Right, and that only matters because it seems improbable that evolution could produce it. That's the entire point of these arguments - "it could not have evolved, therefore we need a designer".
You know that Behe is a PhD in Biochemistry right? Do you think having a PhD in Biochemistry would give you a good background in evolutionary theory and a good grasp on the facts of that theory?
The point is, we have a functional model of how things work in almost all cases. It has beautiful explanatory and predictive power, and we have found evidence for it throughout all branches of life. Now, we come to something where we're not sure if the model applies. Once we have a model like this, though, we need to go about demonstrating that the model doesn't apply, not the other way around.
You seem to be under the false assumption that we have functional model of how things work in almost all cases, to being with. The fact that evolution, any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations, is found throughout all branches of life is hardly earth shaking. It is has predictive power in that there will be change in genetics of life forms that are inherited and are passed on. The theory had predictive attributes that have shown inaccurate...slow gradual change for instance had to be changed to when there is sudden appearance of life forms with no long periods of time to account for it then Punctuated Equilibrium will be devised to explain that. When life forms share features that are not shown to be from a common ancestor it is due to convergent evolution, horizontal gene transfer or now from epigenetics. None of these evolutionary explanations were included in Darwin's original works and were not "predicted" by the theory. If we can make it all up as we go, and then later claim that with this or that it can be "predicted" to be so, it is an ad hoc explanation.
If I wanted to claim that Pluto had the mass of a grape and was being held in orbit supernaturally, I'd think you'd ask for evidence for that claim. I mean, sure, we haven't demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics apply to it, but the fact that Newtonian mechanics seem to apply to, well, just about every other macro object in the universe offers a strong indication that Pluto probably follows Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, the fact that the pattern we see throughout everything in nature indicates design gives us pretty good grounds to assume that these complex cellular pathways are evolved.
Your analogy is meant to provide a nonsensical scenario to a very sensible argument for design. The fact that you equate design by an intelligent designer to claiming Pluto has the mass of a grape shows not the strength of your argument for evolutionary processes but your bias against design.
And, of course, as our knowledge increases, the various icons of "irreducible complexity" keep on falling to pieces as we learn they could have evolved and occasionally how they did. The argument you keep appealing to is the exact same argument used in the 1800s to propose that the eye couldn't have evolved. At this point, if you want to overthrow the paradigm, it's on you to determine that it couldn't have evolved, just like it'd be on you to demonstrate that Pluto somehow has a different gravitational constant. A good place to start would be showing that (in the case of cellular components - for macrostructures, methods tend to be a little different) the proteins expressed have no homology with other structures that are useful for the organism.
What you are neglecting to understand is that to explain those things that are irreducibly complex ad hoc explanations and speculations are not "showing they could have evolved" but showing that stories can be used to explain how something could have arose...maybe. I mean seriously, if I find nails, wood, paint from someone with no knowledge of architectural design who made a bird house and then fine nails, wood, and paint in a national resort I don't think assuming the person who made the bird house is the same person who designed the national resort. Finding the same "materials" in life forms to explain how those things might have come together in specific complex features is about the same concept.
The model, and here's the key thing that makes it scientific, makes
numerous testable predictions about what we should see in this case. And these predictions have, thus far, been
largely confirmed by a secondary paper by Matzke and Pallen in 2006.
Explain in your own words what scientific testable predictions were applied in Matzke and Pallen's paper.
And the explanatory framework of evolution gives us a way to understand how it evolved. It's by no means a proven fact - it could be that an alternative model fits the evidence we have better. But keep in mind that we're dealing with a really difficult question ("How did a highly complex microscopic machine evolve?" is one of the hardest questions you're going to answer in evolution), and we still have a pretty good idea of how it works, and it still shows that a supernatural explanation is unnecessary.
Pretty good idea does not evidence make. We have a pretty good idea that they involve "nails", "wood" and "paint" so....
Because you're citing his field of research as though it was evidence of intelligent design. I think you're misinterpreting his field of research, and I think you'll find that almost nobody in that field rejects evolution or holds to intelligent design. You're from citing research in advanced technical fields as support for your claims when the researchers in that field clearly disagree with you. This "top down" thing? So what? What implication does that have for evolution? That it was designed from the top down? You could describe any system in nature as designed "from the top down" using engineering terms. That does not mean that they actually were designed from the top down! Your argument makes no sense.
What you are saying is that scientific evidence should only be used for the sole purpose to show evolution and evolution alone. Evidence is evidence and should not be assigned to a paradigm, if it is used in this way it disqualifies any other that undermines the current one. That you feel evidence has a specific arena shows your bias towards your own worldview. The fact that there is design in all of nature and can be discussed the same as we discuss engineered systems and in top down terms is evidence for purpose/goals. The fact that you think this makes no sense is not due to the science, because the science supports such a conclusion, but your own un-evidenced belief as a materialist.
