And according to other biochemists--presumably most of them, since Behe's criticism hasn't carried the day--those case don't have to work like that. Google Ken Miller, who's written a lot about how Behe's examples don't hold up. (And Behe's responded, and Miller's responded, etc. etc.) Miller's arguments seem pretty cogent to me, plus I've never been much for arguments from ignorance.
It is pretty easy to point out that right answers in the end are very often wrong answers all along the way to that end.
But they're very often right answers to something. Like, feathers could be the right answer to staying warm before they're the right answer to flying. And, of course, a lot of things might not be the answer to anything until they combine with something else.
That's one of the mistakes anti-evolutionists often make: thinking that an organism gets one chance at developing the right mutation, and that only one individual develops it. Consider, on the other hand, the possibility that say 30 percent of a population has a given mutation at any one time. It's not harmful, so it's not selected out; but it's not particularly helpful in the current environment, so it's not selected for. It's neither a right nor a wrong answer--it's just there. But if the environment changes, it could become part of a right answer. Or 20 percent of the population develops another mutation, and the 10 percent that have both do better for some reason. It's not always a binary right vs wrong situation.
The work needs to be done regardless. You can't go on forever with playground arguments. (No, you will never cover everything but it should be very rich ground.) You have to be able to come up with a specific and plausible evolutionary path for any and every cellular mechanism. I keep hearing how evolution has implications and has helped push science forward, but even cogent arguments are ultimately worthless next to real work. Miller's arguments seem pretty cogent to me, plus I've never been much for arguments from ignorance.
On what basis do you label him ignorant? This thread is going on 200 replies and no one has bothered to actually refute Behe beyond calling him names. The refutation would be: Post a list of what Behe says doesn't exist (real work into the biochemical evolution of protein mechanisms) or take one of his examples and show how it evolved (or could have evolved.)
But they're very often right answers to something.
They don't have to be right answers to anything, but they can at worst only be mildly harmful. And Behe is far more specific than a large scale system like feathers. But even allowing this, you still can't assume that every necessary change is not harmful, you need to show it.
That's one of the mistakes anti-evolutionists often make: thinking that an organism gets one chance at developing the right mutation, and that only one individual develops it.
Behe is asking the exact opposite question you are accusing "anti-evolutionists" of asking -- how did this come about in a stepwise fashion. And posing a large scale system like feathers is doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: The scale of DNA changes for something like that is enormous. I see no point in speculating at that scale until you address far simpler (but still hideous complex) evolution of interacting protein mechanisms.