Evolutionary "answers"

If the following doesn't demonstrate the absolute intellectual vacuuity of evolutionism, I am not sure what will:

1) How could we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via purely stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes?

2) How could we falsify that premise?

3) What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of bacteria can "evolve" into something other than a population of bacteria?

4) What is the evidence that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms?

Zachriel responded with the following:

Questions 1,2: The evolution of the flagellum is very ancient, and the evidence is tenuous, at best. There are a number of theories, and scientists have discovered homologous elements in microbiology that point to an evolutionary process.

See the entry Homology and Homoplasy for the reasons why this is bogus (hint- homology usually depends on first assuming Common Descent)

Question 3: Modern bacteria are highly evolved organisms with billions of years of prior history. The common ancestor of life on Earth today may or may not have resembled bacteria. The Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply to the origin of cellular life, where some sort of endosymbiosis may have been involved.

This totally fails to even address the question.

Question 4. The evidence for common descent of metazoan life is found in the nested hierarchy of descent. The common origin of eukaryotes can be found in predicted homologies.

Too bad nested hierarchy isn't evidence for Common Descent. And this "answer" also doesn't address the question.

That's it! Four non-answers which I am sure Zachriel thinks are valid. Freakin' sad but typical. And people wonder why I reject Common Descent...