God-did-it can be used to explain anything and everything. It is scientifically useless.
That’s because many of the commenters here are trained scientists who have tested or are testing hypotheses in their various areas of research. It’s how science works! Get with the program or butt out.
I have done that already using data from several studies and falsified several aspects of your poorly defined hypothesis.
For example, you claimed that new genetic information (in the form of new promoters, transporters and metabolic pathways) cannot be produced today since God was done with creation. I showed you contradictory findings from several sources including the LTEE, which documented the formation of new promoters and a new metabolic pathway.
Here is a relatively recent paper documenting the de novo evolution of a maltotriose transporter in a particular yeast species:
According to you these events must no longer happen since God is done with creation, but they are still happening, thus, falsifying your version of the hypothesis of God-guided evolution.
@Jordan do you now see why its hopeless having any meaningful conversation with this guy. He wants us to use the LTEE as a model experiment for the origin of life, even though that experiment is completely unsuitable for that task. In the LTEE, E.coli is used, an organism that has resulted from billions of years of biological evolution. The bacteria has highly evolved biomolecules, and molecular systems none of which were present in prebiotic times. The same applies to PACEEs. The LTEE needs preexisting life to commence, so it can’t give you mechanistic hypotheses or solutions to how that preexisting life emerged in the first place.
In addition he can’t seem to differentiate between experiments that simulate natural evolution and those that use artificial selection. Protein engineers steer the evolution of biomolecules or enzymes towards achieving specific goals like improved function or stability, while Lenski’s LTEE simulated evolution in the wild which is aimless, so as long as the LTEE continues to simulate natural evolution (with no specific evolutionary outcome) we will only get what evolution can brings out. Furthermore, when he says:
He doesn’t realize two things. First, Lenski’s LTEE is not specifically a protein evolution experiment, which protein engineers focus on: Anything can evolve in the LTEE, and on any scale be it at the molecular or organismal level. Second, Lenski’s LTEE was set up to provide answers to questions about the mechanisms and patterns of evolutionary change in biology, which contrasts with protein engineering that uses already known evolutionary mechanisms (like mutations and selection in directed evolution experiments) to make novel peptides or proteins.
Wrong. If God directly dictated our evolutionary outcomes, that’s artificial selection.
Again this is not applicable to GULOP. In the absence of dietary vitamin C, you will die due to its inactivity. It’s a terrible design flaw.
GULOP fits both descriptions. It is a sinister design in the absence of dietary vitamin C, because its inactivity does away with endogenous biosynthesis of vitamin C, preventing survival, reproduction and development. In the presence of adequate vitamin C, it sits in our genome without helping us solving our nutritional need for vitamin C, a compound necessary for our survival making it a bad design.
This is another lie about me. I have never denied certain features which were deemed as flawed later turned out to be design tradeoffs or optimal ones. Why do you lie so much?
I have consistently brought up GULOP, a star example of a design flaw under your hypothesis, but you don’t engage with it, either due to your cluelessness or sheer dishonesty knowing it soundly refutes the nonsense you are spewing.
