Selection can sometimes favour mutations that break existing proteins. OK, so what?
So what? 😯
1. if selection can select in favor of breaking of proteins, so why then do we presume selection favors creation of proteins?
2. selection can select against breaking of proteins, but that would be no proof selection was involved in the creation of the protein (see: Selection falsely called a mechanism when it should be called an outcome. A proteins necessity for survival does not mean selection was the mechanism of protein creation.
3. selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection) (see: Most evolution is free of selection, therefore Darwinism is false).
So what? Darwinism is wrong, so what? Students get taught Darwinian falsehoods, so what? Dawkins made a living spreading falsehoods, so what? Darwin plagiarized the idea of natural selection from the creationist Blyth, and then Darwin’s plagiarized version was wrong, so what? Mortgages are paid by Darwinian falsehoods at taxpayer expense, so what?