You now agree this is beyond neutral mutations? Do you realize this claim pushes the model toward Behe and away from Lynch.
I agree I don’t see this as a reasonable conclusion for a process that initiates with random changes given the current level of available evidence. I have not claimed anything is impossible as science is always tentative.
You will have to explain why these are problems, and what they may have to do with the Venn diagrams. But I don’t think you know.
You have been appealing to neutral mutations explaining the Venn.
The problems with functional changes to a population are explained in the Behe Lynch discussion.
The problems with finding new function in a sequence have been discussed several times including Rum’s post above. The weakness in Rums argument is as follows.
-Beta Lactamase is not a conserved protein.
-Even if there are 10^115 different sequences able to adopt the fold the total sequence space is 10^490 so there are 10^385 sequences that do not adopt the fold. These numbers are unimaginably large.
Learning about Cricks discovery that DNA is a code and that DNA and proteins depend on a certain level sequence integrity is what started me doubting the theory. There is no real counter argument to the sequence problem given the current level of empirical evidence. Given this how are new genes formed by a process that is initiated by random change?