Showing evidence that people claim mutations are random is not responsive. For the assertion was not about mutations. Rather, it was about mutations that have brought new functions.
I think most biologists would say that “mutations that have brought new functions” is a reference to mutations that have been filtered through natural selection. And those are not random with respect to fitness, because of that filtering.
What you need to show is the mechanism can deliver the functions we are observing to challenge Behe’s argument. Irreducibly complexity dilutes the filter you are describing.
A primates genome is about 3 billion base pairs. These mutations can happen in many different places.
Behe himself agrees that they can arise rarely by random mutation. So there you have it.
Also IC is not a valid argument, and cannot be invoked in his defense. Note, Behe avoided responding to Reference 2, to Boudry’s paper. This is likely because he knows it invalidates IC, and he has no answer for it.
My suspicion is that you’re confused because when you originally made your claim you didn’t understand the meaning of what you said and actually meant something else. @nwrickert has explained, below, what you said. But I’m not sure that’s what you meant to say. Then again, it’s usually hard to tell what you meant to say.
Science has already done so over the last 70 years. The process is called evolution. Behe’s is the bog-standard ID-Creationist argument from ignorance. He tried to support his claim by cherry-picking his data while ignoring the large amount which refutes him. Not very scientific or intellectually honest I’m afraid.
Science knows how IC structures can be produce through indirect but still completely natural means. The IC argument for ID is just about extinct now because of it.
Irreducible complexity doesn’t actually have anything to do with it.
We are talking about the distinction between:
Mutations
and
Mutations which provide new function.
These are obviously not the same. That the first of those is usually described as random with respect to fitness has no implications as to whether the second can be so described.
Yes, I understand that you question whether evolution can actually work. But the discuss was about what people have claimed, not about what works. So your questioning is not relevant.
I don’t believe he does. But he believes a malaria parasite can develop resistance to chloroquine thru random mutations. That is clearly a beneficial mutation, for the parasite. For us, not so much. But that is besides the point. The point is that you do not seem to understand Behe’s position on the matter. I don’t think that is entirely your fault, however.
Do you think Dr Lenski demonstrated that the Darwinian mechanism was responsible for the major evolutionary transitions such as Tiktaalik?
He agreed with Behe’s that the adaptive mechanism can degrade genes. Why would a degrading mechanism be effective over long periods of time as an innovative tool?