I've just finished J. C. Sanford's book "Genetic Entropy." It's not a long book, and he really does make things pretty simple, but the end result is a satisfying understanding of why all the recent genetics/evolutionary science books have such big gaps in them. It's not even gaps, it's more like out and out lies.
He starts out by stating the Primary Axiom that underpins probably all academic intellectual activity in our world today: Life is life because random mutations at the molecular level are filtered through a reproductive sieve acting on the level of the whole organism.
And then he destroys it methodically and completely in about 150 pages, not densely typeset either, and with several easy to understand graphic images, and a number of little story examples to make it all very clear. At the end of the book he writes:
He doesn't speculate about any of that at all, he sticks strictly to the science. But he does make the intriguing remark:
He doesn't answer this question, even speculatively.
This book is really a must read for any of the science minded peeps here. It's short, easy, and a show-stopper IMO. I thank the person on the forum who mentioned it in a thread, though I can't remember who and a search didn't bring it up.
You want your faith back? Read this one.
He starts out by stating the Primary Axiom that underpins probably all academic intellectual activity in our world today: Life is life because random mutations at the molecular level are filtered through a reproductive sieve acting on the level of the whole organism.
And then he destroys it methodically and completely in about 150 pages, not densely typeset either, and with several easy to understand graphic images, and a number of little story examples to make it all very clear. At the end of the book he writes:
The Primary Axiom is arguably the foundational belief shaping the modern intellectual community. Among today's intelligentsia, the Primary Axiom is believed to "explain it all". It is the "unified field theory" of modern thinking. Most scholarship is built upon this premise. ...
Despite all this, the Primary Axiom is demonstrably wrong...
If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then our basic understanding of life history is also wrong. If the genome is degenerating, our species is not evolving. There appears to be a close parallel between the aging of a species and the aging of an individual. Both seem to involve the progressive accumulation of mutations. Mutations accumulate both within our reproductive cell lines and our body cell lines. Either way, the misspellings accumulate until a threshold is reached when things rapidly start to fall apart. ...
Information theory strongly suggests that information and information systems arise only through intelligent means and are only preserved by intelligence.
He doesn't speculate about any of that at all, he sticks strictly to the science. But he does make the intriguing remark:
Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects form inbreeding. Is there any evidence of this?
He doesn't answer this question, even speculatively.
This book is really a must read for any of the science minded peeps here. It's short, easy, and a show-stopper IMO. I thank the person on the forum who mentioned it in a thread, though I can't remember who and a search didn't bring it up.
You want your faith back? Read this one.
Last edited: