The entropy argument doesn’t make much mathematical sense. We can observe the current rate of mutation and project it backwards. It rather closely matches the rate necessary to account for the observed genetic differences in related species.
As for species becoming non-viable, there are critters like alligators and cockroaches that have kept a similar appearance and hewed to similar lifestyles for millions of years.
[[We can observe the current rate of mutation and project it backwards. It rather closely matches the rate necessary to account for the observed genetic differences in related species.]]
no it can’t- infact hte evidnece argues agaisnt it- there simply was not enough time to account for what we see, and hwat genetic research shows is a purer startign point degradign to what we have today- not hte other way aroudn as woudl be demanded by Macroevolution
[[As for species becoming non-viable, there are critters like alligators and cockroaches that have kept a similar appearance and hewed to similar lifestyles for millions of years.]]
Millions? What determined the age of ‘millions’? And, even IF they haven’t degraded genetically (You are simply assertign htey have) (And remember, incremental degredations do not render species non viable, but it does result in corruption), this is not evidence showing that species become non viable- not sure hwy you brought htis up? I never stated that every species underwent genetic degredation to hte point of non viability, only that those that have show more strongly that it follows the creationist and ID claim that species started out more pure, and degraded fro mthere- and genetic investigations show this to be true in the EVE project
Yes, this is the only plausible "scientific" explanation for species that have remained unchanged for millions of years.