I know Behe doesn't have scientific evidence to back up his claims because, as I've already discussed in some detail, I've examined his scientific publishing record and found it seriously devoid of scientific basis. Beyond noting that he is a charlatan who has wasted a perfectly good education in the pursuit of promoting hogwash (presumably for profit), there really isn't that much to say about Behe.
Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up.
And very, very few have anything to do with any sort of evolutionary explanation of the steps involved in the evolution of any complex biochemical system. But I can put in any topic and the word "evolution" and get 100,000 hits. The abstracts are understandable. But when it comes to actually detailing how these molecular machines came into existence, I can't find anything. Pick one from Behe's book, or do I need to list them for you?
They don't, really? Are you absolutely sure of that, or is your knowledge of the basic science involved inadequate to even evaluate how specific research results fit into the theoretical framework? There are many aspects to the evolutionary process, and the majority of them do not refer to evolution by name. As for "how these molecular machines came into existence", what exactly do you mean by that? What are the "molecular machines" and what do you mean by "came into existence"?
If you want something from a Behe book analyzed scientifically, you're going to have to provide the passage for analysis yourself; I'm not going to waste time reading science fiction masquerading as science. I'll also say, up front, that I won't spend a lot of time analyzing a passage that is clearly nonsense.
I think we are all familiar with the 3rd grade explanation.
I didn't realize that 3rd graders spend a lot of time discussing topics like DNA mutation mechanisms that are normally taught in college level genetics and molecular biology courses. Well, at least I now know that whatever state you live in has avoided the problem of educational decline that has plagued every other state. How wonderful for your state.
LOL. So if I need something between the third grade explanation and your dissertation I am out of luck? That is called "avoiding the question." You didn't even know what Behe's charge was until I explained it to you, and you had already proclaimed him a charlatan. Scoffing is not an argument.
You've asked for detailed and specific answers to vague and unspecific questions. I am not being facetious when I say that the kind of specific answers you want to your vague questions would be material enough for several PhD dissertations. This isn't "avoiding the question". If you can formulate a specific question about a specific evolutionary mechanism or method of evolutionary research, that can be answered in a few paragraphs, I will be happy to answer.
“You’ve asked for detailed and specific answers to vague and unspecific questions.”
I, on the other hand, asked a focused and specific question earlier.
To: exDemMom
“The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species. “
There must have been great numbers of transitional skeletons left along that journey. Where could I view some?
Are you trying to be funny? You had no idea what Behe had even written when you called him a charlatan. There are a lot of books written (on scientific subjects!) by people who have never published in a scientific journal. Are they all charlatans? And, with close-minded and parochial people like you run the scientific publishing apparatus, Behe has as much chance of being published as I doing of being the next pope. As soon as his question was made known he would have lost all access to publish anything. Then you turn around and use that to attack his credibility.
Are you absolutely sure of that, or is your knowledge of the basic science involved inadequate to even evaluate how specific research results fit into the theoretical framework?
So now I am too stupid to read an abstract?
I didn't realize that 3rd graders spend a lot of time discussing topics like DNA mutation mechanisms that are normally taught in college level genetics and molecular biology courses.
This was your post: As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations.
If you posted the evolutionary sequence of the cilium, flagellum, coagulation (he actually deconstructs some work done on this, which was one of the only examples when his book was published in 1996), or various other protein mechanisms in the cell that Behe discusses, I missed it.
You've asked for detailed and specific answers to vague and unspecific questions.
I was being intentionally vague. If you can confidently slander Behe as a charlatan, you should have at least enough of a passing knowledge of "Darwin's Black Box" to provide answers to the specific cases I gave above without being prompted. You don't have to show how these mechanisms work, you just need to provide the steps on their evolutionary path. It has been sixteen years since Behe published his book. Surely someone has provided some research in that time?