Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

The Digital Evidence for Flagellar Evolution

Spread the love

When biological evidence fails to establish Darwinian evolution, go instead for digital evidence. Here at last digital proof positive for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum (if Kitzmiller v. Dover wasn’t enough to sink ID, this surely will):

For more on digital evolution, check out MSU’s Digital Evolution Lab. For the logic underlying digital evidence for evolution, see my piece Evolutionary Logic.

52 Replies to “The Digital Evidence for Flagellar Evolution

  1. 1

    […] UD has a link to Evolutionary Logic […]

  2. 2
    WinstonEwert says:

    In my opionion, they are right. Computer simulations bring a high degree of testablity to Darwinian science which is not possible to obtain in a reasonable time frame in biological siutations.

    And Darwinism fails that test.

  3. 3
    IDist says:

    We don’t even need this proof.

    Richard Dawkins proved that Darwinian evolution is a fact.

    And we know that IC is an argument from ignorant, and trying to solve this problem will give credit to “Creationists” because it means that Darwinian evolution does have problems!
    This is not true, the evidence is OVERWHELMING and anybody says that darwinism is not true is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked, and of course is a religious fundamentalist.

  4. 4
    IDist says:

    I forgot to add that the theory is “so beautiful, so powerful”

  5. 5
    TRoutMac says:

    The video claims:

    “The system need not have the same function as the ancestral system from which it evolved”

    My question is, “Who says?”

    Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Behe. Does it not matter whether Behe agrees that irreducible complexity can include different functions? Seems to me they’re just conveniently re-defining “irreducible complexity” because they can’t get around the definition given to that term by the man who invented it.

    They may as well say that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because I can use the holding bar to pick my nose.

    And it’s my understanding that there’s evidence that the TTSS came after the flagellum… do these guys ever explain how the TTSS figures into the “evolution” of the flagellum when it appears to have come AFTER? Is there good reason to doubt that the TTSS came after the flagellum?

    TRoutMac
    The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

  6. 6
    TRoutMac says:

    The video also claims that IC is an “argument from ignorance”, and characterizes it this way:

    “Because I cannot imagine how something evolved, it must not have.”

    Well, somebody please tell me why this can’t be said for the Darwinist/anti-ID position, for example:

    “I can’t imagine how this could have been designed, therefore it must have evolved.”

    Seems like a pretty good fit to me.

    TRoutMac
    The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

  7. 7
    Jehu says:

    Athiesm is an argument from ignorance.

    “I don’t know God, therefore He doesn’t exist.”

  8. 8
    GilDodgen says:

    ID has been refuted! I had no idea that the process depicted in this video has actually been proven to have taken place in nature, but the video provides overwhelming evidence that it has.

    I’m sure that the scientists who made the video have done an exhaustive analysis of what mutations would be required to engineer this marvelous transformation, and have done the relevant statistical calculations to demonstrate that such a process could have taken place with the available probabilistic resources.

    I can’t wait to see the detailed results of this highly sophisticated scientific study!

    Science has proven that I, my wife, and my children are just the product of chance and necessity. What a nihilistic bummer! I guess I’ll just have to deal with it.

  9. 9
    Atom says:

    That clip is unintentionally funny…they have a TTSS evolved BEFORE the flagellum, when EVIDENCE supports it appearing afterwards.

    It claims functions without DEMONSTRATING the survival advatnage of them…assertion is not demonstration. Can their poorly spinning “proto” motor overcome the brownian motion factor, as pointed out by WmAD?

    This is just-so brilliant.

  10. 10
    shaner74 says:

    “I can’t wait to see the detailed results of this highly sophisticated scientific study!”

    Man you guys are all so hung up on “science” stuff. Since when does Darwinism need scientific evidence to be true? Doesn’t having music in the background of this intelligently-designed animation count for anything? Now seriously, how terrified of ID do you have to be to make something like this? I say very.

