Response to Kenneth Miller's review of 'Edge of Evolution'

[Steady Eddie]

Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:


***************************************************************
Yesterday, in the first part of my response to Kenneth Miller's review, in which I addressed his substantive points, I ended by showing that a reference he cited did not contain the evidence he claimed it did. In this final part, I more closely examine Miller's tendentious style of argumentation.


Speaking of throwing around irrelevant references, Miller writes:


Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is "beyond the edge of evolution", [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97-101; 2006), the 'evolvability' of new functions in existing proteins -- studies on serum paraxonase (PON1) traced the evolution of several new catalytic functions (Nature Genet. 37, 73-76; 2005) -- or the modular evolution of cellular signalling circuitry (Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75, 655-680; 2006).

Now, dear reader, when Miller writes of "protein-to-protein" binding sites in one sentence, wouldn't you expect the papers he cites in the next sentence would be about protein-to-protein binding sites? Well -- although the casual reader wouldn't be able to tell -- they aren't. None of the papers Miller cites involves protein-protein binding sites. The Sciencepaper concerns protein-steroid-hormone binding; the Nature Genetics paper deals with the enzyme activity of single proteins; and the Annual Reviews paper discusses rearrangement of pre-existing protein binding domains. What's more, none of the papers deals with evolution in nature. They all concern laboratory studies where very intelligent investigators purposely re-arrange, manipulate, and engineer isolated genes (not whole cells or organisms) to achieve their own goals. Although such studies can be very valuable, they tell us little about how a putatively blind, random evolutionary process might proceed in unaided nature.


Miller's snide comment, that apparently I haven't followed these developments, seems pretty silly, since it's so easy to find out that I followed them closely. You'd think he should have noticed that I cited the Annual Reviews article in The Edge of Evolution in Appendix D, which deals in detail with Wendell Lim's interesting work on domain swapping. You'd think he easily might have checked and seen that I was quoted in the New York Times commenting on Joseph Thornton's Science paper when it first came out a year ago. You'd also think he'd then have to tell readers of the review why I thought the papers weren't pertinent. You'd be thinking wrong.


Much worse, Miller is as subtly misleading when writing about the substantive points ofThe Edge of Evolution as he is when making supercilious offhand comments. Miller writes: "Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is 'beyond the edge of evolution', [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure." But the book says plainly that it is two, not one, binding sites that marks the edge of evolution. That was not an obscure point. Chapter 7 is entitled "The Two-Binding-Sites Rule"; Figure 7.4 has a line at two binding sites, with a big arrow pointing to it labeled "Tentative molecular edge of evolution." What's more, the book goes out of its way to say that Darwinism is certainly not a "hopeless failure", that there are important biological features it clearly can explain. That's why one chapter is called "What Darwinism Can Do".


Regrettably, that's Miller's own special style. He doesn't just sneer and thump his chest, as some other Darwinists do. He uses less savory tactics, too. His tactics include ignoring distinctions the author draws (cellular protein-protein binding sites vs. other kinds of binding sites), mischaracterizing an argument by skewing or exaggerating its claims ("so much as a single ..."), and employing inflammatory, absolutist language ("[Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure"). He turns the principle of charitable reading on its head. Instead of giving a text its best interpretation, he gives it the worst he can.


Call it the principle of malignant reading. He's been doing it for years with the arguments of Darwin's Black Box, and he continues it in this review. For example, despite being repeatedly told by me and others that by an "irreducibly complex" system I mean one in which removal of a part destroys the function of the system itself, Miller says, no, to him the phrase will mean that none of the remaining parts can be used for anything else -- a straw man which can easily be knocked down. Unconscionably, he passes off his own tendentious view to the public as mine. People who look to Miller for a fair engagement of the arguments of intelligent design are very poorly served.
****************************************************************************
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/

[deadrat]

On 8/1/14 1:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:

<snip/>

> Call it the principle of malignant reading. He's been doing it for years with the arguments of
> Darwin's Black Box, and he continues it in this review. For example, despite being repeatedly
> told by me and others that by an "irreducibly complex" system I mean one in which removal of a
> part destroys the function of the system itself, Miller says, no, to him the phrase will mean
> that none of the remaining parts can be used for anything else -- a straw man which can easily
> be knocked down. Unconscionably, he passes off his own tendentious view to the public as mine.
> People who look to Miller for a fair engagement of the arguments of intelligent design are very
> poorly served.
> ****************************************************************************
> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/

The paragraph above could well have been written by Steadfastly. The
difference is that while I can believe that Steadfastly thinks this is a
serious argument, I can't believe the same of Behe.

No one has an argument with his definition of "irreducibly complex."
But unless "the remaining parts" can't be used for anything else,
there's no mystery. Evolution explains how the complex arose. In fact,
it's to be expected.

[RSNorman]

Just two points:

First, I can not beieve that it could well have been written by
Steadfastly. It could easily have been copied by him but I don't
think he is capable of writing a coherent (albeit incorrect)
paragraph.

Second, your claim that complexity is to be expected in evolution is
simply channeling Jonathan, another favorite around here. Of course
the statement is true. Just not in the way Jonathan thinks.

But I just brought up the second point so I could point interested
readers to some nice pieces on the origin of biological complexity:
http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/evolution-biological-complexity

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130716-the-surprising-origins-of-lifes-complexity/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/biological-complexity-and-integrative-levels-of-organization-468

These are all full text, free. There are some really nice scientific
papers but behind paywalls.

[RonO]

On 8/1/2014 1:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
SNIP:
> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/
>

Eddie:

This is from 2007. Have you heard of The Edge amounting to anything but
more junk to fool the creationist rubes with? Any ground breaking
science that you can share with us? Why is the bait and switch still
going down if Behe's work ever amounted to anything? Why would whining
from 7 years ago matter unless you could put up anything that had panned
out. What intelligent design conclusions have been verified in the last
7 years? Zero should mean something. Has Behe's IC been verified to
exist in nature? Even the Thornton's research doesn't mean squat for
intelligent design. If you understood that research you would know that
it points to known causes and mutation events that are known to occur
naturally. Behe can only claim that the back probability would be low,
so what? Evolution builds on what has already happened, not what is
going to happen in the future. If something happens it obviously
happens. You can't undo it using magic words. Thornton's work isn't
Behe's work. Behe is only abusing it. Have you looked at any of the
papers? Do you know what gene duplication is? The estrogen receptor
family that Thornton is studying has diversified during the evolution of
multicellular animals. The changes in the other thread that they are
talking about may have happened in receptors of the ancestor that
predated the deuterostome and protostome split. These mutations may have
been occurring in organisms that were barely multicellular. Not only
that, but the two receptors obviously evolved by gene duplication. Not
only that, but multiple gene duplication and diversification events have
happened in the receptor family after that, and Behe isn't making a big
deal out of those. Why?

All Thornton's research group has determined is the evolutionary path by
which one receptor family has evolved and diversified by. Why isn't
Behe claiming that he knows the gene duplication event that the designer
was involved with? Why isn't he claiming that it happened over half a
billion years ago? Why aren't the ID perps adding this wonderful
information to their model of intelligent design? It doesn't help them
does it. It would only lose them creationist support that they depend on.

Just check out one of Thornton's papers where they have a figure on the
family tree of these receptors. They know which receptors are more
related to each other than others and which receptors were derived from
previous ones. How do you think that they were able to determine the
two essential mutations to separate the lineages way back when? These
receptors have an evolutionary history and it is hundreds of millions of
years in the making. One receptor had to come before the other, and
they happened in different taxa and radiated with events like the
evolution of deuterostome and protostome invertebrates, then cordates,
then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles and mammals. If this
is how the designer did it. He did it using what we think happened
during the evolution of life on earth.

The article is free. Look at figure 1. The change that is being
discussed in the other thread is very early in the evolution of
multicellular animals. They don't have a time scale, but they do say in
what lineages the changes occurred. You can see that the divergence of
the estrogen receptor in protostomes and deuterostomes occurred after
the steroid receptor split. Why isn't Behe making a big deal about
knowing that, most likely, a space alien designer was mucking around
with primative multicellular animals over half a billion years ago so
that we could have humans that developed Behe's religion? This
multicellular ancestor likely didn't even have a mouth and anus, but
likely ate and excreted from the same cavity. Sort of what the ID perps
do even though they no longer have to.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003072

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

"After mentioning that de novo resistance to chloroquine is found roughly once in every 1020 malaria parasites, and quoting several sentences from The Edge of Evolution where I note "On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years," Miller writes:


Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn't. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. ....
Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result.

