Ok, to reiterate: genetic entropy absolutely implies the existence of ‘perfect genomes’.
This is an aspect I do not think you (or indeed Sanford) fully appreciate. Your argument is that VSDMs must accumulate, because such mutations fall beneath the threshold of selection. You extent this to imply that a species accrues VSDMs continuously with the passing of generations until at some woefully unspecified threshold it becomes universally non-viable and goes extinct.
So let us turn the arrow of time backward. If the passing of generations must, necessarily make genomes worse due to accumulation of VSDMs, then ancestral genomes concomitantly must have fewer VSDMs than extant genomes. As we trace back through ancestry, genomes must (under GE proposals) get ‘better’. And under GE, this is a finite process: there is a point at which a genome contains zero VSDMs. Under GE, genomes can only get worse, so clearly this genome cannot have any ancestors.
Now as you state, for GE to apply, life need not start at this precise ‘perfect’ state (though special creation of imperfect genomes seems…odd), but this does not change the fact that GE necessarily implies that such a perfect state can exist.
Perfect genomes are not a requirement of evolutionary theory, so the problem does not arise there. Under evolutionary mechanisms, “crap but robust” is the sweet spot life iterates to (and life appears to dwell within such a sweet spot), and perfection is not only not predicted, but also not even conceptually rational.
Under GE, perfection is conceptually necessary: how can you say any genome is “worse” when you do not have a reference standard?
I will note that this is not a conceptual issue restricted to creationists: many papers addressing mutational accumulation make this error, modelling decline of some reference genome assuming that that genome is ‘correct’, rather than more prosaically acknowledging that the reference genome is itself “crap but robust” like everything else, and is already saturated with VSDMs accrued over billions of years.
So: genetic entropy states human genomes are degrading, necessarily implying that ancient genomes were better, and if you go far enough back: “best”.
I would like to know what traits @PDPrice thinks this “best” genome carried. I picked eye colour, skin tone and height because these are fairly obvious traits that everyone has, and which (today) carry advantages and disadvantages depending on environment. Under GE, all extant eye colours, skin tones and heights must be ‘degraded’ variations on the ancestral “best” genome, so it seems fairly straightforward and reasonable to ask what the eye colour, skin tone and height were of the individual or individuals carrying this first, ‘best’ genome.
For bonus points, I would love Paul or Sanford to explain the methods they used to obtain their answer.