Peaceful Science- Willfully Ignorant of "The Edge of Evolution"

-
It's sad and pathetic.

Stripped of its extraneous details, it seems to me that Behe’s argument in this book could be summarized as follows:

Chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite is very rare.

This trait represents the “edge of evolution.”

Any trait that requires more mutations than this is so improbable that it could not possibly happen thru evolution and, instead, would require the intervention of an “intelligent designer.”

I have a hard time seeing why anyone would consider this to be a persuasive argument. Why did Behe choose this one trait, in this one species? He could just as easily chosen, say, blue eyes in human beings. In which case, his conclusion would be entirely different.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing quite a bit. The first bit is basically correct in that the number of specific changes required is fundamental to Behe's thinking. But intervention isn't required. He isn't sure how but he is OK with God-guided evolution, ie evolution by means of telic processes.

Why is it so persuasive? Well it was looked at and he has a point. In an attempt to refute Behe a paper titled Waiting for TWO Mutations was borne. They concluded that a pair of specific mutations could occur in fruit flies in several million years. Just think how many specific mutations it takes to produce a gene that codes for a functioning protein. Then do the math.

That one trait because it is a rather simple thing, relatively speaking. That species has a fast reproduction rate so it can churn out variations rapidly. That is why they were chosen.

Blue eyes? The whole point is you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eyes and vision systems. It can barely get to chloroquine resistance.

So you are missing that fact. The fact is that your proposed mechanisms cannot do what you say they did. It only works in your imagination.

If it takes millions of years to get TWO specific mutations that produce some specific effect in a population of rapidly reproducing species, how do you expect to produce eyes and vision systems which clearly take more than two?

Where is the model for eyes and vision systems evolving by means of blind and mindless processes?

So yes, you are missing everything- you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the effects observed (ie the diversity of life).

Peaceful Science is Clueless, as Usual