This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Genetic_entropy page were merged into John C. Sanford. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2016) |
Is it really necessary to list every single one of Sanford's publications here? The page just looks like a cut-and-paste hagiography at the moment. I reckon thinning them out to the key papers, and removing entirely sections containing publications he's not an author on. It would also be helpful to know why his publications stop at 1995 - it looks like the list that was cut-and-pasted is from an old webpage (e.g. 1995 papers listed as "in press").
Furthermore, it looks to me like he's primarily been added to the WP as some sort of ID stooge. Certainly the only section that's interesting is the so-called genetic entropy one, and that's bereft of proper references (bar some book that sounds extremely dubious). If it's such an important idea, it should be fleshed out properly. And it would be extremely useful to know if it's published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (or do we have another Dembski on our hands ...).
Cheers, -- Plumbago 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I will email Sanford and ask his prioritization of the most important publications.
A book addressing the population dynamics of mmutations from a scientist/inventor with these credentials is worthy of serious evaluation. Go read the book before criticizing it without knowledge. DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
PS Plumbago - your "stooge" statement is an argumentum ad personam attack and unworthy of serious editors. It raises serious validity questions about the rest of your comments besides violating Wiki Policy. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. What happened to Yanksox's deletion motion? Seems to have been removed shortly after being added.
Added this section to continue discussion. Since Sanford is a major horticultural scientist and genetics inventor, he should have a page. With Sanford's recent book, this will help people find further info on him. What reason would there be for deleting this? Many much less significant pages are included in Wikipedia. DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Found deletion policy DLH 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) As this is my first page, please consider Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers DLH 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Duncharris - I changed your "vandal" code per my changes herein after reading Wiki's policies. DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yanksox I removed your: - "dated prod|concern = "concern|Seems to be a non-notable bio" |month = June|day = 4|year = 2006" per policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion Contesting proposed Deletion " Contesting a proposed deletion
* If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: 1. Remove the "dated prod" tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary."
Sanford's inventions are a major contribution to Horticulture Science and genetics. Anyone with the number of papers and patents Sanford is worthy of note. Please give your criteria and justify why you think Sanford should be deleted. DLH 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please clearly lay out your concerns on accuracy per Wiki Policy: "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic."
I agree that it is important. I will work at "fleshing it out" when I have more time. DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Following are two peer reviewed articles with material relating to Sanford's book.
Kondrashov “Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?” (1995, Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 583-594).
Suzanne Estes & Michael Lynch (2003), Evolution 57, 1022-1030. Abstract. Deleterious mutation accumulation has been implicated in many biological phenomena and as a potentially significant threat to human health and the persistence of small populations. The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline. However, whether populations are capable of recovering from negative effects of prolonged genetic bottlenecks via beneficial or compensatory mutation accumulation has not previously been tested. To address this question, long-term mutation-accumulation lines of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, previously propagated as single individuals each generation, were maintained in large population sizes under competitive conditions. Fitness assays of these lines and comparison to parallel mutation-accumulation lines and the ancestral control show that, while the process of fitness restoration was incomplete for some lines, full recovery of mean fitness was achieved in fewer than 80 generations. Several lines of evidence indicate that this fitness restoration was at least partially driven by compensatory mutation accumulation rather than a result of a generic form of laboratory adaptation. This surprising result has broad implications for the influence of the mutational process on many issues in evolutionary and conservation biology.
DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Guettarda 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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 ..."
I agree only partially. If his marriage did simply "go through a rocky patch" it would be fair not cite it at all. After all this is a very common situation and it would be a mere (and somehow non-neutral) conjecture to bind it with Sanford's conversion [213.140.6.100]
Now the text should sound correct. [213.140.6.100] 11.36 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As the link provided by David suggest so, now I agree. [213.140.6.100]
This article has them. 99.225.134.49 ( talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
an IP address added "and creationist" to the lead, and Cwobeel 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"In laboratory experiments, viruses saturated with mutations do not go extinct. [1]"
The above phrase was removed, as the application of this paper seems to include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Wikipedia:No_original_research It seems to me that a man with qualifications such as Sanford would not have such an obvious blind spot and likely has rebuttals, possibly even written, to the conclusions from these papers (eg. they are only simulating specific situations not applicable to the whole genome, etc.) I myself am not qualified to make such implications, and nor should the editor unless a source equally authoritative specifically mentions them.
For similar reasons, I moved the following:
"Further, Sanford's assertion that there are virtually no selectable beneficial mutations is contradicted by examples of exactly that, such as lactase persistence in humans, [2] or tetherin antagonism in HIV-1 group M Vpu. [3]"
Again, this may be a valid argument, but it smacks of original research in my opinion. In Intelligent Design circles it is common to debunk misconceptions about genomic improvements, and I once again doubt this is a blind spot of Dr. Stanford. In fact, his contention is not that positive mutations are nonexistent, but that they are far overweighed by genetic "rust". Furthermore, one would have to ascertain that these mutations actually add new positive information instead of blocking certain functions that happen to be beneficial to lose in a certain context (but would otherwise be considered a deliterion that adds net genetic load). Therefore, this information might be unhelpful to an ID proponent reading this page, as well as to anyone else who would naturally assume that Sanford's ideas have been easily debunked, which is not necessarily the case.
There is, I believe, an addendum at the back of the second edition of his book which addresses certain arguments and misconceptions. If including the debate, it would be nice to include his rebuttals. However, one would need to find credible (preferably book-form) sources that discuss his ideas directly. Not sure those exist.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
"Sanford has refused to acknowledge this problem, even after being directly confronted with Kimura's own words." [1]
The phrasing seemed off here; Sanford did acknowledge Kimura's objection, but simply disagreed with it and re-stated his reasons why. Re-written as "Sanford defends his interpretation of Kimura's mutation distribution figure as being more accurate than Kimura's original meaning" which likely portrays the same attitude in a more accurate light.
References
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Genetic_entropy page were merged into John C. Sanford. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2016) |
Is it really necessary to list every single one of Sanford's publications here? The page just looks like a cut-and-paste hagiography at the moment. I reckon thinning them out to the key papers, and removing entirely sections containing publications he's not an author on. It would also be helpful to know why his publications stop at 1995 - it looks like the list that was cut-and-pasted is from an old webpage (e.g. 1995 papers listed as "in press").
Furthermore, it looks to me like he's primarily been added to the WP as some sort of ID stooge. Certainly the only section that's interesting is the so-called genetic entropy one, and that's bereft of proper references (bar some book that sounds extremely dubious). If it's such an important idea, it should be fleshed out properly. And it would be extremely useful to know if it's published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (or do we have another Dembski on our hands ...).
Cheers, -- Plumbago 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I will email Sanford and ask his prioritization of the most important publications.
A book addressing the population dynamics of mmutations from a scientist/inventor with these credentials is worthy of serious evaluation. Go read the book before criticizing it without knowledge. DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
PS Plumbago - your "stooge" statement is an argumentum ad personam attack and unworthy of serious editors. It raises serious validity questions about the rest of your comments besides violating Wiki Policy. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. What happened to Yanksox's deletion motion? Seems to have been removed shortly after being added.
Added this section to continue discussion. Since Sanford is a major horticultural scientist and genetics inventor, he should have a page. With Sanford's recent book, this will help people find further info on him. What reason would there be for deleting this? Many much less significant pages are included in Wikipedia. DLH 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Found deletion policy DLH 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) As this is my first page, please consider Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers DLH 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Duncharris - I changed your "vandal" code per my changes herein after reading Wiki's policies. DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yanksox I removed your: - "dated prod|concern = "concern|Seems to be a non-notable bio" |month = June|day = 4|year = 2006" per policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion Contesting proposed Deletion " Contesting a proposed deletion
* If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: 1. Remove the "dated prod" tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary."
Sanford's inventions are a major contribution to Horticulture Science and genetics. Anyone with the number of papers and patents Sanford is worthy of note. Please give your criteria and justify why you think Sanford should be deleted. DLH 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please clearly lay out your concerns on accuracy per Wiki Policy: "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic."
I agree that it is important. I will work at "fleshing it out" when I have more time. DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Following are two peer reviewed articles with material relating to Sanford's book.
Kondrashov “Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?” (1995, Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 583-594).
Suzanne Estes & Michael Lynch (2003), Evolution 57, 1022-1030. Abstract. Deleterious mutation accumulation has been implicated in many biological phenomena and as a potentially significant threat to human health and the persistence of small populations. The vast majority of mutations with effects on fitness are known to be deleterious in a given environment, and their accumulation results in mean population fitness decline. However, whether populations are capable of recovering from negative effects of prolonged genetic bottlenecks via beneficial or compensatory mutation accumulation has not previously been tested. To address this question, long-term mutation-accumulation lines of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, previously propagated as single individuals each generation, were maintained in large population sizes under competitive conditions. Fitness assays of these lines and comparison to parallel mutation-accumulation lines and the ancestral control show that, while the process of fitness restoration was incomplete for some lines, full recovery of mean fitness was achieved in fewer than 80 generations. Several lines of evidence indicate that this fitness restoration was at least partially driven by compensatory mutation accumulation rather than a result of a generic form of laboratory adaptation. This surprising result has broad implications for the influence of the mutational process on many issues in evolutionary and conservation biology.
DLH 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Guettarda 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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 ..."
I agree only partially. If his marriage did simply "go through a rocky patch" it would be fair not cite it at all. After all this is a very common situation and it would be a mere (and somehow non-neutral) conjecture to bind it with Sanford's conversion [213.140.6.100]
Now the text should sound correct. [213.140.6.100] 11.36 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As the link provided by David suggest so, now I agree. [213.140.6.100]
This article has them. 99.225.134.49 ( talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
an IP address added "and creationist" to the lead, and Cwobeel 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"In laboratory experiments, viruses saturated with mutations do not go extinct. [1]"
The above phrase was removed, as the application of this paper seems to include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Wikipedia:No_original_research It seems to me that a man with qualifications such as Sanford would not have such an obvious blind spot and likely has rebuttals, possibly even written, to the conclusions from these papers (eg. they are only simulating specific situations not applicable to the whole genome, etc.) I myself am not qualified to make such implications, and nor should the editor unless a source equally authoritative specifically mentions them.
For similar reasons, I moved the following:
"Further, Sanford's assertion that there are virtually no selectable beneficial mutations is contradicted by examples of exactly that, such as lactase persistence in humans, [2] or tetherin antagonism in HIV-1 group M Vpu. [3]"
Again, this may be a valid argument, but it smacks of original research in my opinion. In Intelligent Design circles it is common to debunk misconceptions about genomic improvements, and I once again doubt this is a blind spot of Dr. Stanford. In fact, his contention is not that positive mutations are nonexistent, but that they are far overweighed by genetic "rust". Furthermore, one would have to ascertain that these mutations actually add new positive information instead of blocking certain functions that happen to be beneficial to lose in a certain context (but would otherwise be considered a deliterion that adds net genetic load). Therefore, this information might be unhelpful to an ID proponent reading this page, as well as to anyone else who would naturally assume that Sanford's ideas have been easily debunked, which is not necessarily the case.
There is, I believe, an addendum at the back of the second edition of his book which addresses certain arguments and misconceptions. If including the debate, it would be nice to include his rebuttals. However, one would need to find credible (preferably book-form) sources that discuss his ideas directly. Not sure those exist.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
"Sanford has refused to acknowledge this problem, even after being directly confronted with Kimura's own words." [1]
The phrasing seemed off here; Sanford did acknowledge Kimura's objection, but simply disagreed with it and re-stated his reasons why. Re-written as "Sanford defends his interpretation of Kimura's mutation distribution figure as being more accurate than Kimura's original meaning" which likely portrays the same attitude in a more accurate light.
References