"Waiting for Two Mutations", Why Evolutionism Fails
In 2008 a paper titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution, was published. It was intended to show that Dr Behe was wrong about the mathematical limits of Darwinian evolution. The scope of the article was very limited:
In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one.Got that- they are only discussing a transcription binding site and only in a very limited sense.
What's the point? Evolutionism requires many specific mutations and this paper says there just isn't enough time in the universe for such a thing. Duplicated genes need a new transcription factor binding site. It needs a promoter and then it may also need specific mutations to alter its original function. The alleged evolution of color vision is such a scenario- duplicate an opsin gene and then tune it to a different wavelength. That is out of the reach of natural selection and/ or drift.
Dr Behe responds
Dr Behe continues
For the lying loser evoTARDs- Dr Behe has NOT been refuted. To do so requires actual evidence and evolutionism doesn't have any.