Miller makes the same mistake here that I addressed earlier when replying to Jerry Coyne's response. The number of one in 1020 is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is statistical data. It is perhaps not too surprising that both Miller and Coyne make that mistake, because in general Darwinists are not used to constraining their speculations with quantitative data. The fundamental message of The Edge of Evolution, however, is that such data are now available. Instead of imagining what the power of random mutation and selection might do, we can look at examples of what it has done. And when we do look at the best, clearest examples, the results are, to say the least, quite modest. Time and again we see that random mutations are incoherent and much more likely to degrade a genome than to add to it -- and these are the positively-selected, "beneficial" random mutations."
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-kenneth-r-miller/

[RonO]

This does not address the point that I made. In fact it seems to be
just some random junk that you are parroting for whatever reason that
you are doing it for.

Why not address what I wrote?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 3 August 2014 09:22:30 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

In the abstract and the author's note:
Lots of rhetoric and speculation robed in "known" fact; not a SCRAP of science.

[Steady Eddie]

Ron, I'm really close to just writing you off as a stupid idiot.
Show some courage in actually reading one of my posts and thinking about it.
This is a very involved debate, between Behe and Miller, and if you're not going to follow it, the fuck off.

[Peter Nyikos]

Ron O's favorite form of argumentation when he cannot refute
what is said is to slap on any old crud and accuse you of
"running away" if you don't try to argue against the crud
point by point. But if you do, he'll just slap some more crud
on and so it will go, *ad infinitum*.

This behavior of his was especially evident in the Scottish verdict
thread that I set up. My thesis from the OP on was that Ron O,
while posting mountains of evidence on something he called "the switch,"
had never given any credible evidence for the "bait" part of this
supposed "scam" that the Discovery Institute was guilty of; and
without bait, there is nothing to switch from and no scam.

Ron O kept on posting again and again on the "switch" and never even
tried to explain why his "evidence" is supposed to do what it does.
(The "evidence" was a statement that teachers had the constitutional
right to teach about the design argument, because it was scientific.)
Ron O adamantly insisted that it promised that the Discovery Institute
had the science down so pat that it could be credibly taught in the public
schools as an alternative to evolution.

Ron O's only explanation for why the "evidence" did what it was
supposed to do was to call me a liar and insane for not being able
to admit to it, after the Scottish verdict thread was over. During
the thread itself he kept insulting me in other ways, but I kept
deleting the insults and the evidence for what Ron O labeled "the
switch". I kept insisting on the "bait" not having been
proven.

[The term "Scottish verdict" comes from the fact that Scottish
courts had a third alternative to "guilty" and "not guilty";
It is: "Not proven."]

In the end, I decided things were getting so repetitious that it wasn't
worth continuing the thread. Ron O has ever since asked the
misleading question, "Who made a fool of himself on the Scottish
verdict thread?" Of course, the answer is: "Ron O". But Ron O
is so deluded that he thinks it was me simply because I had
"run away" from the thread.

If you let him, Ron O will suck you into a black hole of ever
increasing piles of crud that you have to keep addressing until
one of you dies. The alternative is to be called someone of whom
"nothing is left but a twitching sphincter."

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Hey Eddie, you ran from this post over a year ago. Look at the date.
My guess is that you just forgot why you ran away.

Why not apologize for lying about me to another poster and be done with
it. Look what you are resorting to in order to run from that reality.
You lied, and you know it. You wouldn't have to go back to these old
threads searching for what you can't find if that were not true.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

So you are admitting that you do not understand the paper and you
decided to do your Eddieism and run. Did you even try to figure out how
you were lied to about this paper, so that you didn't even understand
what it was about?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole.
Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?

[RonO]

You know what is really funny about this. This is Nyikos that you are
responding to and he is the king of declaring victory and running away.
The dismembered Monty Python knight is his role model. How does that
make your running away any more palatable?

Ron Okimoto

[Peter Nyikos]

Do YOU, Ron O? How come I don't see you doing that?

>
> You know what is really funny about this. This is Nyikos that you are
> responding to and he is the king of declaring victory and running away.

You have run away from almost every telling thing I write, in the manner I
described above. You are the king of declaring victory because
you are quite willing to keep people going down the black hole
as long as it takes for you to get in the last word.

The only way I could avoid your insincere label "running away" is to
literally keep replying to you at least as long as YOU don't quit
talk.origins.

And only death might make you do that.

> The dismembered Monty Python knight is his role model. How does that
> make your running away any more palatable?

Projection is a way of life for you. YOU are the Black Knight here, having
made no effort whatsoever to refute what I wrote to Eddie.

You care not at all for Eddie's "LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole."
because you are working the same "black hole, Black Knight" scam against
him as you did against me for so long.

So you might as well go ahead and declare victory over both of us,
because if you dare to contest what I wrote about the Scottish Verdict
thread, I will not reply *here*. Instead, you will see me reviving
that old thread and showing everyone the truth of what I wrote in
the post to which Eddie was replying.

But don't worry: I won't start with your last post, but rather with your
first, and so you can always just tyrannically demand at every step
of the way that I reply to the post "from which you ran away" before
*you* deign to answer anything in the posts I do make.

And that should make you -- who, like Ray Martinez, live in a fool's
paradise -- very, very happy.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Pretty sad.

Here is the link and you can snip and run or just run like you usually do.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b4eNYHIncSY/Zw0DAKbDvGEJ

Repost for the benefit of Nyikos:
It looks like Nyikos has started to run again and there is no doubt that
�tomorrow� has not come in terms of the posts that Nyikos claimed that
he would relentlessly pursue. The pattern has been the same for years,
and it has been stupid and ridiculous for years. Nyikos has some weird
insane notion that he has never lied on the internet and that he has
never lost an exchange on the internet. These stupid lies seem to drive
him to keep going back to his old stupidity where he has lied or just
been plain wrong so that he can continue some weird type of denial of
reality. Nyikos has a personal definition of running that includes not
answering a post for over two months, so he has to keep pestering me
every couple of months in order for him to continue his insane denial of
reality. This is the boob who early on (years ago) accused me of
running from a post for two whole weeks when there was no reason that I
should have even known that the post existed because he had posted it to
someone else. This is the type of projection of his own stupidity that
Nyikos has to indulge in, in order to continue his senseless denial.

I have decided that instead of having to deal with the same old, same
old over and over that I will just take advantage of the latest Nykosian
denial to put together a post that I can just repost when Nyikos starts
posting to me again. I have had to look up and link to some of the
first material that Nyikos had to run from and deny so instead of
continuing to have to look the junk up just to have Nyikos run again, I
will just start reposting this post.

Nyikos started to harass me again after months of running in this thread:
Why do the ID perps run the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist (9/10/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/VLf_vGDImnIJ

He had to start lying about the past as usual, so I demonstrated that he
was lying and he decided to run, but as is also usually the case he had
to pretend to be addressing the posts so he lied to Glenn that he would
address the material that he is still running from �tomorrow,� but
tomorrow obviously has not come. It is like his ploy where he claims
that he will "continue" but runs from the material that he has deleted.

One of the posts Nyikos had run from (9/13/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/00GyMLoAhDcJ

It is obvious that Nyikos had to run from this post because when the
same evidence has been put up in other posts he has snipped it out and
run or just run. He has failed to address this evidence multiple times.

The Nyikosian lie to Glenn about tomorrow (9/16/14):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/vOPLiVKsp4kJ

QUOTE:
Ron O has really ramped up his campaign of deceit against me on this
thread. I won't have time for it until tomorrow, Glenn, but I will
relentlessly pursue him on this thread. One thing I should explain
now, though. Back at a time when Hemidactylus gave the appearance of
sincerity, I promised him I would only reply to Ron O very sparingly
from that point on.

But Hemidactylus has gone off the deep end, and he now is completely
on Ron O's side despite having tried to look above it all in the past.

So I consider myself released from my promise: it is quite possible
that he only held off revealing what a toady he is of Ron O because
I kept to my promise, but his irrational hatred for me caused him to cast
caution to the winds.

Peter Nyikos
END QUOTE:

Poor Hemi. Nyikos harassed him for years with his claims that his
knockdowns were still coming, and Nyikos will not even tell me what the
last knockdown was supposed to be and give me a link to the post. Now
Glenn will have to deal with the tomorrow that never came.

Instead of address the posts that Nyikos claimed that he would
relentlessly pursue Nyikos started to lie about the issues in new posts
even after I noted his claim above, so I took some time and looked up
the old evidence that Nyikos had run from years ago.

Wells on the Ohio Bait and Switch in 2002 (9/21/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ

It wasn�t a futile exercise because I learned something that I had not
known before. I found a report that Wells had written (likely for the
other ID perps at the Discovery Institute) where he admits that Meyer
and he in consultation with others had decided to run the bait and
switch on the Ohio rubes before they went to Ohio. Their presentation
on the science of intelligent design was just for show, and Wells�
comment to the Ohio board that there was enough scientific support for
ID that it could be required to be taught in the Ohio public schools was
just bogus propaganda because they had no intention of providing the ID
science for the creationist rubes to teach. The ID perps sold the rubes
the ID scam and then only gave them a stupid obfuscation switch scam
that did not even mention that ID had ever existed. I will also note
that the addition to the Discovery Institute�s education policy
qualifier, that they did not want ID required to be taught in the public
schools, was not added until after the Ohio bait and switch. I noticed
that they had added it sometime around the Dover fiasco. The copy of
their education policy that was in their 2007 Dover propaganda pamphlet
definitely had the �required� qualification.

This is a post where I link to the old posts where Nyikos was running in
denial about being wrong about the Ohio bait and switch and the
Discovery Institute�s involvement from 2011.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/IfNy4J5a4pEJ

Dover propaganda pamphlet on why intelligent design science could still
be taught in the public schools:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453



Trying to find new issues to misdirect the argument to, Nyikos started
making bogus claims about another old thread even after he had snipped
and ran from the obvious explanation twice.

Unnoted change in policy at the Discovery Institute. (9/1/13)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/LS3yPcug9t8J

The issue was what I believed that Glenn was arguing in this thread. I
at first thought that Glenn was adding to the evidence that the
education policy had changed from what it was. The pamphlet that he put
up had the old education policy in it and contained the paragraph about
teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design that the Discovery
Institute had removed. It was the perfect example of how the education
policy had changed. When he started some weird negative campaign I
thought that he was claiming that the education policy had not changed
and he was using the Dover pamphlet to do it. I informed him that he
could not use a document that had been updated in 2009 to deny something
that the Discovery Institute had recently done, but he kept up his
nonsensical argument. Glenn now claims that he was not talking about
the education policy shift, but was only trying to claim that the ID
perps were still selling the ID is science scam. How could he use a 4
year old document to claim that? It also makes no sense to me because I
would have agreed with Glenn that the ID scam was going to continue.
There would have been no reason for us to argue if Glenn had been
clearer on what he was doing. It doesn�t matter for Nyikos because
Nyikos denies that the ID perps claim to have the ID science in that
pamphlet, so he is wrong no matter what Glenn was arguing.

Nyikos Snipping and running from this reality:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/FawHtAIHPFoJ

Nyikos removing what he cannot deal with again in a post manipulation
that you have to compare to the above post to understand the stupidity
of what Nyikos does. This post really is a monument to the stupidity
that Nyikos indulges in.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/TeXllwSwW0MJ

Nyikos has not addressed this post in the original policy change thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_UKCQLy_THM/NLk50v_IujsJ

Nyikos claims that I did not respond to his post, but I gave him the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/38nQm79NC94/mR2PtcMGS_8J

It has been a vacation of sorts for me, but likely hell for other
posters in the months that Nyikos was running and just lying about his
escapades to other posters. I will just note the last instance of
harassment that Nyikos should try to deal with instead of running like
he did.

Nyikos� previous harassment thread:
By their Fruits May 2014 (5/22/14)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/ttHhTTke_zE/3eaOhuIMGm8J

Nyikos started the above thread to harass me, but it backfired on him
because of his own stupid dishonesty, and he had to delete his post that
he started the thread with from my responses in order to keep lying. He
removed his original post twice from the discussion because he could not
defend his bogus tactics. Nyikos is that sad. Nyikos really has the
toddler mentality that if he pulls the blanket over his head no one can
see him. It is a weird delusional quirk that drives him to remove the
evidence from a post so that he can continue to deny reality.

By their Fruits March 2014
The thread that spawned the harassment thread.
Giving Nyikos some advice that he should have taken:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/6fiXahJH9fMJ

My response to what Nyikos did:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1MGKcHaFVtI/vKg4Lu0kxB0J

Nyikos ran and started the harassment thread.

I realize that Nyikos is likely going to run and just harass other
posters with his stupid denial of reality, but I can�t do anything about
Nyikos except to expose the liar when he posts to me and get him to
leave me alone for a few weeks or months. Just imagine what a hell it
would be if I followed Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper and set
him straight whenever he started lying about me to some other posters.
I am going to save this document onto my desktop for the next time
Nyikos can�t keep himself from his stupid sadistic harassment. I plan
to just repost it and tell the loon that he can address what he has
already run from before starting something else or lying about the past
some other way.

Ron Okimoto
END Repost:

Snip and run or just keep running, it doesn't matter to me.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 3 December 2015 18:13:22 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/3/2015 8:51 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:08:23 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2015 10:53 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 20:08:26 UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip]
You're a douche bag, Ron.

[Steady Eddie]

[crickets...]

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:17:43 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?

What do you understand about Miller's critique?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

Why would anyone object to your calling Nyikos an asshole, and why would
they respond to your response to the asshole?

Do you know what Nyikos' IDiot alternative is? He believes in space
alien designers that gave earth the plans to evolve the flagellum a
couple billion years ago. Just ask him.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Just think what it would be like if you actually had an argument worth
putting forward and defending. Why defend an obvious asshole like
Nyikos? Just because you two are very similar doesn't mean that you
shouldn't be able to see your own degenerate behavior reflected in his.
Nyikos never had an argument either and ran from reality for years,
and is still running. What are you going to be doing years from now?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

To pull an Eddieism, so why are there only crickets?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Hey Eddie, why not apologize and and get it over with? Doing the
degenerate things that you are stuck doing is really just stupid. If
you are done with me why comment about me behind my back to other
posters like the asshole Nyikos.

I don't really see a lot of these posts to old threads because the way I
have Eternal September set up these old threads are in order by date.
They are so far back up the line that unless I go to Google I don't see
them. I have started to look at Google groups routinely because you
seem to want to relive getting your butt kicked over and over.

Apologize, you will likely feel better about being such an little shit
and running from reality. Reality is never going to change just because
you want to deny it.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 1 August 2014 12:34:39 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> Yesterday, in the first part of my response to Kenneth Miller's review, in which I addressed his substantive points, I ended by showing that a reference he cited did not contain the evidence he claimed it did. In this final part, I more closely examine Miller's tendentious style of argumentation.
>
>
> Speaking of throwing around irrelevant references, Miller writes:
>
>
> Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is "beyond the edge of evolution", [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97-101; 2006), the 'evolvability' of new functions in existing proteins -- studies on serum paraxonase (PON1) traced the evolution of several new catalytic functions (Nature Genet. 37, 73-76; 2005) -- or the modular evolution of cellular signalling circuitry (Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75, 655-680; 2006).
>
> Now, dear reader, when Miller writes of "protein-to-protein" binding sites in one sentence, wouldn't you expect the papers he cites in the next sentence would be about protein-to-protein binding sites? Well -- although the casual reader wouldn't be able to tell -- they aren't. None of the papers Miller cites involves protein-protein binding sites. The Sciencepaper concerns protein-steroid-hormone binding; the Nature Genetics paper deals with the enzyme activity of single proteins; and the Annual Reviews paper discusses rearrangement of pre-existing protein binding domains. What's more, none of the papers deals with evolution in nature. They all concern laboratory studies where very intelligent investigators purposely re-arrange, manipulate, and engineer isolated genes (not whole cells or organisms) to achieve their own goals. Although such studies can be very valuable, they tell us little about how a putatively blind, random evolutionary process might proceed in unaided nature.

(Miller's all-time favourite hobby: QUOTE-BLUFFING. This might be where Harshman picked up the habit.)

> Miller's snide comment, that apparently I haven't followed these developments, seems pretty silly, since it's so easy to find out that I followed them closely. You'd think he should have noticed that I cited the Annual Reviews article in The Edge of Evolution in Appendix D, which deals in detail with Wendell Lim's interesting work on domain swapping. You'd think he easily might have checked and seen that I was quoted in the New York Times commenting on Joseph Thornton's Science paper when it first came out a year ago. You'd also think he'd then have to tell readers of the review why I thought the papers weren't pertinent. You'd be thinking wrong.
>
>
> Much worse, Miller is as subtly misleading when writing about the substantive points ofThe Edge of Evolution as he is when making supercilious offhand comments. Miller writes: "Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is 'beyond the edge of evolution', [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure." But the book says plainly that it is two, not one, binding sites that marks the edge of evolution. That was not an obscure point. Chapter 7 is entitled "The Two-Binding-Sites Rule"; Figure 7.4 has a line at two binding sites, with a big arrow pointing to it labeled "Tentative molecular edge of evolution." What's more, the book goes out of its way to say that Darwinism is certainly not a "hopeless failure", that there are important biological features it clearly can explain. That's why one chapter is called "What Darwinism Can Do".

(When QUOTE-BLUFFING begins to bore him, Miller goes to his next favourite trick: BALD-FACED LYING.)

