Evidence for the Super Genome

Another new creationist at EvC has claimed that the original genome had to have been much larger than today's, which is of course a necessary inference from the creationist claim that all we have genetically is what was given at Creation to the separate Species, no further input since then. This means that an original genetic endowment for each Species has been playing out through all the variations down the centuries, and for that to be possible the original must have been much larger than today's genome.*[see bolded paragraph below about the idea it must be bigger]. And of course the opposition is demanding evidence for this "super genome" which according to their own view of things does not exist.

Considering that THEIR "evidence" consists largely of totally subjective classifications of creatures into "clades" and "nested hierarchies" from which they then infer genetic descent without a shred of ACTUAL evidence; or homologous organs scattered all over the Linnaean classification system that they've imagined into a sequence of genetic descent and called it fact; or purely imaginary made-up tales about how this or that creature came to be, or did or didn't continue to exist; or "beneficial mutations" as the source of all genetic material that in fact exist only in a few highly compromised forms while all the rest are "neutral" or the cause of thousands of genetic diseases; or collections of fossilized dead things in separated strata that are clearly related to one another that they've imagined into evolution from less to more "advanced" over time rather than contemporaneous variation, just 'cause it fits the theory; and the layers of solidified sediments themselves to which they've laughably applied time period designations etc etc etc -- you'd think they might be a LITTLE bit cautious about demanding evidence from others.

Naa.

So what IS the evidence for the super genome? It's an inference from the fact -- provable fact, not imaginary construct -- that population splits tend toward reduced genetic diversity as they also produce new phenotypes. Reason it backwards and you come to, first, the Flood where a huge bottleneck must have brought about a huge decrease in genetic diversity, but not enough to reduce any particular line of variation to fixed loci like the cheetah or the northern seals, because the genome WAS so much bigger then than now, and then back before the Flood to the Creation where you MUST suppose a much much greater genome. Add back in all the genes that died in the Flood and down the centuries that now form the "junk DNA" and that should begin to reconstruct the original genome for you. I used to think that original genome might have been appreciably differently constructed somehow than today's, but now I think that all those reinstated genes with the maximum of alleles for each, fully heterozygous all of them, all combining basically according to Mendelian principles, is quite sufficient to have produced every creature now living and in the fossil Flood Graveyard as well.

*To be accurate, it's probably not right to think of the original genome as "bigger" exactly, simply fully functioning, all of what is now junk DNA fully operational-- a MORE ALIVE genome then. The one we have today, that all the rest of the ark-preserved creatures also have, is something like 90 to 95% dead.

What we have is a model that can explain most of the data and makes sense. We don't have direct evidence of this original fully functional genome, and maybe we can't, but it ought to be recognizable, from the fact that genetic diversity does decrease with phenotypic variation, that such an original is perfectly logical and likely.

Since I just wrote the qualification "ark-preserved" I realized there are other categories, sea creatures that probably survived in different proportions than did the land creatures on the ark, for instance, and bacteria that could have survived just about anything anyway. And the evidence that bacteria DID survive better than other creatures is the fact that they DON'T have a lot of junk DNA. This is of course explained evolution-style HERE:

...which is why bacteria tend to have very little of it.

--but it IS acknowledged that they have very little of it, which according to my version of Creationism means they still have most of their original genetic endowment which the majority of the rest of the creatures don't. Also, this alone should make comparisons between bacterial genetics and the genetics of higher animals highly suspect.

That article, by the way is about how junk DNA IS junk, and how the creationists are wrong who keep trying to find function in it in order to fit their expectation of a perfect Creation in the genome. But as I've said before, junk DNA is much better understood from a creationist point of view as a record of death since the Fall. The original perfect genome would have had no death, there would have been no junk or dead DNA, but since the Fall all life is subject to death, and it makes perfect sense that this would be reflected in the genome. As the article concludes:

The bottom line, though, is the genome is mostly dead, transcriptionally. The junk is still junk.