I have spent far too much time working in a university with scientists to buy this shamanistic crap. If he is a charlatan you have to be able to explain why.
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. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.
How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.
He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result.
Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.
It is not "shamanistic crap" to be able to say that I can quickly recognize whether someone is an expert in my field or whether they're trying to pass a bunch of nonsense. I *did* explain why Behe is a charlatan: while he is trying to pass himself off as an expert in evolution, his publishing and academic history indicates that he actively avoids the subject, and avoids any line of research even remotely related to it. That makes him NOT an expert. It also makes him not a very well-rounded scientist.
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. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.
As I pointed out above, in his professional career, Behe actively avoids any area of research that even touches on the subject of evolution. That means he is incredibly limited as a scientist; it also means he does not have very detailed knowledge of actual evolutionary processes. He can make any claim he wants about evolution, but he simply is not credible.
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.
How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.
The proteins evolved because the DNA mutated. I did not link that paper to show the process of the fish developing that particular trait; I linked it to show the level of mathematical/statistical analysis that goes into the evaluation of even a small fragment of evolutionary research.
It is not the purpose of most scientific papers to give the "big picture" of the topic they are addressing: most scientific papers only provide enough background to place that particular bit of research into context for those who are already familiar with the topic. 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.
"He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result."
Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.
The dogmatic belief that I was refering to is Behe's belief that the book of Genesis is a literal account of how the earth and all life came into existence, presumably 6,000 years ago. That dogmatic belief has greatly hampered his scientific career. His assertion that the evolution of protein mechanisms in the cell defies explanation is a direct consequence of his avoidance of any scientific topic that touches on evolution--by avoiding molecular biology, he doesn't have even a basic understanding of how changes in DNA result in changes to the organism. I'm rather amazed that he managed to earn a PhD while avoiding that subject...