I don't know whether to thank you or offer condolences that you had to sit through such a "scientific" meeting. In any case, given that Behe is the only one in the entire group that at the very least has a background in a relevant field to evolutionary biology (if one is kind), did he offer anything novel? It sounds like he is pushing IC further and further back from full blown structures to protein interactions. Having just attended an admittedly dry seminar on the way the HIV protein Rev interacts with the HIV RNA molecule, it is simple chemistry and hardly irreducible...it is also a far from optimal interaction (which IDists seem to assume that everything is optimal)yet the tradeoff is that it allows HIV a lot of room to respond to different cellular conditions. Given a variable system, operating under the normal constraints of biochemical reactions, how does Behe justify IC? I don't really expect an answer since thus far, the entire ID movement has been mired in its inability to get beyond assertion of IC and the impossibility of its evolving and provide a legitimate example.
quote:From what I gathered he took a gene, duplicated it then determined what mutations would have to occur on both genes to make the two proteins complementary so they could form a complex.
This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed