The best and brightest in science today shows the genomes are devolving NOT evolving. Therefore the first pairs would be near perfect which present no mating nor mutation problems for incestuous relationships. The real problem is the ‘incestuous’ relationships among all the creation deniers in the mainstream academia and the media...
Dr John Sanford has written a book: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.
“Selection slows mutational degeneration, but does not even begin to actually stop it. So even with intense selection, evolution is going the wrong way—toward extinction!—Plant geneticist Dr John Sanford.
My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because:
1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them;
2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;
3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;
4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).
The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.
The problem of genetic entropy (genomes are all degenerating), is powerful evidence that life and mankind must be young. Genetic entropy is probably also the fundamental underlying mechanism explaining the extinction process. Extinctions in the past and in the present can best be understood, not in terms of environmental change, but in terms of mutation accumulation. All this is consistent with a miraculous beginning, a young earth, and a perishing earth...
All of the problems with evolutionary theory, as outlined in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, have now been rigorously proven using numerical simulation. We did this using “Mendel’s Accountant”, a state-of-the-art computer analytical tool for genetic systems. Five scientists—John Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, Walter ReMine, and I—developed this tool. We reported these new findings in two secular publications, and they will soon be discussed in a second book, Genetic Entropy and Mendel’s Accountant.”
Dr John Sanford Biography - per wikipedia
Academic career
Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals[1][2].
Inventions
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the “Biolistic Particle Delivery System” or so-called “gene gun”.[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the “Distinguished Inventor Award” by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.
2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;
3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;
4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).
Please don't swamp me with a ton of pseudoscience babble. There is enough actual science available on the internet that there is really no excuse for seeking out and repeating the pseudoscience.
If you have difficulty discerning the pseudoscience from the science, keep in mind that articles on real science contain references based in actual research and indexed in a reliable database such as PubMed, that just about every statement in a genuine science article is supported by at least one and sometimes multiple references, and that there is a great deal of consistency from research report to research report.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, and regurgitating some foolish ex cathedra claims of some so-called expert just makes you look even more ridiculous.