1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jun '06 02:581 edit
    Just thought I would share an excerpt from a book called "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by a former professor of Genetics at Cornell.

    "In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we come from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

    Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling "The Primary Axiom". The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society's academia, the Primary Axiom is universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every collge campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say - dare) to question the Primary Axiom....

    Late in my career, I did something which for Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

    Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this - but I must confess, I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly "great and unassailable fortress" which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory - in fact, it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment - which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people's religion!

    To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. THis was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add - painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definately wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again - frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my collegues in academia - not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places.

    What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level - having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!

    ...To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life - and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book - which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others - revelation.

    If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a suprising and very practicle consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should reationally be placing our hope for the future.
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    17 Jun '06 03:021 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just thought I would share an excerpt from a book called "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by a former professor of Genetics at Cornell.

    "In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The personally reconsider where we should reationally be placing our hope for the future.
    That's not a terribly interesting exerpt. It would have been more interesting if you shared WHY this person thinks the "primary axiom" is incorrect, especially in your own words.

    "I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and open-minded individual."

    I'd like to see how this could be shown. Otherwise this whole exerpt is nearly empty of substance. About all the substance there is that now I know that this guy doesn't agree with this Primary Axiom. Why should I care what he thinks unless he's going to share his reasoning?
  3. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    17 Jun '06 04:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    ...Late in my career, I did something which for Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
    Oh, the melodrama. This man has a political agenda. Pray tell his name, I can tell you within about 5 minutes if he's published anything scientifically about it, or is just another Micheal Behe, trying to give credibility to his political viewpoint using his scientific credentials.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Jun '06 06:19
    obviousely with out his reasoning I am shooting blind but from the title it sounds like he is aplying the second law of thermodynamics to the problem and is reasoning that if entropy always increases then random mutations will inevitably cause DNA to degrade. I could be wrong but to that's what the title implies. If so then he is demonstrably wrong.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jun '06 17:34
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    obviousely with out his reasoning I am shooting blind but from the title it sounds like he is aplying the second law of thermodynamics to the problem and is reasoning that if entropy always increases then random mutations will inevitably cause DNA to degrade. I could be wrong but to that's what the title implies. If so then he is demonstrably wrong.
    Yes, this is the general principle behind his theory. He discusses high rates of mutations and how mutation is almost always destructive and seldom if ever adds information to the genome. He says the mutations are like "rusting" of the genome. In his studies he claims that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result they are not selected out by natural selection. Because of this, mutations accumulate in the genomes of all life forms so that, as a set, they reduce fitness for the entire species and eventually producing a genetic meltdown. He says that the problem is not survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest because mutations as a whole clearly reduce usable information and do not increase it. He says that since other theories about regarding the source of new genetic information have been discarded such as Darwin's pangenesis and acquired traits as developed by Lamarckism ideas, the only viable theory is now mutations.

    I am not sold on his ideas as of yet, You all know my religious beliefs and know that I believe in creation. I am still open minded as to how God goes about this, however. Whether random mutations and natural selection is true or not does not discount the fact that this is how God may work.
  6. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    17 Jun '06 17:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    You all know my religious beliefs and know that I believe in creation. I am still open minded as to how God goes about this, however. Whether random mutations and natural selection is true or not does not discount the fact that this is how God may work.
    This is one of the most intelligent things I've read from a creationist on this subject in a long time.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jun '06 18:441 edit
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Oh, the melodrama. This man has a political agenda. Pray tell his name, I can tell you within about 5 minutes if he's published anything scientifically about it, or is just another Micheal Behe, trying to give credibility to his political viewpoint using his scientific credentials.
    What would life be without melodrama? Anyhew, here is one of John Sanford's accomplishments. He was behind the developement of the "gene gun".

    http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pubs/press/1999/genegun.html

