After the debate, I commented:
Ecological variation and nutrient-dependent life controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction has replaced mutation-driven evolution in the context of a biologically plausible ecologically valid model for the Creation of new genes and organismal complexity.
The number of different proteins in different cell types of individuals in different species has established the obvious fact that the proteins did not result from mutations because mutations perturb protein folding. Most biology teachers still teach students that mutation-initiated natural selection is the cause of evolution.
It would have been great to hear either speaker address what is currently known about the conserved molecular mechanisms of species diversity that should long ago have eliminated mutation-driven evolution from any further consideration whatsoever.
“Our central finding, that fitness epistasis is widespread within natural populations, indicates that the raw material to drive reproductive isolation is segregating contemporaneously within species and does not necessarily require, as proposed by the DMI model 22, the emergence of genetically incompatible mutations independently derived and fixed in allopatric lineages 23.”
Someone sarcastically complained that they didn’t understand my comment, so I added this:
For example see:
YES is the biologically plausible and ecologically validated answer in species from microbes to man. From a Creationist perspective, “Yes” is the correct answer in the context of all plant and animal interactions because the molecular mechanisms of epigenetic cause and effect are conserved.
Plant life and animal life have common features at the cellular level. Biological Laws do more than suggest that ecological variation in nutrient availability leads to ecological adaptations. For comparison, “mutation-driven evolution” violates Laws of Biology, which biophysically constrain mutations that perturb the protein-folding required for increased organismal complexity (i.e., God’s Creation).
I think I could make a case for evolutionary theorists breaking the Laws of Biology with their theories, but doubt they will be prosecuted or persecuted for doing so. Similarly, Carl Zimmer will probably get away with presenting my life’s work in little quips like: “Do they lure the hummingbirds with special odors?” — after touting evolutionary theory for decades in everything he has written.
Suddenly, for Zimmer, special odors may be involved — as if food odors and social odors had not always been involved in Darwin’s ‘conditions of life,’ which reflect that every organism across God’s Creation must eat and reproduce — not merely mutate into another species to fit the evolutionary theorist’s limited perspectives.