Radaractive

Things Evolution is not? Well, science for one. Darwinism considered.

2012-02-15T23:57:00.000-08:00

"Think for yourself

Advanced education is dominated by evolutionary theory taught as established fact. But ‘are you really just a meaningless bag of molecules—the product of nothing more than random molecular mutations and reproductive filtering?’ (Prologue). This doctrine is presented as unquestioned truth, an axiom accepted by faith because many scientists present it as obviously true (p. 5). But if you come to the point where you feel that the Primary Axiom is no longer obviously true to all reasonable parties, then you must not accept it on blind faith (p. 10). At best the materialist model could be basically right, but it is absurd to continue believing that it is self-evident. At the very least, critical thought and fair discussion is required, something scorned and denigrated by the current high priests of biology." (article below)

Real science does not replace one law with an unproven hypothesis and real science does not throw away an hypothesis that works for one that does not. This is why Darwinism is not real science. God created the Universe is logical. Spontaneous Generation of the Universe? Spontaneous Generation of life? Of information? Of coherent scientific laws? These are the premises that Darwinism has come down to in place of real science. Stephen Hawking actually has the boneheaded idea that the Universe created itself. Richard Dawkins seems to think that life created itself, although he cannot come up with any explanation about how it could have happened. Not one Darwinist has any explanation of how life came from non-life and frankly there is no way they will ever do so, because it is not possible, in fact the Law of Biogenesis is well-proven after literally hundreds of years of tests. Isn't testing and getting the same results every time supposed to be science? Darwinism is 100% suppositions and stories and completely devoid of actual science. Check it out when they present "evidence" and then stop for a minute and begin to think for yourself!

Funny thing, a lot of folks seem to think that Sir Isaac Newton, the founder of Physics and Michael Behe, the guy who revealed to the world the concept of irreducible complexity, were or are idiots. Also, recently Darwinists have been calling the amazingly accomplished geneticist, John C Sanford, a "loon" because he believes in creation rather than evolution. Sanford, the genius behind "Mendel's Accountant" and the Gene Gun, a loon? Because as he studied genetics he realized that Darwinism was completely unable to account for what he found, as a scientist, when studying genomes. I thought this article would be useful read. Because it is science. Darwinists may as well not read it. Because the article represents very well the findings of arguably the best plant geneticist on the planet, a guy who discovered through real science that Darwinism is impossible.

From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford,
Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005

by Royal Truman

I write this review with very mixed feelings. On the one hand, for the first time some key data are being divulged which we need to include in our models, and which honest thinkers who question evolutionist theory need to digest. But I have a problem. In the Prologue professor Sanford wrote, ‘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.’ I know John personally and treasure his intelligence and integrity. In further drawing attention to his book, I may be contributing to having his ties to academia severed, a world to which he has such strong emotional ties and to which he has made so many contributions. I know academics and journalists who have already lost their jobs for questioning Darwinian theory.

He is not exaggerating. I myself have also had my experiences in this matter.

‘I started to realize (again with trepidation), that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion,’ he confides early on. How correct he is. I recently discussed the issue of life’s origins with a dear friend I’ve worked together with for years. He brought up three arguments contra creation which I easily answered on strictly scientific terms. Suddenly he leaped to his feet. Trembling with rage he pointed a finger at me, and yelled that what I was doing was dangerous! The fundamentalists in America are dangerous! They are fighting against tolerance! They refuse to accept science! They are irrational and have no facts!

Dr Sanford is an applied geneticist semi-retired from Cornell University and now with the Institute of Creation Research. He is also the inventor of the ‘gene gun’, widely used in the genetic modification of crops. In this book the reader is confronted with compelling reasons to reject the claim that mutations plus natural selection have led to the marvels found in nature.

Many scientists do not believe man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, what Sanford calls the Primary Axiom. One line of reasoning, that of irreducible complexity, has been very capably championed by professor Behe:¹ molecular machines require many complex components, the absence of only one rendering that entity non-functional. Evolutionary processes cannot be expected to provide the necessary building blocks.

Others have argued that the high fidelity of DNA replication leads to very low rates of mutation. Developing humans from an ape-like forefather would just take too long. In a much cited paper, Drake has estimated² that the rate of spontaneous mutations for humans is about 5 x10^–11 nucleotides per generation. In some 6 million years from a claimed split from the chimpanzee lineage, no humans could be generated if this is true.

Sanford was a practising evolutionist and at heart a eugenicist (p. 116), who ‘gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. … Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors’ (Prologue). But we will learn that evolutionary theory fails on grounds most people did not suspect.

Mutations are bad

Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function.

Sanford forces us to recognize clearly that the relentless net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function. After decades of research, if even one mutation out of a million really unambiguously created new information (apart from fine-tuning), we would all have heard about it by now (p. 17). This is to be distinguished from certain changes in for example bacteria (p. 19), which merely fine-tune a component of a system already in place. The changes typically involve modification of one or two nucleotides, and in huge bacterial populations these are usually already present, a solution waiting for the precise niche. In other words, ‘When we use a rheostat to dim a light, we are not creating a new circuit, nor are we in any way creating new information’ (p. 19).

Mutagens have been used for years in plant breeding, creating billions of mutation events: mostly small, sterile, sick, deformed and aberrant plants (p. 25). One improvement, low phytate corn, was caused by mutations which damaged the metabolism of phytic acid, making hungry cows happy, but hardly explaining the origin of this biochemical process (p. 25). ‘However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned’ (p. 25).

Indeed, no one is suggesting replacing incubators with X-ray machines to help evolution along. On the contrary, health policies are in place aimed at reducing or minimizing mutations (p. 15).

Disastrously high mutational rates

Now Sanford provides a key fact, inimical to evolutionary theory, but fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The genetics community now accepts that point mutations in human reproductive cells are in the range of at least 100–300 per individual each generation (p. 34). In fact, additional kinds of mutations, such as deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite mutations and all mitochondrial mutations exacerbate the situation. Mitochondrial mutations alone would add about another mutation per individual each generation within the reproductive cell line, and macro-mutations can generate more sequence divergence than all point mutations combined. The overall contributions imply more than 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation (p. 37).

Using the unrealistic lower bound of 100 mutations, and assuming 97% of the genome has no function, implies three new relevant mutations per individual each generation are generated (p. 34). Before someone attempts to shrug off these new findings, let us evaluate whether it is true that only 3% of the human genome is relevant. If the percent is twice as high, then we would double the proportion at risk through mutations.

Junk DNA or masterpiece?

The genome is full of countless loops and branches—like a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic.

Driven by an incorrect model, genomes are generally characterized as chaotic and full of meaningless evolutionary relics. The irony is that the more advanced the organism, the more so-called ‘junk DNA’ is claimed to be present (p. 37). Perhaps we should be exposing our babies to radioactivity after all?! Biochemists discover ever more complex metabolic networks, with elaborate regulatory schemes to provide feedback inhibition or acceleration. The genome is full of countless loops and branches—like a computer program using analogue and Boolean logic. It has genes that regulate genes that regulate genes, able to set in motion complex cascades of events (p. 3).

But the fact that research is steadily decreasing the proportion of supposed non-functional DNA has not been properly integrated into evolutionist thinking. ‘In just a few years, many geneticists have shifted from believing that less than 3% of the total genome is functional, to believing that more than 30% is functional—and that fraction is still growing’ (p. 21). Seriously now, when we examine organisms, such as dolphins, swallows or humans, do we get the impression of final products driven by a chaotic information processing system? In any event, in our thinking we need to start getting used to the fact that over 30 new genetically relevant, function-altering mutations occur per individual each generation.

Unity of complexity

Reductionist, materialistic thinking prevents more effective reasoning constructs from being developed. If we could understand to the finest detail the properties of all atoms in a computer we’d still fail to grasp the logic of algorithms programmed to solve a mathematical problem. We would not even suspect its existence. None of the individual components of an airplane can fly, but the integrated unity can. The purpose of a back-up in-flight computer may appear to be ‘parasitic junk’, especially if we limit our analysis to the material properties of the atoms it is constructed with. When it is to be brought into action, why and in response to what circumstances, would not be discerned by researching individual characteristics such as atomic vibrations and molecular rotations and bond strengths.

Before we assume that the information in the genome used to generate mature organisms is mostly junk, we would be wise to examine the final morphological product with more humility.

Good and bad mutations inseparable

Are mutations really causing all that much damage? Many Hollywood stars (and my wife!) sure seem awfully attractive. Since interchange of the genes provided from the father and the mother occurs, might this not provide a means of avoiding passing on defective genes? Might not ‘bad’ sperms and eggs lead to defective offspring which simply don’t survive, leaving many ‘good’ versions in the population? Well, unfortunately not. A huge number of mutations are added to the germline of every baby born, and these are spread throughout the various chromosomes. Human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79).

Therefore, within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All of the individual 100,000–200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.

Furthermore, recombination appears to be primarily between genes rather than randomly between nucleotides. This means that an inferior gene is doomed to remain in that lineage, unless a back-mutation occurs, which is vanishingly unlikely. This means that the good mutations and the bad mutations cannot be separated, another example of the one-way direction of degradation known as ‘Müller’s ratchet’.

Being now clearly persuaded that the net effect of mutations will be loss of information-guided functionality, we are ready to digest another insight. Tragic as a devastating mutation may be to the affected and family, the effects of this ‘curse’ would be limited to the victim if no offspring survive. But for the population as a whole, the major damage turns out not to be the severe mutations.

Near neutrals

Figure 1. Far more mutations are deleterious than advantageous. Individually, most have too small an effect to be acted upon by natural selection (p. 32).

The majority of deleterious mutations have individually a negligible effect on viability of the organism. This is especially true if the ‘competitors’ are also accumulating non-deadly but nevertheless undesirable mutations. This is like the rusting of a car, one iron atom at a time (p. 72). Even one extra unnecessary nucleotide is slightly deleterious—as it slows cell replication and wastes energy (p. 21).

This issue has been mostly ignored in the literature. Mutations in the ‘near-neutral box’ (figure 1) are redefined as being completely neutral, and so dismissed. It is then claimed that more severe mutations to the left of the near-neutral box can be entirely eliminated by natural selection (p. 23). I supposed that if we are talking about a very small number of mutations this would be to a first approximation reasonable. But the accumulation of dozens or hundreds of such mutations every generation presents a totally different picture.

Incidentally, we must remember that essentially all hypothetical beneficial mutations also fall within Kimura’s ‘effectively neutral’ zone (p. 24). Therefore, positive selection would also be too weak to have an effect!
It would be desirable if natural selection could remove at least some damaging mutations. In fact, this remains our last hope to avoid a fitness meltdown. Before abandoning hope, we need to consider natural selection carefully.

Natural selection is ineffective

The same environmental factor is unable to severely penalize different deleterious mutations. It is not realistic to invoke strongly negative selection to quickly eliminate a large number of unrelated mutations. As the number of minor mutations increases, each mutation becomes noise for the others (pp. 77, 78).

Now, in a laboratory one can intelligently favour natural variability to accentuate some chosen trait (p. 98). This requires carefully crafting the external environment (nutrition, temperature, natural enemies, etc.) to minimize mutational noise. Nevertheless, no one has ever claimed to have created brand new functions not already coded for on the genome in this manner. And inevitably the organisms fine-tuned in the laboratory for a single trait are less viable long-term, living freely in nature where all natural ranges of environmental challenges occur. It is possible to optimize things such as the amount of sugar a beet produces, as long as this plant is later protected from full competition with the original stock. The changes may be in man’s interest, but at the price of the organism’s natural fitness (e.g. the large sugar production might result from a mutation damaging its control mechanism so it over-produces; in the wild, this could not compete because it is wasting valuable resources).

Outside of the laboratory the matter is much worse. There is no intelligent guidance. The judge is also nearly blind (p. 7). There is a very long chain of events separating the direct effects of a genetic change and the consequences for the whole organism level. There is a logarithmic dilution at each step, a huge loss of cause-effect resolution and correspondence. ‘It is like measuring the impact of a butterfly’s stroke—on a hurricane system which is a thousand miles away’ (p. 49). ‘It is a little like trying to select for a specific soldier, based upon the performance of his army’ (p. 49).

The literature is full of statements and abstruse computer programs claiming natural selection can perform near miracles.^3–5 But after 25 years of searching, I have yet to find an analogy or computer model backing up this claim which has any biological relevance. Generally it is enough to simply ask what kind of organism would be suitable to check and perhaps calibrate the claims against, to reveal the irrelevance. Sanford offers an illustration of how natural selection really works, which reflects formally the issues involved very realistically, which I will modify to maximize correspondence to how selection really works in nature (p. 50).

Let’s imagine a new method for improving biochemistry textbooks. A few students are randomly selected who will get a biochemistry textbook each semester during the next four years, whether or not they take a biochemistry course. Each new book will have 100 random changes in the letters. Those receiving the textbook are forced to read it (whether they take the biochemistry course or not). Different teachers assign grades to all courses taken by all students across the country each semester (whether they received the biochemistry textbook or not). The correlation between true ability and each grade (math, history, Latin … ) is weak and often wrong. At the end of the semester we compare the average grades of all students nationwide and identify from among the best students those in possession of a mutated biochemistry textbook. Each of these latter textbooks are borrowed, 100 new random changes are made, and then returned to the owner. The whole cycle of reading and grading is repeated, multiple times. Will a better textbook result in this manner? No, since there is no meaningful correlation between the small differences in textbooks and the grades. Too many other factors (‘noise’), such as home life, lack of sleep, classroom setting etc. override the effect of a few misspellings.

Any trait such as intelligence, speed or strength depends on gene characteristics and environmental factors (nutrition, training, etc.) (p. 90). For example, height is about 30% (h² = 0.3) heritable. For complex traits such as ‘fitness’ heritability values are low (i.e. 0.004). ‘This is because total fitness combines all the different types of noise from all the different aspects of the individual’ (p. 91). Low heritability means bad genotypes are very difficult to eliminate. Survival becomes primarily a matter of luck, and not better genes:

‘If Kimura’s estimate is correct, then 99.6% of phenotypic selection for fitness will be entirely wasted. This explains why simple selection for total phenotypic fitness can result in almost no genetic gain.’ (p. 93)

Natural selection is a probabilistic matter. ‘Mother Nature’ does not compute for each member of a population a ‘total fitness value’ based upon all phenotypic traits (p. 94).

