[[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
If you are going to claim genetic entropy as a barrier to evolution you are going to need to show your math.
Most living things are single celled. Some replicate themselves several times an hour. They undergo mutation at a rather constant and observable rate. The number of copy errors is fairly consistent and not dramatically different from the number of copy errors per cell division in multi-celled creatures.
And yet they do not become non-viable. They are still very much with us, even though they have undergone as many generations in the last few thousand years as mammals would in millions of years.