Genetic Entropy - The Stark Reality

After much reading, research, and debate with evolutionists, I find the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of functional information) to be the true principle guiding all 'beneficial' biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided neo-Darwinian evolution. As well, unlike Darwinian evolution which can claim no primary principles in science to rest its claim on for the generation of functional information, Genetic Entropy can rest its foundation in science directly on the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and on the Law of Conservation Of Information(LCI; Dembski,Marks)(Null Hypothesis;Abel). The first phase of Genetic Entropy, any life-form will go through, holds all sub-speciation adaptations away from a parent species, which increase fitness/survivability to a new environment for the sub-species, will always come at a cost of the functional information that is already present in the parent species genome. This is, for the vast majority of times, measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes. This phase of Genetic Entropy is verified, in one line of evidence, by the fact all population genetics' studies show a consistent loss of genetic diversity from a parent species for all sub-species that have adapted away (Maciej Giertych). This fact is also well testified to by plant and animal breeders who know there are strict limits to the amount of variability you can expect when breeding for any particular genetic trait. The second line of evidence, this primary phase of the principle of Genetic Entropy is being rigorously obeyed, is found in the fact the 'Fitness Test' against a parent species of bacteria has never been violated by any sub-species of a parent bacteria.

Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper
Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,".
intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00

For a broad outline of the 'Fitness test', required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles:

Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
metacafe.com/watch/3995248

Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008
answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore

Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html

List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010
intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00

The previously listed 'fitness test', and paper by Dr. Behe, fairly conclusively demonstrates 'optimal information' was originally encoded within a parent bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any 'teleological' methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy.

It seems readily apparent to me that to conclusively demonstrate God has moved within nature, in a teleological manner, to provide the sub-species bacteria with additional functional information over the 'optimal' genome of its parent species, then the fitness test must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it has gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained '2 protein-protein binding site limit', for functional information/complexity generation, found by Michael Behe in his book "The Edge Of Evolution"). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish materialistic processes did not generate the functional information (Fits), and to rigorously establish that teleological processes were indeed involved in the increase of Functional Complexity of the beneficially adapted sub-species. The second and final phase of Genetic Entropy, outlined by John Sanford in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, is when 'slightly detrimental' mutations, which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a genome, slowly build up in a species/kind over long periods of time and lead to Genetic Meltdown.

Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
metacafe.com/watch/4028086

The first effect to be obviously noticed in the evidence, for the Genetic Entropy principle, is the loss of potential for morphological variability of individual sub-species of a kind. This loss of potential for morphological variability first takes place for the extended lineages of sub-species within a kind, and increases with time, and then gradually works in to the more ancient lineages of the kind, as the 'mutational load' of slightly detrimental mutations slowly builds up over time. This following paper, though of evolutionary bent, offers a classic example of the effects of Genetic Entropy over deep time of millions of years:

A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Webster
Excerpt: The distribution of polymorphic traits in cladistic character-taxon matrices reveals that the frequency and extent of morphological variation in 982 trilobite species are greatest early in the evolution of the group: Stratigraphically old and/or phylogenetically basal taxa are significantly more variable than younger and/or more derived taxa.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5837/499

The final effect of Genetic Entropy is when the entire spectrum of the species of a kind slowly start to succumb to 'Genetic Meltdown', and to go extinct in the fossil record. The occurs because the mutational load, of the slowly accumulating 'slightly detrimental mutations' in the genomes, becomes too great for each individual species of the kind to bear. From repeated radiations from ancient lineages in the fossil record, and from current adaptive radiation studies which show strong favor for ancient lineages radiating, the ancient lineages of a kind appear to have the most 'robust genomes' and are thus most resistant to Genetic Meltdown. All this consistent evidence makes perfect sense from the Genetic Entropy standpoint, in that Genetic Entropy holds God created each parent kind with a optimal genome for all future sub-speciation events. My overwhelming intuition, from all the evidence I've seen so far, and from Theology, is this; Once God creates a parent kind, the parent kind is encoded with optimal information for the specific purpose to which God has created the kind to exist, and God has chosen, in His infinite wisdom, to strictly limit the extent to which He will act within nature to 'evolve' the sub-species of the parent kind to greater heights of functional complexity. Thus the Biblically compatible principle of Genetic Entropy is found to be in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics and with the strict limit found for material processes ever generating any meaningful amount of functional information on their own (LCI: Dembski - Marks)(Abel; Null Hypothesis).

As a side light to this, it should be clearly pointed out that we know, for 100% certainty, that Intelligence can generate functional information i.e. irreducible complexity. We generate a large amount of functional information, which is well beyond the reach of the random processes of the universe, every time we write a single paragraph of a letter (+700 Fits average). The true question we should be asking is this, "Can totally natural processes ever generate functional information?", especially since totally natural processes have never been observed generating any functional information whatsoever from scratch (Kirk Durston). This following short video lays out the completely legitimate scientific basis for inferring Intelligent Design from what we presently observe:

Stephen Meyer: What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA? - short video
evolutionnews.org/2010/08/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d037271.html

notes on the overwhelmingly detrimental mutation rate:

This following study confirmed the “detrimental” mutation rate for humans, of 100 to 300, estimated by John Sanford in his book “Genetic Entropy” in 2005:

Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after “compensatory mutations”)
nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
By John C. Avise
Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

I went to the mutation database website and found:

HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase

Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011
Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.”
arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/04/26/dna_repair_mechanisms_reveal_a_contradic

'Given our current understanding of the mutation/selection process, there must clearly be a net loss of information over time in all genomes (with the possible exception of extremely small viral DNA genomes, which might escape this problem). This disproves the basic neo-Darwinian paradigm. What do we do with this fact? The most obvious conclusion would be a Biblical view of history, however the alternative would be to hypothesize that there are other forces (natural or supernatural), which help out mutation/selection. I personally hold the first view, but for those who find this too hard to believe, they are forced to choose the second view.' - John Sanford - personal e-mail to Dr. Elizabeth Liddle - June 2011
uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-paper-using-the-avida-evolution-software-shows/#comment-383856

Random Mutations Destroy Information - Perry Marshall - video
metacafe.com/watch/4023143

Mutation Studies, Videos, And Quotes
docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjZjZnM5M21mZg

Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

etc.. etc.. etc..

Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html

Loading more stuff…

Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?

Loading videos…