John C. Sanford: Young Earth Creationist Loon

[duras]

I went to see a creationist today. Not sure why I did this as it I rarely make it to North Campus for even the most important things and why I'd want to be infuriated on a Saturday afternoon is a mystery. The main crux of his argument is that he's shown evolution by natural selection is not possible using a computer model he (and his colleagues) wrote 10 years ago. Somehow from this he thinks the Earth is 10,000 years old, humans rode dinosaurs, and all the evidence for evolution is wrong. The argument is that mutations are too detrimental to ever result in new variation and adaptation. He calls this "Genetic Entropy."

There are two main reasons John Sanford's Genetic Entropy argument is completely off base:

1. It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to support it. In science, you get the evidence then you make the model. He made the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all mutations are bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.

2. Sanford's definition of fitness is flawed. He seems to think that "full fitness" equals 1. He's assuming that there is a such thing as ideal fitness and that's completely wrong. Some genotypes are favorable in some environments, others are favorable in other environments. For example, dark skin is favorable in areas near the equator (prevents melanoma/skin cancers) but unfavorable away from the equator (leads to other cancers and rickets). Light skin is the opposite, near the equator whites will get melonoma, but away from the equator they'll have lower incidences of other cancers and rickets. The same is true for every single attribute in every organism. Besides null mutations (those destroying the reproductive system or killing the animal), there are no mutations that cannot be beneficial in some circumstances.

There are other problems. He doesn't factor in environmental influence in his model because he considers it noise. What? Does he know what natural selection is? He also does not factor in things like hybridization and genetic drift--all of which are instrumental in speciation.

He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created. Fine, but it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world. He makes assumptions like the beneficial mutation rate and the selection rate--both of which are arbitrarily drawn up by him.

I did get to ask a question though I'm quite sure the audience did not know the significance of it. Dr. Sanford claims outside of complete neutral mutations, 99.9999999999% of all mutations are somewhere between -1 (lethal) and 0 (neutral). True beneficial mutations are so rare you can basically ignore them. I said,"You don't know all the factors interacting with this mutation, so to say something is slightly negative is an assumption. I guess what I'm getting at, is do you have an example of a slightly deleterious mutation?"

He replied "There have been many experiments done where we expose--for example plants to radiation and most of them die and you get all sorts of weird stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce. You don't want mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show of hands how many people want mutations in their genomes?"

See how simplistic his argument is? How simple minded you have to be to accept anything he says? Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but we're not talking about mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations in germ lines. You can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.

I wanted to then say, "but those aren't acted upon by natural selection and they aren't examples of slightly deleterious mutations" but I was cut off by a person telling Dr. Sanford it was over. It's really a shame, because his entire model breaks down when you realize there is no example of a mutation that is passed on, but slightly deleterious.

Overall it was underwhelming. He started with saying he'd come to the revelation through evidence that evolution was wrong and the Bible was right, but all he presented was a computer program. Don't get too excited about having this lunatic on your side, creationists. His argument won't convince anyone but the most feeble minded.

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by duras

He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created. Fine, but it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world.

Is there a computer simulation of genetic evolution that refutes Sanford's model?

[duras]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Is there a computer simulation of genetic evolution that refutes Sanford's model?

I'm not sure. I know he's basically the only one that uses that program (called Mendel's Accountant). I do find it hard to believe that in 10 years no one has released a more advanced program. During his presentation he said things like, "I've never seen a more advanced program" and "No one has ever shown me how I'm wrong." My guess is no one cares to show him how he's wrong because what you can do in a computer program is entirely irrelevant unless you're working in a realistic program derived from the evidence.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Rodney

Is there a computer simulation of genetic evolution that refutes Sanford's model?

Yes. Simple information theory. Gene duplication (which is well documented) increases information, which violates his statement that mutation can never result in new variation.

[Eos of the Eons]

He just ignores everything that shows him why he's wrong, including what a mutation actually IS.

[Klem]

Duras - show a little respect. Dr. Sanford is a well educated professor. He's published over 80 scientific articles, has authored/co-authored books and is an inventor with over 30 patents. He is a professor from Cornell University who was invited to speak and share his research at the University of Buffalo.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for rule 12.

Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever.

His point (if you were listening instead of getting a chip on your shoulder) about fitness equaling 1 was just a basis and starting point. Let's call it Adam if you will. Adam's genetic makeup was "more pure" than what we see today. What was so hard to understand about that? From what I see, his research is more accurate than anything any evolutionist can show. You even admit above that true beneficial mutations are rare.

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution". Take a drive down rt. 90...those aren't millions of years of layers...those are sedimentary layers. It's not the simple or feeble minded that can understand what Dr. Sanford or any other creation scientist is talking about. It's the ones with common sense. If you read the scientific papers on both sides of the fence, the creationists side holds more water.

Let me ask you a simple question....how long (or how many generations) did it take for the process of blood clotting to get it right? We would have bled to death long before that process evolved into the correct genetic sequence. Oh...that's right...genetic sequences are digital code and instruction. Where do you suppose those instructions came from? Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

You call Dr. Sanford a lunatic...yet even Darwin wrote, "“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find
intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”....150 years later, with over 250,000 discovered fossils, the fossil record shows more now than ever...there's still no evidence for evolution. Therefore, we "rightly regect" Darwins theroies.

Maybe some day after 30 plus years of research, patents, published articles you may come to a better understanding like Dr. Sanford has.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever."

You have no idea about the development of evolutionary theory, just a cant repeated. Try Donald Prothero's book for starters. Even "Evolution for Dummies" would help. (I read it, and recommend it to people looking for a kick-start. "The Complete Idiot's Guide(R) to Evolution" is also useful. They take different tracks on the topic, so there's not much overlap.)

[LandR]

Originally Posted by Klem

Duras - show a little respect. Dr. Sanford is a well educated professor. He's published over 80 scientific articles, has authored/co-authored books and is an inventor with over 30 patents. He is a professor from Cornell University who was invited to speak and share his research at the University of Buffalo.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited to remove modded portion of post.

Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Originally Posted by Klem

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution".

Tosh, show us some evidence of a young earth and global floods. There are no evidence of either. There is plenty of evidence for the earth being billions of years old.

Originally Posted by Klem

Let me ask you a simple question....how long (or how many generations) did it take for the process of blood clotting to get it right? We would have bled to death long before that process evolved into the correct genetic sequence. Oh...that's right...genetic sequences are digital code and instruction. Where do you suppose those instructions came from? Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

This is just hte old irreducible complexity argument again, it's been debunked many times before.

Originally Posted by Klem

You call Dr. Sanford a lunatic...yet even Darwin wrote, "“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.

Have you seen even a fraction of the fossil record ? I don't think you have.

[LandR]

Interesting video about the claims of creationists and blood clotting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

Sorry I don't know how to make it embedded in the post.

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by Klem

Duras - show a little respect. Dr. Sanford is a well educated professor. He's published over 80 scientific articles, has authored/co-authored books and is an inventor with over 30 patents. He is a professor from Cornell University who was invited to speak and share his research at the University of Buffalo.

Your request for respect is negated by your next comment. Also 80 articles and 30 patents doesn't prevent someone from ever being wrong.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for quote and response to modded portion of post.

Originally Posted by Klem

Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever.

His point (if you were listening instead of getting a chip on your shoulder) about fitness equaling 1 was just a basis and starting point. Let's call it Adam if you will. Adam's genetic makeup was "more pure" than what we see today. What was so hard to understand about that? From what I see, his research is more accurate than anything any evolutionist can show. You even admit above that true beneficial mutations are rare.

More churlish sniping. Still:

You've seen a Chihuahua and a Great Dane right? They had the same ancestor right? That's evolution. Admittedly its evolution that's been mucked about with by man so that the end result is not the fittest (poor british bulldog!).

Originally Posted by Klem

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution". Take a drive down rt. 90...those aren't millions of years of layers...those are sedimentary layers. It's not the simple or feeble minded that can understand what Dr. Sanford or any other creation scientist is talking about. It's the ones with common sense. If you read the scientific papers on both sides of the fence, the creationists side holds more water.

This is disproved by plate tectonics. Lot's of other stuff also disproves it too, but plate tectonics, backed by GPS satellite observation of actual continental movement nails this dead.

Originally Posted by Klem

Let me ask you a simple question....how long (or how many generations) did it take for the process of blood clotting to get it right? We would have bled to death long before that process evolved into the correct genetic sequence. Oh...that's right...genetic sequences are digital code and instruction. Where do you suppose those instructions came from? Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

Argument from irreducible complexity as someone has already pointed out. I'd just like to add that your statement

"Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything."

Is EXACTLY what you're proposing!

Originally Posted by Klem

You call Dr. Sanford a lunatic...yet even Darwin wrote, "“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find
intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”....150 years later, with over 250,000 discovered fossils, the fossil record shows more now than ever...there's still no evidence for evolution. Therefore, we "rightly regect" Darwins theroies.

I disagree, Darwin was wrong when he said "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory". That's because he had no idea about genetics when he was writing or the whole plethora of other supporting disciplines. The fossil record isn't one leg on a table, without which the table will collapse. It's one leg on a centipede.

Originally Posted by Klem

Maybe some day after 30 plus years of research, patents, published articles you may come to a better understanding like Dr. Sanford has.

I'm trying to read your post in a neutral tone of voice, but I keep getting patronising overtones coming through, if that's not the case then I apologise. Personally I hope that Duras does come to a better understanding than he\she currently has (true for all of us), but I seriously doubt that it will agree with Dr Sanford.

[Think_Tank]

Originally Posted by Klem

Duras - show a little respect. Dr. Sanford is a well educated professor. He's published over 80 scientific articles, has authored/co-authored books and is an inventor with over 30 patents. He is a professor from Cornell University who was invited to speak and share his research at the University of Buffalo.

Edited by Tricky:

Edited to remove modded portion of post and response to same.

Originally Posted by Klem

Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever.

His point (if you were listening instead of getting a chip on your shoulder) about fitness equaling 1 was just a basis and starting point. Let's call it Adam if you will. Adam's genetic makeup was "more pure" than what we see today. What was so hard to understand about that? From what I see, his research is more accurate than anything any evolutionist can show. You even admit above that true beneficial mutations are rare.

What's so hard to understand? How about: that's 180 degrees from what we observe in the fossil record. If we are talking "pure human" (and that's a debate all by itself), then the one thing we do NOT observe is starting at the epitome and regressing. And I'd be very interested to see the research that shows it.

Mutations are indeed rare on the individual scale, but in species terms they crop up often enough to cause documented instances of speciation.

Originally Posted by Klem

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution". Take a drive down rt. 90...those aren't millions of years of layers...those are sedimentary layers. It's not the simple or feeble minded that can understand what Dr. Sanford or any other creation scientist is talking about. It's the ones with common sense. If you read the scientific papers on both sides of the fence, the creationists side holds more water.

And sedimentary layers can form over hundreds of millions of years. How else would we get Limestone?

I should point out, however, that my background isn't in geology. It's in astrophysics; another branch of science that you would have to throw out to support YEC, given the timescales involved to be able to actually see most of the interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by Klem

Let me ask you a simple question....how long (or how many generations) did it take for the process of blood clotting to get it right? We would have bled to death long before that process evolved into the correct genetic sequence. Oh...that's right...genetic sequences are digital code and instruction. Where do you suppose those instructions came from? Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that particular piece of BS allow the Dover trial lawyers to hand Michael Behe's arse to him?

Originally Posted by Klem

You call Dr. Sanford a lunatic...yet even Darwin wrote, "“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”....150 years later, with over 250,000 discovered fossils, the fossil record shows more now than ever...there's still no evidence for evolution. Therefore, we "rightly regect" Darwins theroies.

This sort of intellectual dishonesty always gets my crocoduck goat.

Start off with Wiki's List of transitional fossils.

Originally Posted by Klem

Maybe some day after 30 plus years of research, patents, published articles you may come to a better understanding like Dr. Sanford has.

Maybe, if you gain a better understanding of science and logic, I may be more civil to you in future.

[Think_Tank]

On a more positive note, I'd like to commend duras for his patience in sitting through a lecture that would have me out of the door (or on the floor laughing) in five minutes flat. Well done mate

[paximperium]

Ahhh, the same old Blood Clotting, Argument from Ignorance nonsense again.
Because a Creationist don't know, therefore goddidit!!!

Thromb Haemost. 2003 Mar;89(3):420-8.
Molecular evolution of the vertebrate blood coagulation network.
Davidson CJ, Hirt RP, Lal K, Snell P, Elgar G, Tuddenham EG, McVey JH.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 June 24; 100(13): 7527–7532.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed

2003, The National Academy of Sciences
Biochemistry
The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...0/?tool=pubmed

J Mol Evol. 2008 Feb;66(2):185-96. Epub 2008 Feb 19.
Genomic evidence for a simpler clotting scheme in jawless vertebrates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283387?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Klem

Duras - show a little respect. Dr. Sanford is a well educated professor. He's published over 80 scientific articles, has authored/co-authored books and is an inventor with over 30 patents.

Of course, the interesting part is that it appears every single thing he accomplished was before he became a creationist. Here's the Wiki article about him. Notice that he retired in 1998, but says he only became a creationist in 2000. Amusing, then, that Dumbski (yes, I know it's immature, but it's impossible to resist) holds him up as an example of the scientific stature of ID, when he hasn't actually done anything scientific since becoming an ID proponent. Which, when it comes down to it, shows that Dembski is entirely correct. Just probably not in quite the way he thought he was.

As for the more general case, it's a sad fact that no-one is immune to being a complete loon. Just because you've done so decent science doesn't mean everything you ever say is decent science. Many scientists appear to have gone rather kooky in their later years, and many more were that way for their whole lives, despite many very real accomplishments. The mere fact that someone like Sanford has done some real science does not mean that everything he says deserves respect. His claims about creationism are utter nonsense, plain and simple. Despite apparently being reasonably intelligent, he doesn't even bother coming up with anything original, and just parrots the usual lies. I can respect him for his previous work, but he'll get nothing but ridicule for that.

[Capsid]

Our genome is riddled with the DNA of viruses. How does the computational model factor that in? Most of these endogenous retroviruses appear to have little impact but some have roles in cell fusion and placental evolution. I'd argue that was a fairly significant mutation with a benefit, otherwise we might still all be platypuses.

[quarky]

Still, it would have been way cool if people rode dinosaurs.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Think_Tank

This sort of intellectual dishonesty always gets my crocoduck goat.

Not to mention that the "even Darwin" phrase is nonsensical, since science isn't a religion. Saying that "even Jesus Christ" doubted the existence of Noah's Ark would be meaningful, since Christianity is a religion and is based on the teachings of its founders. Science, on the other hand, works by examining empirical evidence. Who does this examining, and when, is irrelevant as long as it's done in a proper scientific way.

Originally Posted by Klem

Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

I agree with the "NOT" part. This is not at all what Big Bang Theory states. The theory, far as I know from reading "A brief history of nearly everything"*, is that at one point everything in the universe was compressed into a single infinitely small and dense point, a "singularity". This singularity then "burst", propelling all the matter and anti-matter throughout the galaxy.

Far from the creation account the YEC's make it out to be.

[Wowbagger]

I might have asked:

If your computer model is so good, and so "complicated", then how come other scientists have demonstrated more productivity with other algorithms?

For example, AIDS and cancer research don't use your genetic algorithms, they use ones that they think fit the real world better, and we now have a better understanding of these diseases and how to treatment them, than ever before!

Even the folks who engineer something as simple as laundry detergent enzymes don't use your model. Soap companies are competing with each other using models based more on those genetic ones that help us understand disease. It seems your ideas about evolution are not even worthy of the washing machine!

(ETA: Yes, I know that enzymes don't really have "genes" in the sense of DNA structures. But, its the selection algorithm that matters, not so much the physical structures they are selecting. When designing algorithms for enzymes, their features can temporarily be modeled as if they were "genes".)

If I had more time, I would have asked him some of these, though they are more for IDers than they are for YECs.:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...24#post4751324

None the less: I like to hit them with the practical applications of evolutionary theory, whenever possible.

Those who claim that there is "more evidence of a young Earth than for evolution" just can't seem to apply that supposedly solid evidence or knowledge to anything.

I find it strange that creation "scientists" could make such claims without the productivity to back them up.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Klem

Maybe some day after 30 plus years of research, patents, published articles you may come to a better understanding like Dr. Sanford has.

Has Dr. Sanford been able to apply his genetic algorithms to help solve real world problems?

Read my previous post, in this thread, before answering.