Furthermore, almost all mutations are recessive, camouflaging their presence and hindering selection against them (pp. 56, 76). Another consideration, not explicitly brought out in this book, is that key environmental factors (disease, temperature, mutation, predators, etc.) affecting survival vary over time. Strong selection must be present for a huge number of generations if fixation of a (temporarily) favourable trait throughout a population is to occur. Relaxation for just a few generations could undo this process, since selection for a different trait would then be at the expense of the preceding one.

We must recognize clearly this lack of strong correlation between a mutation (whether having a positive or negative effect) and reproductive success. It is a fact of nature, yet most people attribute incorrectly near miraculous creative powers to natural selection.

But then how could natural selection supposedly develop optimized proteins, such as enzymes, one nucleotide mutation after the other, leading to almost identical versions throughout nature?^6–8 Each improved nucleotide would have to be selectable in the presence of all the other noise-causing mutations within the same linkage blocks. This cannot occur by somehow selecting for superior individuals on average—which inherently involves thousands of different genes and millions of different nucleotides (p. 117).

We conclude that evolutionary theory has a major problem. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is even more difficult to argue that billions of slight improvements were selected gradually over time (p. 106). The matter is not merely an issue of low probabilities. Theoretically a huge number of offspring could be generated, each differing by many random mutations. Might not a lot of luck bordering on the miraculous cherry-pick out the best? Not really. Sanford explains why there are physical constraints as to what natural selection could do in the real world.

The cost of selection

The number of offspring which humans can produce is rather small. For a human population to maintain its size, about three individuals per couple would be needed. This is because not all who live go on to have children, due to personal choice, accidental death, etc. Eliminating individuals carrying bad mutations would require that additional children be born, to be sacrificed to natural selection (p. 57). ‘All selection has a biological cost—meaning that we must remove (or ‘spend’) part of the breeding population’ (p. 56). In other words, deleterious mutations in man must be kept below one mutation for every three children for flawless, 100% effective selection to be able to eliminate all the mutations and still allow the population to reproduce (p. 32).

There are several kinds of costs, all additive, which must be paid for before ‘real’ selection can be covered (p. 59).⁹ As mentioned above, fitness has low heritability, meaning environmental factors are much more important than genetic factors in determining who survives. This means that a very large number of additional offspring is needed, which must die due to natural selection independent of genetic causes, simply to remove non-heritable variations (p. 59). In these circumstances, having to additionally select the worse culprits which carry 100 or more mutations, every generation, is not physically possible (p. 62).

Haldane’s Dilemma

A process which steadily degrades a genome cannot produce a better organism.

Having demonstrated conclusively that the degradation of the human genome (in the presence of such high mutations rates, preponderance of deleterious mutations and lack of huge expendable proportions of offspring) cannot be avoided, we return to what evolutionary theory claims happened. Ever more complex and sophisticated genomes are supposed to have arisen, step by step, over eons.

In the 1950s, one of the most famous population geneticists, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, presented an observation known as ‘Haldane’s dilemma’ (p. 128): it would take (on average) 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. However, his calculations were only for independent, unlinked mutations. He assumed constant and very strong selection for a single trait, which is not realistic. The interference by hundreds of random mutations was not taken into account. Even so, selection for only 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in all putative evolutionary time. There is no way an ape-like creature could have been transformed into a human (p. 129). Man and chimp differ at roughly 150 million nucleotide positions (p. 130) and humans show remarkably little variation worldwide.

Think for yourself

Advanced education is dominated by evolutionary theory taught as established fact. But ‘are you really just a meaningless bag of molecules—the product of nothing more than random molecular mutations and reproductive filtering?’ (Prologue). This doctrine is presented as unquestioned truth, an axiom accepted by faith because many scientists present it as obviously true (p. 5). But if you come to the point where you feel that the Primary Axiom is no longer obviously true to all reasonable parties, then you must not accept it on blind faith (p. 10). At best the materialist model could be basically right, but it is absurd to continue believing that it is self-evident. At the very least, critical thought and fair discussion is required, something scorned and denigrated by the current high priests of biology.

Historically, the entire field of population genetics was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people radically committed to the Primary Axiom. They were free to explore many scenarios and adjust multiple parameters unconstrained by objective calibrations, and to optimize frameworks to appear internally consistent. Their mathematical approach was to define the unit of selection as discrete genetic units, such a gene or nucleotide, instead of whole organisms with all the contradictory influencing factors (p. 52).

‘For the most part, other biologists do not even understand their work—but accept their conclusions “by faith”’ (p. 46). The theorists’ models can be shown to never have matched biological reality to the minimal degree expected of useful models, but these men were undeniably intelligent and had an incredible aura of intellectual authority (p. 53). In many ways they deserve our admiration, since transforming any scenario, correct or not, into an appropriate mathematical formulation requires a great deal of skill. One can also admire honestly the brilliant lawyer who argues ever so cleverly against the truth in his client’s interest. How we wish they would contribute their gifts within a correct paradigm!

There is hope

Finally, professor Sanford makes it clear that no amount of human intervention can salvage the relentless degradation of our genomes. We will experience much and increasing suffering on the part of our children and grandchildren. But our Creator made the genome in the first place.

‘ … Jesus is our hope … He gave us life in the first place—so He can give us new life today. He made heaven and earth in the first place—so He can make a new heaven and earth in the future’ (p. 155).

Read this book twice. Then read it again with a highlighter. Technical aspects are easy to follow, and the specialist will benefit very much for the highly relevant references offered.

Is there enough time in the Bible to account for all the human genetic diversity?

Recommended Resources

Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

by Dr J. C. Sanford

This landmark book presents powerful evidence for creation. The author, a well-known ex Cornell University professor of genetics, shows how mutations and natural selection do not account for the information in the human genome. 3rd edition. (High School–Adult) 229 pages.

References

Behe, M., Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1996. Return to text.
Drake, J.W., Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D. and Crow, J.F., Rates of spontaneous mutation, Genetics 148:1,667–1,686, 1998. Return to text.
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986. Return to text.
Lenski, R.E., Ofria, C., Pennock, R.T. and Adami, C, The evolutionary origin of complex features, Nature 423(8):139–144, 2003. Return to text.
Schneider, T.D., Evolution of biological information, Nucleic Acids Res. 28:2794–2799, 2000. Return to text.
Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? Journal of Creation 15(3):115–127, 2001, . Return to text.
Truman, R., The ubiquitin protein: chance or design? Journal of Creation 19(3):116–127, 2005, . Return to text.
Truman, R., Searching for needles in a haystack, Journal of Creation 20(2):90–99, 2006. Return to text.
ReMine, W.J, Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification, Journal of Creation 19(1):113–125, 2005, . Return to text.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above article is real science. Not propaganda. Not just-so stories. Just actual science. Think about the things you have been taught about the hypotheses relating to Darwinism and forget for one minute that so many people believe in it. Darwinism was always an attempt to find some sciency-sounding way to get away from a Creator God. When organisms were supposedly clumps of protoplasm and genetics was not a science and we did not understand about things like DNA and when it was possible for someone to assert that Uniformitarianism could explain the sedimentary rock records and that a steady state infinite Universe was plausible?

People like Haeckel and Huxley and Lyell and of course Darwin pushed a pseudo-science for the sake of worldview and in the cause of atheism.

If the Darwinists have had control of the scientific community for several generations, who can really trust the "findings' they have published about the rock layers? The "standard geological column" is a lie. The circular reasoning of dating rock layers by index fossils and then dating fossils by the same rock layers, the hiding of evidence of actual flesh rather than fossil remains until Mary Schweitzer let that cat out of the bag, the use of derision and ad hominem attacks rather than evidence? You are being lied to and fooled and frankly robbed of your chance to know truth. By a concerted effort an entire army of propagandists and censors have tried their best to keep you ignorant and propaganized. Don't let them.

More to come...

Why Creationism matters and benefits Science. One man's example...John C. Sanford.

2012-02-13T23:07:00.000-08:00

Darwinists will slander the best of scientists when the scientist does not agree with their religion of naturalism.

I can give you numerous examples. One would be the man who was the team lead on the Cassini project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, David Coppedge, an IT and System Administrator and science history expert who was a spokesman for JPL and the Cassini project until JPL found out he was also a creationist when he began to freely offer copies of a DVD he had worked on along with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, The Privileged Planet, at which point he was arbitrarily demoted and then fired. Eventually the JPL will wind up paying Coppedge a large settlement for violation of his First Amendment rights.

THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
From Y1K to Y2K

by David F. Coppedge
c. 2000 David F. Coppedge, Master Plan Productions

Jonathan Sarfati is another who comes to mind, a brilliant Chess Grandmaster and scientist who published several papers that were peer-reviewed by secular organizations and also has multiple degrees. When he found that secular organizations were not so interested in his work once it was known he was a Creationist, he chose to join forces with a Creationist scientific organization and is now at CMI aka Creation.com where he is free to both research and give presentations and also author books.

Available at Amazon

Michael Behe made sure he had enough tenure and backing to get away with poking Darwinism in the stick with his books that revealed the innumerable and inexplicable (by Darwinism) irreducibly complex systems in organisms and also the practical barrier to multiple mutations being passed on at once.

Amazon also

But for today, the example given with be John C. Sanford, a former Atheist who changed his mind during the course of his work in studying the genome of various living things. Sanford is arguably among the most accomplished if not THE MOST accomplished plant geneticist in the world. But he doesn't believe in Darwinism anymore.

Wikipedia at least for now gives him a relatively fair treatment, surprisingly. They describe his journey from Atheist to YEC as of today. That could change, so I have recorded the current description of his worldview journey found there as of today:

source

"Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Sanford has argued for devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)^[4] he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved in the way specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis. Sanford has published two peer reviewed papers obliquely dealing with genetic entropy, although on both occasions publishing in computing journals concerned with methodology and not his claims on genetics.^[5]^[6]

[edit] Origins

Formerly an atheist^[7] since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), old Earth creation (late 1990s), and young Earth creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."

He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5,000 and 100,000" years.^[8] An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."^[9] Intelligent design advocate William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design, although Sanford is an Associate Professor in Horticulture and his views remain almost universally dismissed by Geneticists and Biologists ^[10]^[11] and has endorsed Sanford's book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.^[12]

[edit] References

^ [1]
^ Sanford, J. C., T. M. Klein, E. D. Wolf, and N. Allen. 1987. Delivery of substances into cells and tissues using a particle bombardment process. Journal of Particulate Science and Technology 5:27-37.
^ Klein, T. M., E. D. Wolf, R. Wu, and J. C. Sanford. 1987. High-velocity microprojectiles for delivering nucleic acids into living cells. Nature 327:70-73.
^ Sanford, John C. (2005-10-25). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Ivan Press. ISBN 978-1599190020.
^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Mendel's Accountant: a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE 8(2): 147-165. http://www.scpe.org
.
^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al. (Eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
^ Transcripts of the Kansas Evolution Hearings
Talkorigins.org
^ Transcripts of the Kansas Evolution Hearings
Talkorigins.org
^ Intelligent Design: Professors discuss Teaching the Controversial Subject
Xiaowei Cathy Tang. Cornell Daily Sun, November 15, 2005
^ [2]
^ ID at Cornell, John Sanford and Allen MacNeill
Dembski. Uncommondescent.com, April 14, 2006
^ Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book
Dembski. Uncommondescent.com, June 1, 2006

"Although he is "an Associate Professor in Horticulture and his views remain almost universally dismissed by Geneticists and Biologists?" The attempt to minimize his impact on science and his standing amongst Geneticists is unfair, since Sanford is semi-retired and has nothing left to prove.

So, how do Darwinists describe him?

JREF - James Randi Education Foundation?

"John C. Sanford: Young Earth Creationist Loon"

Right. One of the most accomplished scientists of the 20th Century is a "loon" because he is a YEC?

John C. Sanford

Quotes by John C. Sanford (born in 1950), an American plant geneticist, a former Atheist, and author of Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome where he provides compelling evidence that the human genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved in the way specified by modern evolutionary theory.

Isn't it remarkable that the Primary Axiom of biological evolution essentially claims that typographical errors plus some selective copying can transform a wagon into a spaceship, in the absence of any intelligence, purpose, or design? - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.9

Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as "beneficial", but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.17

Population genetics is a field that is extremely theoretical and mathematical. Theoretical mathematicians are constrained (completely) by their axioms (assumptions), upon which they choose to build their work. The entire field of population genetics was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people who were utterly and radically committed to the Primary Axiom. Today, it is still a very small field, still exclusively populated by "true believers" in the Primary Axiom. These people are extremely intelligent, but are totally and unconditionally bound to the Primary Axiom. For the most part, other biologists do not even understand their work - but accept their conclusions "by faith". Yet it is these same population geneticists themselves who have exposed some of the most profound limitations of natural selection. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.46

Human genes never exist in "pools", they only exist in massive clusters, within zeal people. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.54

Selection works on the genetic level, but fails at the genomic level. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.64

Every single beneficial mutation would always be inseparably tied to a large number of deleterious mutations. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.82

What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller than an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. The only reasonable alternative to a spontaneous genome is a genome which arose by design. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.151

A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole. - Intelligent Design: Professors discuss Teaching the Controversial Subject Xiaowei Cathy Tang. Cornell Daily Sun (November 15, 2005)

John C. Sanford

Courtesy Associate Professor
jcs21@cornell.edu
Education:

Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. 1980 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics

Program Overview

My central research objectives have involved:

Study of the theoretical limits of the mutation/selection process
Development of genetic transformation technologies
Development of new approaches to genetically engineer disease and pathogen resistance
Conventional breeding of strawberries and raspberries

My most significant accomplishments are:

Co-developer of “Mendel’s Accountant” – today’s most advanced forward-time population genetics simulation program
Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties
Most of the world's transgenic crop acreage were transformed via my biolistic process

I am presently looking at genome-wide patterns in higher genomes.
Links to Recent and Current Projects

See: http://mendelsaccountant.info

Academic Positions Held

2010-present Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture
1998-2010 Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences
1994-1998 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Percent effort reduced first to 80%, then to 40%.
1986-1994 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Responsibilities - 100% research.
1980-1986 Assistant Professor (as above).

Academic Honors

The following is so long I am not even editing it. Sanford's accomplishments are legendary. But becoming a YEC makes him a loon? LOL! What I have found in the academic and scientific circles is that people start with Darwinist presumptions which are implanted into young brains not only in school but in magazines and books and television and movies - our entire culture is soaked in Darwin. But the John C. Sanfords of the world look at the evidence and follow it logically to where it takes you, refusing to resort to ridicule or ignorance, and wind up realizing that God indeed created and the evidence is clearly on His side!

