You have it backwards. Biologists have *long* known that evolution proceeds not just by "simple additive genetic mutation", and these "more complex mutations" as you call them do "actually happen" and have been observed. This "more insight" has been recognized for many, many decades.
The problem is that *BEHE* is not aware of it, and he builds his "this couldn't have evolved" argument on his misunderstanding -- he thinks that evolution is only an additive process. It isn't. His entire argument crumbles for this reason.
Fair enough. I'm a mathematician, not a biologist, and wasn't aware of the degree to which mutations like this had been examined. In fact, reading on this thread has been illuminating in this regard. When I first read about IC concepts I read about them in regard to Behe, so I suppose I associate them with him, even though I see now this was incorrect.
As a mathematician and computer scientist, my mind jumped straight to genetic algorithms, and the problems of combinatorial explosion that have to be dealt with there. I thought that if nature were to give us clues about which types of mutations were useful in certain domains, we could then try to constrain our algorithms in a principled, useful way. Computational biologists are probably, actually, all over this, but I'd never though about it before, so Behe became associated in my mind with this idea when he probably doesn't deserve to be.
So I guess that's the real flaw in this article, that it seems to give a lot of credit for recognizing that complex mutations must exist to the recent IC arguments when in fact the IC arguments have been around forever and a day. I had made the same error, so I guess I have some sympathy for the man. But not too much. After all, I would have checked before I published anything.