Customer Reviews

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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 kill off almost all of a population to keep one beneficial mutation, you will never be able to stop the deterioration of the genome due to the ratio of bad to good mutations and the resultant in-breeding among such a small population. Again, genetic entropy, not increasing complexity, is inevitable.

Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8
Here, he goes through and refutes various attempts to save NDET from all the problems with it (as mentioned above). Also discussed is the deterioration of the human genome.

Chapter 9
In this chapter, Sanford discusses more of what was discussed in chapters 5-8, but he also throws in several more problems with NDET:

H. NDET assumes that the billions of years (a.k.a. "deep time") that the earth has been in existence is plenty of time for random mutation and natural selection to give rise to the diversity of life found today. [In my personal experience, I have found that even the mention of "deep time" is enough to dispel any doubts a Darwinist has in his heart about NDET!] However, even assuming that the above problems (A.-G.) don't exist, the time needed to make only one beneficial nucleotide mutation dominant in a population is *far* too long for even the "deep time" provided. Sanford cites J.B.S. Haldane, another Darwinian geneticist, who calculated that (again, ignoring problems A.-G. above) it would take 300 generations to make a genetic trait fixed in a population. [Note: 300 generations is a conservative number. The average number found in nature is larger than 300.] So, for example, it would take several billion years for a chimp-like ancestor to evolve into a human (again, assuming only beneficial mutations). This famous problem for neo-Darwinism has historically been known as "Haldane's Dilemma".
I. NDET assumes that DNA is a linear code, and that one change in a sequence won't affect other functions in the phenotype. However, recent discoveries have shown that most DNA sequences are "poly-constrained". That is, DNA sequences can have meanings on several different levels. For example, imagine a coded message that has a valid meaning when read forward, another valid meaning when read backwards, another every 5 letters, and yet another when placed on top of another few messages (making it 3D). This is how most DNA functions, just more complex! Any change in the code could cause an incoherent message, and thus, one good mutation one way might also cause several bad mutations in other ways.
J. Irreducible Complexity. [There has been much debate on this topic, but I agree with Sanford (and Behe for that matter) that direct *and indirect* Darwinian pathways are extremely unlikely (and might as well be impossible). See Behe's Afterword in the 10th anniversary edition of Darwin's Black Box.]

Chapter 10
Sanford concludes that the degeneration of the genome is unstoppable and Darwinism could never have gotten off the ground. Contrary to one reviewer's beliefs about this book, Sanford only spends a few paragraphs on the declining life-spans of the generations of men after Noah. He shows that the life-spans of post-flood man, as recorded in the Bible, follow a curve that is eerily similar to a declining fitness curve found in earlier chapters of this book. In fact, Sanford believes that these recorded life-spans could only have been fabricated if the writer of the Pentateuch (i.e. the 5 books of Moses) used "sophisticated mathematical modeling". Of course, while this makes Christians (like myself) smile with joy, it probably won't convince any non-believers.

Everyone who follows this debate should own this book. Even if you are hostile to anyone that even questions NDET, you should read it since college I.D. clubs are handing this book out to their members and, undoubtedly, biology students. My personal opinion is that Sanford gives a devastating critique of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. These are insurmountable problems for NDET, and the math and logic prove it. Instead of climbing up Mount Improbable (using Dawkins' analogy), the genome is tumbling down Mt. Impossible!

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.

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.

I've read about a dozen or so ID books lately, from the fairly scientific kind to the more philosophical kind, and have taken to them more than I thought I would. This one is somewhere in the middle, but to me was a far weaker effort than that coming from Johnson or Behe or some of the other authors.

For starters the book is in your elderly aunt font- it would be more of a pamphlet than a book if it were printed in any kind of normal manner. The lines are about triple-spaced as well, so it has the feel of a term paper set up to meet the professor's minimum page count. Granted quality counts more than quantity, but I thought I was buying a book and not just a wordy article.

That aside, I also had some quibbles with even some of the more basic observations. The premise of the book, to be succinct, is that not only are we not evolving, we're devolving. I give him credit, amply, for tackling the issue and actually analyzing what it would entail for natural selection to pick enough mutants to get humans out of some chimp-like ancestors. The difficulties are overwhelming, and while we just hear one side of the story he often uses the statistics and observations of neo-Darwinists themselves to give credibility. It is amazing how much we are asked to take on faith, and how few attempts have been made to flesh out exactly what would be involved in accomplishing evolution. He also does a pretty decent job with Behe's argument about irreducible complexity, and views it from his background as a plant-breeder.

On the downside, his overall observation that we are devolving and actually headed for extinction seems a stretch. He quotes a book titled something along the lines of "Why aren't we dead 100 times over?", and that would seem a good question. If half of his points are valid we should be a band of drooling cyclops by now, at best. That they can't all be valid, and often cancel one another out seems clear. For example he says if we really started as chimp-like creatures six million years ago, not only would we not have evolved to become humans, we would actually be dead by now. Well then why hasn't that happened to the chimps themselves? They seem to still be around. He also points out how much genetic mutation is going on, but then he casually mentions that much of this mutation isn't actually herediteray. He points out we have 3 kids for every 2 adults, but then says this number is actually much lower due to a variety of fertility related reasons. What? Shouldn't the 3 for 2 number have taken that into account already?

But again, I give him credit for opening up the hood and seeing if the Darwinian engine is capable of moving the car or not. Most scientists get very nervous if you even kick the tires, much less try to see if it will run. He may have overstated the case, and he certainly would've been helped by a rewrite or two and some more aggressive editing, but the perception he brings as a plant-breeder and geneticist himself gives him some insights that still make the book a worthwhile read. It came across more as rough draft than finished product to me, and I was a bit surprised to see that it was actually even on its second printing. That said I'd still add it to the ID library, but I'd like to see a version 2.0 one of these days because I think the overall premise is intriguing.

Perhaps the biggest lie in Western civilization is that life came together by chance. I have yet to see a journal article showing a plausible explanation for the origin of the Genetic Code. (See The First Living Systems: a Bioenergetic Perspective, MICROBIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVIEWS,
June 1997, p. 239-261), (The enigma of the origin of life and its timing, Microbiology (2002), 148, 21-27), and Getting All Turned Around Over The Origins of LIfe on Earth, Science Vol 267, p. 1265). There is no natural explanation for the origin of DNA. Jon Sanford simply shows that the Genetic code is decaying and not getting more complex. Mutations and Natural (M&N) Selection has yet to create anything. Jon Sanford does a great job destroying the myth that . M&N just corrupts information that is already there. Yes, I know that genetic information can be transferred from bacteria to bacteria (conjugation) and viruses can inject their DNA into other organisms, etc. However Where does DNA come from? It had to have a creator. People who believe otherwise are just wishful thinking. They really want to believe a lie, or they are misguided into thinking there is some truth to it. I have talked to a journalist that was truly misled. Scientists should be honest and say that there is not a good natural explantion. She felt betrayed by Scientists into thinking that there was a plausible naturalist explanantion for the origin of life. Yes, you can define science to say that supernatural explanations are not an acceptable explanation, but shouldn't there be plausiblle mechanism for origin of DNA that you can rationally defend? There is not. Evolution--molecules to man by random chance is not feasible based on what we truly know as fact.

This is a great book.

This book is one the best books on the Human Genome on the market. Dr. Sanford, of Cornell University, was one of the top 5 geneticists in the country and the book is replete with data and solid research. He provides overwhelming evidence why natural selection possesses no sustaining power to save the genome, let alone the creative power to develop it. He shows, in detailed, yet easy to understand, language how mutations produce far more damage than the human genome can sustain and why it continues to deteriorate over time. I could not recommend this book more strongly to anyone who is serious about genetic study and the future of mankind.

The Darwinists are going to have to address the actual allegations in this book. Dr. Sanford makes a convincing case that the genome is, and must, deteriorate. Simply put, he explains what is known about how DNA works and shows that any possible improvements must of necessity be accompanied by many more deleterious mutations.
I thought the book could have been a bit better organized, and some of the language was imprecise. I did not notice that he ever provided a working definition of "fitness." Aside from these quibbles, the overall message is quite convincing.
Note to Libb Thims: your review would be more effective if you addressed the substance of the book and forbore ad hominems.
Note to L Batik: See Appendix 4 beginning on page 189.

In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning was information. The genome has been losing information since the beginning. Random mutations and natural selection cannot stop information from decaying into meaningless noise, much less can they add new information to the genome, that codes for new genes, structures, functions and species.

The rare beneficial mutations are simply overwhelmed by the large amounts of deleterious ones, and they are simply non-selectable, according even to evolutionary geneticists such as Kimura, Muller or Kondrashov. It is like playing tenis with 1000 balls at the same time. Even Andre Agassi at his best wouldn't be able to catch all those balls.

What's more, there is no direct connection between the genotype and phenotype when it comes to selection. Another problem has to do with the very strong noise that in different forms scrambles the natural selection process. These are some of the problems that render natural selection totally incapable of stopping the gradual degeneration of the genome.

Merely copying pre-existing information contained in genes is not enough, contrary to what some people astonishingly believe.

We can call this belief as the "Unintelligent Polyploidy Myth".

Copying information is not the same as adding new information. Bacteria are the organisms which produce the most mutants. Yet, they have been the most stable for millions of years (according to the silly evolutionist time scale). The Epulopiscium fishelsoni is a good example. It has produced more than 85 000 copies of one of its genes, but that didn't prevent it from remaining a bacterium, one of the simplest organisms.

The fact is: as many copies as you could make of this review, they would never randomly generate the instructions of an Airbus A380. It is amazing how some people believe with no proof whatsoever, that, given enough time, they would.

New genetic information is much more than mere sequences of nucleotides, with statistical relevance. It requires new design concepts, which only intelligence can provide. Once you remove information and intelligent support from a system, decay is the only option. The problem with making new gene copies is that once they are made, they immediately start decaying too.

This is not blind faith. This is a matter of faith confirmed by empirical observation. Generation after generation, mutations are accumulating with the end in sight. In the long run, extinction is the only result possible. A "noise death" awaits all genetic materials. Evolution is simply impossible. It simply didn't happen. Haldane's dilema is simply one among many arguments against evolution.

The genome had to exist in a complete and fully functional way from the begining. The genome could only have been created instantaneously by an all intelligent and all powerful being: God. This conclusion leads, inevitably, to the truth of young Earth Creationism and of a global Flood. It is a domino effect. There is no plausible alternative, no matter how much this sounds incredible to brainwashed evolutionists.

All those who base their world view on this primary axiom are dead wrong. They are theologically, logically, historically, astrophysically, anthropologically, geologically and scientifically wrong. There is simply no way in which they can demonstrate the truth of their beliefs. The different spheres of modern science that are based on evolution's flawed axioms have to be turned off and restarted.

The Biblical message of Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, Dispersion, Origin of Nations, Calling of Abraham, Election of Israel, Salvation through Jesus Christ, etc., is not a purely subjective and spiritual just-so story, concerning religious feelings of personal hope in the middle of social chaos.

On the contrary, it is an objective message that concerns the origin of the universe and life, the complexity of the genome, the decaying of natural elements, the evidence of catastrophism in geology, the consistent absence of true transitional intermediates in the fossil record, the origin of languages, the origin of conscieousness,etc.

The relevance of the Bible extends even to the present conflict in the Middle East. Any questions about this conflict? Well, also here, the answer is in Genesis.

The Bible speaks about real events that have been taking place in this real world. Some of them, about which the Bible has abundant things to say, are taking place now, in front of our eyes. That is the foundation of the credibility of the Bible.

This credibility is based on God himself, who is not an abstract deity, but made strong statements about His identity through His People, through His Word, and through His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Word. He is the Creator of the genome. By resurrecting from the dead with an incorruptible body (in a way that many could directly witness)He made it clear that He is the only hope for the genome.

Contrary to the popular atheist imaginary, most mutations are deleterious, not neutral. They have only a very small deleterious effect, but the second thing is, thanx to that, they are not excluded from the populatiom so they accumulate.

Pile a coin a day and after some time you get to the sun right? Problem is: genomes are losing coins. So the evolutionary proccess goes into a loss of genomic information / loss of complexity road.

The author creds are awesome, and his argument against evolutionism is very powerful.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book for a multitude of reasons. First, this book was not just a rewrapping of ancient ideas to forward creation science. I had not yet been exposed to many of the ideas presented in the text and I highly respected the logical process that the author gave for discrediting a large portion of the Primary Axiom. Natural Selection's method of acting on mutation is the axiom that is elaborated upon in the body of the text. Dr. Sanford, a highly esteemed geneticist, is able to take the research of fervent evolutionary scientists and show the implications on this Primary Axiom. He employs good science and rids his work of religious preaching in order to show that Evolutionary Theory can be discredited using the science it relies most heavily upon, modern genetics. I highly recommend this book for any true agnostic that approaches science as the "end-all" for determining their worldview.