Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Okay, I was wrong. The flagellum did evolve after all . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

. . . from a grain of salt:

Evolution of flagellum

Dr. Jackson Martin, Director and Professor of the Flagellum Project at the Hoboken Nature Institute, today announced completion of software that successfully demonstrates the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Critics of evolution have claimed that the flagellum is too complex to evolve using the gradual changes required by natural selection.

“The flagellum is very complicated,” said Martin. “Like a motor, it has a rotor, a stator, and complex control mechanisms.”

Martin and his students have demonstrated, however, that the complex flagellum can be easily created using the forces of natural selection.

“We have not only shown that the flagellum can be evolved, it’s hard not to evolve the flagellum.”

In simulation software called EvolFlag, Martin and his students carefully apply gradual modifications to an initial set of boundary conditions.

“During the flagellum simulated evolution, my students like to play Devo’s Whip It in the background,” smiled Martin. “They joke it supplies natural selection forces.”

Martin’s most impressive demonstration was evolution of the bacterial flagellum from common table salt.

“Salt, of course, contains no biochemicals,” offered Martin. “The ability to evolve a fully functional flagellum from simple table salt is a tribute to the miracle of evolution.” . . .

For more details, go here.

Comments
Oops, just saw the "brights" site, good to see these forms of "reductio" popping up.BK
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Actually, parody and humour are sometimes the most effective forms of the "reductio ad absurdum". There should be a website dedicated entirely to the mockery and parody of Darwinism that would really bring home how silly it is. Something really sharp that would be attractive to youth.BK
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Here is a partial list of structures that never "evolved," but appeared full blown at their inception in their present configuation. 1. The cell membrane both prokaryotic and eukaryotic. 2. The nuclear membrane. 3. The centromere. 4. The centriole. 5. The bacterial flagellum. 6. The eukryotic flagellum. 5. The cilium. 7. The chromosome, both eukaryotic and prokaryotic. 8. The ribosome. 9. The endoplasmic reticulum. 10. The microtubules. 11. The mitochondrion of which there are several varieties. 12. The chloroplast of which there are also several varieties. I am sure that in my haste I overlooked many others. It is hard to believe isn't it? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 18, 2006
August
08
Aug
18
18
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Tiggy, you've become boring. Farewell. --WmADWilliam Dembski
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Wouldn't it lead to quicker ID acceptance if ID proponents could stop their childish parodying of the biological sciences long enough to do some actual scientific research and publishing on ID itself? Last time I looked, the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research.Tiggy
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
“We have not only shown that the flagellum can be evolved, it’s hard not to evolve the flagellum.” It's hard not to laugh at these poor people. Saxesaxe17
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
The so-called, 'B.R.I.T.E.S' website, is a joke. The song for the darwin youth is indicative of what the theory really is, philosophy and anti-religion diatribe masquerading as science. The fact that this guy thinks he knows how to evolve a bacterium via a speculative program that has no real basis is laughable. Just another lame attempt by the Darwhiners to hide their true colors: the colors of denial, and disbelief for no other theory. When will they stop?Benjii
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
#5 "Evolution’s New Central Dogma: If we can morph two virtual things in a computer simulation, then the real things corresponding to them could, by natural selection, evolve into one another." ... but we know that a stronger empirical statement in computer science says: "thrash in trash out" :-) Kairoskairos
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
Prof. Dembski?!?! You are still here? I thought you were a flagellum! The article didn't say that it could transfer flagellums back to its original state, or did you have to go through the transitional state of being salt and then evolving back to being you! Got a good laugh out of it! :) LOOOOOtb
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
"......and if you don't believe in that, what is your alternative?" (Typical Darwinian reply)Mats
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Evolution's New Central Dogma: If we can morph two virtual things in a computer simulation, then the real things corresponding to them could, by natural selection, evolve into one another.William Dembski
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
Guys, let's face it. I bet that, oh I don't know, let's say 70% of evolutionary biologists would have read this, minus the table salt part (or scarier- even WITH that part) and would have said to themselves- 'ah ha, I knew this wouldn't be such a big deal' to evolve and this program proves it. They have avida and claim that it's actual evolution in action, not just a simulation. I've heard stories far more fantastic than this. I mean, it honestly didn't sound that different from REAL stories that claim A, B, and C from the miracle of evolution via NS.JasonTheGreek
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
To really make an ironic statement they should devolve Booji Boy back to a grain of salt.tribune7
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Dembski's not playing fair. I was working up a good head of righteous indignation .. "who cares what his students listen to? ... the miracle of evolution? ... is this guy a nut?" Then I decided to follow the link. As per the simulation, however, I don't think Dembski's a particularly convincing intermediate along the way to the flagellum as I'm quite sure he's irreducibly complex. I'm still wondering, though, are the Brites a mutated version of SARS?Charlie
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
That is great. Proof that Behe is wrong, I knew all this ID talk would eventually be shown to be the rubbish that it is. Proof, proof at last. Ok i'll add the appropriate smiley this time :P I wonder if there is an easy way to find out if anybody picks up on and runs with this claim, not realising that it is a joke. After all, it is the sort of handwaving silliness that is put forward as evidence all the time.jwrennie
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply