By such a sentence not appearing anywhere in the result or conclusion.
Since it is a conclusion mistakenly drawn by creationists years after the paper’s publications, not by it’s authors.
Here on this very forum. In the various papers (by Michael Lynch and others) that have responded to Behe and others who have attempted to publish papers claiming such a limit. You should watch the video by evolutionary biologist @talkpopgen (Zach Hancock) I linked earlier.
In fact I can do better. Biochemist Michael Behe himself disagrees with it. In his first so-called waiting time paper (Behe & Snoke 2004) he writes(about the population sizes required to fix various numbers of individually deleterious mutations):
Such numbers seem prohibitive. However, we must be cautious in interpreting the calculations. On the one hand, as discussed previously, these values can actually be considered underestimates because they neglect the time it would take a duplicated gene initially to spread in a population. On the other hand, because the simulation looks for the production of a particular MR feature in a particular gene, the values will be overestimates of the time necessary to produce some MR feature in some duplicated gene. In other words, the simulation takes a prospective stance, asking for a certain feature to be produced, but we look at modern proteins retrospectively. Although we see a particular disulfide bond or binding site in a particular protein, there may have been several sites in the protein that could have evolved into disulfide bonds or binding sites, or other proteins may have fulfilled the same role. For example, Matthews’ group engineered several nonnative disulfide bonds into lysozyme that permit function (Matsumura et al. 1989). We see the modern product but not the historical possibilities.
This is Behe and Snoke admitting a colossal caveat with interpreting their results, and that the whole thing suffers from the hindsight thinking. Lynch 2005 demonstrated what happens for the waiting times if Behe and Snoke’s assumption of only a single set of mutations is violated (see figure 3).
It was.