Darwin - Half Right

Subduction Zone said:

They are scientists that work with DNA at times. That does not make them "genetic scientists". And in this case they are not doing "science". Sanford's work is largely rejected because he could not put it into proper scientific form. He could not define his terms and he could not come up with a proper testable hypothesis. That means the he has no evidence for his beliefs. To be able to claim to do science one needs to follow the scientific method. Sanford did not do so when he came up with "genetic entropy". It is sciency, not scientific. That means that he will only fool lay people and not scientists.

Click to expand...

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

Um, ok? Not buying what you are selling. Sounds like more sour grapes.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I have a very sneaking suspicion that you are being very deliberately obtuse about the whole thing.

Also, just because you can claim that evolution doesn't work, that does not mean that creation via God is automatically correct.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was automatically correct.

renniks said:

I didn't say it was automatically correct.

Click to expand...

That's generally the thought process on this subforum "Evolution is wrong! Creation is right!"

And really, all of your posts really just show that you are making an argument from incredulity: you cannot imagine evolution via adaptation occurring, so to you it must be impossible. Like your 'Boeing 747 from a unicycle' comment before.

renniks said:

I'm not reading any apologists.... I'm reading what Sanford himself says.

Click to expand...

If you read Sanford you should be able to tell us or give us a quote on Sanford's definition of "genetic information"

Biography:

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

Click to expand...

A decent biography does not make a good scientist. The mark of a good scientist is how accepted their work is among their colleagues. I have linked to several genetic experts that question Sanford and Carter's expertise.

If you don't have a similar resume, why should I listen to you?

Click to expand...

If you don't have a similar resume to Sanford why others should take your word about Sanford especially when you have yet to produce any experts that agree with you.

renniks said:

Nice avoidance.

Click to expand...

You are the mirror image of projection. I simply linked to experts who critiques Sanford's work and invited him to defend it. You seem to know so much about Sanford but you don't appear able to defend his hypothesis, but that is ok because he hasn't defended it either.

renniks said:

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

Um, ok? Not buying what you are selling. Sounds like more sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Right. At times Sanford can do science. You did not appear to understand the explanation. When he did his work on Genetic entropy he did not follow the scientific method. Articles were linked explaining that. The fact is that when it came to Genetic Entropy he did not use the scientific method. A scientist does not get to say "I am a scientist so any work that I do is scientific". Science does not work that way.

No one is denying that Sanford has done proper scientific work in the past. We are discussing Genetic Entropy and Genetic Entropy only. If a person does not follow the scientific method in a piece of work then that person cannot claim it to be science. Do you understand this?

Sanford's work does not have a proper scientific hypothesis. That is why scientists do not accept it. That is why it is not science. That is also why there cannot be any scientific evidence for it.

Frank Robert said:

You are the mirror image of projection. I simply linked to experts who critiques Sanford's work and invited him to defend it. You seem to know so much about Sanford but you don't appear able to defend his hypothesis, but that is ok because he hasn't defended it either.

Click to expand...

He did not even have a hypothesis. He had a ad hoc explanation. The articles that you linked, and I thank you for that, showed that he did not define his terminology properly and had no way to test his "hypothesis". To be a scientific hypothesis it needs to be falsifiable and he never managed to put his idea in that form.

renniks said:

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

Um, ok? Not buying what you are selling. Sounds like more sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Sanford's claim to fame was inserting genes into plant cells. This would be an increase in information under anybody's system. He did this by shooting tiny pellets into cells.

His later Genetic Entropy stuff has never been seen as useful to anyone.

Subduction Zone said:

Sanford's work does not have a proper scientific hypothesis. That is why scientists do not accept it. That is why it is not science. That is also why there cannot be any scientific evidence for it.

Click to expand...

Lol, that's hilarious. There can't be any scientific evidence for it because he didn't use the proper method? What matters is whether it's reality. Why would a scientist want to debate him on it if it wasn't scientific?

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

His later Genetic Entropy stuff has never been seen as useful to anyone.

Click to expand...

According to you.

Frank Robert said:

A decent biography does not make a good scientist. The mark of a good scientist is how accepted their work is among their colleagues

Click to expand...

He also did a book with many of his Colleagues, 30 some if I remember correctly that obviously agreed with him.

renniks said:

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

Um, ok? Not buying what you are selling. Sounds like more sour grapes.

Click to expand...

Could you explain to us how that bio means he is qualified or has the appropriate experience to apply information theory to genetics?

renniks said:

Lol, that's hilarious. There can't be any scientific evidence for it because he didn't use the proper method? What matters is whether it's reality. Why would a scientist want to debate him on it if it wasn't scientific?

Click to expand...

Why is it hilarious? Clearly you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Please read my sig. I did not write that. I can find several sources that define scientific evidence. A person cannot even begin to have scientific evidence if one does not have a testable hypothesis.

In other words if a person is afraid to put his money where his mouth is by properly testing his idea (that would be Sanford in this case) then that person cannot claim to have evidence. Scientists cannot be cowards. If they believe something and want to claim that it is scientific they must be willing to put that idea to the test.

Show us where and how Sanford properly tested his ideas and you can claim that they are scientific. If you can't then you are only supporting our claim that Sanford was not being a scientist when it came to Genetic Entropy.

Hans Blaster said:

Could you explain to us how that bio means he is qualified or has the appropriate experience to apply information theory to genetics?

Click to expand...

Explain to me why it wouldn't?

If you want to review his papers yourself, go for it:

https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

renniks said:

He also did a book with many of his Colleagues, 30 some if I remember correctly that obviously agreed with him.

Click to expand...

He wrote a book, wow!

I have my doubts about 30 colleagues agreeing with him. Now I cannot follow it, but there was a bit of controversy about his book. He tried to get it peer reviewed and almost succeeded. He submitted it to a publishing house but on purpose did not submit it to the biology section but rather to another section. I could not swear which one for sure. If he had submitted it to the biology section he would have had its peer review status rejected almost immediately. It may have been the information science section and his biological errors were not noticed there. At the last moment someone realized that they should run it by the biology section and the fundamental errors were explained and it lost its "Peer reviewed" label. It was just another book about science, but not a scientific book.

renniks said:

Explain to me why it wouldn't?

If you want to review his papers yourself, go for it:

https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

Click to expand...

LOL!! I did. The first one that I clicked on was this paper:

Testing the Hypothesis that the Nylonase NylB Protein Arose de novo via a Frameshift Mutation

In bold red print this message was at the top of the article:

This version is not peer-reviewed

Subduction Zone said:

He wrote a book, wow!

I have my doubts about 30 colleagues agreeing with him. Now I cannot follow it, but there was a bit of controversy about his book. He tried to get it peer reviewed and almost succeeded. He submitted it to a publishing house but on purpose did not submit it to the biology section but rather to another section. I could not swear which one for sure. If he had submitted it to the biology section he would have had its peer review status rejected almost immediately. It may have been the information science section and his biological errors were not noticed there. At the last moment someone realized that they should run it by the biology section and the fundamental errors were explained and it lost its "Peer reviewed" label. It was just another book about science, but not a scientific book.

Click to expand...

What book are you talking about?

Subduction Zone said:

He wrote a book, wow!

Click to expand...

The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm.

So it's 29 not 30.
This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.

https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Information-Perspectives-Synopsis-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00IKTVD2C
For the lurkers who are actually interested, not the Evolution lovers...

How about an increase in HIV resistance for the population of Europe due to the plagues of the Middle Ages due to the mutation CCR5-Ä32?

Does that count as an adaptation or new mutation?

renniks said:

The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm.

So it's 29 not 30.
This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.

https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Information-Perspectives-Synopsis-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00IKTVD2C
For the lurkers who are actually interested, not the Evolution lovers...

Click to expand...

Who are these supposed contributors and what and how did they contribute? When a person that was, please note the past tense, a well respected scientist avoids peer review huge alarm bells should go off in your head.

A scientist avoids peer review only if he knows that what he is publishing is wishful thinking and not science. He is not following the scientiifc method here. Peer review allows your fellow experts in the field to check publicly check out your work and refute it if it has errors in it.

His book on Genetic Entropy would have been rejected right off the bat if he ad submitted to the proper publishing department. Sanford was, again past tense. well respected scientist because at one point he submitted actual scientific work. He went through the peer review process in well respected professional journals. After he became a creationist he could no longer do so because his work had too many obvious errors to the experts in the field.