Imagine a gene encoding an enzyme that converts substrate A to B, which is something functional. The rate of A to B conversion happens naturally at some extremely low level already, the enzyme just speeds it up by many orders of magnitude.
Now imagine you are mutating this gene so the enzyme gets worse at performing it’s function. As you add more and more of such mutations, eventually the enzyme stops working entirely and it no longer speeds up the reaction anymore.
When the enzyme no longer works, it’s function can’t get worse without gaining a new function (to further reduce the natural A to B conversion ratio below it’s natural background level, the enzyme would have to gain a new function such as binding of and inhibiting or catalyzing destruction of substrate A before it converts to B).
At this point there are technically only strictly neutral and function-creating mutations available to it. The ratio of function-reducing to function-creating mutations have thus shifted completely away from function-reducing mutations.
Come on now. You’re a genetics professional. I would expect you to respect your own field too much to allow other fields to dictate what “must be the case”. If genetics says the astronomers and geologists are wrong in proclaiming deep time, then let them be wrong. Don’t assume they’re right and then refuse to look for function in the genome on that account.
You are exceptionally confused. The mutations that occur in the genomes of reproducing cells do not change the rate of movement of the continents, or the processes of nuclear fusion that occur inside stars. Or the orbit of Jupiter around the sun. Or the rate of decay of isotopes of strontium.
The more destroyed the genome gets, the more mutations will be effectively neutral. The less function there is to damage, the less damaging the average mutation will become. That will, in turn, make genetic entropy worse. For evolution we need selectable changes. But building up new function from scratch is much harder, not easier than making improvements on existing function. It’s harder to invent the computer from scratch than it is to make an already-existing computer .0009% faster.
Your logic is sadly … totally divorced from reality.
