You are correct that Behe derives his frequency of the evolution of chloroguine resistance based on the flimiest of evidence, as quoted at the end of this article:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/05/behes-edge-of-evolution-part-i/

Nobody rejects the notion that some selective alterations arise only very rarely (e.g. citrate utilization or chloroquine resistance), perhaps because they require multiple, simultaneous mutations. Indeed, some species go extinct because they are not able to answer a selective pressure (e.g. smallpox virus). But this is no argument against evolution. The fatal flaw in Behe’s thinking is not with his calculation of the probability of chloroquine resistance in plasmodium, it’s his attempt to draw from those numbers general conclusions about evolution rates.

The problems with his extrapolation are several-fold. First, there is no reason to think that evolution, in general, would require genetic alterations involving multiple, simultaneous mutations. That we may be able to identify one or two examples where this is the case is no argument that it is generally the case. In fact, we know of many more examples of step-wise evolution–one selective mutation at a time.

Second, at least in the case of chloroquine resistance in malaria, the selective pressure imposed was so severe that it can hardly be considered an appropriate model for evolution in the wild. This represents nothing less than a human attempt to exterminate the species. What other selection pressure do we know of that kills all but 1 in 10^20 individuals in a population? I can’t think of a WORSE model than this! Yet, the species was, nevertheless, still able to find a mutational solution to the problem.

If you want an appropriate model for evolution in the wild, you need to think in terms of selective pressures that give a mutant, say, a 10% reproductive advantage over non-mutants. How difficult is it to understand that there are many more ways to answer a mild selection (and thus a much higher probability of an answer arising) than to survive an extremely stringent selection.

Third, Behe’s argument that evolution of chloroquine resistance is relevant to the evolution of protein-protein interactions (and therefore, complex molecular machines) is based purely on his misrepresentation of the mutational requirements to generate such interactions. The evidence shows that these interactions can evolve stepwise, and that some even require only a single mutation. So, there is absolutely no justification for Behe’s claim that the evolution of new protein-protein binding sites would require 5 or 6 simultaneous mutations and is therefore, beyond the edge of what evolution can do. There is, quite simply, no reason to imagine that this step represents some sort of barrier to evolution.

In short, nobody disputes the claim that there are limits to what evolution can accomplish in a single selective step. This falls into the category of “True, but irrelevant”. What is the evidence that evolution in the wild would ever have had to take mutational steps the size of the one that resulted in chloroquine resistance? No such evidence exists and everything we know about natural selection suggests that such an extreme selection pressure would normally result in extinction. There have certainly been many examples of mass extinction through the eons. The bottom line is that either a species evolves to fit its environment, or it goes extinct.

The info about the chromosome two was fascinating. The sorry tale of the antics of the Disinformation Institute’s inmates was amusing, but an oft-told tale as they never learn. This does show the only useful function of the creationists is that occasionally their inanities will produce a response that conveys information, as yours has done on this occasion.

First BZ says that Lenski’s E. coli had lost genetic information.

Then BZ was challenged on this point, he denied making statements about genetic information.

Then it was proven Lenski’s lab never published a description of any genetic changes in their recent mutants, so no one can know if their genetic information increased or decreased.

Then BZ goes back to saying that Lenski’s E. coli had lost genetic information.

So here BZ is not just contradicting the facts, he’s contradicting himself.

“people don’t like cherished unexamined beliefs challenged. that explains all the personal attacks and the avoidance of discussion of the evidence.”

A more accurate and concise explanation of creationism, you will not find.

This very blog post of Carl’s addresses the breathtaking inanity stated by David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin and their fellow Dishonesty Institute Intelligent Design creationist mendacious propagandists. This has been pointed out to you by me and many others many, many times, but you are too delusional to understand this.

You need to follow my advice (@ 407). You are indeed in dire need of mental health treatment.

people don’t like cherished unexamined beliefs challenged. that explains all the personal attacks and the avoidance of discussion of the evidence … even by Carl and Levin. would kwok know evidence? mo evidence of that.

claiming a discussion of evidence is “insane behavior” makes you appear. pathetic. of course vidence is not on your side so that is all you have left. I’m still waiting for Carl to address issues from Casey’s reply.

bz, ah, “they” this and “they” that, from the blue air I assume.
Thereabove you only then feel not attacked if other people just act like you want them to, is what you say in #406. In my ears this sounds like the frustrationtolerance of a kid in a supermarket that loudly keeps claiming a candy. Calling the whole world mistrating, just by not giving it what it wishes in spite of its wanting. Yes, in that case you indeed can wait very long for not feeling attacked …
Normally I just read this blog, comments included. This is the first time I feel the need to comment here myself, because of your sustaining insane behaviour. About that, I only can agree with John Kwok #407. And repeat: please, go for a good treatment! You can have a whole world to win, just by being able to look different at it.