Everyone agrees that there is an edge of evolution, what they disagree with is that any known attribute of a living organism is beyond that edge.
But he doesn’t show this. He assumes it in order to argue protein-protein interactions are beyond the edge. He says to evolve a new protein-protein interaction would require multiple simultaneous mutations, and without this intermediates are deleterious. But that’s all he does, SAY it. He doesn’t SHOW that this is true. All evidence we have show that it ISN’T true.
So yes, if we join Behe in making a demonstrably false assumption about biochemistry then with this false assumption evolution couldn’t produce X. It’s just that the assumption is demonstrably false.
The End.
I remind you that the flagellum already exists and that in the thread on T-URF13 evolution you said this:
And yet here you are pointing to the flagellum after the fact. Ironic.