    You say that he has a political agenda, and you may be correct. I recognize that a battle exists between those who are religious and those who are not in terms of interpreting scientific data and theory. I think that science can in no way prove or disprove that God exists due to the inability to put him to the test which even scripture admits as much. However, if those from a religious perspective are able to debunk a theory such as evolution, then it can only lead to more people asking questions about God and what they perceive to be the truth. Having said that, there are two possibilities for a scientist to go against the grain, if you will, and pursue ideas that his or her contemporaries would scoff at. Either they have an agenda outside the realm of science, or they pursue what they percieve as being the scientific truth despite the "nay sayers". Men such as Galileo come to mind who countered church doctrine based on his scientific findings. This church doctrine, however, was inconsistent with the scripture it proported to uphold. I think today we can all agree that his findings in no way contradict scripture in any way even though at the time it was thought to be so. Conversely, if you have scientists who come out and go against the grain and generate findings that countradict the old way of thinking about things in the scientific community, there is hell to pay. One such scientist comes to mind who came up with the notion that ulcers were a result of a bacterial growth. At the time of his proposal, he was laughed to scorn because the thought of bacteria surviving in such a hostile environement and thrive was deemed ludicrous based on known facts. However, he stuck to his guns and through much humiliation was vendicated. If this man is right, he will face far worse humiliation due to the attack on the sacred cow of evolutionary theory. It would be akin to being held to a Spanish Inquisition. This man has either commited academic suicide, or he is a martrye much like Galileao.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jun '06 19:081 edit
    Originally posted by telerion
    This is one of the most intelligent things I've read from a creationist on this subject in a long time.
    What! No rec.???????
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Jun '06 19:22
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Oh, the melodrama. This man has a political agenda. Pray tell his name, I can tell you within about 5 minutes if he's published anything scientifically about it, or is just another Micheal Behe, trying to give credibility to his political viewpoint using his scientific credentials.
    Just so you know, not all sicentists who are Christian/religious attack evolution. Just look at this article about Francis Collins who is the director of the US National Human Genome Research Insitute says.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

    He claims that there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God". He is writing a book called, "The Language of God" that will be published in September. He says that one of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war. Apparently he was an atheist until age 27 when he was a young doctor and saw miraculous "faith based" recoveries and the various positive roles faith played in terminal cases that did not turn out as well. He was also swayed by C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity that claims that God is a rational possibility. His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said, "It was a beautifal afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment.'" Unlike the previous christian scientist who seems to be an Intelligent Design kind of guy, this scientist appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist.
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    17 Jun '06 19:40
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just so you know, not all sicentists who are Christian/religious attack evolution. Just look at this article about Francis Collins who is the director of the US National Human Genome Research Insitute says.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

    He claims that there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries ...[text shortened]... Intelligent Design kind of guy, this scientist appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist.
    So god is a possibility, nothing in science disputes that.
  11. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    17 Jun '06 19:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    What! No rec.???????
    Oops . . . ya know that atheist bias coming out again 😉
  12. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    17 Jun '06 21:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, this is the general principle behind his theory. He discusses high rates of mutations and how mutation is almost always destructive and seldom if ever adds information to the genome. He says the mutations are like "rusting" of the genome. In his studies he claims that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result ...[text shortened]... nd natural selection is true or not does not discount the fact that this is how God may work.
    He must have real trouble reconciling MRSA with his idea set.
  13. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    17 Jun '06 21:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    What would life be without melodrama? Anyhew, here is one of John Sanford's accomplishments. He was behind the developement of the "gene gun".

    http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pubs/press/1999/genegun.html

    You say that he has a political agenda, and you may be correct. I recognize that a battle exists between those who are religious and those who are not ...[text shortened]... ion. This man has either commited academic suicide, or he is a martrye much like Galileao.
    No, I don't think so. It really is all smoke and mirrors. If his work is robust then he'll be fine, if his work is not robust (which is normally the problem of people trying to disprove evolution) then he has basically done it to himself. If he loses credibility by producing rubbish then he shouldn't be taken seriously.
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    17 Jun '06 21:40
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    So god is a possibility, nothing in science disputes that.
    All things are possible, it just comes down to a lack of attributable evidence.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    17 Jun '06 23:00
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, this is the general principle behind his theory. He discusses high rates of mutations and how mutation is almost always destructive and seldom if ever adds information to the genome. He says the mutations are like "rusting" of the genome. In his studies he claims that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result ...[text shortened]... nd natural selection is true or not does not discount the fact that this is how God may work.
    He discusses high rates of mutations and how mutation is almost always destructive and seldom if ever adds information to the genome.

    Of course. This argument. How did this guy define "information" such that he knew how to measure whether it increases or not?

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1
Back to Top