Tour and Sanford on Genetic Entropy with Time Stamps

2:00 Tour Podcast Introduction
3:15 Sanford Introduction
5:35 Why Believe in Jesus’ Resurrection / Why Scientists Believe in the Supernatural
8:00 Primary Axiom (Darwinism) - Mutations and Selection
10:15 Population Geneticists Acknowledge the Problem
11:21 Neo-Darwinian Theory / Deleterious Mutations
12:30 Believe God or Believe Men, Scientific Arguments Secondary to Believing
13:34 Description of Sanford’s Published Books
15:40 Mention of Books in Progress
17:10 Declining Lifespans in the Bible / Genome Degeneration
20:25 Geneticists Agree We’re Degenerating
22:00 H1N1 Virus Study - Mutation Accumulation
28:00 Darwin a Sacred Cow - Do Scientists Just Believe Because They Assume Everyone Else Does
30:30 No Biological Challenges ,Online Challenges / Population Geneticists Ignoring / Don’t Have Answers
33:00 Neutral Drift / UCA vs Deleterious Mutations
36:25 ENCODE / Junk DNA / How Much is Functional
39:33 Extravagant Functions / Awe at NIH
41:00 Rescue Mechanisms / Protections
43:30 DNA only Foundational / Epigenetics / Layers of Information
45:17 God Wants to Blow Our Mind
46:12 Q&A Begins
46:45 Change from Atheist to Theist - A Process
49:40 Romantic Atheists
50:22 Authority of Man if We Came From Random Processes
50:55 Gene Manipulation
51:50 Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics / Reductive Evolution / Beneficial Mutations
54:50 Genetic Degradation and COVID
56:40 How the Fall in Genesis Affected Mutation
57:40 Believing in Evolution and God
59:30 DNA Repair Enzymes / ID
1:01:00 Shorter Life Spans / CRISPR
1:04:10 Environmental Factors
1:06:30 Thanks and Wrap-Up
1:07:50 Adam and Eve and @swamidass gets a mention

So…the people who said this is nutty should bring their arguments because it seems to make sense to me…curious what the best arguments are against genetic entropy that have been brought. He mentions there have been no published papers disputing it.

1 Like

So a bit over an hour of science-free propaganda and proselytizing by two Mighty Warriors For Jesus. Do you think you can link to the published scientific research showing how The Fall affected mutation rates?

Why? Is science about arguments? Where is the hypothesis testing, Valerie?

1 Like

What did they say?

It’s a couple minutes, you could listen. :wink: But Tour mentions your book. Sanford mentions there’s evidence as Adam and Eve as first parents of us all and said he has had a nice conversation with you in the past. Then they acknowledge you and Sanford have different points of view.

1 Like

They have with this study. Go ahead and listen. It’s only a few minutes. I can find the link to the paper if you want.

It had a lot of science. Hence all the scientific terms I mentioned in the time stamps. :upside_down_face:

How many times do I have to tell you that I’ve read the paper in detail before you will acknowledge that basic fact?

Get TypeApp for Android

Oh dear. What else need to be tested to be considered hypothesis testing?

What is the hypothesis and what are the predictions being tested?

Sanford said so many ridiculous and untrue things in that podcast, but two things really stood out to me.
One is when Sanford says his ideas have not been challenged. This is just completely false. There are numerous threads on this forum alone where his ideas, arguments, simulations, book, and papers have all been very substantially criticized.
Sanford may seem dissatisfied that biologists have not wasted their time citing his work in the peer reviewed literature, but that technically shouldn’t matter. The fact is that there are many significant criticisms of his book and ideas.

The other (Starts at 31:30 in the podcast) is when Sanford tells this story about how he has an “evolutionist” friend, and he gave his “evolutionist” friend his book on Genetic Entropy, and his friend read his book and came back and told him that he could find no flaw in the book (we’re not told whether his friend has any relevant qualifications or background to make him able to say this), so Sanford asked his friend why nobody in the scientific community has responded to his work (which btw is still completely false), and his friend tells him it’s because they have no answers.

Think about that for a second. How utterly ridiculously self-serving that story is.
Sanford’s unknown “evolutionist” friend with unknown qualifications read his book, said it was basically flawless, and then said nobody in the scientific community responded to it because they didn’t know how.

That story he tells about his friend and his book is not just ridiculous, I’m pretty sure it’s bullshit. A lie.


Do you mind sharing the exact quote and/or a timestamp? I want to try something.

For Tour’s statement, or Sanford’s “my friend read my book”-story?

Tour says, starting at exactly 33:02

“I’ve been told by geneticists that, that they no longer are pushing random mutation and natural selection, they’re pushing ahh neutral drift, the changes that occur from a parent to their children and then on to their children, and the theory of universal common descent. So it, that, that’s the new paradigm - neutral drift and universal common descent. What does your analysis of the, the, the data look like ahh to addres that?”

Sanford then goes on to respond from there.

1 Like

Another thing is that Tour begins the podcast by getting Sanford to elaborate on this fatuous “primary axiom” thing, which according to creationists is supposed to be what evolutionary biology is all about. The steady march of increasing complexity and progress (which they never really define) up until the presumed pinnacle of creation, Homo sapiens.

So when and if things do not become more complex and “progress”, Sanford of course can now say it falsifies evolution’s “primary axiom”. This becomes important later when they turn to talk about genetic drift (no “progress”) and common descent.

Thanks. That’s the quote I meant. I will start a separate thread so as to not derail this one.

1 Like

@thoughtful, thanks so much for this. Two things come to mind in hearing the complaints here

  1. This actually may be true. Just because the people here on this forum think they have successfully rebutted Sanford may just mean they have made a lot of noise with little or no substance. I think we need to hear from the larger science community - and I do mean much larger than this forum !
  1. The reference to the new paradigm may be more cutting edge than this forum can keep up with. It could be that Tour is completely correct in bringing up the paradigm shift since he naturally would be more in tune and in touch with the progressive science trends than the members of this forum.

Research it folks. Don’t take my word for it, don’t take speir’s! Find out.

Using scientific terms does not equal providing scientific evidence. How are you coming with that scientific paper with evidence The Fall caused genetic mutations? :slightly_smiling_face:


That was a Q&A response.

Generally I’d say a paradigm shift to a new model would have to be that humans started out with a huge amount of information and it’s slowly degrading. It would not be a paper so much as a different model to work from.