One day my internet acquaintance told me, that genetic entropy can be evidence in favor of intelligent design and he also provides me this waiting time problem and this simulating evolution by gene duplication. I took a dim view of that point, but because i'm not geneticist i can't answer this question and i don't know much about genetic entropy as well. I'm not an internet troll, but i don't like when religion breaks into science, so help me to understand how can we explain it using our knowledge and logic.


closed as unclear what you're asking by Remi.b, kmm, ELL, David, AliceD Oct 1 '16 at 20:26

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    What is your question? I can't see any interrogation point! – Remi.b Oct 1 '16 at 15:38
  • 1
    Also, your post might be a possible duplicate of this one. – Remi.b Oct 1 '16 at 15:42
  • 1
    I'm afraid this list doesn't exist to help users rebut arguments from third parties that they are unable to formulate themselves. I have never heard of genetic entropy, and acceptable questions do not require me to go elsewhere to read about it. I am therefore voting to close this question as unclear. – David Oct 1 '16 at 17:19
  • Sorry for being unclear, guys. Thanks. – dshulgin Oct 2 '16 at 12:54

I'm new to this idea but did a bit of searching. The origin of this idea of "genetic entropy" appears to be a guy named John Sanford. He is also the author of the "waiting time problem" you reference. The principal author of the other reference you cite is Michael Behe. Both of these guys are ardent creationists. This means they have an agenda. Good science is the product of good questions, it does not result from attempts to support preconceived notions. This especially applies to religious ideas since they are generally strongly held.

Further research into the "genetic entropy" idea suggests that Sanford has basically repackaged an older idea but with a decidely creationist slant. That original idea is termed Muller's ratchet.

The conclusion of Hermann Muller, inherient in Muller's ratchet, is that his concept supports the rise and importance of sexual reproduction. I find no mention of creationism, this seems to be Sanford's addition to bolster his agenda.

If you really want to delve deeper into the flaws in the arguments of these two creationists: This site contains an extensive list of links to rebuttals to the claims of these two men.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.