Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
You can refute it that way, but the alternative — which Moran did successfully and you've been too dense to register, despite having it pointed out to you multiple times — is show that the assumptions behind Behe's numbers were wrong, and therefore the numbers could not possibly demonstrate what Behe tried to use them to demonstrate.
I explained in detail how Behe cherry picked his analysis of HIV to choose a period where it was not under much selective pressure, and therefore wouldn't fix many new mutations.
And then claimed that the probability applied to every case of protein interactions, in every single type of organism, under every single possible selective pressure. The probability he was left with is garbage not because his estimate of what happened in malaria is wrong, but because every single one of those claims — and again, more i haven't mentioned — are wrong.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment