Sal: By the way Zach, you had to wait for JAM to admit his egregious error (the Fidock paper) before conceding it.

Maybe he missed it too.

As for egregious errors, I don't remember you either noting or conceding this one from DaveScot:
"The answer is simple and I'm surprised you (or anyone else I read here) didn't know the answer. The answer is that each single point copy error can be to any one of four nucleotides (ACTG)."
Did you tell Dave that since the wild-type base has to be one of those four, that only three of them would be mutations, since a T->T "copy error" is anything but an error for DNA, but a howler for Dave?

Or are you only concerned about errors that your opponents make?

Sal: JAM is invited to keep repeating his strawman arguments which are refuted by Behe in his response to Miller.

Sal, you thanked DaveScot for disinviting me at UD, so I doubt the sincerity of any invitation.

Second, my argument isn't a straw man, and your pointing to another forum in which Behe is frantically backpedalling from his claims in the book doesn't make it a straw man. Behe clearly contradicts himself, which does nothing to show that my direct quoting of him is a straw man. I suppose that goes with your Orwellian view in which I'm wrong for noting that "single mutation" means "single mutation," instead of "two mutations."

Is your need to submit to authority so strong that you can't see/admit the contradictions?

Z: JAM's error above was hardly egregious as all he did was cite the wrong paper. He then offered the correct paper. That's what he is supposed to do.

And Sal refused my offer on UD, apparently because he is afraid to contrast Behe's rhetoric with the evidence.

Behe: Certainly, there may be several routes, maybe permutations of pathways, too. But whether or not there are several routes, the bottom line is that resistance arises only once for every 10^20 parasites.

Or so. That's correct. Evolution does not always work in a specific direction, and not every conceivable adaptation is guaranteed to appear. Evolution is stochastic and opportunistic. In other words, Behe was incorrect on the facts, and would have no point anyway.

Behe: By the way Zach, you had to wait for JAM to admit his egregious error (the Fidock paper) before conceding it.

That's an odd attitude for someone who blogs on a forum that consistently censors opposing views.

JAM's error above was hardly egregious as all he did was cite the wrong paper. He then offered the correct paper. That's what he is supposed to do.

Certainly, there may be several routes, maybe permutations of pathways, too. But whether or not there are several routes, the bottom line is that resistance arises only once for every 10^20 parasites.

JAM is invited to keep repeating his strawman arguments which are refuted by Behe in his response to Miller.

PS
By the way Zach, you had to wait for JAM to admit his egregious error (the Fidock paper) before conceding it. Would you have let him get away with it had I not called him on it and had he not fessed up?

The same goes for Aegeri. hehehe.

Aegeri: Expecting an answer from Salvatore that isn't an outright distortion of the actual data or one that completely ignores what you've said (as he is desperately trying to avoid the point you've actually raised, while still claiming victory) is vastly optimistic of you. I've been impressed with your patience throughout this.

Thanks. Just so you know, this has continued at UD with me being banned, apparently for using the same words as Behe did. Here is Sal's most recent post [bolding by me]:

JAM argued a strawman:

Behe was very clear in specifying a single mutation shifting two amino acids that is required to BECOME (not to simply BE clinically) resistant.

Baloney.

At some point people run out of patience having to deal with a participant who argues his case by willfully attributing things to ID proponents which they did not say.

JAM showed incompetence in interpreting Fidock, but still did not relent. He made a rather ridiculous interpretation of that paper, and when I called him on it he finally relented.

That didn't stop him from spewing out more garbage that I just wasn't willing to deal with.

Many thanks the admins for dispensing with jam.

Here's what Behe wrote:
"The likelihood that Homo sapiens achieved any single mutation of the kind required for malaria to become resistant to chloroquine"“not the easiest mutation, to be sure, but still only a shift of two amino acids"“…

So the only conclusion a rational person can reach is that my use of Behe's actual words is a "strawman" and "baloney."

I'd like to thank the proprietors here for not showing Sal's intellectual cowardice and being open to discussion.

Zachriel: As Intelligent Design is at least in part a political movement, it requires a response.

Refer me to the part of Behe's book that is political.

Bradford: Behe's book is more than a blip on the screen but not all that much more.

True, but others disagree.

Snoke: This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory…

Denton: The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design.

Skell: Though many critics won't want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, ¬and devastating. A tremendously important book.

As Intelligent Design is at least in part a political movement, it requires a response.

I didn't know anything about malaria prior to reading these posts and a couple of these papers, but it's apparent to me now that Plasmodium is a terrible "model organism" for Behe to try to derive mutation rates from. It's life cycle is just to darned complex. It has both sexual and asexual reproduction, asexual reproduction in the liver, a different mode of asexual reproduction in the blood, then sexual reproduction in the mosquito gut followed by (yet another mode of) asexual reproduction in the mosquito. Each of these different places will have different CQ concentrations, and different fitness landscapes for our little parasite, and in the case of sexual reproduction there's a lot of work to do to account for the different possibilities of crossover. So just building a model of the CQR population genetics is very hard work, and it appears that Behe just hasn't done this.

Seriously, pull your head back into your shell, swallow your pride for 2 seconds, and go out and purchase a good text on population genetics which has a lot of example problems to work through. Work through the problems. Then you'll at least understand what you're criticising.