See, here you come really close to getting it. Yes, evolution as a whole is not being tested when we talk about the flagellum. We're past the point where that's a particularly useful thing to do.
Really? Why do you feel we are past the point of where that is particularly useful? When in science is it ever not a useful thing to do unless of course we don't want evidence that might show that paradigm unfavorably?
If we encounter something which clearly runs afoul of the theory, like a blue-blooded biped with hair and mammary glands, or a horse with avian wings, or even something like the bacterial flagellum but with no homologous proteins, then we can go back and say, "Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't fit the model". But cdesign proponentsists never point to something that blows up the tree of life. Because they can't. Instead, they look at a complex biological system, say "that couldn't have evolved", and then when real scientists prove them wrong, they move on to the next complex biological system! We done this dance a dozen times, and while I will admit that the increases in knowledge that are gleaned from evo-devo are interesting and these are probably things we would explore anyways for the sake of knowledge, the fact that we still have to waste time addressing points made by dishonest cretins like Sternberg and Wells is rather unfortunate.
Who is dishonest? Those that provided speculation and ad hoc stories to further a current paradigm or those who want to go where the evidence leads? That you feel the tree of life is all cozy and safe as it was when it was first developed shows you are either not keeping up with the times or married to the idea or just believe what you are told, regardless the tree is not the tree it was "predicted" to be.
I am not an expert. I welcome any expert or you to point out what on that list would not be a viable falsification for common descent and the tree of life.
These are for the most part things that we know wouldn't occur prior to the TOE coming into existence.
No. It's "speculative" that it did arise by evolution alone (in the same way that it's "speculative" that Pluto ever has or ever will ever complete a full orbit of the Sun). The fact that a functional model exists shows that it definitely could arise by evolution alone.
Materialistic bias only. There is no evidence that proves that this complex system arose from evolution alone.
You don't see the double standard here? "There's no evidence that explains the existence of such an illusion"? There's no evidence that explains such a design! There is no evidence pointing to a designer here beyond "this looks designed therefore there must have been a designer". Assuming we know nothing about the natural world, your proposed explanation puts us at exactly the same place as Dawkins's.
The double standard doesn't sit on me but on you. As a materialist and holding the view that only the natural world exists, it is incumbent on you to show how that explains the world without the need for a designer. There is evidence of a designer in nature, design is seen in all of nature. Design is the default position as we see design in all of nature and it is agreed that we do see design whether it be a naturalist or a theist.
...But of course, there is evidence that explains the existence of such an illusion. Evolution has long been understood as a form of "natural design". Selection pressures and the Red Queen Dilemma will necessarily lead to organisms that are very well adapted to their niche.
That's the story and they are sticking to it. Sadly, being well adapted to a niche is hardly the in the same category as that of specified complex features or functions.
If only the most aerodynamic birds can survive competition with other birds in the sky, this will lead to an evolutionary pathway which gradually produces more and more aerodynamic birds, to the point where the aerodynamics of the wing seem "designed".
All it takes for a wing is to get the job done and surviving. Competition is only as good as survival.
Evolution produces
countless things which, to various people, appear "designed". Does the human eye seem "designed" to you? It seemed designed to Paley. How about the bombardier beetle's caustic spray? Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub thought it was designed. Jonathan M. on Evolution News And Views thought that bacterial chemotaxis was designed (despite there already being
extensive research explaining how bacterial chemotaxis evolved!).
Again, speculation and ad hoc explanations.
The fact that I can bring up these examples shows quite clearly that there
is evidence for such an illusion, and that there's a viable explanation for such an illusion: evolution leads to not just the need for ever-increasing potency in biological systems, but also to the
streamlining of such systems, in such a way that it seems designed. This has been well-understood ever since Darwin first published "On The Origin Of Species" and showed that Paley's belief in the design of the human eye was demonstrably wrong. Or, illusory, if you will. Darwin
explicitly addressed this illusion in his book, and I think you might know about that passage, because it's one of the ones creationists love to quote-mine, and it keeps coming up.
It's the bit about the evolution of the eye being absurd in the highest degree.
Darwin especially and Dawkins as well have given us stories and how it might have been but that is hardly something that dismisses design.
Basically, Paley was wrong about the eye. Harrub was wrong about the bombardier beetle. Jonathan M was wrong about chemotaxis. All of these people fell prey to an illusion of design. How can you reasonably say that the design you see in a cell, or the design Behe sees in the bacterial flagellum, is not a similar illusion?
The fact that you want to believe that they have proven them wrong is only due to your won desire to believe materialistic explanations and can take such things without the evidence that supports them shows your own materialistic bias.
