The Evolution of the Flagellum

BEHE CONCEDES IC SYSTEMS CAN EVOLVE

Here I present a theory first published in 2003 by Nicholas Matzke. For more details one can view his work at

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagel...

This theory is derived from a wealth of data regarding protein homologies. It shows that a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein. For more discussion on the actual proteins involved and their homologues see the link above.

When ID proponents ask what good is half a flagellum, well, ¾ a flagellum is good for dispersion, ½ a flagellum is good for attachment to substrates, ¼ a flagellum is good for regulated protein secretion.

This model based on a wealth of evidence shows that the flagellum could evolve. Since 2003 many experiments have confirmed what initially were only predictions or weak assumptions. Still, many fine details remain to be worked out regarding function, not origin. For example, how does the ATP synthase derived components impart the motion of active transport, or how does the Tol-Pal derived components actually spine the flagellum.

Behe in the Dover trial concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.

Lawyer -- "You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex
and thus could not have been produced directly, however,
one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an
indirect, circuitous route, right?
Behe -- "Yes."
Lawyer -- "And by indirect, you mean evolution from a
pre-cursor with a different function than the system
being studied?"
Behe -- "Yes, different function, perhaps different number
of parts, and so on."

To be fair, however, Behe claims that at a certain point of complexity an indirect route is impossible. But he gives no evidence to support this caveat.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?edxwzxh2ymk

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?m55w03nudmy

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

• Category

  Howto & Style

[AATYKON]

Makes complete sense, I was curious as to how this worked after a creationist argued the point but evidently I misinterpreted, and so did he, the point. The mechanism, in this case the flagellum, is not intended to have the function it has currently. It wasn't meant to have it therefore before it did it would have been a mere "not as advantageous" version. For example the eyeball, some are just a group of cells, some are cells in a curved shape and others are fully formed eyes. Amazing stuff!

[AATYKON]

It is completely scientifically credible! Are you blind, or just stupid? The mechanism clearly states how (by the cause of random mutations in DNA) the cell uses more and more proteins which allows it to become more suited to its environment by reducing the effect of selection pressures. With each protein added the cell has a higher chance to survive and reproduce, asexually. This happens over many generations which is how such a complex system occurs. It doesn't happen just like that..

[AATYKON]

Evolution is pretty much fact, the only reason we don't say it is, and the only reason why we don't say any theory in science is, because science is about finding the truth and there is always a margin for error.

[types10000]

"What he has shown in that a designed mechanism may have been developed in this manner. It may have been done in another, also. But this does nothing for the fantasy of evolution. It only reinforces design and intelligence."

- incorrect, the assertion that certain structures are irreducibly complex relies on the premise that they CANT evolve, however by demonstrating that they COULD evolve (regardless of whether they actually did) he has debunked IC (by showing that it's premise is invalid)

[Roger Robertson]

What? Which part of his make-believe is NOT providing an 'argument' for something?

He has invented a scenario that makes no logical sense at all. It has NO scientific credibility at all.

What he has shown in that a designed mechanism may have been developed in this manner. It may have been done in another, also. But this does nothing for the fantasy of evolution. It only reinforces design and intelligence.

Random rearrangement of organic matter:0. Design coming together perfectly:1

[Roger Robertson]

I'd counter the opening statement with this:

"Because I have a rabidly CREATIVE imagination, I will invent a step-by-step process in which - despite the overt suggestion of design in the presentation itself(!) - I will attempt to show how a complex organic machine formed itself from a basic beginning; with no guidance other than the forces imparted upon it by its environment. It could have [read: must have, coz you can't disprove it anyway] happened like this, because I imagined that it did."