Talk:John C. Sanford

message: The original list had 13, but the article now says "more than 25".  Can someone clear up this discrepancy?  Guettarda 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanford's Feb 2012 publication list shows 32 patents issued.DLH (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: Is it possible to re-write this section to make it a little more clear?  (Ok, a lot more clear).  To begin with, it's an argument, not an explanation.  That doesn't work for an encyclopaedia article.  The "meat" needs to be at the top, then the supporting arguments.  There is no explanation as to what "genetic entropy" is, or what Sanford's point may be.
*"Having conducted most of his creer as an atheistic evolutionist in applied genetics, Sanford examines the validity of the Primary Axiom that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. In his (2005) book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome""
**Is "creer" supposed to mean "career"?
**The last sentance is a fragment.
**What does "atheistic evolutionist" mean, and how is it relevant?  If Sanford has been identified as a prominent atheist, say so in the article.  And why as an adjective?  Anyway, it seems irrelevant here.  As for "evolutionist" - "evolutionary biologist" is a far better term.  
**Since there is no article for Primary Axiom, you should explain what you mean by that term.
*"Sanford claims that genetic "noise" prevents biotic processes from fixing information and degrades the genome so it could not have evolved."
**What does "it" mean?
*"Sanford builds on the work of Motoo Kimura, James Crow, and Walter ReMine comparing:"
**An article shouldn't be inductive.  Tell the reader what you are talking about first, then explain or give the reasoning.  Also, what work of Kimura, Crow and ReMine?  This is of no help to a reader who has never heard of these people.  Discuss the ideas (and mention where they come from), don't just throw some names in without context.
*"1. Bell Curve idealization of mutations under the Primary Axiom (equal numbers of beneficial and deleterious)"
**This is meaningless to the average reader.  You haven't explained the "primary axiom", and "bell curve idealisations"?  
*"2. Kimura’s distribution (no beneficial mutations, closer to the truth)"
**Again, how is the average person supposed to know what Kimura's distribution is?  In addition, the parenthetical statement isn't attributed, so it seems like an editorial comment.  We can't do that.
*"3. Actual distribution (very very few beneficial mutations, and such selection pressure as to effectively be neutral)"
**Again, what does this mean?  You would need to explain selection pressure, at least in passing, for this to be understandable to the average reader.  This statement also needs to be supported.  Where is the source and support?
*"Sanford then applies signal-to-noise ratios (from information theory) to show that selection pressures are too weak for natural selection to transmit useful information into the genome."
**How?
*"He demonstrates that "noise" precludes natural selection from selecting a sufficient number of nucleotides in the genome when acting on the phenome containing phenotypes)."
**This is a pretty strong assertion.  "Demonstrates"?  How?  And where was this work published?
*"Over 98% of mutations are slightly deliterious and do not get selected out. These accumulate, eventually causing extinction."
**Really?  Where is his proof that natural selection doesn't work?  Where is the evidence of extinction through genetic load?
Guettarda 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Guettarda's analysis.  This section should only be added again if it's cleaned up substantially, with particular attention to its assorted unreferenced claims.  And I remain to be convinced that it can be cleaned up.  On a somewhat related point, at the moment the article describes this book as "evangelical".  Is that a reference to its style or its content?  Judging by its title, and what I can glean of its content from websites, it doesn't sound evangelical in either sense, but I might be wrong.  The evangelical labelling just sounds a bit POV or hostile (quite probably with justification) at the moment.  Cheers, --Plumbago 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all points made here. FeloniousMonk 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  genetic entropy 

message: According to data available on Web Sanford:
1. In the following article dated 2000 (but accepted 1999) http://www.hos.ufl.edu/mooreweb/TissueCulture/class8/biolistic.pdf
Sanford wrote: "like to thank my wife, Helen, who has been my partner in life for 25 years". This means beginning of '70.
2. In the cover of its last book there is a photo labelled "John & Helen Sanford".
This means that Sanford has been married with Helen since '70. So surely it is not possible, as stated previously, that Sanford's conversion was due to: "In the mid-1980s the breakup of his marriage led ..."
:The article does strongly support the anon's contention.  Can we please have a cite for the breakup/breakdown of his marriage?  It could be simply that his marriage went through a rocky patch in the 1980s (which led ...) but that they stayed married.  But if so, that'd be worth stating.  It sounds at the moment like we've got an error here, and once you've spotted one error, one does question the rest.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be relevant if it directly led to his conversion to born-again.  That's all I meant.  It's irrelevant if it didn't.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanford's biography 

message: This article has them. 99.225.134.49 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples you want modified? --D.g.lab. (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words and Bias

message: The following is surely out of context and inappropriate:
However, Sanford's position is rejected by most geneticists and biologists.
The citation points to an article that doesn't have a single quote from a geneticist.  The main reference to biologists has to do with a document circulated in 1966 or something.  The genome was mapped in 2000 or so.  His contention is that more modern research makes evolution more difficult to imagine.  I believe citing a more current geneticist, and specifically, a population geneticist, would be very helpful.  DannyJohansson (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern research has strengthened, not undercut, the centrality of evolution in biology. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: just to be clear, you dismiss out of hand what Dr Sanford says? DannyJohansson (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally? Sure. But my opinion is irrelevant. All of modern biology rebuts his argument. And that's what matters for our purposes. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only people who take genetic entropy seriously are creationists.  There is such a thing as "relaxed selection", in that genomic elements not subject to selection will wander off in all directions.  If such wanderings are subject to selection and reduce fitness, they will be gradually weeded.  This is elementary bioscience which Sanford, wielding "Occam's broom", has willfully and conveniently swept under the rug.  This article is ceationist propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.53.100 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Re: previous unsigned statement-- this idea of "relaxed selection", as you put it, is dealt with and refuted in Sanford's book. It's interesting and sad that most everyone who refuses to take Genetic Entropy seriously has not actually read and comprehended Dr. Sanford's work. Who is really dealing in propaganda? Kanbei85 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not so fast

message: an IP address added "and creationist" to the lead, and  reverted with no reason given.   In my view, that was a very appropriate addition to the lead since a good chunk of the body is devoted to his creationist views.  Why remove that?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it may have been a false positive while patrolling recent changes, as I did not see a source for the claim. Rather than label him a "creationist" in the lede (even if that is the case), the material about that subject can be better summarized. -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

text: better now? -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: better, thanks.  i don't understand the objection to "creationist" but whatever, not worth fighting over.  thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of "and creationist" to lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on John C. Sanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060425031741/http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu:80/hort/faculty/sanford/sanford_pubs.html to http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/sanford_pubs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John C. Sanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191933/http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf to http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified