John Sanford doubles down on his Genetic Entropy idiocy.

[HMS_Beagle]

A few years back YEC John Sanford came out with a book "Genetic Entropy" and a computer program "Mendel's Accountant" that supposedly showed humans have only existed for 6000 years. The book and program were both riddled with more holes than machine-gunned Swiss cheese and were rightfully laughed out of mainstream science.

Now Sanford has released a paper with a "defense" of his original claims. His evidence? He again takes the ages of the Biblical Patriarchs (i.e 900 year old Noah) as "fact" and shows how he can rig the parameters of his goofy program to get a matching decline in age. This supposedly proves both Genetic Entropy and a young Earth interpretation of the Bible are correct. Sorta like using Eragon as evidence that dragons actually exist or King Kong to show gorillas can grow to be 50' tall.

Genetic Entropy Recorded in the Bible?

I particularly like his claim shown in Figure 4 that the post-FLUD population rebounded from 8 to the pre-FLUD level of tens of thousands in just a few generations. Of course there's no mention of how with our "declining fitness" the human population has managed to expand to over 7 billion and the average lifespan has increased from under 30 years to almost 70 years.

It's hard to know how to even deal with this latest effort. By all accounts Sanford is a kindly likeable old fellow but it's obvious as the saying goes the cheese has done slid off his pizza.

[Bill the Cat]

I wonder if the board's resident pollo will be by to defend this "scientific' nonsense since he previously announced Sanford and G.E as a topic of substance.

Why must you bait the flame wars every time, Tiggy?

[klaus54]

A great example of how using ANE literature to Gerry-rig a pseudoscientific model is a fool's errand.

YECs like Sanford and Jorge remind me of the dwarves in the last chapter of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle. They knew they were still inside a stinky cowshed in spite of the fact that they were now in some glorious meadow in the foothills of the new Narnia. No amount of evidence would convince them otherwise.

Hey, YECs -- just realize your Genesis interpretation is wrong, and move on!

K54

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

Please stop trying to bait someone into a flame war. They start up enough as it is without someone tossing matches in open cans of gasoline. Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[klaus54]

Why must you bait the flame wars every time, Tiggy?

But it's NOT flaming. Sanford's crap is not only pseudoscience but is risible in its own right.

Plus, Sanford is one of Jorge's heros -- let's see him defend him this time.

K54

[rogue06]

But it's NOT flaming. Sanford's crap is not only pseudoscience but is risible in its own right.

Plus, Sanford is one of Jorge's heros -- let's see him defend him this time.

K54

See my post above. Bringing Jorge into this is not necessary.

If it continues I will close this thread if not outright delete it.

[HMS_Beagle]

Why must you bait the flame wars every time

Jorge announce Sanford's stupidity was a topic he'd defend.

Give me things of substance - so that the intellectually dishonest have no holes to crawl through. There are very few such topics. Information is one. Thermodynamics is another. Certain aspects of genetics (a la John Sanford's Genetic Entropy) might be a third. But granite? I haven't even looked but I'll wager before going there that I wouldn't waste more than a moment on it ... I'll go there right now and see ...

Jorge

I'm just taking him up on it.

If it bothers you put me and K54 on ignore.

[Bill the Cat]

Jorge announce Sanford's stupidity was a topic he'd defend.

Then start a thread for you and him in The Arena. As it is, the name calling and coloring his user name yellow is nothing more than flaming. And we have had about enough of it.

I'm just taking him up on it.

With unnecessary insults thrown in for added effect, right?

If it bothers you put me and K54 on ignore.

Sorry, but I have to mod, so I can't ignore either of you. And it isn't just me in leadership that has grown tired of all 3 of you and your antics.

[HMS_Beagle]

In the interest of board harmony I have modified the OP.

You're welcome.

[Jorge]

Why must you bait the flame wars every time, Tiggy?

Like the proverbial scorpion, he does it because it's his nature.

On a more serious note, a few years ago I had the pleasure and honor of visiting a few times with John Sanford at his home (all at my expense, I might add). We discussed his Genetic Entropy, Medel's Accountant and other related topics - everything that Beagle Boy et al. regards as nonsense or worse. It was after those meetings lasting several days that I knew JS had something real.

THAT'S why I believe that Sanford's genetic entropy ideas are valid - i.e., because I RESEARCHED THE MATTER first hand, asked many questions, critically examined the evidence and, at the end, simply followed the data. Compare that with the "scholarly" approach of the people here.

