[Diamond]

...the lack of a ready answer does not argue for the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

I thought the appeal of Darwinism was its explanatory power.

Besides, why should someone skeptical of the attribution of causal power of natural selection to build a molecular machine like the flagellum be absurdly required to prove an impossibilty when the proposition that not only could the BF be formed by a fully detailed series of slight modifications, but actually was formed that way historically completely without any empirical support, and when the burden is on the Darwinist who asserts it to demonstrate it empirically in the first place?

Cordially,

[js1138]

The assumption of natural causes does not provide instant answers to forensic questions. Unsolved forensic puzzles do not imply magic.

The assumption of magic leads nowhere.