> Regrettably, that's Miller's own special style. He doesn't just sneer and thump his chest, as some other Darwinists do. He uses less savory tactics, too. His tactics include ignoring distinctions the author draws (cellular protein-protein binding sites vs. other kinds of binding sites), mischaracterizing an argument by skewing or exaggerating its claims ("so much as a single ..."), and employing inflammatory, absolutist language ("[Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure"). He turns the principle of charitable reading on its head. Instead of giving a text its best interpretation, he gives it the worst he can.

(Other pastimes of Miller demonstrated here:
-IGNORING DISTINCTIONS THE AUTHOR DRAWS
-MISCHARACTERIZING AN ARGUMENT BY SKEWING OR EXAGGERATING ITS CLAIMS
-EMPLOYING INFLAMMATORY, ABSOLUTIST LANGUAGE)

> Call it the principle of malignant reading. He's been doing it for years with the arguments of Darwin's Black Box, and he continues it in this review. For example, despite being repeatedly told by me and others that by an "irreducibly complex" system I mean one in which removal of a part destroys the function of the system itself, Miller says, no, to him the phrase will mean that none of the remaining parts can be used for anything else -- a straw man which can easily be knocked down. Unconscionably, he passes off his own tendentious view to the public as mine. People who look to Miller for a fair engagement of the arguments of intelligent design are very poorly served.
> ****************************************************************************
> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/

(And when he's not playing with himself you'll find him playing with STRAW MEN.
Miller is a charlatan. The fact that he is highly regarded in Darwinist circles shows the kind of games
Darwinists are REALLY up to.)

[jillery]

Technically, you pulled a Casanovism, which appropriately highlights a
post which has been conveniently and likely dishonestly ignored. What
Steadly hears aren't crickets but bells ringing in his head; the
doorbell's connected but nobody's home.

[jillery]

Don't bother. He talks about it whenever the compulsion drives him.
He even thinks his FAQ deserves inclusion in the T.O. archives.
The only question is how far some people will go to humor him.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:36:01 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


This is another example of Steadly mindlessly parroting somebody
else's words. This wouldn't be so bad if Steadly accepted his
implication, that he agrees with the words he parrots. But when the
merits of his quotes were challenged, in the past he simply ran away,
likely because he didn't understand what he parroted. Given that, I
expect he will do the same thing here.

>On Friday, 1 August 2014 12:34:39 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:
>>

>> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/


And Miller addresses Behe's post (and others) here:

<http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/behe-2014/Behe-1.html>


There is one part which not only relates to Behe's argument, but also
the recent arguments of the good Dr. Dr.:

******************************************
Here’s how it works. Let’s accept Behe’s number of 1 in 10^20 for the
evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC. As he admits, CCC’s have
arisen multiple times in the malaria parasite population since the
drug was first introduced in 1947. In fact, resistance to the drug
appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s, within just 15 years of
its widespread use. So it only took a decade and a half for one of
Behe’s CCC’s to emerge in the parasite population. Now, suppose that
another drug, equal in effectiveness to chloroquine, were to come into
wide use. According to Behe, resistance to both drugs would require
two CCCs, and the probability of double resistance arising would be a
CCC squared. That’s 1 in 10^20 x 10^20 or one chance in 1 in 10^40.
According to Behe’s math, that’s such a large number that we can call
it impossible:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

“…throughout the course of history there would have been slightly
fewer than 10^40 cells, a bit less than we’d expect to need to get a
double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly
against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the
entire course of life on earth.” (Behe, 2007, p. 63).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! Not even once in the history of life on earth? Pretty impressive.
But the math is wrong, and it’s easy to see why. Chloroquine
resistance arose in just a decade and a half, and is now common in the
gene pool of this widespread parasite. Introduce a new drug for which
the odds of evolving resistance are also 1 in 10^20, and we can expect
that it will take just about as long, 15 years, to evolve resistance
to the second drug. Once you get that first CCC established in a
population, the odds of developing a second one are not CCC squared.
Rather, they are still 1 in 10^20. Behe gets his super-long odds by
pretending that both CCCs have to arise at once, in the same cell,
purely by chance. They don’t, and I pointed this out in my Nature
review when Behe attempted to apply his reasoning to human genetics:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation “of
the same complexity” occurring in the human line. He hasn’t. What he
has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact
mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in

exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his
unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a
hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough
variation to drive darwinian evolution.

It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of
statistical genetics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, Behe’s kind of math would apply only in one very
special situation, and that would be if both drugs were applied in
similar doses at exactly the same time, so that the emergence of
resistance to one would be useless without the simultaneous appearance
of resistance to the other. That, in fact, is the reason that multiple
drug therapy can be effective against HIV and other diseases. By
manipulating the doses of several anti-viral drugs at once, it’s
possible to prevent the emergence of resistant strains of the virus.
But this situation only prevails under carefully designed therapeutic
conditions. You might say, ironically, that it takes “intelligent
design” to produce conditions favoring the long odds he demands,
conditions that don’t exist in nature.
***************************************************

IOW both Behe and the good Dr.Dr. make the same mathematical error, of
inappropriately multiplying probabilities, and then compound it by
refusing to even acknowledge their error. Between these two and
Steadly, that's enough for a circle jerk.

[Steady Eddie]

Do you feel the same way about Fred Hoyle's alternative?

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 21 December 2015 13:42:26 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:36:01 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is another example of Steadly mindlessly parroting somebody
> else's words. This wouldn't be so bad if Steadly accepted his
> implication, that he agrees with the words he parrots. But when the
> merits of his quotes were challenged, in the past he simply ran away,
> likely because he didn't understand what he parroted. Given that, I
> expect he will do the same thing here.
>
>
> >On Friday, 1 August 2014 12:34:39 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >> Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:
> >>
> >> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/
>
>
> And Miller addresses Behe's post (and others) here:
>
> <http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/behe-2014/Behe-1.html>
>
>
> There is one part which not only relates to Behe's argument, but also
> the recent arguments of the good Dr. Dr.:
>
> ******************************************
> Here's how it works. Let's accept Behe's number of 1 in 10^20 for the
> evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC.

As I remember 1 in 10^20 is the STATISTICAL PERIODICITY OF A BASE-PAIR MUTATION.

If so, Miller shows his ignorance or deceptiveness in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you quoted.

LOL! Do you want me to look it up?

As he admits, CCC's have
> arisen multiple times in the malaria parasite population since the
> drug was first introduced in 1947. In fact, resistance to the drug
> appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s, within just 15 years of
> its widespread use. So it only took a decade and a half for one of
> Behe's CCC's to emerge in the parasite population. Now, suppose that
> another drug, equal in effectiveness to chloroquine, were to come into
> wide use. According to Behe, resistance to both drugs would require
> two CCCs, and the probability of double resistance arising would be a
> CCC squared. That's 1 in 10^20 x 10^20 or one chance in 1 in 10^40.
> According to Behe's math, that's such a large number that we can call
> it impossible:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>

> "...throughout the course of history there would have been slightly

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:02:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus, however futile the effort>

>> There is one part which not only relates to Behe's argument, but also
>> the recent arguments of the good Dr. Dr.:
>>
>> ******************************************
>> Here's how it works. Let's accept Behe's number of 1 in 10^20 for the
>> evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC.
>
>As I remember 1 in 10^20 is the STATISTICAL PERIODICITY OF A BASE-PAIR MUTATION.
>
>If so, Miller shows his ignorance or deceptiveness in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you quoted.
>
>LOL! Do you want me to look it up?

If you do, then cite your source(s).

[Steady Eddie]

No, Miller was using the correct number.
I apologize.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:02:19 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 21 December 2015 05:27:28 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > On 12/21/2015 2:17 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 21:58:25 UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 20:08:26 UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:18:24 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

> > >>>> Ron, I'm really close to just writing you off as a stupid idiot.
> > >>>> Show some courage in actually reading one of my posts and thinking about it.
> > >>>> This is a very involved debate, between Behe and Miller, and if you're not going to follow it, the fuck off.

This has been his behavior in thread after thread. He has an
unquenchable hatred for anything connected with ID theory
but doesn't even try to undermine the long details that other
people write about that theory. His obsession with an imagined
post-2002 "bait and switch scam" makes him unfit for reasoned
argument. As I said earlier:

> > >>> Ron O's favorite form of argumentation when he cannot refute
> > >>> what is said is to slap on any old crud and accuse you of
> > >>> "running away" if you don't try to argue against the crud
> > >>> point by point. But if you do, he'll just slap some more crud
> > >>> on and so it will go, *ad infinitum*.
> > >>>
> > >>> This behavior of his was especially evident in the Scottish verdict
> > >>> thread that I set up. My thesis from the OP on was that Ron O,
> > >>> while posting mountains of evidence on something he called "the switch,"
> > >>> had never given any credible evidence for the "bait" part of this
> > >>> supposed "scam" that the Discovery Institute was guilty of; and
> > >>> without bait, there is nothing to switch from and no scam.

<snip for focus>

> > >>> If you let him, Ron O will suck you into a black hole of ever
> > >>> increasing piles of crud that you have to keep addressing until
> > >>> one of you dies. The alternative is to be called someone of whom
> > >>> "nothing is left but a twitching sphincter."

Or maybe he'll simply post mountains of insults to the effect that
you've lied about this and that, but never posting credible evidence
for it. You saw that in the latest torrent of hate by him, in a
454 line invitation further into that black hole. I gave you
a little "abstract" less than 1/6th as long, in the next post
to that thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sc5UtTdukPk/v8JGxGfpEgAJ
Message-ID: <5897f6fd-5475-4532...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Evolution Myth
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:38:23 -0800 (PST)

> > >>> Peter Nyikos
> > >>
> > >> LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole.
> > >> Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?
> > >
> > > [crickets...]
> > >

Ron O is so insufferably self-righteous, he couldn't even bring himself
to acknowledge that it was him, not me, whom you called an asshole:

> > Why would anyone object to your calling Nyikos an asshole, and why would
> > they respond to your response to the asshole?
> >
> > Do you know what Nyikos' IDiot alternative is? He believes in space
> > alien designers that gave earth the plans to evolve the flagellum a
> > couple billion years ago. Just ask him.

Among the many things Ron O has in common with Ray Martinez, and which
neither of them will acknowledge, is a fondness for complete fiction
about what the directed panspermia hypothesis of Crick and Orgel,
which I have adopted, is all about.

It's about the earth having been seeded with microorganisms ca.
3.9 billion years ago, not about anything that happened recently,
with "aliens" using space probes for that purpose (and not to send the
"aliens" themselves, which would have been thousands of times
more costly).

And what I have said about the flagellum is that this is one
thing that they *might* have genetically engineered into some
of some of the microorganisms that they sent.

Ron O's "Just ask him" is pure bluff, and I expect him to
provide you with many other bluffs about me in a (hopefully vain)
effort to turn you against me.

> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Do you feel the same way about Fred Hoyle's alternative?

Did you really expect Ron O to answer that? There is no fun for
him in telling tall tales about the Arrhenius-Hoyle-Wickramasinghe
hypothesis of UNdirected panspermia. Especially not with all the current
speculation in the popular media about life maybe having started on Mars
and brought here by what are nowadays called Martian meteors.

Peter Nyikos

[Steady Eddie]

Crickets...

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:03:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole.
>> Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?
>
>Crickets...

That you repeatedly claim "crickets" when others had already replied
to you, shows how dishonest and desperate you are. It's no surprise
that rockhead has picked you as his current bedfellow.

And apparently you conveniently forget about my defense of Miller's
side here:

<rvog7bpcgg91cet9p...@4ax.com>

[Steady Eddie]

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:33:02 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 06:15:44 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:03:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole.
>> >> Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?
>> >
>> >Crickets...
>>
>>
>> That you repeatedly claim "crickets" when others had already replied
>> to you, shows how dishonest and desperate you are. It's no surprise
>> that rockhead has picked you as his current bedfellow.
>>
>> And apparently you conveniently forget about my defense of Miller's
>> side here:
>>
>> <rvog7bpcgg91cet9p...@4ax.com>
>
>

>Sorry, you'll have to do better than that

Nope. It doesn't make any difference to you. It's enough for me that
I identify your IDiocy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:33:02 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

Why? Did you address it, or just ignore it as usual?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:48:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:33:02 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
><1914o...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 06:15:44 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:03:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> LOL, I guess I'm done with that asshole.
>>> >> Does anyone here care to defend Miller's side in his critique of Edge of Evolution?
>>> >
>>> >Crickets...
>>>
>>>
>>> That you repeatedly claim "crickets" when others had already replied
>>> to you, shows how dishonest and desperate you are. It's no surprise
>>> that rockhead has picked you as his current bedfellow.
>>>
>>> And apparently you conveniently forget about my defense of Miller's
>>> side here:
>>>
>>> <rvog7bpcgg91cet9p...@4ax.com>
>>
>>

>>Sorry, you'll have to do better than that
>
>Why? Did you address it, or just ignore it as usual?

Remember who you're asking.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:29:29 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Ummm... Point.

[Steady Eddie]

> "After mentioning that de novo resistance to chloroquine is found roughly once in every 1020 malaria parasites, and quoting several sentences from The Edge of Evolution where I note "On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years," Miller writes:
>
>
> Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn't. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. ....
> Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result.
>
> Miller makes the same mistake here that I addressed earlier when replying to Jerry Coyne's response. The number of one in 1020 is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is statistical data. It is perhaps not too surprising that both Miller and Coyne make that mistake, because in general Darwinists are not used to constraining their speculations with quantitative data. The fundamental message of The Edge of Evolution, however, is that such data are now available. Instead of imagining what the power of random mutation and selection might do, we can look at examples of what it has done. And when we do look at the best, clearest examples, the results are, to say the least, quite modest. Time and again we see that random mutations are incoherent and much more likely to degrade a genome than to add to it -- and these are the positively-selected, "beneficial" random mutations."
> http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-kenneth-r-miller/

Crickets...

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 09:08:17 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Sunday, 3 August 2014 09:22:30 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> > On 8/1/2014 1:34 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

Edward, why did you drag out this ancient post again? You have lots
of more recent posts you have yet to reply with any substance.

And your "crickets" below is totally untrue, as Ron O replied to it on
the same day you posted it:

<lsgr5e$at4$1...@dont-email.me>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1dUQUCClblo/Qp6jZx0QwF8J>

An irony is that you then pulled this same trick before, waiting over
a year to reply to Ron with another substance-free post:

<e7277231-7d11-4ab3...@googlegroups.com>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1dUQUCClblo/_aBvoSo2BAAJ>

Since this behavior is also typical of your bedfellow rockhead, it's
no surprise that he chose to compulsively toss in his two pence worth
of peanut shells:

<2fcd686a-9e90-40c4...@googlegroups.com>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1dUQUCClblo/x3ID0-U4BAAJ>

Another irony is that your OP was old news when you first posted it,
as Ron O points out below.

The final irony is that, even though you keep dragging out this hoary
topic, and even after all this time, you have contributed not one word
of substance to it. Apparently you enjoy the role of village IDiot.

[RonO]

What an idiot IDiot Eddie. Just look around this thread to determine
who ran and who the crickets are chirping for. What did you ever
contribute of substance? Making stupid claims and then running has been
the only thing that you have done. Go for it. Demonstrate that you did
not do this in this case. Just go up the thread and figure it out for
yourself. What did you do when I responded to this post over a year
ago? Why did you never address what I wrote?

Why not appologize for lying about me to another poster? You know you
lied. You have gone through years of posts and can't find anything to
back up your lie, so why not appologize? It is stupid to go into such
denial. If the facts backed you up wouldn't you have been able to
demonstrate that by now? Why has it been so difficult? You made it
sound that it would have been easily demonstrated, but you never did
demonstrate that you did not lie. Never.

Look at reality. You did not understand what the Thorton work was
about. You just accepted the lies of the people that you know lie to
you all the time and didn't even bother to understand the basis of the
lies. What does that mean? What happened when you had to deal with
what the Thorton work was actually about? Why has it been so difficult
to face reality? Why are the crickets still chriping for you all over TO?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

You do not understand what the Thornton work has actually demonstrated.
Idiot.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 05:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You do not understand what the Thornton work has actually demonstrated.
>Idiot.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
the Thorton work demonstrated. Failing that, you're still blowing
smoke out of your ass.

[RonO]

Another missed post because Eddie has to make stupid responses to posts
that he has run from for weeks in threads that are years old.

Eddie. You have had time to think about this lame response, and what
have you concluded? I am the one that explained the Thorton work to
you. You are the one that ran away and have kept running. Go back
through history and figure it out for yourself.

Why even make statements as lame as you have made above? To remind you
this was the estrogen receptor work that you were clueless about. You
were the one that put up the evolution news article and it turned out
that you didn't even know what it was talking about.

Go for it prove me wrong. You have already had a very long time to do
it, but noting reasonable ever gets done, just mouthing off about
stupidity that you don't understand.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Sniping from a distance is all you seem to have the courage to do.
Go to the correct thread, copy the statements you are referring to, and make your point.
Then go to school, clown.

[RonO]

Eddie do you even understand what you are saying? Who always get's
schooled and runs away? Always. What did you do when you found out
that the Thorton work was what your EvolutionNews article was about?
You go back and find it to prove me wrong.

Do something for once besides running.

This should help you out it was a previous time you ran from the Thorton
explanation over a year ago and it links back to where I tell you what

the Thorton work was about.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0Ir4VRMg3mM/WTPMU4MHBAAJ

We both know who the clown is that should be written off. It always
seems to be crickets.

