The idea was principally Faith's although I'm not sure if she coined the term and I doubt the idea was original with her. Randman occasionally put forward similar ideas and John Davison's prescribed evolutionary hypothesis basically relies on the existence of a super genome as well.
Okay, after reading your post, I see now what the "super genome" theory is all about. No, it definitely was not an invention of Faith's. A few creationists, like Hovind, advanced the theory that everything prior to the Fall was in its purest state, which accounted for why people lived in to the several hundreds and why everything was bigger.
According to the theory, everything is winding down, including the universe itself. And while the Big Crunch is probably an inevitability, based on thermodynamic law, it doesn't necessarily mean that beings were in better shape back then-- or if they were, that it wasn't necessarily attributed to a better genome.
Some other factors could include a better diet, cleaner air, cleaner water, far more exercise, etc.
This original genome would need to be much larger than a modern genome as it would have many redundant sequences which serve to provide much of the genetic diversity we see today in modern species.
I think one has to consider that a bigger genome wouldn't necessarily mean better. Besides, if our genome had less base pairs than it has currently, wouldn't that be absolutely catastrophic? We certainly wouldn't look like we do now, it seems to me.
So the simplest form would be a super genome which had sufficient genetic material to produce all the geneti diversity we see today.
I suppose theoretically there could be some validity to that, but currently there is nothing that would bring it out of anecdotal mode.
Does this clear the idea up a little?
Very much so, thanks.
â€œThis lifeâ€™s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.â€ -William Blake