Unfortunately, the thing's set up kind of funky. It worked for me on dial-up, but it took a couple of minutes to load up.

This book is good good good. And it's written in a way that really makes things easy to understand. Dr. J.C.Sanford had an outstanding career as a Cornell University professor. He worked with plant genetics and became involved with plant genetic engineering when the field was new. He was granted 25 patents, and is best know as the inventor of the "gene gun".

As I say, the book is very easy to understand. Dr. Sanford's teaching ability really shows, and laughably, this is the first thing evolutionists always complain about. According to them, a scientific book should be full of latin and technical terms, and be incomprehensible to the common man. All their reviews try to turn this miraculous strength into a weakness. I'd wish them all bad luck, but there's no need. Even the evogoddess of luck herself can't help them pull it off.

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Not only is the book easy to read, it's interesting. It's not the kind that's work to read, except in a couple of places later on. I'd jump up and down and say go go go, but you can't see me. Go go go anyway. If you aren't glad you did come back & tell me so. It may be that it won't suit your taste, but I sure can't imagine how.

I'll make another post about a "review". Read the book first, of course. It's far more important and more enjoyable.

Okay, I'm going to post a couple of links to a review/debate thing done over at "talk-rational!" I haven't read but a couple of pages, and so far there is some moderately offensive language. You might find some that is much worse in a place like that.

Pop quiz! What, besides random mutations and "natural selection", do evolutionists claim was required for the mythical first cell to evolve into mankind?

The lead atheist is one "vox rat". No confusing this one with Vox Day!

On another forum an atheist proudly presented me with these two links. Bluff or blunder?

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=546708#post546708

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=16942

Okay, remember the pop quiz? Did you think of anything else beyond random mutations and "natural selection"? If you did, let me know. Another universal complaint is that Dr. Sanford attacks a "strawman" because he debunks the idea that man evolved due to rm + ns. Half of them admit he debunks it; others have enough sense to merely claim he attacks it. But when you see that accusation, you KNOW you're dealing with a bald-faced lair. You KNOW if they had any legitimate way to oppose him, they would not sacrifice 100% of their credibility right up front at the very start. But they all do the same thing (I don't plan to track down others unless there's a request. Actually it wouldn't take long, so ask if you're interested.)

Okay, now for some simple stuff. Let us review the relationship between apples and fruit. All apples are fruit. Some fruit is apples. Apples are a subset of fruit. I'm confident everyone understands this. Everyone of you, I should say. I learned this kind of thing in second grade, maybe third? Even today I don't suppose it's been moved up past 6th or 7th. And you really don't need to learn it in school - it's built into the language, if only you think about it.

But not everyone understands. Not the evosick
Of course there's a dichotomy. This is a set/subset relationship. The DNA is part of the cell; it is not the whole cell. "All that follows" is a joke. Although he would pretend his failure to understand a simple set/subset relationship constitutes some kind of flaw in Dr. Sanford's book, it never pans out. He can't turn it into a real beef; neither can he manage to conjure an illusion. I honestly think his strategy is to stun/confuse the reader, tricking them into thinking his junk contention is written by someone smarter than they are. That's all I can figure, honestly. People, sometimes when you read something, and it doesn't deliver, or fails to make sense, it isn't you. It's the writing. I hope most of you knew.

And that's not all. It's polywrong. Oh yes. Look again at the quotebox and you'll find a switcharoo of terms. Dr. Sanford's term 'genome' is replaced with 'DNA'. Okay, not really a big deal - unless you try to convince yourself the rodent actually knows what is what. The genome is not the same thing as the DNA. Printed text is to book as genome is to DNA. The genome is the code - the information encrypted within the DNA. The reason for the switch is unclear, because all he proceeds to really do is complain of a bad analogy without demonstrating a flaw.

Well, that's enough.

This is my original review of the book, retrieved from the EvC forum. Now that I think of it, this is the only book I've ever reviewed. Guess it really is my favourite.

No mystery, really. With the term "Entropy" in the title, you know how this one has to end. I just spent the last 2 days on this book.

Dr. Sanford was a professor for Cornell University. Ah why bother. Here's a bio link to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Dr. Sanford, a former Darwinist, begins like a veteran: "Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling 'The Primary Axiom'. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection." No quibbling about "change" here. He defines his target.

Some may contend that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution; in that case they won't shed any tears over this book. After defining his target, Sanford takes only a little time to deal it a death blow. But he's just getting warmed up. The fatal blows continue. Can't blame him.

And this book is so readable! Unable to fault the science, some critics put it down on this account. Don't you just love it! Sanford's experience as a teacher shows. He's able to communicate complicated scientific concepts using uncomplicated language (usually) and vivid, accurate analogies.

Here's an overly simplified analogy of my own, so as not to steal from the author. Evolution can't make much progress taking 50 steps backward for every step forward. That's something I've long believed, but I haven't proven it myself.

How convincing is this book? Here's a link I found to an evolutionist in crisis. Read carefully: He's forced to categorize ALL mutations as beneficial in order to save his faith! Then he criticizes Sanford for failing to "understand evolution".
(link no longer available)http://thatsbs.blogspot.com/2006/12/genetic-entropy-first-impressions.html

And for the record, Sanford's models and math assume beneficial mutations. He's pretty consistent about giving his target the most generous estimates scientifically available.

I should give links to some other reviews, since I'm a rookie.

http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/customer-reviews/1599190028
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...st-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/

Hide your ironymeters. This could break 'em.

Those who haven't bothered taking the silly links won't know, but another favourite criticism is that Dr. Sanford's writing is "anti-intellectual". The man is an intellectual!

Oh, and don't forget to consider the source!

Just thought I'd share.