Possible Objection I: Mega-beneficial mutations.
BQ: We are going to look at some "solutions" to the evolutionary paradox of genetic entropy. It is also correct to refer to these as "objections" to the entropy of our genome. The first objection is, "what about mega-beneficial mutations? What is one mutation was so strongly positive that it counteracted the harmful mutations?"
There are a variety of reasons why this objection fails to hold water, but I'll just provide two very short answers. First, it is true that one mutation can absolutely kill an individual. However, that's not the way beneficial mutations work, as we've seen before. It's like walking up a mountainside. You can trip and fall forward a couple of steps, but you won't fall all the way to the top. However, one slip can surely send you tumbling down a ways, if not to your death.
Second, that's not the way math or the genome works. If, say, the 100 good mutation can allegedly overcome 30,000,000 bad ones in, say, 3 billion nucleotides, we get a mathematical error. It's not possible to substitute a few mega-beneficial mutations for millions of others. Otherwise, we could have a genome as good as the human's 6 billion nucleotides but less than 1% of the length. This is not the way data/information works. It's like trying to improve a book by deleting 1000 words for every "super-awesome" word you write.
(PN257)
Possible Objection 2: The failure of the primary axiom is no biggie.
BQ: Genetic entropy really wraps up almost all arguments. Since it is so fundamental to evolution, it MUST be overcome in order for a question to be valid. While I considered doing multiple questions from sites like atheistresources, ultimately they would be refuted by everything we covered so far. In order to avoid rehashing old proofs, we're going to look at what amounts to a "brush-off." It is stated as:
"The failure of the primary axiom (mutations+natural selection=progressive evolution) is not a serious challenge to evolutionary thought. Does it REALLY matter if this axiom is flawed? It's just one of numerous proposals and mechanisms for what we KNOW is true. We just need some time and we'll work out these kinks and evolution will be as factual as it has always been."
This statement amounts to damage control and is false.
1.) Mutation/selection is the ONLY evolutionary mechanism. Period. Random drift is chaos. Since genetic entropy refutes it, all of progressive evolution must fall with it.
2.) Darwin did not have knowledge of molecular biology. He had no idea what was actually being "selected." He stridently advanced what was in therefore in effect a philosophical position.
3.) Degeneration is the antithesis of evolutionary theory, and it is demonstrably what defines our DNA and our destiny. It is 100% fatal for Darwinism. The null hypothesis of intelligent design is evolution. To disprove progressive evolution is to strongly support intelligent design.
This objection is like trying to fix a severed femoral artery with a Band-Aid.
(PN258)