Mr. Fischer,
you are misinformed on several levels.
First, we do know quite a bit about malaria (I stated that I personally don't know the exact epidemiological information, but that does not mean such information does not exist).
Second, we know pretty much exactly how DNA changes, and how mutations are inherited. Some exotic cases are still matters of research, but the process that underlies the vast majority of evolution is well understood.
Third, we do NOT see an obstacle to formation of complex systems. This is a fact that follows from both theory and experiment: interactions and new activities arise constantly, and the more we research, more weak interactions or weak side activities we are finding.
The protein I'm working on, for example, has one clear catalytic activity. But then it was discovered that it also binds DNA and serves as a transcriptional activator. Then several weak/rare interactions with other proteins were discovered. Then it was found that three different modification (acetylation, phosphorylaton, nitrosation) at different places alter its DNA-binding specificity, changing which genes it activates and which it supresses. And similar stories keep jumping up all over the place, once sufficient research has been done.
So we do know a great deal about the “underlying DNA”, and how it exactly changes. In laboratory and nature, we have observed all required processes: evolution of new protein interactions, evolution of new signalling pathways, evolution of new catalytic activities.
I don't know how I can be more clear about this: we have not found anything in nature that cannot be explained by these processes. Every step is known and seen - all that needs to happen is for these steps to occur one after another, and change is inevitable.
Perhaps there is something in nature, some biochemical or physiological system, which cannot be explained with current models of natural selection. But if there are such things, we haven't found them yet.
This is the second point that should be very clear. There is no known process that counters mutation/selection under changing pressures.
In other words, according to everything we know about DNA and genetics, unless an organism lives in a pretty much absolutely unchanging environment, it WILL change over time. These changes will involve creation of novel biochemical systems of the kind Behe simply states cannot be created; the truth is the direct opposite, it seems that it is impossible for such systems NOT to be created, if the laws of genetics are what they seem they are.
Behe’s entire argument used to rest on picking poorly understood biochemical systems, and stating that they are irreducibly complex. This obviously didn't work - over the years, the systems he used were slowly examined, described, and it was found that there is nothing irreducibly complex about them. So his new approach is to simply fudge the numbers, and directly obfuscate well known facts of biology; a wise choice, given that this approach has served generations of old-style creationists very well.
Ywes yes, all fascinating reading- but these somments by laypeople do nothign to undermine edge of evolution as the critics have claimed it has been. Critics claim Behe’s book falls apart because they claim Behe states that two or more mutations CAN NOT arise to facillitate one change- that is a lie, Behe NEVER said anyhtign of hte sort- Here is what Behe actually said
““But I certainly do not say that multipleamino acid replacements “can’t happen”. A centerpiece of The Edge of Evolution is that it can and did happen.”
Let’s stick to hte issue- You claimed Behe’s book was ‘made obsolete’ and htis ismply is not true. It’s a false claim, and you also said ‘two laB experiments “have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.” Yeah? And htis makes Behe’s book obsolete how again? Fact is it doesn’t- as mentioned, Behe NEVER said it NEVER happens in nature- He said it is very unlikely, and the probabilities are quite low that it does- Yuo throw ‘two lab experiments’ up as though this somehow refutes the claim that it is rare?
You sir must have a degree in downplaying. These lab experiments only go to show that YES, indeed, these multiple mutaitons ARE idneed rare, and it ALSO goes to show that Heck- Metainfo is indeed instrumental in allowing or dissallowing certain MICROEvolutionary changes. The experiments you are referrign to show simply that Ecoli did infact have the ability to live on Citrates in the wild, and that mutaitons activated the wild sequences already present- Big deal? This refutes Behe’s book and ‘makes it obsolete’ How again?