Hold on a sec bro…
First please do me the pleasure of directly addressing my comment instead of dodging and bringing up a different point. We are here to discuss.
For starters, you asserted
Note that in this context, you are talking about mutations that “damage” the biochemical function of a gene but are beneficial for an organism. (note: this is an artificial category that Behe has manufactured but I"ll accept it for now; this would normally just be considered a beneficial mutation because it helps the organism…).
Now you assert that
This is true in an artificial way as defined by Behe, but I’ll work within your definitions for now. This is what you are talking about in your first quote above.
Notice how you have already conceded? You go from saying " immeasurably more numerous" to “often reductive in nature”.
My entire point is that you are completely wrong in your assessment of beneficial mutations when it comes to the frequency of reductive or biochemically “damaging” mutations vs. true “constructive” mutations. In fact, it is these reductive or biochemically “damaging” mutations which are exceedingly rare because they require very specific situations (for example very few animals live year around in white snowly environments so the degradation of color pigments in skin/fur is rarely going to be beneficial). This is why Behe’s devolution argument against evolution fails.
When we talk about adaptive mutations that are beneficial for organisms, they will usually be constructive in some way. Otherwise we would expect all living creatures to slowly lose their color as their pigments genes get damaged and we would loose our ability to smell as smell receptors degrade and color patterns on flowers would become less complex. This isn’t the world we live in. Look outside. Do have you seen an abundance of devolution over the last few decades or centuries?
Arguing that beneficial mutations are immeasurably rare is not going to convince anyone on this site of anything. People who accept modern evolutionary science already believe this and you’ve already begun to concede how often beneficial mutations are reductive. I think you should give this topic some more thought. Maybe I’ve missed the shift in animal and plant colors to dull gray and white over the last few hundred years…