Ahh, so you base this belief of yours primarily on a hunch. Well allow me to not take your arguments seriously then.
But Behe’s rule is not about the rate of deleterious vs beneficial or neutral mutations. If anything, Behe’s rule seems to say that natural selection has no issue increasing relative fitness of an organism. The polar bear adapted to it’s environment, and it’s ancestors were brown bears that adapted to their environment before them.
Because it seems that every day new disease causing mutations are arising, but we aren’t getting anywhere close to that number of new beneficial proteins found.
That makes no sense. You seem to be insinuating that for every disease-causing mutation, there should be a novel beneficial entire protein to counter it.
Because of the fine tuned nature of protein protein interactions and the types of machines they produce. I think a lot of people imagine that building machines is easy if they never try.
The appeal to “how easy it is to a human” fallacy. Where have I heard this one before?
So you accept it is a reality that agriculture and medical science is counteracting natural selection in the human population to a certain extent. Then all the more reason for you to agree that you can’t extrapolate the situation in the human population to any long-term trend in the biosphere as a whole.