[Heartlander]

The author is asking for a complete model at the least. Miller's point was that the parts do have functions. It was creationists who stated that the parts had no function without having to "cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;..." or "give a theoretical model."

From Mike Gene:
“All of this takes us back to the first essay in this series. In that essay, I noted how Ken Miller was able to explain the simple mousetrap in evolutionary terms. In other words, Miller (and others) have unintentionally demonstrated that the human mind can imagine evolutionary transitions when there were none. I noted:”

What is interesting about this logic is that we already know that the mousetrap was intelligently designed. We also know that it did not first exist as a clipboard, then a tie clip. Thus, while it is logically possible to see the mousetrap as Miller does, that is, as a modified clipboard and tie clip, such perceptions are not tied to history nor the origin of the mousetrap. Thus, coming up with imaginary accounts that tap into our ability to imagine cooptional origins, by itself, is rather meaningless. If we can successfully come up with such explanations where they are known to be false(the mousetrap), how do we know that our ability to do likewise with things like the flagellum are not also inherently flawed?

[Dimensio]

Mike Gene's comments are telling. He backpedals from the original point of the mousetrap argument once it's disproved, going from "the flagellum must have been intelligently designed" to "we don't know that it came about through step-by-step processes, so we should still consider intelligent design."

In other words, his whole argument comes down to "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!", which is not science.