Stepwise evolutionary pathways to highly specific protein binding partners. That seems imposs--

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

A mutation occurs that produces a beneficial effect.

This mutation spreads in the population and is eventually fixed.

Then another mutation occurs that improves on the effect of the first.

This mutation then spreads to fixation

This process is repeated for every subsequent mutation. If there is an adaptation that involves four mutations, then, each mutation would first have to be fixed before another one has any effect.

Any scenario that differs from this does not meet his personal definition of “Darwinian evolution” and therefore shows that evolution is false and ID is true.

Well I think at best Behe has been somewhat inconsistent in his use of terminology. In his interview with @dsterncardinale, Behe explicitly stated that he considers ALL forms of unguided evolution to be “Darwinian” evolution, even all the neutral evolution and so on:

@Rumraket

In a discussion with @dsterncardinale Behe said this:

At about 13 minutes in Dan takes about one minute to list things he considers non-Darwinian mechanisms and causes of change. He mentions (among other things) neutral theory, exaptation, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, then says:

Dan: The reason I harp on this is I wanna make sure I have this crystal clear.
Dan: When we say a system has irreducible complexity - does it preclude evolution by all these mechanisms - just the ones from 1859 - just the ones from the 1940s…?
Behe: Well - I, I’m glad to say it precludes them by all those processes you just mentioned…
Dan: Okay.
Behe: …I just wanna say that, in my mind, I consider them all random changes, remember Darwin didn’t know about mutations or anything - he said random changes plus natural selection - and you got look at each of them carefully - I think neutral mutation fits happily into Darwinian evolution except that the mutation has a selection coefficient of 0 instead of a negative or a positive one - uh, so… so that doesn’t strike me as a big deal.
Behe: And gene duplication - meh that’s fine that’s one event though. Ahh so, yeah - any unguided processes.
Dan: Alright, any unguided pro…(?)
Behe: Nods
Dan: Okay, any unguided processes!
Behe: Right.

Behe clearly and explicitly considers exaptation a Darwinian mechanism.

It’s all “Darwinian” evolution to Behe. If it’s unguided it’s Darwinian. And he thinks it can’t work if it’s unguided. Because Behe commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.