Publications 1. Most recent publications:
Seaman, J. and J.C. Sanford. 2009. Skittle: a two dimensional genome visualization tool. BMC Bioinformatics 10:452.(http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/452).
Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Mendel‚s Accountant: a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE 8(2): 147-165. http://www.scpe.org.
Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al. (Eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Sanford,J.C. 2006. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Elim Publications. Elim, NY. 208 pages.
DeGray, G., Rajasekarana, K., Smith F. Sanford, J. Daniel H., 2001. Expression of an antimicrobial peptide via the chloroplast genome to control phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi. Plant Physiology 127 (3): 852-862.
Production of transgenic poinsettia (2006). US Pat. 7119262 - Filed Jul 31, 1997 - Sanford Scientific, Inc. ... Geneva, NY (US); Tau-San Chou, Batavia, IL (US); Robert Eisenreich, North Aurora, IL (US); John Sanford, Geneva, NY (US); Alan Blowers, St. Charles, ...
Expression of magainin and PGL classes of antimicrobial peptide genes in plants, and their use. (2001). US Pat. 6235973 - Filed Jul 31, 1998 - Sanford Scientific, Inc.... Geneva, NY (US); Alan D. Blowers, St. Charles, IL (US); Joyce Van Eck, Ithaca; John Sanford, Geneva, both of NY (US) (73) Assignee: Sanford Scientific, ...

2. Publications relating to genetics and biotechnology:
Sanford, J.C. 1982. Pollen studies using a laser microbeam. In D.L. Mulcahy and E. Ottaviano (eds.) Pollen: Biology and Implications for Breeding, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pollen Biology. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 107-115.
Sanford, J.C.,Y.S. Chyi, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. An attempt to induce "egg transformation" in Lycopersicon esculentum using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67:553-558.
Sanford, J.C., Chyi, Y.S., and B.I,. Reisch. 1984. Attempted "egg transformation" in Zea mays L., using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 68:269-275.
Chyi, Y.S., J.C. Sanford, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. Further attempts to induce "egg transformation" using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 68:277-283.
Sanford, J.C., N.F. Weeden, and Y.S. Chyi. 1984. Regarding the novelty and breeding value of protoplast-derived variants of Russet Burbank (Solanum tuberosum L.) Euphytica 33:709-715.
Sanford, J.C., K. Skubik, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. Attempted transformation in tomato and corn, using incubation of pollen with genomic DNA. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 69:571-574.
Sanford, J.C., and S.A. Johnston. 1985. The concept of parasite derived resistance. Journal of Theoretical Biology 113: 395-405.
Chyi, Y.S. and J.C. Sanford. 1985. "Egg transformation" induced by irradiated pollen in Nicotiana -a re-examination. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70:433-439.
Sanford, J.C. and K.A. Skubik. 1985. Attempted pollen mediated transformation with Ti-plasmids. In: D.L. Mulcahy (ed.) Biotechnology and Ecology of Pollen. Proceedings of International Symposium. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 71-76.
Simon, C.J., and J.C. Sanford. 1985. Prospects for pollen cell selection for resistance to various chemical agents. In: D.L. Mulcahy (ed.). Biotechnology and Ecology of Pollen. Proceedings of International Symposium. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 107-112.
Grummet, R., J. C. Sanford, and S. A. Johnston. 1986. A demonstration of pathogen-derived resistance using E. coli and the bacteriophage, QB. C. Arntzen and C. Ryan (eds.). Molecular Strategies for Crop Protection. UCLA Symposium on Cellular and Molecular Biology, V. 48. A. R. Liss. NY . pp 3-12.

Sanford, J. C., T. M. Klein, E. D. Wolf, and N. Allen. 1987. Delivery of substances into cells and tissues using a particle bombardment process. Journal of Particulate Science and Technology 5:27-37.
Klein, T. M., E. D. Wolf, R. Wu, and J. C. Sanford. 1987. High-velocity microprojectiles for delivering nucleic acids into living cells. Nature 327:70-73.
Grummet, R., J. C. Sanford, and S. A. Johnston. 1987. Pathogen-derived resistance to viral infection using a negative regulatory molecule. Virology 161:561-569.
Sanford, J. C. 1988. Applying the PDR principle to AIDS. Journal of Theoretical Biology 130:469-480.
Sanford J. C. 1988. Regarding early claims of pollen-mediated transformation. in Ed. F.A. Valentine. Forest and Crop Biotechnology -Progress and Prospects. Spinger-Verlag, NY. pp163=
173.
Pang, S. Z., and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer in papaya. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113:287-291.
Klein, T. M., M. E. Fromm, A. Weissinger, D. Tomes, S. Schaaf, M. Sleeten, and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Transfer of foreign genes into intact maize cells with high velocity microprojectiles. PNAS 85:4305-4309.
Klein, T. M., M. E. Fromm, T. Gradziel, and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Factors influencing gene delivery into Zea mays cells by high-velocity microprojectiles. Bio/Technology 6:559-563.
Johnston, S. A., P.Q. Anziano, K. Shark, J. C. Sanford, and R.A. Butow. 1988. Mitochondrial transformation in yeast by bombardment with microprojectiles. Science 240:1538-1541.
Boynton, J. E., N. W. Gillham, E. H. Harris, J. P. Hosler, A. M. Johnson, A. R. Jones, B. L. Randolph-Anderson, D. Robertson, T. M. Klein, K. Shark, J. C. Sanford. 1988. Chloroplast transformation of Chlamydomonas with high velocity microprojectiles. Science 240:1534-1538.
Fox, T. D., J. C. Sanford, and T. W. McMullin. 1988. Plasmids can stably transform yeast mitochondria totally lacking endogenous mtDNA. PNAS 85:7288-7292.
Klein, T.M., E.C. Harper, Z. Svab, J.C. Sanford, M.E. Fromm, P. Maliga. 1988. Stable genetic transformation of intact Nicotiana cells by the particle bombardment process. PNAS 85:85028505.
Wang, Y. C., T. M. Klein, M. Fromm, J. Cao, J. C. Sanford, and R. Wu. 1988. Transient expression of foreign genes in rice, wheat, and soybean cells following particle bombardment. Plant Molecular Biology 11: 433-439 .
Sanford, J. 1988. The biolistic process. Trends in Biotechnology 6:229-302.
Liu, Z. R., and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Plant regeneration by organogenesis from strawberry leaf and runner tissue. HortScience 23:1057-1059.
Blowers, A.D., L. Bogorad, K.B. Shark, G.N. Ye, and J.C. Sanford. 1989. Studies on Chlamydomonas chloroplast transformation: foreign DNA can be stably maintained in the chromosome. The Plant Cell 1:123-132.
Klein, T.M., L. Kornstein, J.C. Sanford, and M.E. Fromm. 1989. Genetic transformation of maize cells by particle bombardment. Plant Physiology 91: 440-444.
Daniell, H., J. Vivekananda, B.L. Nielsen, G.N. Ye, K.K. Tewari, and J.C. Sanford, 1990. Transient foreign gene expression in chloroplasts of cultured tobacco cells after biolistic delivery of chloroplast vectors. PNAS 87: 88-92.
Cummings, D.J., J.M. Dominico, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Mitochondrial DNA from Podospora anserina: transformation to senescence via projectile injection of plasmids. In: Molecular Biology of Aging. ©Alan R. Liss, NY pp91-101.
Armeleo, D., G.N. Ye, S.A. Johnston, T.M. Klein, K.B. Shark, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Biolistic nuclear transformation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and other fungi. Current Genetics 17:97-103.
Cao, J., Y-C. Wang, T.M. Klein, J. C. Sanford, and R. Wu. 1990. Transformation of rice and maize using the biolistic process. In: Plant Gene Transfer-1989 UCLA Symposium. ©Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp21-33.
Sanford, J. 1990. Biolistic plant transformation. Physiologia Plantarum 79:206-209.
Fitch, M.M., R. M. Manshardt, D. Gonsalves, J. L. Slightom, H. Quemada, and J. C. Sanford. 1990. Stable transformation of papaya via microprojectile bombardment. Plant Cell Reports 9:189-194.
Ye, G.N., H. Daniell, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Optimization of delivery of foreign DNA into higher-plant chloroplasts. Plant Molecular Biology 15: 809-819.
Sanford, J.C., 1990. The biolistic process -an emerging tool for research and clinical applications. Proceedings of the Biomedical Society. Virginia Polytech. Inst. Blacksburg, VA. D.C. Milulecky and A.M. Clarke (eds). New York University Press, NY. pp 89-98.
Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Cell injury as a limiting factor in stable biolistic plant transformation. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology 26:43A.
Shark, K.B., F.D. Smith, P.R. Harpending, J.L. Rasmussen, and J.C. Sanford. 1991. Biolistic transformation of a procaryote: Bacillus megaterium. Applied Environmental Microbiology 57:480-485.
Williams, R.S., S.A. Johnston, M. Reidy, M.J. DeVit, S.G. McElligott, and J.C. Sanford. 1991. Introduction of foreign genes into tissues of living mice by DNA-coated microprojectiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Vol. 88:2726-2730.
Sanford, J.C., M.J. DeVit, J.A. Russell, F.D. Smith, P.R. Harpending, M.K. Roy, and S.A. Johnston. 1991. An improved, helium driven biolistic device. Technique 3:3-16.
Johnston, S.A., M. Riedy, M.J. DeVit, J.C. Sanford, S. McElligott, and R. S. Williams. 1991. Biolistic transformation of animal tissue. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology 27P:11-14.
Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Physical trauma and tungsten toxicity reduce the efficiency of biolistic transformation. Plant Physiology 98:1050-1056.
Smith, F.D., P.R. Harpending, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Biolistic transformation of prokaryotes factors that effect transformation of very small cells. Journal of General Microbiology 138:239-248.

Pang, Sheng-Zhi, S. Oberhaus, J. Rasmussen, D. Knipple, J. Bloomquist, D. Dean, and J. Sanford. 1992. Expression of a scorpion insectotoxin peptide in yeast, bacteria and plants. Gene 116: 165-172.
Pang, Sheng-Zhi, J. Rasmussen, G.N. Ye, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Use of the signal peptide of Pisum vicilin to translocate b-glucuronidase in Nicotiana tabacum. Gene 112(2):229-234.
Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Physical trauma and tungsten toxicity reduce the efficiency of biolistic transformation. Plant Physiology 98:1050-1056.
Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Major improvements in biolistic transformation of suspension cultured tobacco cells. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 28P:97-1105.
Hamilton, D.A., M. Roy, J. Rueda, R.K. Sindhu, J. Sanford, and J.P. Mascarenhas. 1992. Dissection of a pollen-specific promoter from maize by transient transformation assays. Plant Molecular Biology 18:211-218.
Fitch, M.M., R.M. Manshardt, D. Gonsalves, J.L. Slightom, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Virus resistant papaya plants derived from tissues bombarded with the coat protein gene of papaya ringspot virus. Bio/Technology 10:1466-1472.
Sanford, J.C., F.D. Smith, and J.A. Russell. 1993. Optimizing the biolistic process for different biological applications. Methods in Enzymology 217:483-509.
Liu Z.R., Sanford J.C., 1993. Investigation of the mechanism underlying the inhibitory effect of heterologous ras genes in plant cells. Plant Mol Biol. 22(5):751-65.
Rasmussen J.L., J.R. Kikkert, M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford, 1994. Biolistic transformation of tobacco and maize suspension cells using bacterial cells as microprojectiles. Plant Cell Reports 13:212-217.
Ye, Xiaojian, S.K. Brown, R. Scorza, J. Cordts, J. Sanford. 1994. Genetic transformation of peach tissues by particle bombardment. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Science 119(2): 367-373.
Liu, Z.R., J. Ma and J.C. Sanford. 1995. The location of untranscribed DNA sequences within ras genes essential for eliciting plant growth suppression. Plant Mol. Biol. (28 (1): 195-201).
Kamo, K.; Blowers, A.; Smith, F.; Van Eck, J.; Lawson, R. and Sanford, J. 1995. Stable transformation of Gladiolus using cormels. Plant Science 110:105-111.
Kamo, K.; Blowers, A.; Smith, F.; Van Eck, J.; Lawson, R. and Sanford, J. 1995. Stable transformation of Gladiolus using suspension cells and callus. J. Am., Soc., Hort. Sci. 120:347-352.
Smith, F.D., D.M. Gadoury, P.R. Harpending, and J.C. Sanford. 1995. Biolistic transformation of the obligate parasite Uncinula necator. Phytopathology (-).
Ye, G.N., S.Z. Pang, and J.C. Sanford. 1995. Biolistic delivery of a psbA promoter driven NPTII construct into tobacco. Plant Cell Reporter (-).
Aragao, F.J.L., Barros, L.M.G., Brasileiro, A.C.M. Ribeiro, S.G., Smith F.D. Sanford, J.C., Faria, J.C., Rech, E.L., 1996. Inheritance of foreign genes in transgenic bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) co-transformed via particle bombardment. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 93(1-2): 142-150.
Kikkert, J.R., G.A. Humiston, M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1999. Biological projectiles (phage, yeast, bacteria) for genetic transformation of plants. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology - Plant 35:43-50.
DeGray, G., Rajasekarana, K., Smith F. Sanford, J. Daniel H., 2001. Expression of an antimicrobial peptide via the chloroplast genome to control phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi. Plant Physiology 127 (3): 852-862.
Sanford,J.C. 2006. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Elim Publications. Elim, NY. 208 pages.
Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Mendel‚s Accountant:a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE 8(2): 147-165. http://www.scpe.org.
Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Gibson, P., Brewer, W., ReMine, W. (2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al. (Eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

3. Publications Relating to Plant Breeding and Horticulture:
Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman, Jr. 1979. Reciprocal Differences in the photoperiod reaction of hybrid populations in Solanum tuberosum. Am. Potato J. 56:531-540.
Sanford, J. C. and R.E. Hanneman Jr. 1981. The use of bees for the purpose of inter-mating in potato. Am.Potato J. 58:481-485.
Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. A possible heterotic threshold in potato and its implications for breeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 61: 151-159.
Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. Large yield differences between reciprocal families of Solanum tuberosum. Euphytica 31:1-12.
Sanford,J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. Intermating of potato and spontaneouus sexual polyploidization -effects on heterozygosity. Am. Potato J. 59:407-414.
Sanford, J.C. 1983. Ploidy manipulations in fruit breeding. In: J. Janick and J. N. Moore (eds.) Methods in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN pp. 100-123.
Way, R.D., J.C. Sanford, and A.N. Lakso. 1983. Breeding for higher fruit yields. IN: J. Janick and J.N. Moore (eds) Methods in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN pp. 353-368.

