Some links for those who want to get into the weeds (Scroll down under the Behe discussion):
Scott Buchanan on Genetic Entropy:
Letters to Creationists - STAN 4
Sanford reply to Buchanan:
Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy
Buchanan rejoiner:
Genetic Entropy
I’m calling evasion on the smallpox and measles doesn’t get along with Genetic Entropy discussion.
KInd of like how most red things are green?
I can’t believe someone actually wrote what you did.
Prove it wrong. Show me papers that show a fitness distribution of spontaneous mutations that say something contrary to what I’ve said here (using real data). The facts are the facts, and most mutations are deleterious. That’s true whether they’re ‘effectively neutral’ or not (and has to be, by definition, unless you don’t think the mutations are random.)
Wow.
You need to accept that you know next to nothing about this subject, and have no business writing things about it, even on a site with standards as low as Creation Ministries International.
I mean, what does that mean, even? “Mutations are too small to be selected out”? How are you measuring the size of a mutation?
Are you serious with this? You’re now denying that mutations can have different levels of impact on fitness (or that this is measurable)?
@PDPrice PDPRice: “Most neutral mutations are deleterious.”
Also @PDPrice: “Most mutations are too small to be selected out.”
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
You’ve already seen it. Genetic Entropy is BS, in one simple diagram:
From here:
I look forward to your attempt to handwave this away.
Dude, this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. That is not a mutational fitness distribution.
LOL! Wow.
Please explain how fitness can increase following the power law (i.e. increasing for an indefinite period) if most mutations are detrimental and cannot be removed by selection.
It is, however, an example of a population experiencing the opposite of genetic entropy. Right?
That was actually me twice. I’m familiar with that exchange.
What are you saying this in reference to?
And it is cool because I know you didn’t click on a lot in our first discussion on this forum
Based on everything I’ve explained multiple times, you cannot simply point to a chart where fitness is increasing over time and say “see, fitness increased, genetic entropy is false.” This is addressed fully at creation.com/fitness. I hate to keep linking over and over, but it’s all there.
Me too. Please cite the relevant evidence from that paper, not the words they wrote about the evidence.
If so, then genetic entropy doesn’t lead to extinction. This is not an explanation; it’s an excuse.
But I just did.
Based on everything I’ve explained multiple times, you cannot simply claim that influenza A subtype H1N1 is extinct, because it still exists. Therefore, it does not support your claim of genetic entropy. At all.
False claims are there. About the evidence, not interpretation.
You’re really going to have to start thinking and answering for yourself and quit dodging with the “see the Creation_dot_com link!” This is a discussion board, not a make excuses and dodge board.
Does you pet website have an explanation for why life has not gone extinct yet after 3.5 billion years on the planet? 
More fun facts for Sanford, Carter, and Price, Bold Type Mine…
In the 1918–1919 pandemic, a first or spring wave began in March 1918 and spread unevenly through the United States, Europe, and possibly Asia over the next 6 months …Illness rates were high, but death rates in most locales were not appreciably above normal. A second or fall wave spread globally from September to November 1918 and was highly fatal.
Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases - 1918 Influenza
The 1918 pandemic began with outbreaks of low mortality in the spring and summer, followed by a more lethal wave in the winter.
Vincent Racaniello - Riding the influenza pandemic wave
So much for losing virulence as the pandemic rolls on, due to accumulated mutations. Oh, and this:
Recently the Norwegian Institute of Public Health reported that the mutation, which causes a change from the amino acid aspartic acid to glycine at position 225 of the viral HA protein (D225G), has been identified in 11 of 61 cases (18%) of severe or fatal influenza, but not in any of 205 mild cases.
Vincent Racaniello - The D225G change in 2009 H1N1 influenza virus
I would say that the Sanford paper is a classic correlation failing the demonstration of causation or mechanism, but it’s premise is not even correlated. It fails utterly to account for the history of smallpox and measles that anyone who could post a passing SAT score would recognize [you still have not responded to this one]. His paper has not been refuted because it is too insignificant to address. It has next to squat for citations. Is this the best you’ve got for Genetic Entropy?
They converge to the same point, ie., that given RV+NS alone, you will end up with devolution, not evolution.
