Such a general degradation across genomes, including both human and animal life (not to mention other kingdoms), should be detectable.
The most obvious thing to test are direct samples of ancient vs current DNA. While DNA does generally decay quickly, we do have samples that have survived. Here are some:
1. Neanderthal DNA. We have some Neanderthal DNA. While a number of dating methods put Neanderthal DNA to between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago (depending on the sample), creationists usually claim that Neanderthals are normal h. sapiens who died in or before the flood. If so, then they are at least 4,500 years old. Using the creationist number, they had only 20 to 1500 years of degradation, compared to 6000 for humans today. Thus their genomes should have only a tiny fraction of psuedogenes and junk DNA. To try some numbers, we need to know how degraded we are today. I don’t know what a creationist would say, but from the claims of people like Faith, I think they would say a high number, since they feel we have degraded a lot since the fall (otherwise it’s a pretty wimpy force of sin and death). So lets say we have only 40% of our good genome left. If that’s the case, then we’ve degraded 60% in 6000 years. If the degradation is linear (again, big guess), then that’s 1% loss every century. So a Neanderthal genome should have around 0 to 15% degradation.
Such a huge difference would jump out to any geneticist looking at Neanderthal DNA. Since numerous studies have been done on Neanderthal DNA, It must not be there. The researcher couldn’t hide it since other people have seen Neanderthal DNA, and more importantly, they wouldn’t want to, since such a find would gain them instant fame. Even if someone were willing to hide data if it favored creationism, they still wouldn’t hid this since it can be interpreted other ways.
2. DNA from other ancient animals. We have a huge amount of insects in amber from what creationists would consider pre-flood times. The same math from above applies here, as well as the same logic.
3. Frequency of disease in the fossil record. Many diseases leave visible signs in bones. Diseases have been shown in fossils across the board, regardless of age. I don’t know that a quantified study of diseased fossil frequency has been done, but since a degradation from the fall until now should show a big difference, such a trend should stick out like a sore thumb, and I’m sure it would have been found if there.
4. Spina bifida in Neolithic England. The barrows around Stonehenge and similar Neolithic religious monuments are dated to around 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thus they should have around half of the degradation we have. Note that creationists generally agree with those dates, since we have roman and other records showing that refer to them as past civilizations. The bodies in the barrows have a high proportion of Spina Bifida (a birth defect). If there has been degradation since the fall, then ancient birth defects should be much lower, not much higher.
5. Human age at death over the millennia. We have human fossils all over the ancient time frame, and the age of a human fossil can be estimated from bone growth and bone changes. These fossils do not show that ancient people lived to anything near the ages in Genesis. Instead, they show a steady life expectancy, with variation from time to time due to things like food supply. Of course, one could argue that the bone changes that we use to determine age at death simply happened later, which could explain it, but would require that kids lived to, say, 50 years and were still kids, which seems difficult on the parents.
6. Wooly mammoth frozen bodies. It has been shown that sperm frozen in animals who have been frozen whole is still potent even after a few years. This work has encouraged people to think about using frozen mammoth sperm or eggs to breed or clone a mammoth. The DNA of mammoths has been compared to modern elephants to find differences. If the degradation hypothesis is true, then the mammoths would show little degradation , and the elephants a lot as per the math above. Such a difference would again stand out like a sore thumb. No such difference has been found.
7. Dendrochronology. Dendrochronolgy, as we know, is the method of counting tree rings to look at their growth in ancient times. Tree ring series go back 10,000 years in some places (I haven’t heard how creationists explain this - maybe a good new thread topic). (Also - what do creationists say about the flying sword mentioned in Genesis 3? Where did it go? Why can’t any skeptic just go and look at it?) Anyway, with better health, trees are known to grow more, giving wider rings. If there has been a general degradation, then it would be easy to see this in the tree ring series, which would show better health in the past, esp 6,000 years ago). They don’t show this however - they show the same amount of health (with variation) today, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago, 9,000 years ago, etc.
Well, 7 is the holy number according to the numerology soothsayers of the Bible, so I’ll stop there. Just a little thought brings more of them to mind (such as how long kings lived in Chinese records, which go back 4,000 years). In all of these cases, it is possible to test the predictions of the degradation hypothesis, and the predictions don’t match the data. Maybe a good way to explain this is to say that God reached in and altered each piece of this evidence to deceive those he’s already decide to burn in hell, just as “Paul” says he would in 2thes2:11?
That’s not even mentioning the huge amount of DNA that has been examined from Egyptian mummies that are thousands of years old, or from even more ancient people like the iceman.
The iceman is an interesting data point in this discussion. He’s from around 5350 years ago (date established by a variety of dating methods and confirmed by dendrochronology), putting him only about 650 years after Adam’s creation. Adam lived to 930. Thus, he could have known Adam - hell, he could BE Adam! If not, then he could easily be a son or grandson of Adam with the long lifespans reported in Genesis.
We’ve obtained DNA from the iceman, and studied it. If it had the proposed hypergenome, then that would have been obvious. It didn’t - it was like our genome. In fact, genetic problems such as the ones around today were identified in it. Note that for all of the human diversity to come from the (genetically) 5 people on the ark, then there must still have been hyper genomes at least in some significant way at the flood. The iceman died nearly 1000 years BEFORE the flood. If anyone should show a hypergenome, it should be the iceman. Yet his body (and his DNA) is in most respects much like ours.
There are undoubtedly dozens more that one more versed in the field than I can readily think of.
Oh yeah, there is also Cheddar man (9K ya).
Take care-
Equinox
™ Version 4.2