Sanford, J.C. 1984. Strawberry cultivars for New York. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 107.
J. P. Tompkins, D.K. Ourecky, J.C. Sanford. 1984. Growing strawberries in New York State. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Information Bulletin No. 15.
Sanford, J.C. and J.E.Reich, 1985. Breeding progress in strawberry cultivars adapted to Northeastern United States. Advances in Strawberry Production,4:39-44.
Sanford, J.C. and D.K. Ourecky. 1982. 'Royalty' -a purple-red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin. No. 97.
Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, J.E. Reich, H.S. Aldwinckle. 1982. 'Honeoye' and' Canoga' strawberries. HortScience 17:982-984.
Sanford, J.C. and D.K. Ourecky. 1983. 'Royalty' purple raspberry. HortScience 18:109-110.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich, 1985. 'Titan' red raspberry. HortScience 20:1133-1134.
Sanford,J.C. and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Jewel' strawberry. HortSciences 20:1136-1137.
Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Titan' red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 111.
Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Jewel' strawberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No.114.
Sanford, J.C. and J.E. Reich. 1985. Strawberry cultivars adapted to the Northeastern States. Proceedings of the Western New York State Horticulture Show 130:140-156.
Sanford, J.C., K.Maloney, and J.E. Reich. 1988. 'Watson' red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin.
Simon, C.J. and J. C. Sanford. 1990. Separation of 2n potato pollen from a heterogenous pollen mixture by velocity sedimentation. HortScience 25:342-344.
Maloney, K., Ourecky, D., Reich, J., J. Sanford. 1991. 'Seneca ' Strawberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 136.
Maloney, K., W.F. Wilcox, J.C. Sanford. 1993. Effects of raised beds and Metalaxyl for control of Phytophthora root rot of raspberry. HortScience 28:1106-1108.
Weber, C.A., K.E. Maloney and J.C. Sanford. 2005. Performance of eleven floricane fruiting red raspberry cultivars in New York. Small Fruits Rev. 4(2):49-56.
Weber, C.A., K.E. Maloney and J.C. Sanford. 2005. Performance of eight primocane fruiting red raspberry cultivars in New York. Small Fruits Rev. 4(2):41-47.
Weber, C.A., K.E. Maloney and J.C. Sanford. 2004. 'Encore' floricane raspberry. HortScience 39(3):635-636.
Weber, C.A., K.E. Maloney and J.C. Sanford. 2004. 'Prelude' everbearing raspberry. HortScience 39(3):633-634.

4. Invited Papers:
Sanford, J.C., Y.S. Chyi, and B.I,. Reisch. 1984. Attempts to elucidate the phenomenon of "egg transformation" as mediated by irradiated pollen. Symposium on Plant Biotechnology -Gene transfer through non-traditional means. ASA national meetings. Nov. 25-30, Las Vegas. 1984. Agronomy Abstracts published by ASA, p. 87.
Sanford,J.C. 1985. Regarding early claims of pollen-mediated transformation. Forest and Crop Biotechnology -Progress and Prospects. April 18-20, 1985. Syracuse, NY.
Sanford, J.C., T.Klein, and E.D. Wolf. 1986. Altering living cells with particles. Symposium on the manufacture and use of particles. 17th Annual Meeting of The Fine Particles Society -July 31, l986. San Francisco.
Sanford, J. C. 1988. Biolistic Plant Transformation. First EMBO workshop: Gene Transfer to Plants. September 7-10. Switzerland.
Sanford J.C. 1989. The biolistic process: shooting DNA into cells and tissues. Joint meetings of the Canadian Society of Plant Molecular Biologists and the Genetics Society of Canada, June. Saskatoon, SK.
Sanford J.C. 1989. The biolistic process. Meeting of the American Society of Plant Physiologists. July, Toronto, Ont.
Sanford J.C. 1989. Biolistic transformation of plants. Advanced course in plant tissue culture and plant transformation. University of Guelph, August, Guelph, Ont.
Sanford J.C. 1990. Utility of the biolistic process. Biomedical Engineering Society Meetings, Virginia Polytech Inst. Blacksburg, VA.
Sanford J.C. 1991. Optimization of the Biolistic Process. International Workshop on the Biolistic Process, sponsored by Agracetus. U of W, Madison, WI.
Sanford J.C. 1992. The Biolistic Process -A simple tool for transforming diverse crop species. Miami Bio/Technology Winter Symposium -Feeding the World in the 21st Century, Jan. 1992.
Sanford J.C. 1993. International Training Course -analysis and manipulation of the plant genome. Irapuato, Mexico. The biolistic Process, where it came from and where its going: and, New directions in biolistic technology, use of biological projectiles for delivery of very HMW DNA.
Sanford J.C. 1993. Governor's Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology. Albany, NY. Genetic Engineering of Plants used in Environmental Horticulture. Nov. 9-10.
Sanford J.C. 1994. Seeley Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Gene guns and other weapons in tomorrow's arsenal. June 28-28.

5. Allowed Patents (based on Google Patent Search):
Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissues and apparatus therefor US Pat. 4945050 - Filed Nov 13, 1984 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. John C. Sanford ...

Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissues and apparatus therefor US Pat. 5036006 - Filed Aug 17, 1989 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
METHOD FOR TRANSPORTING SUBSTANCES INTO LIVING CELLS AND TISSUES AND APPARATUS THEREFOR [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Edward D. Wolf, ...

Parasite-derived resistance US Pat. 5580716 - Filed Nov 17, 1994 - Stephen A. Johnston... N. Gregson, Durham, NC 27701; John C. Sanford, Geneva, NY [73] Assignees: Stephen A. Johnston, Dallas, Tex.; Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., Ithaca, ...

E. coli resistance to Q.beta. virus infection US Pat. 5240841 - Filed Mar 25, 1992 - Duke University [54] E. COLI RESISTANCE TO Q/3 VIRUS INFECTION [75] Inventors: Stephen A. Johnston, Durham, NC; John C. Sanford, Geneva, NY [73] Assignees: Duke University, ...

Method and apparatus for introducing biological substances into living cells US Pat. 5204253 - Filed May 29, 1990 - E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company
[54] METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTRODUCING BIOLOGICAL SUBSTANCES INTO LIVING CELLS [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford; Michael J. devit, both of Geneva, NY; ...
Stable transformation of plant cells US Pat. 5990387 - Filed Oct 6, 1994 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. ... [75] Inventors: Dwight T. Tomes, Gumming; Arthur Weissinger, Des Moines, both of Iowa; John C. Sanford, Geneva, NY; Theodore M. Klein, Wilmington, Del. ...
Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissues US Pat. 5100792 - Filed Jan 24, 1989 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
[54] METHOD FOR TRANSPORTING SUBSTANCES INTO LIVING CELLS AND TISSUES [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Edward D. Wolf, Ithaca; Nelson K. Allen, ...

