Well, yes. And those thousands of papers exDemMom keeps suggesting people read? That's where the work is being done.
You have to be able to come up with a specific and plausible evolutionary path for any and every cellular mechanism.
Or what? Or that proves evolution didn't happen? Until we fill in every gap in the theory, we should assume it's wrong? It's a good thing medical science doesn't work that way.
This is what I mean by an argument from ignorance. It's not that Behe is necessarily personally ignorant; it's that he points to what we don't know and insists we can never know it. Is he out there doing the work of trying to figure out how the blood clotting mechanism evolved; or on the other hand, is he looking for evidence of where, when, and how the intelligent designer intervened to install it? Not as far as I've ever heard.
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.)
First of all, notice how you (and Behe) are asking people to prove something did happen that he says couldn't. If he were really interested in doing the work, he'd offer a testable explanation of what he thinks did happen and make some predictions based on it that other people could try and confirm. But instead all he does is snipe. (Kind of like my ex-wife, who was much better at explaining what was wrong with all my ideas than she was at coming up with ideas of her own.)
Second, if you want an explanation of how one of his examples could have evolved, look up Ken Miller, as I suggested before, or just Google "irreducible complexity debunked."
Why do I get the impression I could make a better case for the work that is being done than either of you?
Or what? Or that proves evolution didn't happen? Until we fill in every gap in the theory, we should assume it's wrong? It's a good thing medical science doesn't work that way.
You omitted the relevant sentence: This is work you will never finish, but it should greatly add to our understanding of cellular mechanisms regardless and it will silence one avenue of criticism *if* you can pull it off.
It's not that Behe is necessarily personally ignorant; it's that he points to what we don't know and insists we can never know it.
That is hardly an invalid point, but it does mean there is a clear path to discredit his argument: do the work.
First of all, notice how you (and Behe) are asking people to prove something did happen that he says couldn't. If he were really interested in doing the work, he'd offer a testable explanation of what he thinks did happen and make some predictions based on it that other people could try and confirm.
I would advise against throwing that "testable explanation" rock, Mr. Glass House. I certainly do not propose a testable natural explanation.
Second, if you want an explanation of how one of his examples could have evolved, look up Ken Miller, as I suggested before, or just Google "irreducible complexity debunked."
Pointing out something similar is not going to cut it -- you are crowing about finding a narrow, shallow spot in the Grand Canyon.
Thanks for the support. It helps to have someone point out the same concepts I've been trying to explain, but with a different perspective.
Lest anyone think I don't read the literature I keep referencing: I do. Once you've read a few hundred scientific papers, you get a good feel for what is a good solid paper, and what isn't.