tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post6151779623970121472..comments2024-03-28T06:33:02.061-04:00Comments on Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1107: John C. SanfordG.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-65177795755951894992022-01-03T19:11:39.803-05:002022-01-03T19:11:39.803-05:00“Biological (or organic) evolution is inherited ch...“Biological (or organic) evolution is inherited change in the properties of groups of organisms throughout generations. As Darwin elegantly phrased it, evolution is descent with modification.” [1]<br /><br />~ Evolution (4th Edition) pg 7<br /><br />Here Douglas J. Futuyma and Mark Kirkpatrick give the typical definition of evolution found in most current college textbooks. As a young-age creationist, I wholly embrace this definition. Evolution is not a process in itself but rather a word for the group of processes explaining the modern diversity of life.<br /><br />As it says on the next page, “[evolution is] … A body of ideas… including mutation, recombination, gene flow, isolation, random genetic drift, the several forms of natural selection, and other factors… [constituting] our current theory of evolution, or “evolutionary theory.” [1] We all agree on and observe these processes.<br /><br />Notice that the terms “theory of evolution” and “evolutionary theory” do not mean evolution. We’ve already seen the definition of evolution - descent with modification — so what is the “theory of evolution?” The theory of evolution is, in some aspects, still understood in the conventional paradigm how Darwin understood it back in 1859 in “The Origin of Species” when he stated, <br /><br />“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. “[2]<br /><br />The “theory of evolution” (Also referred to commonly as neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis) is the theory that life descended from a “last universal cellular ancestor“ (LUCA). If the theory of evolution is correct, we could trace all life on earth back to that initial lifeform. We have not seen the Modern Synthesis (MS) Hypothesis substantiated by experimental processes of evolution.Epitomic Cosmos Modelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13053813838579771618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-15995764361809520772021-10-24T13:50:20.253-04:002021-10-24T13:50:20.253-04:00Hello! I´m from Brazil, and I need John Sanford´s ...Hello! I´m from Brazil, and I need John Sanford´s e-mail in order to exchange ideas. Does anybody know?I used jcs21@cornell.edu but it is returning.My e-mail is marciliorpc@gmail.comMarcilio Carneirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619675236924111491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-64742031206003880232020-01-22T13:36:13.301-05:002020-01-22T13:36:13.301-05:00Mixing personal & or religious beliefs with th...Mixing personal & or religious beliefs with the facts of science & or the science of evolution is what's known as pseudo science & not taken seriously in the scientific community. Most religious scientists accept the science that fits their reality denying religious beliefs & reject the science that doesn't. That's pseudo science. Science & the science of evolution has already debunked numerous religious beliefs. No religious belief has ever debunked any fact of science or the science of evolution. Go figure. �� Shawn W. Nippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03682146569772954567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-66982329362949146992019-09-08T14:33:10.539-04:002019-09-08T14:33:10.539-04:00What creation science did he use in developing the...What creation science did he use in developing the gene gun Anonymous?JLutskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09174442074270677771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-3856182770290901642019-09-08T14:32:24.672-04:002019-09-08T14:32:24.672-04:00Show how it's wrong Anonymous.Show how it's wrong Anonymous.<br />JLutskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09174442074270677771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-7442587440414757632019-04-21T15:49:52.628-04:002019-04-21T15:49:52.628-04:00If Sanford would apply his understanding of geneti...If Sanford would apply his understanding of genetics, he would come to the conclusion that if the Biblical account of Noah were true, the human DNA would only be traced back to ≈ 4k yrs and not the ≈ 150k yrs that is traced back to the Mitochondrial Eve (mt-MRCA: Most Recent Common Ancestor)Ernest M. Saenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681132756378483619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-85228038705615133752017-10-23T23:02:57.055-04:002017-10-23T23:02:57.055-04:00Anyone here of the Thunderbolts project? Check th...Anyone here of the Thunderbolts project? Check them out on youtube.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02023584252962663621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-80870730860720183642016-07-18T12:32:14.417-04:002016-07-18T12:32:14.417-04:00In addition to Sandord's achievements is the f...In addition to Sandord's achievements is the featuring of his Gene Gun in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-9869757614182380332016-05-03T03:38:32.209-04:002016-05-03T03:38:32.209-04:00Sanford has of course published scientific papers,...Sanford has of course published scientific papers, but on genetic entropy as a driver of devolution (which is what we were referring to)? If you have any other information feel free to share it. <br /><br />Of course, in one sense the statement is obviously false: even Answers in Genesis's stuff is reviewed by the authors' *peers* before publication, but in the sense that we ordinarily associate with "peer reviewed publications" those articles don't qualify. So, I know that Sanford published some genetic entropy stuff in e.g. World Scientific's "Biological Information New Perspectives", and that wouldn't count any more than if it were published on the Answers in Genesis website. Feel free to add anything else, though.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-40008652774821592222016-05-03T03:32:39.833-04:002016-05-03T03:32:39.833-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-75756628138413352162016-05-02T18:25:02.423-04:002016-05-02T18:25:02.423-04:00I believe that papers from him and his colleagues ...I believe that papers from him and his colleagues have been published many times, around twenty or so. You should double-check your statements there.Lord Shortlandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558987620635172738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-61496666979760340032016-04-04T04:41:38.348-04:002016-04-04T04:41:38.348-04:00Quiet down slow boy your hooting nonsense shows yo...Quiet down slow boy your hooting nonsense shows your lack of education.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10520982699319126244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-34631030776507746462015-05-02T10:21:45.983-04:002015-05-02T10:21:45.983-04:00We strive for accuracy. Since you evidently think ...We strive for accuracy. Since you evidently think that some of our statements are false or inaccurate, it would be helpful if you could point out exactly what.G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.com