Apparatus for transporting substances into living cells and tissues US Pat. 5371015 - Filed Jan 9, 1991 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. [54] APPARATUS FOR TRANSPORTING SUBSTANCES INTO LIVING CELLS AND TISSUES [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Edward D. Wolf, Ithaca; Nelson K. Allen, ...
Biolistic apparatus for delivering substances into cells and tissues in a non-lethal manner
US Pat. 5179022 - Filed Feb 11, 1992 - E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. [54] BIOLISTIC APPARATUS FOR DELIVERING SUBSTANCES INTO CELLS AND TISSUES IN A NON-LETHAL MANNER [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Edward D. Wolf, ...
Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissues and apparatus therefor
US Pat. 5478744 - Filed Aug 12, 1994 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. ... METHOD FOR TRANSPORTING SUBSTANCES INTO LIVING CELLS AND TISSUES AND APPARATUS THEREFOR [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Edward D. Wolf, Ithaca; ...
Stable transformation of plant cells US Pat. 5886244 - Filed May 15, 1998 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. John C. Sanford ...
Stable transformation of plant cells US Pat. 6258999 - Filed May 16, 1995 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (54) STABLE TRANSFORMATION OF PLANT CELLS (75) Inventors: Dwight T. Tomes, Gumming, IA (US); Arthur Weissinger, Raleigh, NC (US); John C. Sanford, Geneva, ...

Method of conferring resistance to retroviral infection
US Pat. 5324643 - Filed Jul 29, 1991 - Greatbatch Gen-Aid, Ltd. John C. Sanford ...

Particle-mediated bombardment of DNA sequences into tissue to induce an immune response
US Pat. 6194389 - Filed Apr 11, 1997 - Duke University John C. Sanford ...
Parasite-derived resistance US Pat. 5840481 - Filed Nov 29, 1996 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. [54] PARASITE-DERIVED RESISTANCE [75] Inventors: Stephen A. Johnston, N. Gregson,
Durham, NC 27701; John C. Sanford, Geneva, NY [73] Assignees: Cornell ...

Parasite-derived resistance US Pat. 6365396 - Filed May 20, 1999 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. () PARASITE-DERIVED RESISTANCE (75) Inventors: Stephen A. Johnston, Durham,
NC (US); John C. Sanford, Geneva, NY (US) (73) Assignee: Cornell Research ...
Stable transformation of plant cells US Pat. 6570067 - Filed Jul 30, 1999 - Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. STABLE TRANSFORMATION OF PLANT CELLS (75) Inventors: Dwight T. Tomes, Gumming, IA (US); Arthur Weissinger, Raleigh, NC (US); John C. Sanford, ...
Method of conferring resistance to immunodeficiency viral infection
US Pat. 5580761 - Filed Mar 23, 1994 - Greatbatch Gen-Aid Ltd. John C. Sanford ...
Biolistic apparatus for delivering substances into cells and tissues
US Pat. 6004287 - Filed Sep 23, 1998 6004287 BIOLISTIC APPARATUS FOR DELIVERING SUBSTANCES INTO CELLS AND TISSUES RELATED APPLICATION Applicants claim priority benefits of provisional ...
Expression of magainin and PGL classes of antimicrobial peptide genes in plants, and their use.
US Pat. 6235973 - Filed Jul 31, 1998 - Sanford Scientific, Inc. ... Geneva, NY (US); Alan D. Blowers, St. Charles, IL (US); Joyce Van Eck, Ithaca; John Sanford, Geneva, both of NY (US) (73) Assignee: Sanford Scientific, ...
Production of transgenic poinsettia US Pat. 7119262 - Filed Jul 31, 1997 - Sanford Scientific, Inc.
... Geneva, NY (US); Tau-San Chou, Batavia, IL (US); Robert Eisenreich, North Aurora, IL (US); John Sanford, Geneva, NY (US); Alan Blowers, St. Charles, ...

6. Plant Patents:
Strawberry Jewel
US Pat. PP5897 - Filed Jul 2, 1985 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
3 John C. Sanford ... [ii] Patent Number: [45] Date of Patent: [54] STRAWBERRY
JEWEL [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, ...

Strawberry Seneca
US Pat. PP8991 - Filed Feb 26, 1993 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
United States Patent [19] Sanford et al. [54] STRAWBERRY SENECA [15] Inventors:
John Sanford, Geneva, NY; ...
Strawberry plant named ŒL'Amour‚
US Pat. PP16480 - Filed Jun 21, 2004 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
... Varietal Denomination: L'Amour (75) Inventors: Courtney A. Weber, Geneva,
NY (US); John C. Sanford, Livonia, ...
Strawberry plant named ŒClancy‚
US Pat. PP16571 - Filed Jun 21, 2004 - Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
... Geneva, NY (US); John C. Sanford, Livonia, NY (US); Kevin E. Maloney, Phelps,
NY (US) (73) Assignee: Cornell Research Foundation Inc., Ithaca, ...
Purple raspberry, N.Y. 632
US Pat. PP5405 - Filed Sep 16, 1982 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
United States Patent [19] Sanford et al. [ii] Patent Number: [45] Date of
Patent: [54] PURPLE RASPBERRY, NY 632 [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; ...

Red raspberry, N.Y. 883
US Pat. PP5404 - Filed Sep 16, 1982 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
United States Patent [] Sanford et al. [ii] Patent Number: [45] Date of Patent: [54]
RED RASPBERRY, NY 883 [75] Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; ...
Red raspberry `Watson`
US Pat. PP7067 - Filed Oct 28, 1988 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
[ii] Patent Number: [45] Date of Patent: [54] RED RASPBERRY 'WATSON' [75] Inventors:
John C. Sanford; Jack E. Reich, both of Geneva, NY [73] Assignee: ...
Red raspberry plant named `Encore`
US Pat. PP11746 - Filed Oct 6, 1998 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
23, 2001 (54) RED RASPBERRY PLANT NAMED 'ENCORE' (75) Inventors: John C. Sanford,
Geneva; Kevin E. Maloney, Phelps; Jack E. Reich, Geneva, all of NY (US); ...
Red raspberry plant named `Prelude`
US Pat. PP11747 - Filed Oct 6, 1998 - Cornell Research Foundation, Inc.
(12) United States Plant Patent Sanford et al. () RED RASPBERRY PLANT
NAMED 'PRELUDE' (75) Inventors: John C. Sanford, Geneva; Kevin E. Maloney, ...

Radaractive

Things Evolution is not? Well, science for one. Darwinism considered.

From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

Mutations are bad

Disastrously high mutational rates

Junk DNA or masterpiece?

Unity of complexity

Good and bad mutations inseparable

Near neutrals

Natural selection is ineffective

The cost of selection

Haldane’s Dilemma

Think for yourself

There is hope

Related articles

Further reading

Recommended Resources

References

Why Creationism matters and benefits Science. One man's example...John C. Sanford.

Darwinists will slander the best of scientists when the scientist does not agree with their religion of naturalism.

Available at Amazon

Michael Behe made sure he had enough tenure and backing to get away with poking Darwinism in the stick with his books that revealed the innumerable and inexplicable (by Darwinism) irreducibly complex systems in organisms and also the practical barrier to multiple mutations being passed on at once.

Wikipedia at least for now gives him a relatively fair treatment, surprisingly. They describe his journey from Atheist to YEC as of today. That could change, so I have recorded the current description of his worldview journey found there as of today:

source

"Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

[edit] Origins

[edit] References

"Although he is "an Associate Professor in Horticulture and his views remain almost universally dismissed by Geneticists and Biologists?" The attempt to minimize his impact on science and his standing amongst Geneticists is unfair, since Sanford is semi-retired and has nothing left to prove.

So, how do Darwinists describe him?

JREF - James Randi Education Foundation?

"John C. Sanford: Young Earth Creationist Loon"

Right. One of the most accomplished scientists of the 20th Century is a "loon" because he is a YEC?

John C. Sanford