Those bluffing evolutionitwits
Either way it is very entertaining to watch evolutionitwits try to bluff their way through a debate.
The most recent bluff was made by James "Momma's boy" Wynne:
Then why not take one of the many research papers that deal with the evolution of the flagellum, read it (ha!) and then tell us specifically what your problem with it is, and also tell us about an experiment that you might design to test the hypotheses you think are wrong.
Unlike Texas hold'em calling this bluff doesn't take any $$$, just common sense:
Perhaps James Wynne can provide ONE scientific research paper that demonstrates the bac flag "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process.
Then perhaps James will tell us why not one evolutionary biologist has conducted the experiment that would demonstrate that such a transformation is even possible (ie from flagella-less bacteria to bacteria with at least one flagellum).
You know James I have asked you several times what would falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process, yet you NEVER answered the question.
perfesser Scotty Page is another who loves to posture, accuse, assert- IOW he is another puffer bluffer. Each time is is called on his bluffs he runs away, only to return with more of the same.
Don't they realize is all they have to do is substantiate their claims with real data? Or is it that they realize they cannot and bluffing (postering, accusing, assertions, etc.) is all they have left in the bag?
I almost forgot the evolutionitwits have a documented history of bluffing:
One Long Bluff:
The Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article
(content edited to fix a typo- It appears that Momma's boy James Wynne has found a purpose in life. You go girl!)