Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Genetic entropy kills Darwin

An interesting item here http://crev.info/content/110605-genetic_entropy_confirmed came to my attention from a link from the Biblical Creation Society weblog. Basically, more research has supported the work of John Sanford (Cornell plant geneticist) who wrote about genetic entropy.

Genetic entropy is the most catastrophic thing possible for Darwinians, robbing them as it does of their only mechanism, confirming that the idea of new meaningful genetic information arising from random mutations leading to new features and new creatures is a fanciful lie which runs directly counter to the empirical evidence.

We all know that most if not all mutations big enough to make a noticeable difference are harmful, the list is VERY long. Occasional 'blunted or broken genes' to use Mike Behe's phrase confer limited situational benefit at a high cost (as with sickle cell haemoglobin), but what of the effect of 'neutral' mutations? The materialist's hope is based on the idea that (no other designer-free scenario being even imaginable) these small 'lucky' mutations somehow accumulated over time to build new meaningful genetic information that could, for example, turn a fish into a land animal. Of course, this has never been observed. It is an article of the evolutionists' faith.

John Sanford in his seminal book 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' speaks of 'near neutral' rather than neutral mutations. These are not big enough individually to impact the phenotype, at least not yet, but as they slowly accumulate, very slowly due to the marvellously designed DNA check and repair mechanism in every cell, they eventually foul things up. As intelligent design theory would predict.

Snford likens the accumulation of near neutral mutations to randomly changing one letter per page of a book every year. For quite some time, the page is just as meaningful (athough if it was a mathematical or chemical formula, the effect might be more immediate) because most of the prose is intact and the reader compensates for the spelign miskates. For example if the word 'word' is misspelled 'wrod'. But in time, inevitably, what once was meaningful prose becomes gobbledegook though random substitutions, deletions, insertions, duplications etc. This is what happens to our degenerating DNA. How could such changes EVER build meaningful new DNA instructions to, for example, turn a swim bladder into a lung? Pure Darwinian fantasy and invention, sustained only by wilfully blind faith, hatred of God, suppressing counter arguments, bullying and propaganda.

Sanford shows that not only could the human genome not have created itself, but it cannot even maintain itself. The terrifying (for materialists) corollary of this is that not only is mankind doomed, but plotting the number of acumulating genetic defects backwards, our genome must have been created relatively recently. Bad news for Darwinians and materialists, good support for biblical creationists.

Thankfully, there is good news through Jesus Christ, whose risen majestic form was seen by many more humans than have ever seen one kind of animal involve into a different kind. It is still possible to repent and get right with God through His Son Jesus Christ. But don't delay, for as with the human genome and the planet, time, our ultimate non renewable resource, is running out.


  1. If the human genome has been degrading so badly and so quickly, how is it that the human population has risen from 8 to almost 7 billion in the last 4500 years?

  2. You should also be aware that the research paper cited by crev in your opening paragraph does not support Sanford's genetic entropy idea at all.

    The folks at Uncommon Descent made the same mistake you did, believing and repeating uncritically the crev claim without bothering to read or understand the paper themselves.

    No one at UD would admit they made such a big mistake until the the lead author of the paper, Tim Cooper himself, posted at UD to tell them they got it wrong

    Tim Cooper: " I want to respond to the specific point raised in the initial post that our work supports a view that the fitness of the population that we studied will decline over time.

    It doesn’t.

    Our work describes evidence that the rate of fitness *increase* will decline over time. That is, the rate of fitness improvement slows, but does not become negative.

    For anyone interested, a link to the actual article is now live on my lab website: web.mac.com/tim_f_cooper/Cooper_lab/Publications.html

    link to comment

    I'm sure you'll be wanting to publish a correction and retraction.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.


feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.