A geneticist from Cornell explains why the Primary Axiom (i.e., mutations + natural selection = boundless evolution) cannot hope to account for the existence and diversity of life on Earth. He also shows why humanity's gene pool is steadily and irreversibly degenerating at an alarming rate--a process that will result in our ultimate extinction long before such things as the heat death of the universe ever become an issue. Far from constantly evolving, the human race is going downhill (genetically speaking) with each successive generation.
This book is packed with fascinating information, though Sanford's prose is very dry, and some of the more technical bits went completely over my head.

Genetic Entropy is a fantastic book that clearly shows the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. It should be read by every biologist, Christian or otherwise. Canon Press will be selling them at the conference. If you're not a biologist, get one for a friend or relative who is!

Great book. Exceeded expectations. Very solid argument.

The idea of genetic decline overtime is well presented and appeals to one's common sense. On page 96 Sandford refers to selection of the luckiest, which struck me as a very accurate depiction of what really happens. His point about pandemics of the 20th century displaying reduce virulence (pg 155) is relevant to COVID-19, giving us hope that it too will run its course. I appreciate the decay curve on pg 168 for human life expectancy. This was interesting.

A good book on problems with the theory of Evolution from the point of view of genetics. Written by a real geneticist, it is worth reading if you are interested in the topic.

An intellectually stimulating work that expounds upon the mutations of genes.
John C. Sanford, a geneticist who taught at Cornell University for over 30 years, states “it is very easy to destroy information, but apart from the operation of intelligence it is very hard (arguably impossible) to create information” (2014, p.132).

Genetic entropy which empirically demonstrates that complex genomes, such as found in mammals, are mutating with an exceptionally large amount of data loss. Of the billions of observed mutations, there have been no mutations that synthesize new information. While there have been some that have unselectable benefits, the benefits are indiscernible in light of their genetic noise.

Our genes communicate in a very complex language made up of literal information. Information does not produce itself. In fact the encryption is so complicated on our information, it is as though it is in 3d. Imagine seeing a completed game of 3d scrabble with spelt out words connected in 3 dimensional space and then asserting that these 3d interconnected words were made by chance. This information in our genome was designed; it is not evident of chaos in chaos producing complexity.

It makes you lose faith in the Scientific establishment

Although not a biologist, I find the arguments and data used by the author very convincing. Although the conclusion is 'Jesus is the only hope' (I am an agnostic), this is mentioned only in the end, and 99.9% of the book is scientific and logical facts. Even if repetitive at times, the arguments used are solid. For someone not trained in genetics there's a lot of info, skillfully communicated through familiar examples.
Given all the presented arguments, it makes you wonder how Evolution theory survived for so long and mutated into the answer to every difficult biological question...

One of the most compelling and comprehensive books on a very important but overlooked scientific observation: the human genome is irreversibly falling apart more every generation.

I am studying evolutionary biology at university, and have been studying it for several years before that as a personal passion. I enjoy debating with proponents of intelligent design via facebook or youtube as it helps me work on my arguments and lets me know what arguments I will have to face in my professional career. These are cordial, good-spirited debates (for the most part), and it was after one such debate when my opponent gracefully quit the field that he recommended this book, saying that while he didn't have answers for me this book could do provide them much more eloquently than he could. It is in such a way that I have read Darwin's Black Box and other creationist literature, so once I managed to borrow a copy from my local library I started to flick through it.
Oh boy.

Mr Sanford starts off his book with the following statements:

1. Mutations are like misspellings in the "instruction manual".
2. There no "clear cases of information-creating mutations".
3. The few beneficial mutations that occur are nearly neutral.
4. Repeated selection experiments in plant breeding have resulted in "no meaningful crop improvement"
5. Geneticists never see beneficial mutations.

1. is incorrect, as while the 'instruction manual' analogy is useful it isn't entirely accurate. DNA is a more like a mixture of a manual and a recipe, and mutations are more like new ingredients/measurements or ways of using existing ingredients/measurements. In the whole run of things though, this is only a minor gripe.

2. This is just flat-out wrong. Gene and genome duplication give extra copies of genes, sometimes even doubling the amount of genetic information in the genome. But, some creationists will cry, this isn't new information, just copies of old information. Mutations are then free to modify these duplicated genes, which are often shielded for a number of generations. Mutations don't create entirely new genes from scratch, the theory of evolution has never claimed that this occurs and more importantly does not rely on this claim, unfortunately for Mr Sanford. Also, like most creationists, Sanford never actually defines 'information', leaving th validity of this argument doubtful from the very beginning

3. This is a more subtle point, but Sanford goes wrong by claiming that this means that beneficial mutations could therefore never be selected for. If a mutation provides an organism with a 1% increase in its chances of surviving to reproduction then statistically this should become fixed in the population within a few hundred generations. Claiming that Richard Lenski removed the beneficial mutations from his models because they had too little effect is also wrong, they were removed because they became fixed at unrealistic rates in those models and so were removed for having too LARGE an effect.

4. Coming from a plant geneticist this is nothing short of staggering. Indeed I know of at least one case that contradicts it: starting with 163 ears of corn Leng (1962) was able to increase oil content of kernels from 4-6% to about 16% within 60 generations using artificial selection. That may not count as "meaningful crop improvement" in Sanford's book, but it does in mine. Perhaps, rather like Ray Comfort, Sanford is also ignorant about the massive changes that have resulted in the domestication of the banana. And let's not forget the two instances of hybridisation over the last million years that gave rise to the allohexaploid bread wheat.

5. First of all, directly contradicts point 3. Second, it is as demonstrably wrong as his second and fourth points. As for an example of beneficial mutation, I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote directly from a website, as biochemistry is certainly not my strong suit and the article in question explains it far better than I could.

"Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/...
The article gives more examples of beneficial mutations.

I do not have any professional qualifications yet, while Sanford does, but when he provides demonstrably incorrect claims regarding his own field of science I must say that this man cannot and should be taken seriously in regards to the feasibility or otherwise of evolution.

This is a must-read for any student of biology and particularly evolutionary biology. I have no formal training in these fields so I did find parts of it rather technical and had to re-read portions of it again, but on the whole it is excellent. A thorough dismantling of everything that evolution tries to claim about mutations translating microbes into humans. Highly recommended!

First time I started to read this was several years ago, but after a while it became too complicated for me, so I laid the book aside. I had to grow a bit. Now I took it forth again, and read carefully through, and understood a lot more, and the book gave me really interesting insight into the world of the genome and mutations and natural selection as the supposed driving force behind "molecule to man" evolution. Dr. John Sanford really puts the nail in the coffin with this one and exposes the fallacies evolutionists claim as support for their theory. Sanford, as a genetic himself, former evolutionist and the inventor of the gene gun, knows what he talks about. He often refers to the field of population genetics and shows how even they sturggle with the concept of mutations and natural selection as the answer for evolution, even when they are hardcore evolutionists themselves. It only shows that evolutions is an ideolgy, not real science as many claims.

John Sanford writes in an easy to understand way for a layman on a subject that can be really technical and complicated. The book has a Intelligent Design perspectiv, so it doesn't mention God or the Bible in a broad way, except for a short chapter whit his testimony and a really interesting picture of the old people from Genesis in regards to a really cool population curve.

An excellent refutation of the Primary Axiom and evolution based on a study of genetics. The author is himself a geneticist who used to also be an evolutionist. But his work in the field of genetics has convinced him that the Primary Axiom is a flawed theory that is not supported by science. For many years, I have believed that evolution runs contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and Sandford's deep-dive into genetic entropy proves this out. The one thing the human genome definitively shows is entropy and inevitable extinction.