And in fact the blog entry does not provide support for your argument - indeed it raises difficulties which it would be good to address in your OP.
I didn't claim it supports my argument. I claimed neodarwinism has no plausible explanation of the phenomena. Thats all. I don't need to address all neodarwinian explanation of phenomena, because dr. Myers have already done it in "the blog". All I needed was to address is the old "cooling spermatozoa" explanation. Do you think that arguments like:
1) moving testicles outside body is very dangerous solution for species
2) many mammalian species do not need to cool their spermatozoa
3) birds with much more higher temperature as mammals do not cool their spermatozoa either
4) darwinists themselves admit that "cooling spermatozoa" explanation is - I quote the research -
untestable!!!
are not sufficient arguments for opening a thread for further discussion? What other arguments you would like me to bring?