It is not Lynch and Behe (they did not write a paper together, Lynch rebutted Behe and Behe agreed Lynch’s rebuttal is valid), it is Lynch or Behe. Their radically different models do not agree, and I do not agree their different models apply to any real scenario.
Even Lynch’s paper is still based on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy(in that Lynch too models the origin of a specific function in a specific set of duplicates). He just corrects a number of flawed assumptions in Behe’s model, to show that even using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy Behe’s numbers can still be radically improved with more realistic assumptions.
All of this I have quoted extensively. We can see the figure in my earlier post.
Interestingly Behe himself admits this in his paper. Lynch correctly points this same fact out.
No, how conserved a protein is, is not an indication of how it first evolved. And the inference of conservation requires common descent, which Behe agrees to. There is no such thing as a protein that is “conserved” between mice and humans, for example, if they have separate origins.
You can’t show this with any math. You don’t know how to do the math and you constantly distracted from any calls for you to do it. You can’t connect Behe’s scenario to any real protein, much less any from the ones counted as gained in the venn diagram from Howe et al.
Not a single one. You know of no actual example of a protein that had to evolve according to Behe’s scenario. It is a fantasy and no reality conforms to it.
If mere assertions such as these suffice in place of arguments and evidence, then mine is as good as yours. So here we go:
It is also quite obvious that multiple origin models do not need to be explored as we have been discussing this for five years now and it is obvious the gene duplication and divergence can explain the single origin model.
My posts are in fact straight forward. Plain, simple, easy to understand. And frequently come with links and figures, and I take care to explain principles and the logic behind inferences I or others make. I quote extensively from material we discuss, and nothing is cherry picked. I have actually been commended by other people here, who are creationists, for this fact.
You may ultimately disagree with the conclusions I come to, but not for any of the reasons you state. Those reasons are false and you constantly falling back on them reveals more about your character than anything else.