SubductionZone, How does the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis support TOE better than John's theory of gentic entropy?<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:
Actually I am keen for some evo to evoke those long lost research skills and find the usual banter that evos offer to refute Sanford. All that woffle was before recent work actually supports Sanfords work again.