Change Over Time and Evolution

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Evolution Vs Creation Fisherking quotes a Dr Jonathon Sarfati and supplies this link to the full text.

Sarfati is disturbed by what he sees as equivocation by evolutionists. In fact he thinks they perpetuate a deceit regarding the General Theory of Evolution of GTE.

A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.
Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

Sarfati is I think attempting to say that understanding “change over time” does not require invoking common descent or what might be dubbed macroevolution.

So is Dr Sarfati correct. Is it possible to understand “change over time” without the "General Theory of Evolution"? Are evolutionists guilty of deceit?

Safati then has a specific complaint.

The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)….. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE .

So if I read Sarfati right, the GTE is not necessary for understanding change over time, and in fact invokes a specific type of change. A type of change he thinks is problematic.

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

[Fisherking]

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

Why assume I haven't? Could this assumption have anything to do with with how neo-darwinism thinks I should interpret the data?

I have to ask, do you reject the evolutionary theory? Or just portions of it? If you reject any of it, I then have to ask what your qualifications are for interpreting the data and making a sound, objective analysis of it. Consider how many evolutionary theists exist that are well-respected scientists who have contributed much to the field of science, whose reputations are above reproach, who not only admit to evolution but still retain a strong faith in God despite this. Are you more qualified than them?

I am trying to stay on topic with the questions the OP asked without having the Creation vs Evolution debate all over again here. I will take a moment to follow this logic though and see where it leads--- In the creation/evolution thread I gave alot of information from the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome writtin by John C. Sanford. Shall we assume Dr. Sanford has not looked at the data or does not understand it because he rejects the Primary Axiom?

J.C. Sanford-
Courtesy Associate Professor
Department of Horticultural Sciences
Cornell University
New York State Agricultural Experiment Station
Geneva, NY 14456

Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. 1980 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Program Overview
My central research objectives have involved:

Developing new genetic transformation technologies
Developing new approaches to genetically engineer disease and insect resistance in horticultural plants
Conventional breeding of strawberries and raspberries
My most significant accomplishments were:

Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties.
Gene gun process used to engineer most of the world's trangenic crops.
I am presently looking at the theoretical limits of mutation/selection.

Links to Recent and Current Projects
Academic Positions Held
1998-present Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences
1994-1998
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University.

1986-1994 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Responsibilities - 100% research.
1980-1986 Assistant Professor (as above).
Academic Honors
Adjunct Assoc. Prof. of Botany - Duke University, Durham, NC.
Distinguished Inventor Award (W. Greatbatch, J. Sanford) 1995, Gene therapy for retroviruses. Central New York Patent Law Association.

Distinguished Inventor Award (J. Sanford, E. Wolf, N. Allen) 1990, Central New York Patent Law Association.

Over 75 publications and over 25 patents.
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

Lets see who he cites for the various figures contained within the book (the data maybe??)-- I just did a quick cut and past from wikipedia for most of these:

Haldane- John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS (November 5, 1892 – December 1, 1964), who normally used "J.B.S." as a first name, was a British geneticist and evolutionary biologist. He was one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright) of population genetics

Kimura- Motoo Kimura (木村資生 Kimura Motoo), (November 13, 1924 - November 13, 1994) was a Japanese biologist best known for introducing the neutral theory of molecular evolution in 1968. He became a highly influential mathematical biologist working mostly in the field of theoretical population genetics, although he did not have any formal training in mathematics. In genetics, he is famous for his innovative use of diffusion equations to calculate the probability of fixation and time to fixation of beneficial, deleterious, or neutral alleles.[1] Combining theoretical population genetics with molecular evolution data, he also developed the neutral theory of molecular evolution in which genetic drift is the main force changing allele frequencies

Muller- Hermann Joseph "H. J." Muller (December 21, 1890 – April 5, 1967) was a Nobel Prize-winning American geneticist and educator, best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis)

Neel- James V. Neel U-M Professor and Father of Modern Human Genetics

Crow- James F. Crow (b. 1916) is Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Some of his most significant peer-reviewed contributions were coauthored with Motoo Kimura. His major contribution to the field, however, is arguably his teaching. He has written an influential introductory textbook on genetics and a more advanced one with Kimura, and the list of his graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs includes Alexey Kondrashov, James Bull, Joe Felsenstein, Russell Lande, Dan Hartl, Takeo Maruyama, Terumi Mukai, Wen-Hsiung Li, Chung-I Wu and many others

Kondrashav, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley--

I could keep going but everyone is free to look up the rest Dr. Sanford cited or read the data these geneticists published themselves.

I have reviewed the credentials of the author of the link you provided. He is noted for chemistry and physics. How is he more qualified to judge evolution than noted biologists, geneticists, archaeologists, etc... It seem to me that this author has over stepped his field of expertise. There isn't anything in his profile that would suggest he could even comment on much of this. Now if he was arguing the evolution of the universe, then he would be more than qualified.

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

This was basically the same line Openmind was taking in the Creation/Evolution thread. Many times when someone argues against our beliefs or preconceptions and the argument is strong enough to stand on its own, many will attempt to discredit or disqualify the individual instead of dealing with the argument itself.

No, but you seem to be displaying an unwarranted amount of distrust in the painstakingly careful interpretative process that is scientific enquiry.

