So unless Behe promotes evolution, he is a charlatan? Nice little circular argument you have there. You still have not gone into any detail as to why his argument is illegitimate. That anything he published did not cross the borders of your narrow little world has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Publishing arrangements do not count.
When I talk about evolution at the level of DNA, that's because that is the level at which evolution occurs. Everything that happens at the level of the organism, happens because it was encoded in the DNA first. Every genetic engineering project I've done involves altering the DNA, even though the end product is an altered protein.
But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.
If you want to know how the fish developed that one particular trait (not how "fish A became fish B"), you will have to pull up and read all of the references in that paper--and then the references contained in those references--and so forth, so that maybe in a few months, you'll have a good understanding of the actual DNA changes that led to the expression of that single trait.
More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.
It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.
Unless he uses actual scientific evidence to support his claims, he is a charlatan. I presume you are refering to the claim you mentioned earlier, "Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system." That claim is so false that it hardly even merits mention. Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up. When I discussed Behe's publishing history, that was his history publishing as a scientist, which is very limited. He may have 500 books published through some literal creationist publisher, but those are not scientific documents.
But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.
As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations. I believe I have also pointed out many types of DNA mutation that occur. If you want to know how a specific pathway evolved (which I'm going to assume is what you mean by "those systems of proteins"), then you need to specify which pathway. And once you've decided on a specific pathway whose evolution you'd like to understand more fully, you can start searching over at www.PubMed.org for the research articles detailing everything known so far about the evolution of that pathway.
More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.
Well, no offense, but it *is* complicated. You're basically challenging me to put several PhD dissertations' worth of material into a single forum post, and it can't be done. Again, no offense, but I am sorry that you do not have the scientific background to understand that I already did refute Behe's "charge" at least twice, and again above.
It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.
Told by whom, exactly? I am not familiar with most of the charlatans who sell literal creationism; he happens to be one I *am* familiar with, and so I mentioned him, along with the others I have heard of. Oh, and where did my supposed "talking points" come from, anyway?