Why not apologize for lying about me to another poster. It might even
make you feel better when you are lying about other things that happened
in the past.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Then go back to that thread and be the same asshole you were, and are. See if you get a response, asshole.

[RAM]

Is this a JW response?

Ok, OK, I'm just trolling a silly and snotty JW troller for projecting.

[RonO]

Who always gets schooled and runs away like this? Why not applogize for
obviously lying? Who was being the asshole and lying about someone else
to another poster? The truth may be bad for IDiots, but it is still the
truth. live with reality. You could not demonstrate that you did not
lie. In fact, all you can do is use comebacks like the one above.

You are just sad and pathetic. I just have to point out the obvious.

You got the link, you could go back and demonstrate that I was wrong,
but what did you do instead?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 19:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>U MAD BRO?


How old are you, exactly?

[RonO]

You know that I am more disgusted than angry about anything the IDiot do
at this time. You know that the only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest, so as a religous person what do you think
about the ID scam?

Are you ever going to get the ID science? Did you ever really expect to
get it? When did you come to understand what a scam ID is? Why are you
still an IDiot.

The saddest thing about the ID scam is why I started to call it the ID
scam. When the bait and switch went down all the IDiots accepted the
bait and switch. Many acted as if nothing had happened. Some major
proponents like Mike Gene (he wrote a book or two about the stupidity so
you can almost call him an ID perp, but he never joined the Discovery
Institute) claimed to have come to the conclusion that there was no ID
science to teach years before the bait and switch went down. Remember
the thread where the statements by Cordova and Mike Gene indicated that
they had given up on the science of IDiocy? They had both come to admit
that ID was not science. You know what Philip Johnson admitted when he
quit the ID scam. He even put it on the other ID perps claiming that
they had to demonstrate that they could generate the ID science.

Why don't IDiots like yourself and Kalk object to the bait and switch?
Can you be that honest with yourself? You know what will happen to the
next set of IDiots stupid enough to believe the IDiocy, so what is your
honest opinion of IDiocy as it stands today? This isn't rocket science.
What will happen to any IDiots stupid enough to put up the ID science
where the ID perps would have to put up or shut up?

Running in denial isn't going to change reality.

Why is that all that you can do?

All your lame stupidity only ads to the IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:01:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:32:34 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

>> On 5/19/2016 9:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

>> > On Thursday, 19 May 2016 05:12:36 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:

<snip>

>> >> You got the link, you could go back and demonstrate that I was wrong,
>> >> but what did you do instead?

>> > U MAD BRO?

>> You know that I am more disgusted than angry

>U MAD BRO?

He answered you. Grow up.

[RAM]

With respect to Silly Eddie's responses it is obvious he knows he hasn't any substantive responses for Ron. His immaturity and lack of intellectual integrity is a built in feature of his religious fanaticism. This religious fanaticism allows him to be dismissive of anything he dislikes since he knows he will go to heaven no matter how big an A..hole he acts here.

And it is clear being a A..hole doesn't bother him.

[RonO]

Hey Eddie, why didn't anyone expect any better response out of an IDiot?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

I gather that he actually thinks he's going to hell himself. He got kicked out of the JWs and doesn't want to do whatever repentance would be required to be taken back. I think it just makes him feel better to think that everybody here is going there too.

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

[August Rode]

You'll have to forgive Eddie. You see, it's just that his brain is so
tiny that the slightest movement can dislodge it. (starts to slap the
Ed's head from side to side gently but firmly) Oh dear... it's rather
like one of those games you play where you have to get the ball into the
hole.
-- with apologies to Monty Python

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-05-21 01:02:04 +0000, jillery said:

> On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> U MAD BRO?
>
> How old are you, exactly?

*
I would guess that Eddie is about 35 years old.

Mentally, about 8.

earle
*

[RAM]

Well it is a real possibility. I am going by my experience growing up as a fanatical religionist where there were sectarian splits within the church and real disdain toward the other group and where fanatical elders often told the pastor he was wrong and tried to take over. I see Silly
Eddie in one of these situations and he is as fanatically confident of his religious rectitude (at least in selling it here) as he is about the evils of evolution. As a youth I was there and knew my side was right; and saw the fanaticism and destructiveness of us so-called Christians who were more right than God. This is our Silly Eddie in MHO and experience. It could drive a hillbilly to drink.

[RonO]

Why is projection about all that iDiots can muster? Really, why do you
even bother when you know that you are obviously talking about yourself?
Why are you the one that can't deal with reality?

Do you understand the science? Do you even want to understand the
science? You obviously understand that the only IDiots left are the
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest, so what are you trying to do in
order to remain an IDiot? Isn't it sad that all you can point to are
people like Grasso and Kalk for support? What have the guys you keep
going back to for more IDiocy been doing for over 14 years? You
obviously don't even understand what they are telling you. Why are you
still going back for more? Why is it so important to keep sucking up
the lies instead of face a reality that others have already come to
grips with?

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

About biology you are clearly right and Eddie is clearly and massively wrong. But hen it comes to calling one another idiots, Eddie does it so much more concisely than you do.

[RonO]

Yes, Eddie is more simple minded about making snide remarks. Unlike
others I am as open and honest as I can be about it. You should try it.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 04:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

<mercy snip>

>About biology you are clearly right and Eddie is clearly and massively wrong. But hen it comes to calling one another idiots, Eddie does it so much more concisely than you do.

There are those in T.O. who disparage concise replies, and exalt
verbosity for its own sake. Apparently you and I are not one of them.

Still, the relevant issue is not the number of words, but their
cogency, and on that scale RonO is clearly magnitudes above anything
Steadly has managed to date.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:32:33 PM UTC-4, RAM wrote:
>> On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:47:31 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 May 2016 07:01:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> > <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > >On Friday, 20 May 2016 05:32:34 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On 5/19/2016 9:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > On Thursday, 19 May 2016 05:12:36 UTC-6, Ron O wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > >> >> You got the link, you could go back and demonstrate that I was wrong,
>> > >> >> but what did you do instead?
>> >
>> > >> > U MAD BRO?
>> >
>> > >> You know that I am more disgusted than angry
>> >
>> > >U MAD BRO?
>> >
>> > He answered you. Grow up.

>> With respect to Silly Eddie's responses it is obvious he knows he hasn't any substantive responses for Ron. His immaturity and lack of intellectual integrity is a built in feature of his religious fanaticism. This religious fanaticism allows him to be dismissive of anything he dislikes since he knows he will go to heaven no matter how big an A..hole he acts here.
>>
>> And it is clear being a A..hole doesn't bother him.

>I gather that he actually thinks he's going to hell himself. He got kicked out of the JWs and doesn't want to do whatever repentance would be required to be taken back. I think it just makes him feel better to think that everybody here is going there too.

Maybe, if Eddie will be there, I need to re-think my idea
that I'd rather be surrounded by most of my friends and
acquaintances than by a few (*very* few) snooty strangers...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 08:41:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 21 May 2016 04:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
><broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><mercy snip>
>
>>About biology you are clearly right and Eddie is clearly and massively wrong. But hen it comes to calling one another idiots, Eddie does it so much more concisely than you do.
>
>
>There are those in T.O. who disparage concise replies, and exalt
>verbosity for its own sake. Apparently you and I are not one of them.

....or even two of them... ;-)

>Still, the relevant issue is not the number of words, but their
>cogency, and on that scale RonO is clearly magnitudes above anything
>Steadly has managed to date.

Yep.

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 11:41:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2016 08:41:39 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 21 May 2016 04:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>><broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><mercy snip>
>>
>>>About biology you are clearly right and Eddie is clearly and massively wrong. But hen it comes to calling one another idiots, Eddie does it so much more concisely than you do.
>>
>>
>>There are those in T.O. who disparage concise replies, and exalt
>>verbosity for its own sake. Apparently you and I are not one of them.
>
>....or even two of them... ;-)

Dang it, you're right again. That's what happens when I make
last-minute changes in an attempt to avoid one pedantic trap, only to
fall into another.

>>Still, the relevant issue is not the number of words, but their
>>cogency, and on that scale RonO is clearly magnitudes above anything
>>Steadly has managed to date.
>
>Yep.

And to obviate any noise from the peanut gallery, this has nothing to
do with expressing solidarity with RonO, as "magnitudes above anything
Steadly has managed" remains a very low bar.

[Steady Eddie]

Yeah, that'll be called projection.

[Steady Eddie]

Don't worry, none of us is going to 'Hell'. We're just going to get what you already believe we will get - nonexistence.

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 11:39:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Is it just me, or do Steadly's posts remind anyone else of Nashton's?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 19:41:33 -0700 (PDT), the following

And you know that...how?

Anyway, probably "Hel", unless I manage to die in battle, so
I plan to take my wool long johns and parka, just in case.