Could it be that maybe you see it as unwarranted distrust because it goes agaist what you believe personally?

yet even in this extraordinary span of human knowledge the detailed theory is demonstrably sound being as it is supported by an impressive array of interlocking data and accurate predictions. Exactly the same is true of current evolutionary theory. Unlike in certain circles, it is not arbitrary philosophical commitments that lead rational thinkers to their beliefs in these things

Bertrand Russell:

But the analysis of change and continuity is not a problem upon which either physics or biology throws any light: it is a problem of a new kind, belonging to a different kind of study. The question whether evolutionism offers a true or a false answer to this problem is not, therefore, a question to be solved by appeals to particular facts, such as biology and physics reveal. In assuming dogmatically a certain answer to this question, evolutionism ceases to be scientific yet it only in touching on this question that evolutionism reaches the subject-matter of philosophy. Evolutionism thus consist of two parts: one not philosophical, but only a hasty generalization of the kind which the special science might hereafter confirm of confute the other not scientific, but a mere unsupported dogma, belonging to philosophy by its subject-matter, but in no way deducible from the facts upon which evolutionism relies. Our Knowledge of the External World (1993) p. 26-7

Instead of an" impressive array of interlocking data and accurate predictions", I see a vague naturalistic belief system--Darwin as the founder. Yes, this religion has morphed and changed since its founding as many religions have, absorbing and interpreting all data to fit this religious view.

I still maintain we can all understand evolution (change over time) without incorporating our belief systems into the data. I am not claiming that because we can we actually do though....

[QED]

Instead of an" impressive array of interlocking data and accurate predictions", I see a vague naturalistic belief system--Darwin as the founder. Yes, this religion has morphed and changed since its founding as many religions have, absorbing and interpreting all data to fit this religious view.

I still maintain we can all understand evolution (change over time) without incorporating our belief systems into the data. I am not claiming that because we can we actually do though....

But so far you have refused to admit that GA's can display a variety of AI and from it derive independent design selections leading to useful changes (gains) in function. You must realize that I have chosen to link-in this subject with all our discussions because it is amenable to complete analysis in the way that biological data is not. That such a logical principle exists shows that it is no more an arbitrary belief system, or religion, as is calculus. An agreement that GA's can and do generate design of this kind is not proof that nature uses the same principle, it is merely an acknowledgment of fact -- one which is much more out in the open -- and hence harder to escape from than its specific application in biology.

You've already demonstrated that it's not a non-subject, your sources have already attempted to deflect the conclusions. As a retired scientist/technologist who has some experience of Genetic Programming it's not a philosophy that impresses me but a practical demonstration that delivers unequivocal results. As an exercise in practical logic a person unskilled in biochemistry can look at the results and conclude, without any philosophical predisposition, whether or not "self taught" information gains are being made within systems analogous to those described in nature. I fail to see how religious beliefs enter into this exercise. It's like saying that search engines like Google must really be a big bunch of people looking things up because we deny (on religious grounds) that machines could perform such tasks.

[Furrowed Brow]

Why assume any of these are human ancestors?

Lack of alternatives.

If one allows the inference of common descent there is no reason against placing these specimens on some branch of a tree where modern humans can also be found. Alternatively if one disallows common descent then at any one time there can only be one version of human ancestors walking…or scraping their knuckles…over planet earth.

Moreover, if you permit change is fact then there is no reason to refuse the possibility that one or some of the named gentlemen (in their own time frame) could be an early human. True, that don’t mean any of them are , but they still could be. You seem to be trying to keep this possibility at arms length.

Just to be clear: are you saying on point of principle that none of the above listed gentlemen could possibly be a human ancestor? And if so what is the principle?

The absence of modern human fossils does not mean they are not there somewhere.

True. And as I said earlier if someone digs up a modern human skull in 4 million year old rock then that blows away the evolutionary framework concerning human evolution.

But why hold out for that possibility? Question: At what time period does the anti common descent thesis expect the modern human form to appear in the fossil record?

There is also a big problem with any theory that projects the modern human form further back in time. The further back the projection goes the greater the potential rock for fossils to turn up in - Lets say human have been around for 4 million years. You don’t need fossils peppering the whole of that time frame to show that the modern human form goes back further than evolution theory predicts. You just have to dig up a fossil of a modern human form from any part of that time period, and you have pushed the modern human form back to that point. But those fossils are just not turning up.

A further problem is that the further back in the record you project modern humans we run out of alternative plausible candidates for the ancestors of prior forms that preceded the modern form. They are also missing from the fossil record. (And as I say you don’t have to buy into common descent to accept our ancestors took a different form - you just have to buy into the notion change is fact.)

Let me have some clay and 2 or 3 Australopithecus africanus facial bone fragments and I can make it look like Cindy Crawford or an orangutan depending on what I think it should look like.

Actually no you couldn’t. Not in a million years. 2 to 3 million perhaps.

[Confused]

I am trying to stay on topic with the questions the OP asked without having the Creation vs Evolution debate all over again here. I will take a moment to follow this logic though and see where it leads--- In the creation/evolution thread I gave alot of information from the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome writtin by John C. Sanford. Shall we assume Dr. Sanford has not looked at the data or does not understand it because he rejects the Primary Axiom?

J.C. Sanford-
Courtesy Associate Professor
Department of Horticultural Sciences
Cornell University
New York State Agricultural Experiment Station
Geneva, NY 14456

Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. 1980 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Program Overview
My central research objectives have involved:

Developing new genetic transformation technologies
Developing new approaches to genetically engineer disease and insect resistance in horticultural plants
Conventional breeding of strawberries and raspberries
My most significant accomplishments were:

Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties.
Gene gun process used to engineer most of the world's trangenic crops.
I am presently looking at the theoretical limits of mutation/selection.

Links to Recent and Current Projects
Academic Positions Held
1998-present Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences
1994-1998
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University.

1986-1994 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Responsibilities - 100% research.
1980-1986 Assistant Professor (as above).
Academic Honors
Adjunct Assoc. Prof. of Botany - Duke University, Durham, NC.
Distinguished Inventor Award (W. Greatbatch, J. Sanford) 1995, Gene therapy for retroviruses. Central New York Patent Law Association.

Distinguished Inventor Award (J. Sanford, E. Wolf, N. Allen) 1990, Central New York Patent Law Association.

Over 75 publications and over 25 patents.
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

Lets see who he cites for the various figures contained within the book (the data maybe??)-- I just did a quick cut and past from wikipedia for most of these:

Haldane- John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS (November 5, 1892 – December 1, 1964), who normally used "J.B.S." as a first name, was a British geneticist and evolutionary biologist. He was one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright) of population genetics

Kimura- Motoo Kimura (木村資生 Kimura Motoo), (November 13, 1924 - November 13, 1994) was a Japanese biologist best known for introducing the neutral theory of molecular evolution in 1968. He became a highly influential mathematical biologist working mostly in the field of theoretical population genetics, although he did not have any formal training in mathematics. In genetics, he is famous for his innovative use of diffusion equations to calculate the probability of fixation and time to fixation of beneficial, deleterious, or neutral alleles.[1] Combining theoretical population genetics with molecular evolution data, he also developed the neutral theory of molecular evolution in which genetic drift is the main force changing allele frequencies

Muller- Hermann Joseph "H. J." Muller (December 21, 1890 – April 5, 1967) was a Nobel Prize-winning American geneticist and educator, best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis)

Neel- James V. Neel U-M Professor and Father of Modern Human Genetics

Crow- James F. Crow (b. 1916) is Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Some of his most significant peer-reviewed contributions were coauthored with Motoo Kimura. His major contribution to the field, however, is arguably his teaching. He has written an influential introductory textbook on genetics and a more advanced one with Kimura, and the list of his graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs includes Alexey Kondrashov, James Bull, Joe Felsenstein, Russell Lande, Dan Hartl, Takeo Maruyama, Terumi Mukai, Wen-Hsiung Li, Chung-I Wu and many others

Kondrashav, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley--

I could keep going but everyone is free to look up the rest Dr. Sanford cited or read the data these geneticists published themselves.

I will review the info you provided on the other site, I am assuming that he is anti-evolutionary?

In regards to those you list however, who has researched or been in involved with the human genome project? Who has genetically mapped species to link them to prior species? Who has disproven the genetics sequences, the DNA evidence to show that evolutionists are making the information fit into what they biasly believe? And exactly why would they do this?

[QED]

Lets see who he [J.C. Sanford] cites for the various figures contained within the book (the data maybe??)-- I just did a quick cut and past from wikipedia for most of these:

Haldane- John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS (November 5, 1892 – December 1, 1964), who normally used "J.B.S." as a first name, was a British geneticist and evolutionary biologist. He was one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright) of population genetics...

Haldane made many contributions to human genetics and was one of the three major figures to develop the mathematical theory of population genetics. He is usually regarded as the third of these in importance, after R. A. Fisher and Sewall Wright. His greatest contribution was in a series of papers on "A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection" which was the major series of papers on the mathematical theory of natural selection. It treated many major cases for the first time, showing the direction and rates of changes of gene frequencies. It also pioneered in investigating the interaction of natural selection with mutation and with migration. Haldane's book, The Causes of Evolution (1932), summarized these results, especially in its extensive appendix. This body of work was a major component of what came to be known as the "modern evolutionary synthesis", reestablishing natural selection as the premier mechanism of evolution by explaining it in terms of the mathematical consequences of Mendelian genetics.

Sorry, I'm not altogether clear on what your objective was in citing these references. I think we might well have good reasons to assume that "Dr. Sanford has not looked at the data or does not understand it" because he rejects the Primary Axiom despite the findings in the work he cites. Presumably you were trying to demonstrate that he does not operate in a total vacuum.

Of course there's always room for dissent, after all, science is not modeled along religious lines. But by permitting justifiable criticism science creates a vulnerability to those who would take advantage of it by "teaching an ersatz controversy". The only group of people I can think of that have ever attempted to exploit this vulnerability are those who hold fast to the biblical account of creation -- especially the doctrine that man, above all other animals, is favoured by creation.

[Confused]

Forgive all the space this will take all, but I can't find a way to avoid it:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/facu ... _pubs.html

Here are all the publications of J.C. Sanford:

John Sanford's Publications
Publications relating to genetics and biotechnology
Sanford, J.C. 1982. Pollen studies using a laser microbeam. In D.L. Mulcahy and E. Ottaviano (eds.) Pollen: Biology and Implications for Breeding, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pollen Biology. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 107-115.
Sanford, J.C.,Y.S. Chyi, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. An attempt to induce "egg transformation" in Lycopersicon esculentum using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67:553-558.

Sanford, J.C., Chyi, Y.S., and B.I,. Reisch. 1984. Attempted "egg transformation" in Zea mays L., using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 68:269-275.

Chyi, Y.S., J.C. Sanford, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. Further attempts to induce "egg transformation" using irradiated pollen. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 68:277-283.

Sanford, J.C., N.F. Weeden, and Y.S. Chyi. 1984. Regarding the novelty and breeding value of protoplast-derived variants of Russet Burbank (Solanum tuberosum L.) Euphytica 33:709-715.

Sanford, J.C., K. Skubik, and B.I. Reisch. 1984. Attempted transformation in tomato and corn, using incubation of pollen with genomic DNA. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 69:571-574.

Sanford, J.C., and S.A. Johnston. 1985. The concept of parasite derived resistance. Journal of Theoretical Biology 113: 395-405.

Chyi, Y.S. and J.C. Sanford. 1985. "Egg transformation" induced by irradiated pollen in Nicotiana - a re-examination. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70:433-439.

Sanford, J.C. and K.A. Skubik. 1985. Attempted pollen mediated transformation with Ti-plasmids. In: D.L. Mulcahy (ed.) Biotechnology and Ecology of Pollen. Proceedings of International Symposium. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 71-76.

Simon, C.J., and J.C. Sanford. 1985. Prospects for pollen cell selection for resistance to various chemical agents. In: D.L. Mulcahy (ed.). Biotechnology and Ecology of Pollen. Proceedings of International Symposium. Springer-Verlag, NY. p. 107-112.

