro-centric, but the analysis is generally applicable.
* Computer simulations are shown to be hopelessly oversimplified and unrealistic.
* Theoretical genetics are also simplistic, and aimed at supporting evolution in spite of problems, even if only by using obfuscating jargon.
* Eugenics lurks in the background (for any reader familiar with this evolutionary concept), but is explicitly rejected as both immoral and also insufficient to halt degeneration, no matter how draconian.
* Even if degeneration could be halted, even if rare mutations can be beneficial, there is not enough power in natural selection to preserve and spread the improvements at a sufficient rate, and even the beneficial mutations do not produce increased information in the genome.
* The Biblical record of decreasing life-spans is consistent with the degenerative nature of mutations -- not merely in a general, linear way, but curving in a pattern similar to many biological phenomena.
* The four appendices are great for those looking for more technical material: Quotations, details, a new expression of the hallmark of design, and answers to possible objections.