[Thatcherite]

Please point to any scientific article which delineates the actual, not hypthetical, merely conceivable, or logically possible, but ontologically possible, confirmed by experimental evidence, origin of the bacterial flagellum by purely Darwinian means, i.e., by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Doing so wouldn't falsify ID. It would just falsify a particular claim made be some ID proponents, which is that the BF could not have evolved.

Why do you set the bar so high for this particular disproof? Why is a hypothetical path not sufficient to disprove the notion, since the essential contention of Behe is that no hypothetical path exists.

[RogueIsland]

Why do you set the bar so high for this particular disproof? Why is a hypothetical path not sufficient to disprove the notion, since the essential contention of Behe is that no hypothetical path exists.

Because that's the game. If you can't reproduce it molecule for molecule in a lab experiment, it's ID. If you can reproduce it in a lab experiment, it was through an experiment designed by human intelligence, and therefore an example of ID. Everything is a proof of ID!

[Diamond]

Why is a hypothetical path not sufficient to disprove the notion, since the essential contention of Behe is that no hypothetical path exists.

Well, it depends on what you mean by a hypothetical path. The bar is not unreasonably high - it is just what can reasonably be expected physically to occur or not occur. Imaginary scenarios may be interesting but they are no substitute for specific evidence. Behe obviously thinks there are insurmountable physical hurdles to overcome for any such hypothetical pathways to actually succeed in forming a BF by numerous, successive, slight modifications via the Darwinian mechanism.

Cordially,