It's too bad that people like Beagle Boy, Santa Klaus, sfs1 and the many other Biblical Creationist enemies here on TWeb don't do as I did - contact John Sanford and humbly ask for an audience. I'm willing to bet that he will oblige them. Then they can finally know what they are talking about. I would then be willing take their criticisms more seriously. As it stands, these people are nothing more than a bunch of wacked-out buffoons looking for some attention to bolster their egos. Poor babies - boohoo!

Jorge

[Bill the Cat]

Like the proverbial scorpion, he does it because it's his nature.

On a more serious note, a few years ago I had the pleasure and honor of visiting a few times with John Sanford at his home (all at my expense, I might add). We discussed his Genetic Entropy, Medel's Accountant and other related topics - everything that Beagle Boy et al. regards as nonsense or worse. It was after those meetings lasting several days that I knew JS had something real.

THAT'S why I believe that Sanford's genetic entropy ideas are valid - i.e., because I RESEARCHED THE MATTER first hand, asked many questions, critically examined the evidence and, at the end, simply followed the data. Compare that with the "scholarly" approach of the people here.

It's too bad that people like Beagle Boy, Santa Klaus, sfs1 and the many other Biblical Creationist enemies here on TWeb don't do as I did - contact John Sanford and humbly ask for an audience. I'm willing to bet that he will oblige them. Then they can finally know what they are talking about. I would then be willing take their criticisms more seriously. As it stands, these people are nothing more than a bunch of wacked-out buffoons looking for some attention to bolster their egos. Poor babies - boohoo!

Jorge

I'm going to say this one more time, Jorge. Stick to discussing the science and leave the personal commentary out of it. It does absolutely nothing for your credibility, and makes reading your posts very cumbersome. I'd like to actually read your summary of Sanford's ideas, but as it stands, your invective-filled screeds aren't worth anyone's time. And several of us in leadership here have had enough of it. Beagle has agreed to tone it down. Will you agree to do the same?

[HMS_Beagle]

THAT'S why I believe that Sanford's genetic entropy ideas are valid - i.e., because I RESEARCHED THE MATTER first hand, asked many questions, critically examined the evidence and, at the end, simply followed the data. Compare that with the "scholarly" approach of the people here.

1. Where is your evidence that the human genome was "perfect" with an evolutionary fitness of 1.0 at a time 6000 years ago? That is a completely unjustified assumption by Sanford, one of the many fatal flaws in his work.

2. Where is your evidence that the average age of people 6000 years ago was vastly higher (i.e 900 years old) than today? There is zero physical evidence of such a thing happening and plenty of evidence the average life back then was short and brutal, averaging less than 30 years.

3. Absolute age is not a measure of evolutionary fitness. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success in your current environment. A man who dies at 30 after leaving 2 offspring was more fit evolution-wise than a 100 year old man who dies childless.

4. How do you justify ignoring all the evidence we have that human civilization has been around a lot longer than 6000 years? We have cities that date back to 8000 BC, cave art that dates back to 30,000 BC, clothes and jewelry that dates back to 70,000 BC.

Fair warning: Sparko, Rogue06, and Bill are right. This place would be a lot better if it was more civil. Any insults by you will be reported and you will be banned from the thread.

[Carrikature]

There is zero physical evidence of such a thing happening and plenty of evidence the average life back then was short and brutal, averaging less than 30 years.

As I understand it, the low average lifespan is a function of infant/child mortality rates rather than general hardship. I mention this to point out that people might have theoretically had a lifespan into the hundreds of years. Strictly speaking, the longest possible lifespan could be decreasing without a subsequent change to 'average' lifespan if the infant/child mortality rates were also decreasing. Of course, by the same token, all of those ages could be extreme outliers even were we to grant their accuracy.

[Cerebrum123]

As I understand it, the low average lifespan is a function of infant/child mortality rates rather than general hardship. I mention this to point out that people might have theoretically had a lifespan into the hundreds of years. Strictly speaking, the longest possible lifespan could be decreasing without a subsequent change to 'average' lifespan if the infant/child mortality rates were also decreasing. Of course, by the same token, all of those ages could be extreme outliers even were we to grant their accuracy.

From what I understand there are ancient records in Sumeria, and I think Egypt as well with kings have drastically longer lifespans long ago. I'm going to have to look up the source material though.

[Roy]

As I understand it, the low average lifespan is a function of infant/child mortality rates rather than general hardship.

Sanford explicitly states that he is excluding the effects of infant mortality from his figures.

Roy