[CriticalSock]

We're never going to see Klem again are we

[Kotatsu]

Originally Posted by Klem

If you read the scientific papers on both sides of the fence, the creationists side holds more water.

Well, there's your problem, then: standing water stagnates and grows tepid.

[Wowbagger]

Klem might never return, but there will always be lurkers.

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

We're never going to see Klem again are we

Just working on those credits for his class.

[quarky]

I can almost see my ancestors plowing their gardens atop a triceratops. I never wanted to believe in the young Earth stuff before I thought about the dinosaur thing, and now I'm ready to sign up.

I wonder what other dinosaurs might have been useful to humans back then?
Imagine the meat on a brontosaurus!
Religion is cool.

Does God mention what happened to the dinos?
Christ, I hope it had nothing to do with sin.
Sin sucks.

[duras]

Originally Posted by Klem

Your first reason above is exactly what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years....they've made the model before the evidence....so that reasoning lacks any foundation what so ever.

That's not true at all. We can start right at the beginning to know that's not true: Darwin went to the Galapagos not knowing what to expect or what he'd find. It wasn't until he looked at the data and observations recorded on his voyages that he realized what he was seeing. And it took many years after that for the whole scientific community to agree as the evidence accumulated. Any number of experiments or discoveries could have proven Darwin wrong over the past 150 years, but every one has contributed and molded the theory.

Originally Posted by Klem

His point (if you were listening instead of getting a chip on your shoulder) about fitness equaling 1 was just a basis and starting point. Let's call it Adam if you will. Adam's genetic makeup was "more pure" than what we see today. What was so hard to understand about that? From what I see, his research is more accurate than anything any evolutionist can show. You even admit above that true beneficial mutations are rare.

He's starting with the assumption that humans used to be perfect. There's no such thing and he has no evidence of this perfection. The idea that ancient humans were perfect because Neandertals could run faster than modern humans is pure nonsense. By that logic chimps must be more perfect than humans today because they're stronger and faster.

Originally Posted by Klem

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution". Take a drive down rt. 90...those aren't millions of years of layers...those are sedimentary layers. It's not the simple or feeble minded that can understand what Dr. Sanford or any other creation scientist is talking about. It's the ones with common sense. If you read the scientific papers on both sides of the fence, the creationists side holds more water.

There are no scientific papers from creationists. They do no scientific experimentation, and they do not get published in real scientific journals. However, they do write poorly reasoned reviews and get them published in their own magazines. All evidence creationists claim to have for creationism falls apart when you consider most of the evidence we have does NOT support creationism. For example, the fossil record is very clear: simple to complex and ancestors always coming before. There are no exceptions and no ambiguities. If evolution was wrong somewhere we'd find a modern human stuck in the precambrian (as one example).

Originally Posted by Klem

Let me ask you a simple question....how long (or how many generations) did it take for the process of blood clotting to get it right? We would have bled to death long before that process evolved into the correct genetic sequence. Oh...that's right...genetic sequences are digital code and instruction. Where do you suppose those instructions came from? Oh yeah....first there was nothing....then BANG...everything. NOT.

You seem to be making the very strange assumption that the cascade evolved in humans. That when humans first came about they didn't have the cascade, so they had to wait while generation after generation bled to death. That's obviously impossible. You also make the assumption that this complex blood clotting cascade had to all be in place for it to work (which is certainly not true, but it IS true in modern humans with the modern blood clotting cascade).

Anyway, the tiny ancestors we had that had a circulatory system but a non-existent clotting system wouldn't really need one. They would die quickly and reproduce quickly. But the first animal population that had even the poorest of clotting systems would have had a huge survival advantage. The animal population with a slightly less poor clotting system would have had an even better advantage, and so on. The clotting system could have been "built" in pieces just like any other body system.

Ken Miller actually has a nice webpage about the clotting system: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

We have some idea of how it happened, and that the clotting system isn't unexplainable by using science. Also, no we don't believe that "BANG... everything". It took a lot longer than that and it was extremely complex.

Originally Posted by Klem

You call Dr. Sanford a lunatic...yet even Darwin wrote, "“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find
intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”....150 years later, with over 250,000 discovered fossils, the fossil record shows more now than ever...there's still no evidence for evolution. Therefore, we "rightly regect" Darwins theroies.

