Sure means yes.
Yeah but weāre not kindergartners, so how does that affect your answer?
Perhaps you should actually watch the 2:00 video.
You donāt seem to know the background behind the Genetic Entropy claim. Sanford late in life became a āBorn Againā YEC. His Genetic Entropy idea is an attempt by him to justify his new found YEC beliefs. GE is based on the idea all genomes including the human one were created āperfectā (whatever that means) only 6000 years ago and have been degrading ever since. Sanford even offered as part of his āevidenceā the declining ages of the Biblical patriarchs. 
Does that sound like science to you?
The simple facts are we have an incredibly huge amount of evidence life has been on the planet evolving (i.e not degrading) for at least 3.5 billion years. We also have sequenced the genomes of thousands of species going back 700,000 years and guess what - no degradation is seen.
Sorry but Sanford is a kindly old YEC nutter whose ideas have made zero impact on any actual evolutionary sciences.
3 Likes
Science doesnāt stop being science if itās wrongā¦
1 Like
No. Crackpots come up with insane ideas all the time and we do not spend our professional lives refuting them in technical papers.
5 Likes
He was actually a theistic evolutionist for a while. Found link through wikipedia. He was a Christian before he changed his views on science. Kansas Evolution Hearings: John Sanford and Robert DiSilvestro
Q. Doctor Sanford, when did you switch from atheism to a Christian world view?
A. About 20 years ago.
Q. Andā
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Excuse me, Iām going to-- this is irrelevant to the standards. And I-- I donāt think it does any good to get involved in this.
MR. CALVERT: The rules do not permit this type of interruption.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Well, thereās got to be some relevancy.
MR. CALVERT: Would you please answer?
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He has the time to allow-- to do as he wants to do.
Q. (BY MR. CALVERT) All right. You may answer the question.
A. Twenty years.
Q. Twenty years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. And so-- and I think you said that you were a theistic evolutionist for a period of time after that. You know, why-- why was that?
A. I had been trained in evolution and everything I had ever thought was in terms of evolution. For me, it was a-- as clear as the world around us. It was just uncontestable. But in retrospect, I had not critically assessed much of what I believed. I believed it based upon very little, without critical assessment.
Q. So would it be fair to say that while you were an atheist, you didnāt find any personal reasons to critically analyze the theory or to challenge it?
A. Yes. Well, as an atheist, thereās no-- thereās no alternative hypothesis because if-- if no one-- and thereās no designer or creator, then you have to believe that the universe created itself.
Q. So you-- 20 years ago you became a Christian and then at some subsequent time and you-- let me ask you this; do you use evolutionary biology in your operational science?
A. I donāt use it. And when I was an evolutionist, I would have argued that evolutionary theory is critical to being a good scientist. I actually realized that itās-- my best science has been done since that time. Iāve also realized that historically all the founding fathers of science were non-evolutionists and many of them were anti-evolutionists. So I realized that good science is not in any way conditioned upon accepting the evolutionary theory.
Q. The-- is it fair to say then that-- well, you-- you switched from Christianity-- from atheism to Christianity 20 years ago and then there was a period of time where you were a-- I think you described a theistic evolutionist; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then during that period of time, did you have any cause or reason to or did you challenge or critically analyze evolutionary theories?
A. I-- I did not generally question the-- the documents that I had been taught. They were like foundational beliefs and I did not generally question them.
Q. And then at some point in time something caused you to begin to question it?
A. So I hadā
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I had friends who basically said, have you looked at the other side? And I said, what other side? I honestly had been at Cornell at that point 20 years and I really did not know that there was a-- a legitimate position which could contest evolutionary assumptions.
Q. And so then you began to look at it critically?
A. I began to look at it critically and for several years I was intrigued by alternative explanations for many different things. And so this was a-- a time of great intellectual excitement for me. So looking at alternatives to evolution, I did not find mental-- mentally deadening but rather incredibly stimulating. And I basically went back and reassessed everything I had ever knew.
No, you donāt.
How do you know DNA can be preserved that long?
But sometimes they create paradigm shifts. 
Like when?
1 Like
Itās just the start right now.
Once the human mutation rate for mtDNA and y-chromosome are confirmed, it throws all dating into the realm of the unknown.
You canāt know theyāre not degraded.
You have it exactly backwards. The millions of pieces of evidence from dozens of independent sources for an Earth much much older than 6000 years kills the silly YEC mtDNA and y-chromosome claims.
We know they arenāt āperfectā or close to it as Sanford claims because we find lots of signs of viruses and genetic abnormalities still present in extant species. Thereās also the inconvenient (for Sanford) fact species like horses havenāt gone extinct from GE in the last 700,000 years.
Sorry but Sanfordās GE is as dead and as unscientific as Flat Earth claims.
3 Likes
Sorry but this is just wrong Iām afraid. If calculations based on pedigree mutation rates indicate two species share a common ancestor 200 million years ago, but radiometric dating of fossil-containing strata indicate it was 150 million years ago, then the conclusion will normally be that the mutation rate must have been higher in the past, because the decay constant really is constant whereas mutation rates are not. I am of course here assuming that thereās good reason to think older fossils would not exist.
But in essence, biology must conform to physics, particularly when we are talking about biologically emergent phenomena like the chemistry responsible for genetic mutations when contrasted with absolutely fundamental physical principles like the rules describing the behavior of atomic nuclei. If biology says an organism is gaining more mass than it ingests, biology is wrong.
2 Likes
Oh and by the way, the human nuclear and mitochondrial DNA mutation rates are completely irrelevant to the age of life on Earth, or the ratios of carbon-oxygen isotopes in pre-cambrian rocks.
You donāt measure the age of the building you live in by how much is left in your cereal box.
Lol. So you have no examples of this ever happening?
While visionaries are sometimes ahead of their time, paradigm shifts propel science forward; they do not reverse everything that has been learned over centuries in favor of a previous and discredited model. Einsteinās work does not mean that Newtonās equations are no longer useful. Epigenetics does not mean that Lamarckism turns out to be the correct model of evolution.
Your statement that some paradigm shift is starting is a vacuous throwaway. The scientifically informed world is not going to unlearn what is known in some giant spasm of amnesia. Scientists are not really the target of Jeanson and Sanford and company, as their ideas are immediately contrary to the data. So who is the real target?
2 Likes
That graph was ridiculous. He plotted cherry picked individual ages, then when he got to the first century AD, he used average Roman life span. I expect more from that from a working scientist. Also, if you take any set of generally declining numbers, you can fit it to a decay curve like the one in the book. It really meant nothing. And if he had plotted individual ages such as the apostle John, it would have thrown his curve.
I read the book a couple years ago, and by chapter 2, even I could see the guy was being dishonest. I read the Kimura paper he cited and it was saying nothing close to what Sanford was attributing to it. If I, an untrained layperson, can see this, I wouldnāt expect scientists to waste their time on it.
For @thoughtful, hereās a refutation on Reddit:
6 Likes
No. Wrong analogy. Here is the correct analogy.
You donāt measure the age of a 21st century building by dredging up remnants of the 18th century building it is built on top of.
For the completionists out there, peruse the links found here. I should have just written a book at this pointā¦
4 Likes
Then he is lying: