Darwin provided the rule for falsifiability of evolution, and evolution science has been steering a wide swath around it ever since.
Behe's charge is not that there can never be a similar collection of proteins, but rather than the smallest change in these systems breaks them. In this case, C and C prime are farther apart than C and B.
That C and B are similar is pattern matching, not causation.
. He said that if you have 10,000 cats, and the test for viability is that they can jump over a 10 foot chasm--the 9,999 cats who fell into the chasm don't matter. Only the cat who successfully jumped matters.
That is just flat wrong -- if mutation and natural selection are merrily killing off cats you don't wind up with supercat, you wind up with nocat. But that is a whole other logical fallacy of evolution to be argued ad nauseum. In fact, among those seriously studying real evolution, it is very arguable that the results paint a picture of evolution as a wholly negative process and that the only complexity created is the complexity of chaos.
The earth is large enough, and contains enough raw material, that the odds against the formation of a self-replicating RNA molecule (which is thought to be the first life-like molecule) forming really aren't that high.
More handwaving. RNA Self Replication euphoria, as usual, ignores the actual chemistry involved.
A and C are ten miles apart, and the satellite photos show a network of roads in between. You have not made the case that it is impossible to get from A to C.
Also, since you seem so dead-set on trying to disprove the central theory of biology, what do you propose as an alternative? C looks a lot like A, although it clearly is not A. Sufficient genetic material was preserved to determine that C and A share over 90% genetic homology; the next highest level of homology between C and any other organism is 75%. C is dated to be 20 million years newer than A. What alternative to evolution do you propose, keeping in mind that a viable alternate theory must explain and tie together all known facts, not just what I presented, and provide predictive power for guiding more hypothesis-driven research? Even more important, how does the story that ~6,000 years ago, God spoke and all of the plants and animals sprang into existence (no mention of the other three kingdoms, but nvm) explain those measurable quantitatable facts, and what useful predictive powers does that story provide?
That is just flat wrong -- if mutation and natural selection are merrily killing off cats you don't wind up with supercat, you wind up with nocat.
Nope, you end up with the cat that made it alive across the chasm. When you breed that cat, you'll multiply the number of cats with the extra strong leg gene that enables them to jump the chasm.
More handwaving. RNA Self Replication euphoria, as usual, ignores the actual chemistry involved.
The material at your link was clearly not written by scientists. I prefer articles backed up with scientific references, like this one.