Yes, and Darwin was writing in his time when that was true. Today we have loads and loads of transitional fossils and intermediates. These fossils show beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution did happen in the past (of course, there's loads of other evidence such as biogeography, genomic, anatomical, etc that agrees with the fossil evidence and only solidifies the historical parts of the theory more).

Originally Posted by Klem

Maybe some day after 30 plus years of research, patents, published articles you may come to a better understanding like Dr. Sanford has.

I'm pretty sure I would only be more mystified at his position. Most scientists at the point Sanford is in his career completely disagree with him. There actually may be none. Of course, I'm sure you see this as scientists being afraid to come out creationist. The problem is, scientists who've received tenure or have retired (like Sanford) can do whatever they want without fear of repercussions, yet they do not agree with his position.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Klem

Today, there's still much more evidence of a young earth and flood account on the earth than any sort of "millions/billions of years of evolution". Take a drive down rt. 90...those aren't millions of years of layers...those are sedimentary layers.

The heck with route 90, where ever it is. Go to the Grand Canyon, or almost any canyon in the Colorado front range. You'll see igneous and metamorphic rock layers mixed in with sedimentary rock layers. Drive through Yosemite National Park and see the volcanic plutons that have hardened to tremendous boulders of solid granite. In eastern Colorado there is land that is at 4500 ft altitude, 1000 miles from the nearest ocean, on which a marine reef is fossilized, with small fossilized shells in it. Think of the time it must have taken for it to be raised from a sea bed to that altitude; not only it, but all the land around it, for hundreds of miles.

There are none so blind as will not see.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Originally Posted by shadron

The heck with route 90, where ever it is. Go to the Grand Canyon, or almost any canyon in the Colorado front range. You'll see igneous and metamorphic rock layers mixed in with sedimentary rock layers. Drive through Yosemite National Park and see the volcanic plutons that have hardened to tremendous boulders of solid granite. In eastern Colorado there is land that is at 4500 ft altitude, 1000 miles from the nearest ocean, on which a marine reef is fossilized, with small fossilized shells in it. Think of the time it must have taken for it to be raised from a sea bed to that altitude; not only it, but all the land around it, for hundreds of miles.

There are none so blind as will not see.

I live in Missouri, which is more than a few yards from an ocean last time I looked. I collect fossils here all the time, from sea creatures. One of my cousins looked at my collection once and said, in a quiet voice, "I wonder if we're even supposed to ask why God made some critters out of stone."

I have never let her in my house since that day.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by duras

There are no scientific papers from creationists. They do no scientific experimentation, and they do not get published in real scientific journals.

To be more technically accurate: There are scientific papers published by people who happen to be creationists. But, there are no papers establishing evidence for a Creator, in the biological sense.

This is important to emphasize, because some creation followers will try to brag about the fact that their favorite creation scientist has, in fact, published papers in respected journals. Sometimes, they might be correct about that (but not always: there is no shortage of phoney journals and papers, too), but for a different reason that they hoped for.

[duras]

Originally Posted by duras

He's starting with the assumption that humans used to be perfect. There's no such thing and he has no evidence of this perfection. The idea that ancient humans were perfect because Neandertals could run faster than modern humans is pure nonsense. By that logic chimps must be more perfect than humans today because they're stronger and faster.

I want to delve into this "perfection" nonsense further. Although I'm sure the user who responded has long since abandoned this topic, I still think this argument is unusual and needs to be addressed.

To set any genome's fitness equal to 1 (perfect) is to ignore the entire concept of trade-offs. A genome cannot be perfect because even in an ideal environment there would be trade-offs. An easy to understand example is tall vs short. Being tall has unique benefits, as does being short. You could argue that being in between would be most beneficial, but being in between would also give you intermediate disadvantages and intermediate benefits.

It's for this same reason that Sanford's idea of slightly negative mutations is flawed. Who's to say that a gene to make you short is bad? Who's to say that a gene to make you tall isn't bad? Who's to say what gene is good or bad at all? Applied to his model, he makes the assumption that a mutation for tallness is automatically bad. He makes the assumption that a mutation for shortness is automatically bad. Then he makes another assumption: all heights are bad in between tall and short except a very narrow and unchanging "perfect" height that God gave us.

So in his model, he incorrectly stacks the deck against evolution and then says, "it doesn't work, see?! This proves a young Earth!"