Genetics & Evolution - Mendel's Accountant

The New Earth Creationist and Geneticist, John C Sanford, also an advocate of Intelligent Design, has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, in which he claims that the genome is deteriorating and could therefor not have evolved in the way specified by modern evolutionary synthesis.

With the aid of Mendel’s Accountant he found the following:

Mendel empirically demonstrates the reality of linear accumulation of deleterious mutations with or without selection. This unambiguously demonstrates that genetic entropy is real, validating the historical concept of genetic load
Mendel provides overwhelming evidence that all of the ‘fatal flaws’ inherent in evolutionary genetic theory is real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified.
... make it clear that there are very fundamental problems with using the mutation/selection mechanism to explain evolution.
... show that in the long run mutation/selection cannot produce a net gain in information.
Taking all these arguments at face value, evolutionary theory appears to be demonstrably false.
The fact that the textbook version of evolutionary genetic theory appears to be fundamentally dysfunctional ... if Mendel fails to demonstrate evolution the fault is not in the program (which faithfully models neo-Darwinian theory), but is in the theory itself.
This means that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop the problem of genetic entropy.
This first output figure of Mendel, all by itself, effectively disproves the neo-Darwinian theory.
The problem of near neutral mutations has been known for a long time. Muller first mentions it when describing Muller’s ratchet ...
... conclusively demonstrate that ‘Kimura’s no-selection zone’ is very real, and they show that this ’no-selection zone’ encompasses most bad mutations and essentially all good mutations.
... confirming the essence of ‘Haldane’s dilemma’.
The fixation of beneficial mutations is the yardstick of evolution. Fixation of deleterious mutations is the precise antithesis of evolution ... conclusively demonstrates that mutation/selection does not result in evolution, but rather results in degeneration. Genetic entropy is demonstrably real, and is an integral part of genomic change over time.
It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientific rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support – it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt.
Mendel input parameters produce output consistent with: (a) rapid local adaptation followed by phenotypic stabilization; (b) a spike in genetic variation followed by continually declining diversity; (c) rapid genetic degeneration tapering into a more gradual but continuous genetic decline; (d) many extinction events.

In addition, the Institute for Creation Research has published an article on The “Fatal Flaws” of Darwinian Theory by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D, stating:

Biologically reasonable Mendel’s Accountant input parameters produce output consistent with (a) the biblical account of recent creation, (b) rapid local adaptation followed by stabilization of changes in an organism’s visible features, (c) a spike in genetic variation followed by continuously declining diversity, (d) rapid genetic degeneration tapering into a more gradual but continuous genetic decline, and (e) many extinction events.

Could someone please comment on the claims made by Sanford and Vardiman and also indicate whether Mendel’s Accountant effectively falsifies the evolutionary genetic theory.

Have a look at this for a start. (If you haven’t already, you may have to sign up for a user account.)


Thank you!

This is what I thought as well:

It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to support it. In science, you get the evidence then you make the model. He made the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all mutations are bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.