Grummet, R., J. C. Sanford, and S. A. Johnston. 1986. A demonstration of pathogen-derived resistance using E. coli and the bacteriophage, QB. C. Arntzen and C. Ryan (eds.). Molecular Strategies for Crop Protection. UCLA Symposium on Cellular and Molecular Biology, V. 48. A. R. Liss. NY . pp 3-12.

Sanford, J. C., T. M. Klein, E. D. Wolf, and N. Allen. 1987. Delivery of substances into cells and tissues using a particle bombardment process. Journal of Particulate Science and Technology 5:27-37.

Klein, T. M., E. D. Wolf, R. Wu, and J. C. Sanford. 1987. High-velocity microprojectiles for delivering nucleic acids into living cells. Nature 327:70-73.

Grummet, R., J. C. Sanford, and S. A. Johnston. 1987. Pathogen-derived resistance to viral infection using a negative regulatory molecule. Virology 161:561-569.

Sanford, J. C. 1988. Applying the PDR principle to AIDS. Journal of Theoretical Biology 130:469-480.

Sanford J. C. 1988. Regarding early claims of pollen-mediated transformation. in Ed. F.A. Valentine. Forest and Crop Biotechnology - Progress and Prospects. Spinger-Verlag, NY. pp163-173.

Pang, S. Z., and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer in papaya. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113:287-291.

Klein, T. M., M. E. Fromm, A. Weissinger, D. Tomes, S. Schaaf, M. Sleeten, and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Transfer of foreign genes into intact maize cells with high velocity microprojectiles. PNAS 85:4305-4309.

Klein, T. M., M. E. Fromm, T. Gradziel, and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Factors influencing gene delivery into Zea mays cells by high-velocity microprojectiles. Bio/Technology 6:559-563.

Johnston, S. A., P.Q. Anziano, K. Shark, J. C. Sanford, and R.A. Butow. 1988. Mitochondrial transformation in yeast by bombardment with microprojectiles. Science 240:1538-1541.

Boynton, J. E., N. W. Gillham, E. H. Harris, J. P. Hosler, A. M. Johnson, A. R. Jones, B. L. Randolph-Anderson, D. Robertson, T. M. Klein, K. Shark, J. C. Sanford. 1988. Chloroplast transformation of Chlamydomonas with high velocity microprojectiles. Science 240:1534-1538.

Fox, T. D., J. C. Sanford, and T. W. McMullin. 1988. Plasmids can stably transform yeast mitochondria totally lacking endogenous mtDNA. PNAS 85:7288-7292.

Klein, T.M., E.C. Harper, Z. Svab, J.C. Sanford, M.E. Fromm, P. Maliga. 1988. Stable genetic transformation of intact Nicotiana cells by the particle bombardment process. PNAS 85:8502-8505.

Wang, Y. C., T. M. Klein, M. Fromm, J. Cao, J. C. Sanford, and R. Wu. 1988. Transient expression of foreign genes in rice, wheat, and soybean cells following particle bombardment. Plant Molecular Biology 11: 433-439 .

Sanford, J. 1988. The biolistic process. Trends in Biotechnology 6:229-302.

Liu, Z. R., and J. C. Sanford. 1988. Plant regeneration by organogenesis from strawberry leaf and runner tissue. HortScience 23:1057-1059.

Blowers, A.D., L. Bogorad, K.B. Shark, G.N. Ye, and J.C. Sanford. 1989. Studies on Chlamydomonas chloroplast transformation: foreign DNA can be stably maintained in the chromosome. The Plant Cell 1:123-132.

Klein, T.M., L. Kornstein, J.C. Sanford, and M.E. Fromm. 1989. Genetic transformation of maize cells by particle bombardment. Plant Physiology 91: 440-444.

Daniell, H., J. Vivekananda, B.L. Nielsen, G.N. Ye, K.K. Tewari, and J.C. Sanford, 1990. Transient foreign gene expression in chloroplasts of cultured tobacco cells after biolistic delivery of chloroplast vectors. PNAS 87: 88-92.

Cummings, D.J., J.M. Dominico, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Mitochondrial DNA from Podospora anserina: transformation to senescence via projectile injection of plasmids. In: Molecular Biology of Aging. ©Alan R. Liss, NY pp91-101.

Armeleo, D., G.N. Ye, S.A. Johnston, T.M. Klein, K.B. Shark, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Biolistic nuclear transformation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and other fungi. Current Genetics 17:97-103.

Cao, J., Y-C. Wang, T.M. Klein, J. C. Sanford, and R. Wu. 1990. Transformation of rice and maize using the biolistic process. In: Plant Gene Transfer-1989 UCLA Symposium. ©Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp21-33.

Sanford, J. 1990. Biolistic plant transformation. Physiologia Plantarum 79:206-209.

Fitch, M.M., R. M. Manshardt, D. Gonsalves, J. L. Slightom, H. Quemada, and J. C. Sanford. 1990. Stable transformation of papaya via microprojectile bombardment. Plant Cell Reports 9:189-194.

Ye, G.N., H. Daniell, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Optimization of delivery of foreign DNA into higher-plant chloroplasts. Plant Molecular Biology 15: 809-819.

Sanford, J.C., 1990. The biolistic process - an emerging tool for research and clinical applications. Proceedings of the Biomedical Society. Virginia Polytech. Inst. Blacksburg, VA. D.C. Milulecky and A.M. Clarke (eds). New York University Press, NY. pp 89-98.

Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1990. Cell injury as a limiting factor in stable biolistic plant transformation. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology 26:43A.

Shark, K.B., F.D. Smith, P.R. Harpending, J.L. Rasmussen, and J.C. Sanford. 1991. Biolistic transformation of a procaryote: Bacillus megaterium. Applied Environmental Microbiology 57:480-485.