> We're just going to get what you already believe we will get - nonexistence.

Maybe; maybe not. If not, soon enough we'll all know. And if
so, it's moot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 May 2016 23:20:49 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Not greatly; Eddie seems, with some exceptions, to actually
engage in discussions (of a sort) rather than simply sniping
from the rooftop and running away.

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:29:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Really? IMO the above is typical. Where's he engaging in discussion
up there? My experience is such a thing from Steadly is the
exception. But go ahead and cite what you think is typical for him.
Take your time.

[RAM]

You are again a fool in denial. I'm no longer a Christian.

There is nothing to project but honesty.

Try it. It may take some of the hate out of your postings.

[Steady Eddie]

What's so moot about it?
It would be good to know which will happen, wouldn't it?

[Steady Eddie]

And I wasn't brought up a "fanatical religionist".

> There is nothing to project but honesty.

...And your own life story.

[RAM]

That is how I know fanatical Christians. You may not have been brought up one but it is abundantly clear you are one. Your inability to accept science as practiced and going for ID as an alternative reveals wishful thinking and an ability to distort reality. All features of fanatical Christians. And like your JW churches which have no windows, you block out the outside world of reality that conflicts with your fanatical religiosity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 17:18:20 -0400, the following appeared

I think that when he believes (usually incorrectly) that he
has some sort of "giant-killer" argument he goes into some
detail (smirking, of course, and his "arguments" are usually
cites to material he obviously doesn't understand), and when
his errors are pointed out he goes into "Nashton Mode" and
posts as above; sometimes (maybe "usually") he starts in
"Nashton Mode". OTOH, I don't recall Nashton *ever* engaging
in the first part of the sequence. So perhaps I should
change "some exceptions" to "many exceptions" in my original
comment...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2016 17:15:01 -0700 (PDT), the following

You have a serious comprehension problem. If you are correct
that "We're just going to get what you already believe we
will get - nonexistence", then we *cannot* ever know it, and
thus it's a moot issue; only if you're incorrect, and more
than nonexistence awaits us, will we know about it. And we
will never know prior to the experience.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:41:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Still waiting for an example of what you think is *any* exception. IMO
mindlessly posting cites and cut-and-pastes doesn't qualify; these
better illustrates the "parrot" model of conversation.

[Steady Eddie]

Why would nonexistence after physical death be contradictory of a designer?

[Steady Eddie]

That is how you project your bizarre upbringing on all nominal Christians.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

Who said it would? Not me. So you want to change the
subject? OK. You brought it up; you address it; it's nothing
I was or am interested in discussing.

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 22 May 2016 18:52:25 UTC-6, RAM wrote:

What makes you think that JW churches have no windows?

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 21 December 2015 10:37:27 UTC-7, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 1 August 2014 12:34:39 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > Behe's original responses to Miller's criticisms of 'Edge of evolution' can be found here:
> >
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > Yesterday, in the first part of my response to Kenneth Miller's review, in which I addressed his substantive points, I ended by showing that a reference he cited did not contain the evidence he claimed it did. In this final part, I more closely examine Miller's tendentious style of argumentation.
> >
> >
> > Speaking of throwing around irrelevant references, Miller writes:
> >
> >
> > Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is "beyond the edge of evolution", [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97-101; 2006), the 'evolvability' of new functions in existing proteins -- studies on serum paraxonase (PON1) traced the evolution of several new catalytic functions (Nature Genet. 37, 73-76; 2005) -- or the modular evolution of cellular signalling circuitry (Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75, 655-680; 2006).
> >
> > Now, dear reader, when Miller writes of "protein-to-protein" binding sites in one sentence, wouldn't you expect the papers he cites in the next sentence would be about protein-to-protein binding sites? Well -- although the casual reader wouldn't be able to tell -- they aren't. None of the papers Miller cites involves protein-protein binding sites. The Sciencepaper concerns protein-steroid-hormone binding; the Nature Genetics paper deals with the enzyme activity of single proteins; and the Annual Reviews paper discusses rearrangement of pre-existing protein binding domains. What's more, none of the papers deals with evolution in nature. They all concern laboratory studies where very intelligent investigators purposely re-arrange, manipulate, and engineer isolated genes (not whole cells or organisms) to achieve their own goals. Although such studies can be very valuable, they tell us little about how a putatively blind, random evolutionary process might proceed in unaided nature.
>
> (Miller's all-time favourite hobby: QUOTE-BLUFFING. This might be where Harshman picked up the habit.)
>
> > Miller's snide comment, that apparently I haven't followed these developments, seems pretty silly, since it's so easy to find out that I followed them closely. You'd think he should have noticed that I cited the Annual Reviews article in The Edge of Evolution in Appendix D, which deals in detail with Wendell Lim's interesting work on domain swapping. You'd think he easily might have checked and seen that I was quoted in the New York Times commenting on Joseph Thornton's Science paper when it first came out a year ago. You'd also think he'd then have to tell readers of the review why I thought the papers weren't pertinent. You'd be thinking wrong.
> >
> >
> > Much worse, Miller is as subtly misleading when writing about the substantive points ofThe Edge of Evolution as he is when making supercilious offhand comments. Miller writes: "Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is 'beyond the edge of evolution', [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure." But the book says plainly that it is two, not one, binding sites that marks the edge of evolution. That was not an obscure point. Chapter 7 is entitled "The Two-Binding-Sites Rule"; Figure 7.4 has a line at two binding sites, with a big arrow pointing to it labeled "Tentative molecular edge of evolution." What's more, the book goes out of its way to say that Darwinism is certainly not a "hopeless failure", that there are important biological features it clearly can explain. That's why one chapter is called "What Darwinism Can Do".
>
> (When QUOTE-BLUFFING begins to bore him, Miller goes to his next favourite trick: BALD-FACED LYING.)
>
> > Regrettably, that's Miller's own special style. He doesn't just sneer and thump his chest, as some other Darwinists do. He uses less savory tactics, too. His tactics include ignoring distinctions the author draws (cellular protein-protein binding sites vs. other kinds of binding sites), mischaracterizing an argument by skewing or exaggerating its claims ("so much as a single ..."), and employing inflammatory, absolutist language ("[Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure"). He turns the principle of charitable reading on its head. Instead of giving a text its best interpretation, he gives it the worst he can.
>
> (Other pastimes of Miller demonstrated here:
> -IGNORING DISTINCTIONS THE AUTHOR DRAWS
> -MISCHARACTERIZING AN ARGUMENT BY SKEWING OR EXAGGERATING ITS CLAIMS
> -EMPLOYING INFLAMMATORY, ABSOLUTIST LANGUAGE)
>
> > Call it the principle of malignant reading. He's been doing it for years with the arguments of Darwin's Black Box, and he continues it in this review. For example, despite being repeatedly told by me and others that by an "irreducibly complex" system I mean one in which removal of a part destroys the function of the system itself, Miller says, no, to him the phrase will mean that none of the remaining parts can be used for anything else -- a straw man which can easily be knocked down. Unconscionably, he passes off his own tendentious view to the public as mine. People who look to Miller for a fair engagement of the arguments of intelligent design are very poorly served.
> > ****************************************************************************
> > http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-ken-miller-continued/
>
> (And when he's not playing with himself you'll find him playing with STRAW MEN.
> Miller is a charlatan. The fact that he is highly regarded in Darwinist circles shows the kind of games
> Darwinists are REALLY up to.)

It's satisfying to know that the best way to shut down Darwinists is to post some informed comments.
Anyone still think Kenneth Miller is an appropriate spokesman for Darwinism?

[jillery]

If only your cut-and-paste spam qualified as informed comments.

>Anyone still think Kenneth Miller is an appropriate spokesman for Darwinism?

It's really stupid of you to resurrect this months-dead thread this
way, when it already showed how Miller explicitly and clearly refuted
every point above years ago:

<http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/behe-2014/Behe-1.html>

So yes, I still think Ken Miller is an appropriate spokesman for
Darwinism. And since you ran away from this topic with your tail
tucked between your legs, by admitting Miller was right, apparently so
do you.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, here is the last post you made to
this topic back then:

<9a4c27b1-072f-4972...@googlegroups.com>

**************************************************
On Wednesday, 23 December 2015 23:27:19 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:02:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus, however futile the effort>
>
>
> >> There is one part which not only relates to Behe's argument, but also
> >> the recent arguments of the good Dr. Dr.:
> >>
> >> ******************************************
> >> Here's how it works. Let's accept Behe's number of 1 in 10^20 for the
> >> evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC.
> >
> >As I remember 1 in 10^20 is the STATISTICAL PERIODICITY OF A BASE-PAIR MUTATION.
> >
> >If so, Miller shows his ignorance or deceptiveness in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you quoted.
> >
> >LOL! Do you want me to look it up?
>
>
> If you do, then cite your source(s).

No, Miller was using the correct number.
I apologize.
**************************************************

As a fully qualified Village Idiot, you shouldn't bluff.

[Steady Eddie]

I believe all the substantive points made by Miller are handled by Behe here:

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/07/response-to-kenneth-r-miller/

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

> So yes, I still think Ken Miller is an appropriate spokesman for
> Darwinism. And since you ran away from this topic with your tail
> tucked between your legs, by admitting Miller was right, apparently so
> do you.
>
> To refresh your convenient amnesia, here is the last post you made to
> this topic back then:
>
> <9a4c27b1-072f-4972...@googlegroups.com>
>
> **************************************************
> On Wednesday, 23 December 2015 23:27:19 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:02:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> > <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip for focus, however futile the effort>
> >
> >
> > >> There is one part which not only relates to Behe's argument, but also
> > >> the recent arguments of the good Dr. Dr.:
> > >>
> > >> ******************************************
> > >> Here's how it works. Let's accept Behe's number of 1 in 10^20 for the
> > >> evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC.
> > >
> > >As I remember 1 in 10^20 is the STATISTICAL PERIODICITY OF A BASE-PAIR MUTATION.
> > >
> > >If so, Miller shows his ignorance or deceptiveness in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you quoted.
> > >
> > >LOL! Do you want me to look it up?
> >
> >
> > If you do, then cite your source(s).
>
> No, Miller was using the correct number.
> I apologize.
> **************************************************

Yes, I corrected a numerical error forthrightly.
The substance of Miller's points remains refuted by Behe.

[ramat...@gmail.com]

Because most in the US don't.

Is Canada that different?

[jillery]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

To reply in the same spirit, you're wrong. You're welcome.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
are Miller's substantive points, and how you think Behe handled them.
That you didn't do either is evidence that you're still in Village
Idiot mode.

No, you simply admitted to the technical point without retracting your
objection you based on it.

[eridanus]

a rigid brainwashing. Even if he is not watching the Fox channels
eri

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?
Right here would have been a good place to read the citation I provided and find out for yourself.

Look it up.

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
> are Miller's substantive points, and how you think Behe handled them.
> That you didn't do either is evidence that you're still in Village
> Idiot mode.
>
>U MAD BRO?

How old are you, exactly?

>Right here would have been a good place to read the citation I provided and find out for yourself.

That's another village idiot reply. Of course, I already read your
cite, even before you cited it. But I can't read your mind, even if
you had one.

[Earle Jones27]

*
I don't know about JW church windows but I understand that they have no WiFi.

They don't want competition from a higher power that works.

earle
*

[Steady Eddie]

Obviously you haven't been to a meeting at a Kingdom Hall in the last 10 years.

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 22 May 2016 17:57:24 UTC-6, RAM wrote:

Try following your own advice.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 30 July 2016 01:22:43 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

Here is Behe's more recent appraisal of Miller's objections:

-quote-
Your chief complaint against my ideas seems to be this:

That the malaria parasite needs two mutations was never a point of contention, nor was it particularly worrisome. What was wrong with Behe's work is that he na�vely claimed that the two mutations had to occur simultaneously in the same individual organism, so that the probability that could happen was the product of multiplying the two individual probabilities. That's ridiculous.

What's puzzling to me is your thinking the exact route to resistance matters much when the bottom line is that it's an event of probability 1 in 1020. From the sequence and laboratory evidence it's utterly parsimonious and consistent with all the data -- especially including the extreme rarity of the origin of chloroquine resistance -- to think that a first, required mutation to PfCRT is strongly deleterious while the second may partially rescue the normal, required function of the protein, plus confer low chloroquine transport activity. Those two required mutations -- including an individually deleterious one which would not be expected to segregate in the population at a significant frequency -- by themselves go a long way (on a log scale, of course) to accounting for the figure of 1 in 1020, perhaps 1 in 1015 to 1016 of it (roughly from the square of the point mutation rate up to an order of magnitude more than it). So how do your calculations account for it?

It's also entirely reasonable shorthand to characterize such a situation as needing "simultaneous" or "concurrent" mutations, as has been done by others in the malaria literature, even if the second mutation actually occurs separately in the recent progeny of some sickly, rare cell that had already suffered the first, harmful mutation. Guys, please don't hide behind some dictionary or Einsteinian definition of "simultaneous." It matters not a whit to the practical bottom line. If you think it does, don't just wave your hands, show us your calculations.
-end quote-
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html

Don't worry, Miller is wrong in so many ways that his getting one number right is inconsequential.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>That the malaria parasite needs two mutations was never a point of contention, nor was it particularly worrisome. What was wrong with Behe's work is that he na?vely claimed that the two mutations had to occur simultaneously in the same individual organism, so that the probability that could happen was the product of multiplying the two individual probabilities. That's ridiculous.

>
>What's puzzling to me is your thinking the exact route to resistance matters much when the bottom line is that it's an event of probability 1 in 1020. From the sequence and laboratory evidence it's utterly parsimonious and consistent with all the data -- especially including the extreme rarity of the origin of chloroquine resistance -- to think that a first, required mutation to PfCRT is strongly deleterious while the second may partially rescue the normal, required function of the protein, plus confer low chloroquine transport activity. Those two required mutations -- including an individually deleterious one which would not be expected to segregate in the population at a significant frequency -- by themselves go a long way (on a log scale, of course) to accounting for the figure of 1 in 1020, perhaps 1 in 1015 to 1016 of it (roughly from the square of the point mutation rate up to an order of magnitude more than it). So how do your calculations account for it?
>
>It's also entirely reasonable shorthand to characterize such a situation as needing "simultaneous" or "concurrent" mutations, as has been done by others in the malaria literature, even if the second mutation actually occurs separately in the recent progeny of some sickly, rare cell that had already suffered the first, harmful mutation. Guys, please don't hide behind some dictionary or Einsteinian definition of "simultaneous." It matters not a whit to the practical bottom line. If you think it does, don't just wave your hands, show us your calculations.
>-end quote-
>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html
>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to say what you think
>> are Miller's substantive points, and how you think Behe handled them.
>> That you didn't do either is evidence that you're still in Village
>> Idiot mode.

Since you don't say what you think are Miller's substantive points,
nor do you say how you think Behe handled them, I assume that you
intend your quote of Behe's comments to be an accurate and
comprehensive substitute.

Behe's reply is disingenuous in two important ways. First, he
complains of a semantic distinction between "simultaneous" and
"sequential". This is downright bizarre, since his argument for IC
from the begriming has been based in part on that very distinction.
Second, he demands that his critics "show us your calculations", when
they have already pointed out the problem is not Behe's calculations
per se, but his misapplication of them.

To address both points at once, Behe assumes that if a second
necessary mutation doesn't happen soon enough, then the first
necessary mutation will get lost, and the mutation sequence has to
start all over again. That's what he means by "simultaneously". That
is his basis for multiplying the probabilities. By simplified
analogy, Behe is calculating the probability of flipping two heads in
a row on a fair coin, which is of course 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25.

But Miller et al already pointed out that's an invalid assumption.
First, the first mutation in a sequence doesn't necessarily get lost,
and second, there are multiple pathways to providing the necessary
functionality. So a more accurate but still simplified analogy is to
calculate the probability of flipping two heads in a row on a fair
coin *after* getting heads on the first one, which is of course 0.50.
I hope you can tell the difference.

Then your mention of it in the first place was just more of your
irrelevant noise. Is anybody surprised?

[Bill Rogers]

The problem with Behe's argument is not the issue of simultaneous mutation or even how many mutations are required for chloroquine resistance. It's clear from the very low number of origins of chloroquine resistance (compared to very many separate origins of resistance to say Fansidar or mefloquine), and the impossibility of selecting chloroquine resistance in the lab (so far), that whatever mutational events are required are very rare. It's likely that it is indeed two separate mutations both of which are either neural or deleterious on their own. Nick White's estimate of 1 in 10^20 seems quite reasonable, though it's certainly only a ballpark estimate. No problem. It's a very low probability event that occurred a couple of times in the space of a few decades in a huge population of P. falciparum parasites. Fine.

Behe's problem comes in his completely unsupported claim that any interesting step in evolution, say towards evolution of something like the coagulation cascade, would necessarily require much more low probability, simultaneous, or near simultaneous occurrence of otherwise neutral or deleterious mutations. There's no evidence at all that such ultra-low probability events, say 1 in 10^40, are required for anything that actually exists in the biological world.

It is trivially true that there is some number of singly neutral or deleterious mutations such that if that number or a greater number of them were required to occur simultaneously or nearly so for something to evolve, then it would be impossible for that thing to evolve. But Behe doesn't even try to show that anything that exists requires such a set of events.