Mentor

Corbit, Aaron

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Fall 2025

Abstract

Genetic entropy is a hypothesis proposing that genomes deteriorate over time due to the gradual accumulation of slightly harmful mutations that natural selection cannot effectively remove. This paper explores the scientific debate surrounding this claim by examining differing perspectives on the theory of genetic entropy. Proponents of genetic entropy, such as John Sanford, argue that most mutations are deleterious and fall within a “near-neutral” range, allowing them to accumulate since their effects are too small for natural selection to detect. Evidence to support this claim includes Robert Carter and John Sanford’s research on the deterioration of the H1N1 viral genome and Gerald Crabtree and Michael Lynch’s concerns about weakened selection in humans. This paper also highlights how the theory of genetic entropy aligns with a biblical perspective by citing Sanford et al.’s research on recorded declines in human lifespans after the Flood. In contrast, critiques of genetic entropy point to studies such as Katharina Böndel’s Chlamydomonas reinhardtii research, Neda Barghi’s Drosophila simulans experiment, Richard Lenski’s E. coli research, and the University of Illinois’ corn selection study, which suggest adaptive change within populations over time. After analyzing both perspectives, this paper concludes that there is insufficient evidence to show that natural selection can counterbalance the steady influx of slightly deleterious mutations over long periods; thus, the issues highlighted by the genetic entropy framework are worthy of further study.

Download

Share

COinS