Williams, R.S., S.A. Johnston, M. Reidy, M.J. DeVit, S.G. McElligott, and J.C. Sanford. 1991. Introduction of foreign genes into tissues of living mice by DNA-coated microprojectiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Vol. 88:2726-2730.

Sanford, J.C., M.J. DeVit, J.A. Russell, F.D. Smith, P.R. Harpending, M.K. Roy, and S.A. Johnston. 1991. An improved, helium driven biolistic device. Technique 3:3-16.

Johnston, S.A., M. Riedy, M.J. DeVit, J.C. Sanford, S. McElligott, and R. S. Williams. 1991. Biolistic transformation of animal tissue. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology 27P:11-14.

Smith, F.D., P.R. Harpending, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Biolistic transformation of prokaryotes - factors that effect transformation of very small cells. Journal of General Microbiology 138:239-248.

Pang, Sheng-Zhi, S. Oberhaus, J. Rasmussen, D. Knipple, J. Bloomquist, D. Dean, and J. Sanford. 1992. Expression of a scorpion insectotoxin peptide in yeast, bacteria and plants. Gene 116: 165-172.

Pang, Sheng-Zhi, J. Rasmussen, G.N. Ye, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Use of the signal peptide of Pisum vicilin to translocate b-glucuronidase in Nicotiana tabacum. Gene 112(2):229-234.

Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Physical trauma and tungsten toxicity reduce the efficiency of biolistic transformation. Plant Physiology 98:1050-1056.

Russell, J.A., M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Major improvements in biolistic transformation of suspension cultured tobacco cells. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 28P:97-1105.

Hamilton, D.A., M. Roy, J. Rueda, R.K. Sindhu, J. Sanford, and J.P. Mascarenhas. 1992. Dissection of a pollen-specific promoter from maize by transient transformation assays. Plant Molecular Biology 18:211-218.

Fitch, M.M., R.M. Manshardt, D. Gonsalves, J.L. Slightom, and J.C. Sanford. 1992. Virus resistant papaya plants derived from tissues bombarded with the coat protein gene of papaya ringspot virus. Bio/Technology 10:1466-1472.

Sanford, J.C., F.D. Smith, and J.A. Russell. 1993. Optimizing the biolistic process for different biological applications. Methods in Enzymology 217:483-509.

Liu, Z.R. and J.C. Sanford. 1993. Suppression of plant growth by heterologous ras genes does not involve Ras protein. Plant Mol Biol 22:751-765.

Rasmussen J.L., J.R. Kikkert, M.K. Roy, and J.C. Sanford, 1994. Biolistic transformation of tobacco and maize suspension cells using bacterial cells as microprojectiles. Plant Cell Reports 13:212-217.

Ye, Xiaojian, S.K. Brown, R. Scorza, J. Cordts, J. Sanford. 1994. Genetic transformation of peach tissues by particle bombardment. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Science 119(2): 367-373.

Ye, G.N., S.Z. Pang, and J.C. Sanford. 1995. Biolistic delivery of a psbA promoter driven NPTII construct into tobacco. Plant Cell Reporter (in press).

Liu, Z.R., J. Ma and J.C. Sanford. 1995. The location of untranscribed DNA sequences within ras genes essential for eliciting plant growth suppression. Plant Mol. Biol. (in press).

Smith, F.D., D.M. Gadoury, P.R. Harpending, and J.C. Sanford. 1995. Biolistic transformation of the obligate parasite Uncinula necator. Phytopathology (In preparation).

Other publications - from Sanford lab members
Tang, D.C., M. DeVit, S.A. Johnston. 1992. Genetic immunization is a simple method of eliciting an immune response. Nature 356: 152-154.
Hebert, D., J.R. Kikkert, F.D. Smith, B.I. Reisch. 1993. Optimization of biolistic transformation of embryogenic grape cell suspensions. Plant Cell Reports 12:585-589.

Kikkert, J.R. 1993. The biolistic PDS-1000/He device. Plant Cell, Tissue, and Organ Culture 33:221-226.

Hebert-Soule, D. J.R. Kikkert, and B.I. Riesch. 1995. Phosphothricin stimulates somatic embryogenesis in grape (Vitis sp. L.). Plant Cell Reports (in press).

Kikkert, J.R., D. Herbert-Soule, P.G. Wallace, and B.I. Reisch. 1995. Transgenic plants of 'Chancellor' grapevine (Vitis sp. L.) from biolistic transformation of embryogenic cell suspensions. (submitted)

Invited Papers
Sanford, J.C., Y.S. Chyi, and B.I,. Reisch. 1984. Attempts to elucidate the phenomenon of "egg transformation" as mediated by irradiated pollen. Symposium on Plant Biotechnology - Gene transfer through non-traditional means. ASA national meetings. Nov. 25-30, Las Vegas. 1984. Agronomy Abstracts published by ASA, p. 87.
Sanford,J.C. 1985. Regarding early claims of pollen-mediated transformation. Forest and Crop Biotechnology - Progress and Prospects. April 18-20, 1985. Syracuse, NY.

Sanford, J.C., T.Klein, and E.D. Wolf. 1986. Altering living cells with particles. Symposium on the manufacture and use of particles. 17th Annual Meeting of The Fine Particles Society - July 31, l986. San Francisco.

Sanford, J. C. 1988. Biolistic Plant Transformation. First EMBO workshop: Gene Transfer to Plants. September 7-10. Switzerland.

Sanford J.C. 1989. The biolistic process: shooting DNA into cells and tissues. Joint meetings of the Canadian Society of Plant Molecular Biologists and the Genetics Society of Canada, June. Saskatoon, SK.

Sanford J.C. 1989. The biolistic process. Meeting of the American Society of Plant Physiologists. July, Toronto, Ont.

Sanford J.C. 1989. Biolistic transformation of plants. Advanced course in plant tissue culture and plant transformation. University of Guelph, August, Guelph, Ont.

Sanford J.C. 1990. Utility of the biolistic process. Biomedical Engineering Society Meetings, Virginia Polytech Inst. Blacksburg, VA.

Sanford J.C. 1991. Optimization of the Biolistic Process. International Workshop on the Biolistic Process, sponsored by Agracetus. U of W, Madison, WI.

Sanford J.C. 1992. The Biolistic Process - A simple tool for transforming diverse crop species. Miami Bio/Technology Winter Symposium - Feeding the World in the 21st Century, Jan. 1992.

Sanford J.C. 1993. International Training Course - analysis and manipulation of the plant genome. Irapuato, Mexico. The biolistic Process, where it came from and where its going: and, New directions in biolistic technology, use of biological projectiles for delivery of very HMW DNA.

Sanford J.C. 1993. Govoner's Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology. Albany, NY. Genetic Engineering of Plants used in Environmental Horticulture. Nov. 9-10.

Sanford J.C. 1994. Seeley Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Gene guns and other weapons in tomorrow's arsenal. June 28-28.

IX. Publications Relating to Plant Breeding and Horticulture
Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman, Jr. 1979. Reciprocal Differences in the photoperiod reaction of hybrid populations in Solanum tuberosum. Am. Potato J. 56:531-540.
Sanford, J. C. and R.E. Hanneman Jr. 1981. The use of bees for the purpose of inter-mating in potato. Am.Potato J. 58:481-485.

Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. A possible heterotic threshold in potato and its implications for breeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 61: 151-159.

Sanford, J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. Large yield differences between reciprocal families of Solanum tuberosum. Euphytica 31:1-12.

Sanford,J.C. and R.E. Hanneman. 1982. Intermating of potato and spontaneouus sexual polyploidization - effects on heterozygosity. Am. Potato J. 59:407-414.

Sanford, J.C. 1983. Ploidy manipulations in fruit breeding. In: J. Janick and J. N. Moore (eds.) Methods in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN pp. 100-123.

Way, R.D., J.C. Sanford, and A.N. Lakso. 1983. Breeding for higher fruit yields. IN: J. Janick and J.N. Moore (eds) Methods in Fruit Breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN pp. 353-368.

Sanford, J.C. 1984. Strawberry cultivars for New York. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 107.

J. P. Tompkins, D.K. Ourecky, J.C. Sanford. 1984. Growing strawberries in New York State. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Information Bulletin No. 15.

Sanford, J.C. and J.E.Reich, 1985. Breeding progress in strawberry cultivars adapted to Northeastern United States. Advances in Strawberry Production,4:39-44.

Sanford, J.C. and D.K. Ourecky. 1982. 'Royalty' -a purple-red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin. No. 97.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, J.E. Reich, H.S. Aldwinckle. 1982. 'Honeoye' and'Canoga' strawberries. HortScience 17:982-984.

Sanford, J.C. and D.K. Ourecky. 1983. 'Royalty' purple raspberry. HortScience 18:109-110.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich, 1985. 'Titan' red raspberry. HortScience 20:1133-1134.

Sanford,J.C. and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Jewel' strawberry. HortSciences 20:1136-1137.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Titan' red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 111.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, and J.E. Reich. 1985. 'Jewel' strawberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No.114.

Sanford, J.C. and J.E. Reich. 1985. Strawberry cultivars adapted to the Northeastern States. Proceedings of the Western New York State Horticulture Show 130:140-156.

Sanford, J.C., K.Maloney, and J.E. Reich. 1988. 'Watson' red raspberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin.

Simon, C.J. and J. C. Sanford. 1990. Separation of 2n potato pollen from a heterogenous pollen mixture by velocity sedimentation. HortScience 25:342-344.

Maloney, K., Ourecky, D., Reich, J., J. Sanford. 1991. 'Seneca ' Strawberry. New York Food and Life Science Bulletin No. 136.

Maloney, K., W.F. Wilcox, J.C. Sanford. 1993. Effects of raised beds and Metalaxyl for control of Phytophthora root rot of raspberry. HortScience 28:1106-1108.

Patents Granted
Sanford, J.C. E.D. Wolf, and N.K. Allen. Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissue and apparatus therefor. Patent No. 4,945,050. Ser. No. 670,771. Filed Nov. 13,1984. Issued July 31, 1990.
Sanford, J.C. E.D. Wolf, and N.K. Allen. Method for transporting substances into living cells and tissue and apparatus therefor (CIP). Patent No. 5,036,006. Filed 1986. Issued July 30, 1991.

Sanford, J.C. E.D. Wolf, and N.K. Allen. Method for transporting substances into cells and tissues in a non-lethal manner. (continuation). Patent No. 5,100,792. Filed 1989. Issued March 31, 1992.

Sanford, J.C. E.D. Wolf, and N.K. Allen. Biolistic apparatus for delivering substances into living cells and tissue and apparatus therefor (continuation). US Patent No. 5,179,022. Filed 2/11/92. Issued 1993. China #ZL 891008039. Australia #621561.

Sanford, J.C., M.J. DeVit, R.F. Bruner, and S.A. Johnston. Improved method and apparatus for introducing biological substances into living cells. (Helium Gun). Patent No. 5,204,253. Issued April 20, 1993.

Sanford, J.C. and E. D. Wolf. Apparatus for transporting substances into living cells and tissues. Patent No. 5,371,015. Dec. 6, 1994.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, G.L. Slate. Purple raspberry, N.Y. 632 ('Royalty'). Plant patent No. 5,405. Feb. 12, 1985.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky. Red raspberry, N.Y. 883 ('Titan'). Plant patent No. 5,404. Feb.12, 1985.

Sanford, J.C., D.K. Ourecky, J.E. Reich. Strawberry 'Jewel' (NY 1324). Plant patent No. 5897, Mar. 10, 1987.

Sanford, J.C., and J. Reich. 'Watson' (Ruby tm) Red Raspberry. Plant patent No. 7067, Dec. 5, 1990.

Sanford, J. C. and K. Maloney. Strawberry Seneca. Plant patent No. 8991. Nov. 29, 1994.

Greatbatch, W. and J.C. Sanford. Method of conferring resistance to retroviral infection. Patent No. 5,324,643. June 28, 1994.

Allowed but not issued:
QB patent
Animal transformation patent

Patents Pending
roughly 14 gene gun patents pending.
Johnston, S.A. and J.C. Sanford. Parasite-derived resistance. Patent Appl. No. 714,263.

Johnston, S.A., S.B. Williams, and J.C. Sanford. Particle-mediated transformation of animal tissue cells. Filed Nov. 16, 1989.

Fisherking: Of all these studies, nothing is in relation to a position of evolution. I can't find a single thing online that indicates his position. So I am trying to determine how you are substituting his research credentials for those lacking credentials of Sarfati. Sarfati has made his position quite clear on his percieved bias of evolutionists. Since I don't find his credentials sufficient for him to make any judgement that would warrant overriding the findings of experts, despite their religious affiliation, I discount his opinion on the basis of unqualified. You provide me with Sanford instead. Perhaps you might know of a link that makes his credentials relevant to the scandal of evolutionists.

[Jose]

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

Why assume I haven't? Could this assumption have anything to do with with how neo-darwinism thinks I should interpret the data?

I assume you haven't because you base none of your arguments on the data. At best, you bring in Sarfati and Sanford as your "expert witnesses." Given their gross misinterpretations of the data, they are hardly credible witnesses. You do your cause more harm than good by citing them. As I illustrated in the Creation vs Evolution thread, Sanford gets a great many things wrong because he reports his summary of some, but not all, of the data. Anyone who believes he is accurately representing the original data clearly does not know the original data themselves.

All of that is secondary, though. There's no reason to debate or argue any of this. All we'd need to do is look at the data, and figure out the most reasonable explanation. Maybe you can convince us that the neo-Darwinian interpretation is wrong if you start with the data rather than what someone else said.

[Fisherking]

Fisherking: Of all these studies, nothing is in relation to a position of evolution. I can't find a single thing online that indicates his position. So I am trying to determine how you are substituting his research credentials for those lacking credentials of Sarfati. Sarfati has made his position quite clear on his percieved bias of evolutionists. Since I don't find his credentials sufficient for him to make any judgement that would warrant overriding the findings of experts, despite their religious affiliation, I discount his opinion on the basis of unqualified. You provide me with Sanford instead. Perhaps you might know of a link that makes his credentials relevant to the scandal of evolutionists.

Confused wrote:
I have to ask, do you reject the evolutionary theory? Or just portions of it? If you reject any of it, I then have to ask what your qualifications are for interpreting the data and making a sound, objective analysis of it.

So if you reject any of Christianity is it proper for me to ask you what your qualifications are for interpreting scripture? I have said before my educational background is in biology(secular schooling btw). I assume yours and Jose is also. I also assume Dr. Sanford knows evolutionary theory as well or better. If I am not qualified to interpret the data are you? Jose? Qed? Why I wonder, does this come up when the theory is rejected? I do not see anyone asking evolution supporters their credentials---Maybe we could all post our degrees, honors, and experience working in the field of biology and whoever came out on top wins the argument hands down? I am really suprised to hear this from you and Jose. Dr. Sarfarti can make whatever argument he wants. If nobody really has anything to say against the argument other than "he is not qualified to interpret any evolution theory data", It makes it appear there is no answer to his argument. I played the qualification game with Dr. Sanford to see where it lead, and of course it didn't lead anywhere. Unless you are one of the evolutionary biologists working solely in the field of evolutionary biology you have no right to question their data right (unless of course you agree with it)? So a handful of evolutionary biologist just exchange ideas back and forth so they are the only ones allowed to interpret their research?

Consider how many evolutionary theists exist that are well-respected scientists who have contributed much to the field of science, whose reputations are above reproach, who not only admit to evolution but still retain a strong faith in God despite this. Are you more qualified than them?

Consider how many non-evolutionary theists exist that were well respected until they left the Darwin's Church who have contributed much to the field of science, their reputations above reproach---Who reject neo-Darwinism and and have a strong faith in God. Are you more qualified than them?

I assume you haven't because you base none of your arguments on the data. At best, you bring in Sarfati and Sanford as your "expert witnesses." Given their gross misinterpretations of the data, they are hardly credible witnesses. You do your cause more harm than good by citing them. As I illustrated in the Creation vs Evolution thread, Sanford gets a great many things wrong because he reports his summary of some, but not all, of the data. Anyone who believes he is accurately representing the original data clearly does not know the original data themselves.

All of that is secondary, though. There's no reason to debate or argue any of this. All we'd need to do is look at the data, and figure out the most reasonable explanation. Maybe you can convince us that the neo-Darwinian interpretation is wrong if you start with the data rather than what someone else said.

How about we try and address the argument itself instead of the people making it?
Moderate yourselves!

[Confused]

Fisherking: Of all these studies, nothing is in relation to a position of evolution. I can't find a single thing online that indicates his position. So I am trying to determine how you are substituting his research credentials for those lacking credentials of Sarfati. Sarfati has made his position quite clear on his percieved bias of evolutionists. Since I don't find his credentials sufficient for him to make any judgement that would warrant overriding the findings of experts, despite their religious affiliation, I discount his opinion on the basis of unqualified. You provide me with Sanford instead. Perhaps you might know of a link that makes his credentials relevant to the scandal of evolutionists.

Confused wrote:
I have to ask, do you reject the evolutionary theory? Or just portions of it? If you reject any of it, I then have to ask what your qualifications are for interpreting the data and making a sound, objective analysis of it.

So if you reject any of Christianity is it proper for me to ask you what your qualifications are for interpreting scripture? I have said before my educational background is in biology(secular schooling btw). I assume yours and Jose is also. I also assume Dr. Sanford knows evolutionary theory as well or better. If I am not qualified to interpret the data are you? Jose? Qed? Why I wonder, does this come up when the theory is rejected? I do not see anyone asking evolution supporters their credentials---Maybe we could all post our degrees, honors, and experience working in the field of biology and whoever came out on top wins the argument hands down? I am really suprised to hear this from you and Jose. Dr. Sarfarti can make whatever argument he wants. If nobody really has anything to say against the argument other than "he is not qualified to interpret any evolution theory data", It makes it appear there is no answer to his argument. I played the qualification game with Dr. Sanford to see where it lead, and of course it didn't lead anywhere. Unless you are one of the evolutionary biologists working solely in the field of evolutionary biology you have no right to question their data right (unless of course you agree with it)? So a handful of evolutionary biologist just exchange ideas back and forth so they are the only ones allowed to interpret their research?

First: I don't pretend to understand most of scripture. I have never hidden this. I question it often, not to prove or disprove it necessarily, but often to get a general perspective as to what it means.

Second: I am not saying I am more qualified. I am saying that Sarfarti is not qualified simply because not only does he lack the knowledge to support his view (which is evident in his lack of view, just attack of current view) but none of his argument correlates with evidence. He notes where he believes that scientists have misinterpreted data or made it fit what they wanted. For such a claim, I see no evidence. But in fairness, I would look at the experts to see if his claim had any merit. I usually go for Collins, the head of the human genome project, for my initial opinion. If anyone is at the top of genetics (human genetics) then it would be him. I then look at other scientists interpretations and see what is generally accepted. It is one thing to have an opinion about a theory, but without evidence, it is just an opinion. I have looked at opinions from evolutionary theists as well as non-theists. The information is consistent, the results remain robust despite the tests.

We have the facts of evolution: development of organisms in a law bound way from forms very different from the earliest organism to the present. This is verified by DNA, fossils, etc...

We have the theory of evolution: This is where the mechanisms for selection is the Darwinian selection.

Ruse makes a very fine distinction between these for good reason. Facts v Theory. Both remain robust, however, the facts don't lie. Nor can they be skewed to show something that isn't there.

Consider how many evolutionary theists exist that are well-respected scientists who have contributed much to the field of science, whose reputations are above reproach, who not only admit to evolution but still retain a strong faith in God despite this. Are you more qualified than them?

Consider how many non-evolutionary theists exist that were well respected until they left the Darwin's Church who have contributed much to the field of science, their reputations above reproach---Who reject neo-Darwinism and and have a strong faith in God. Are you more qualified than them?

Sure, its a conspiracy against non-evolutionary theists. Once they leave the Darwin church, science ridicules them.



[

[Jose]

So if you reject any of Christianity is it proper for me to ask you what your qualifications are for interpreting scripture?

Absolutely. Personally, however, I don't give a hill of beans about qualifications. I care about the interpretation of the data. One doesn't have to be "formally trained" to evaluate information.

I have said before my educational background is in biology(secular schooling btw). I assume yours and Jose is also. I also assume Dr. Sanford knows evolutionary theory as well or better. If I am not qualified to interpret the data are you? Jose? Qed?

I agree entirely. In my opinion, everyone is qualified to interpret the data. Of course, we haven't looked at any here, just the misrepresentations of Sanford and Sarfati.

Why I wonder, does this come up when the theory is rejected?

Not "rejected," but "denied." In scientific lingo, to "reject" a theory is to obtain hard data that prove the theory is untenable. This hasn't happened. Sanford has rejected the theory on the wholly incorrect assumption that mutations are always deleterious. Because he ignores the many beneficial mutations, he provides the evidence that he is either unaware of the data, or intentionally misleading.

I am really suprised to hear this from you and Jose. Dr. Sarfarti can make whatever argument he wants. If nobody really has anything to say against the argument other than "he is not qualified to interpret any evolution theory data", It makes it appear there is no answer to his argument.

Begging your pardon, but we did address Sarfati's argument at the beginning of the thread. What you hear from me is not about qualifications, but about the validity of the argument. I'm not going to go back right now and look at Sarfati's stuff; the OP indicates that he's conflating wholly different things and coming up confused. Sanford, on the other hand, has clearly reported a lack of knowledge concerning the data.

I played the qualification game with Dr. Sanford to see where it lead, and of course it didn't lead anywhere. Unless you are one of the evolutionary biologists working solely in the field of evolutionary biology you have no right to question their data right (unless of course you agree with it)? So a handful of evolutionary biologist just exchange ideas back and forth so they are the only ones allowed to interpret their research?

Again, I note that they haven't addressed the relevant data. If someone bases their argument on the logic that mutations are deleterious, so the only possibility is that genetic information can only degrade with time, then they're ignoring the known fact of mutations that are not deleterious. Their argument is rendered bunk by the facts. No qualifications of Sanford are at issue here.

All of that is secondary, though. There's no reason to debate or argue any of this. All we'd need to do is look at the data, and figure out the most reasonable explanation. Maybe you can convince us that the neo-Darwinian interpretation is wrong if you start with the data rather than what someone else said.

How about we try and address the argument itself instead of the people making it?

The Rules state that we should not insult one another. I would not insult Sanford if he were here chatting with us. If he's not here, then it's perfectly fine to say he's all wet. It is not an insult to ask you to address the data rather than tell us what Sanford says about a subset of the data. I have explained why Sanford's argument fails. My phrasing suggests that your interpretation of the data may not fail. But, until we hear it, we can't evaluate it. We can only evaluate the claims of the witness whose text you offered.

So, let's get back on track, and set aside the issue of qualifications. Arguments will stand, or fall, on the strength of the facts that support them.