So you admit Behe deliberately constructed his model to defy reality. The fact that Behe tossed *one* vaguely generous assumption in there is enough for you to excuse and special plead for all his numerous and much more intentionally restrictive (and, as he even admits in the paper, physically unrealistic) assumptions.

Please do the math that shows how the different model parameters affect the outcome. I mean if you claim to know which part of the model is “most sensitive” you must have done the modeling, right?

Pleas show that Behe’s **one** generous assumption is equally balanced out by **all** the restrictive assumptions he makes. That’s what you said above is the result. That he “balanced out” the issue of the assumptions. So you must think this equalizes the result. That his one generous, and numerous restrictive assumptions, in total contribute *equally* in opposite directions to his computed waiting time.

This is a rhetorical request. You are incapable of showing this and we all know it. You know it too and you knew it when you said it. You lied. Gave false witness.

Completely irrelevant because Behe isn’t modeling the divergence of WNT family members. It has zero relevance to the Venn diagrams or common descent.

Also you have no idea whether any of the WNT proteins have a novel function, or how many of the differences between different family members are required to specify any presumed new function is irrelevant.

You also have no idea whether any putative novel function required the protein to go through strongly deleterious intermediates.

You have no idea how many mutations it would take. You have no idea where in the process of divergence any putative novel function occurred, be that at the 1st, 23rd, 57th, or 100th mutation.

It could technically be at any point, so merely showing the total amount of differences between two homologous proteins doesn’t tell you whether it *has* new functions, nor how many of them are required to enable it.

I have already explained all of this to you before and you ignored it. You understand nothing of the subject. You’re a know-nothing blatherer. You don’t understand what Behe is doing, and you don’t understand that it isn’t relevant to what you are arguing. You’re just repeating the same small collection of memorized catchphrases over and over again, harping on the same long-debunked nonsense.

Here’s a collection of paper **actually relevant** to the WNT family divergence: