[[Things do not evolve by myriads of simultaneous mutations.]]
I didn’t say they did- You are misrepresentign what I said- You DO however need to htrow a myriad of mutaitosn at the whole genome in order to bring about changes (Adaptive MICROEvolution) changes. As you know, some mutaitons will ‘stick’ while others will be handled and discarded, or thrown off, and others still will remain neutral i nthe system.
[[we can now track the exact history of mutations and adaptations.]]
We sure can, and wonder of wonders, it shows MICROEvolution- just as it should. Not sure why you are tryign to claim these experiments and trackings ‘close hte show’ on MACROEvolution? They have absolutely nothign to do with macroevolution- I’ve got my popcorn, but it appears the Macroevos are refusing to play the game, claiming falsely that there’s nothign to discuss when it’s becoming more and more evident that there really is a serious problem with MACROEvoluionary changes being biologically possible or not..
It’s the equivilent of “Yuo guys aren’t playing fair- Macroevolution is an ‘established fact’ and that is that! I’m takign my ball and and going home if you persist in questioning that!”
“But this has not happened. More research is taking place in biology than ever before. And besides, Intelligent Design hypothesizes an intelligence, but doesn't get more specific. The design could come from an advanced civilization from another solar system.”
Researh IS taking place in biology, however there is none taking place in ID. Without a scientific framework to start from, there simply is no way to do research into ID. Not identifying who they think the designer is has nothing to do with that fact. The creationists at the DI intentionally avoid discussing who the think the “designer” is for the simple reason that they are trying to trick people into thinking that ID is separate from their religion. They would have a hard time of that if they revealed their designer to be the god of the old testament.
“In the other examples, I think the problem is with the wording of Behe’s definitions. I think the underlying concept is still valid.”
It's not his definition, it's his hypothesis. The evidence clearly shows his hypothesis of IC is incorrect, he has simply chosen to ignore the evidence and keep asserting IC as if it were valid.
“Like any good scientist, Behe should modify his theory to include the situations that have been pointed out to him. Behe should modify his definition of Irreducibly Complex, if he hasn't already. The new definition of a system could allow for parts that are themselves beneficial and have been improved by natural selection.”
The system you just described already has a name, it's called evolution. ;-)
Oh, and one little quibble, I wouldn't call Behe a good scientist. For one he doesn't do any research, and two the errors he has made in this book indicate he either has no understanding of basic evolutionary biology or he is being intentionally dishonest.
“If you start removing parts, in many cases, at some point you will reach a situation where the system will no longer perform its current function. In our example of the flagellum, if you start removing the 40 parts that you mention, at some point the flagellum will stop working.”
You fail to understand what Behe is trying to describe with his failed hypothesis of IC. Behe’s conjecture is that in an IC system all the parts HAVE to be there or the entire structure is useless. Essentially he uses IC to argue that the structure could not have evolved because all the pieces have to be present at the same time or it's all useless. This is clearly false. What Behe overlooks is that the FUNCTION of these various pieces can change. That's what you see if you look at the type III secretory system. It's composed of about 40 of the same pieces as the flagellum, but it has a completely different function. This demonstrates how supposedly IC systems can be reduced to smaller components performing different jobs. Once you realize that these supposedly rigid IC systems are actually very versatile in their function, it becomes clear how easily evolution could produce them in a step wise fashion.
“The case of the cilia is similar. Yes, Behe seems to have been misinformed about the need for IFT. Yet his basic, underlying concept still holds. If you remove enough unnecessary parts, eventually you will reach the point where the system no longer functions as a cilia.”
What you are describing is the classic god of the gaps scenario. Essentially what you are doing is that after a supposedly IC system is shown to have a reducible component, you are then pointing to a smaller component and saying, “well, then THAT'S IC”. What you are doing is shoving IC into ever smaller gaps as the larger gaps are filled in.
“Again, how does a system, which doesn't have enough parts to work as a cilia, benefit the organism enough to be favored by natural selection?”
Because the smaller precursors to the cilia performed OTHER functions that were useful before being incorporated into the cilia itself. This is where Behe tries to confuse his reader. He has them convinced that all of these various parts are only useful for performing ONE function in regards to the cilia. He glosses over the fact that in a different structure they may have a different function.
Actually they don't even do that, they demand to control all things public and force you to take YOUR ball and go home AND pay for their failures too!