That’s true, but you’re equivocating here in a major way. In a biblical sense, “perfect” means “exactly as God intended”.
In an evolutionary world, however, that’s not the meaning at all. Instead it would mean “possessing the maximum possible power for survival and reproduction in a given environment”. And you can see that’s incoherent. There is no “maximum possible power”, short of omnipotence and immortality.
Not sure why that one was flagged either. Was that another web site glitch?
No, that means you are equivocation when you invoke the DFE of mutation to show GE to be consistent with “the fall”, when in fact GE and “the fall” then has nothing to do with fitness, but instead some entirely different concept of “corresponding to God’s original design”. So now the degree of deviation from God’s original design is what is increasing over time, which might or might not have anything to do with reproductive fitness specifically(God might have designed some things deliberately with low reproductive fitness, and then once “the fall” occurred, the reproductive fitness could increase, thus deviating from God’s intended level of reproductive fitness).
What’s incoherent about that? It makes perfect logical sense. The maximum possible capacity for survival and reproduction in a given environment would then be the highest level that could be allowed by the laws of physics.
Besides the poor science, it’s also rather poor reason and philosophy that’s upholding this creationist apologetics you’re serving us here.
This is only partially correct, and it owes to the fact that, as previously discussed, evolutionary theory incorrectly reduces life down to the metric of reproductive fitness as if that were all that mattered. Absolute fitness and reproductive fitness are, however, tightly linked most of the time. This means that the pop gen papers showing reproductive fitness decline is inevitable are really on to something, even if they don’t understand why.
Yes, that’s true. That’s what happens with pathogenic viruses, for example (we believe).
The reason it’s incoherent is that you’re conflating a strategy or design goal with an engineering goal. Survival and reproduction are strategy goals. They can be arrived at by any of an infinite number of possible design choices. It’s ridiculous to claim that any one design is the “best possible”, because to ascertain that you would have to have omniscience, and understand all possible factors of survival.
The laws of physics have largely nothing to do with it. What is the best possible car for use in Tennessee? That has a lot more to do with how you design your car than it does any physical limitations in particular. Would you ever be willing to look at any one car and confidently state it represents the “best possible design”? I wouldn’t.
How in the world do you know what God intended when making genomes? As far as you know our original “created” genomes could have been far worse than what we see today and the filtering feature of evolution has actually been making them better. At least that would explain why we don’t see “better” genomes than extant one when we sequence the DNA of extinct ice age species.
Congratulations on once again sinking your own GE rowboat.
In fairness, since he invented his own version of God, he gets to invent the intentions of that God.
Since you’re the one using two different definitions of “perfect”, it’s you that’s equivocating, not me.
If your god intends something to be imperfect, is it still perfect?
That looks coherent to me.