Mike Behe & Joshua Swamidass on Unbelievable: The Kitzmiller-Dover trial and Intelligent Design 15

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

I mean, look how he has continued to flog the “irreducibly complex” flagellum, literally decades after that argument was refuted.

Or his response to the work of the Thornton lab on ancestor reconstruction. It’s not possible for me to keep taking the man seriously.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

The wider context of that blog post is obviously important. He did concede the one point but not his overall argument.

Have you checked to see whether his other points are supported by evidence? Please stop with the Black Night imitation.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

@Mercer

2007, IIRC.

If you make a claim like that, you should be able to back it up.

So you’re much more interested in what Behe wrote than whether what’s in the book is supported by evidence?

@thoughtful

I was showing Behe, at least, didn’t immediately admit she was correct as the other biologist mentioned her and those two had many back-and-forths.

Did HIV evolve a new protein-protein binding site or not?

@thoughtful

What is objectively false?

The claim that HIV never evolved a new protein-protein binding site. It did, in real time.

@thoughtful

He did concede the one point but not his overall argument.

His argument is mathematical. It is likely significant that one of the points on his graph is off by a factor of infinity. At least you should check and redo the math including the correction.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Rumraket

It’s not possible for me to keep taking the man seriously.

Like I said, though, I doubt he much cares how seriously the likes of you or I take him, not to mention the scientific community. That is not his intended audience. His main competition, it seems, is now with theistic evolutionists.