  11. 11
    thechristiancynic says:

    I seriously can’t believe I wasted my time watching that. I’ll never get those minutes back.
    And man, that music…you’d think that Darwinists would have at least evolved better taste in music. (Before anyone asks the question, musical taste confers an evolutionary benefit because it prevents said individual from having their eardrums ripped out after they subject me to awful music.)
    By the way, this reminds me of deGrasse Tyson’s BB presentation where he misspelled ‘crocodile’. Fortunately for Tyson, though, his voice is at least somewhat redeeming; I can’t really find any redeeming features about this video other than the fact that it could have been longer and wasn’t (thanks be to God).

  12. 12
    idnet.com.au says:

    If IC is an argument from ignorance “Because I cannot imagine how something evolved, it must not have”, then Darwinism is an argument from imagination. “Because I can imagine how something evolved, it must have.”

    No need for experimental evidnce when we can make a video simulation.

    Why don’t we watch X Men instead because it proved mutations produce valuable evolution.

  13. 13
    idnet.com.au says:

    If you want to see a real marvel watch the experimentally derived animation of the progressive construction of a real flagellum at http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellarassembly-l.mov

    Better still watch the 30 min movie of the research that went into the discoveries that enabled the flagella animation to be made at http://www.nanonet.go.jp/engli.....s/011a.wmv

  14. 14
    idnet.com.au says:

    These videos are downloadable by “right click” and “save as”.

  15. 15
    idnet.com.au says:

    DEVOLABS publications page shows no published scientific papers in 2 years. Perhaps they find it easier to publish these you tube videos.

  16. 16
    Atom says:

    LOL @Idnet’s X-men comment.

  17. 17
    crandaddy says:

    Do NOT laugh at the X-men! Naturalistic evolution is most certainly capable of bestowing such abilities upon mankind. What are you people, some sort of Christian fundie cretinists? Don’t you know what an argument from ignorance is? 😛

  18. 18
    avocationist says:

    I watched less than half of it. I don’t know why they aren’t embarrassed. If a person had kept up with the flagellum arguments, surely they must see how inadequate that silly film is. I argued over at After the Bar Closes for a while, but I could never get any of those guys to read Mike Gene’s flagellum essays, or, for that matter, Dembski’s answer to The Flagellum Unspun (of which they are very proud). So that we could actually get down to brass tacks and talk about it. They prefer to stay in dreamland. My favorite part of the Gene essays were the assembly process of the flagellum. That, alone, is probably IC.

  19. 19
    JGuy says:

    If you guys didn’t already know, the scenario the YouTube video is inspired by is derived from Nick Matzke’s material/report.. not quite a peer reviewed paper from my understanding.

    I know this partly because I had a short correspondance with the person who posted that video on YouTube a couple months ago. Also, I posted a video response. My response was simply a video of flagellar assembly ( a better simulation) that I found on the net. I felt the video I posted spoke for itself; but I have actually received a very consistently poor ratings.. haha.. I suppose it could be in part that I don’t have a dramatic background track – it’s purely visual – However, it is probably more-so driven by the fact that there is a large base of Darwin’s support on YouTube. If any of you have an account, you can go in and rate it at 5 stars to cancel out the negative bias.. ie if you agree with the side note by the video and like the video.

    You can see my response here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N09BIEzDlI

    This link may be dead one day.. since I will likely close my YouTube login later.

  20. 20
    JGuy says:

    The Nick Matzke paper behind this video…

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

  21. 21
    crandaddy says:

    You got a 5 from me, JGuy. Rock on, dude! (Now if only Matzke would not…Yikes!)

  22. 22
    JGuy says:

    crandaddy,
    Thanks for the 5 star. Regarding your X-men quib. I always thought in strange that evolution, if true, hadn’t yet evolved the trait of immorality for any organism yet. Or a process for accelerated healing. Strange isn’t it? Since, those would be the ultimate survival designs if natual selection were real… and conceptually easy enough to ocme about – since old people can have young babies and since those babie tissue can grow rapidly. What kept the young tissue from directly evovling to benefit the parent and in reproduction?

  23. 23
    DaveScot says:

    What idiot thought it clever to put a powerpoint presentation into a video with background music?

    Amazing.

  24. 24
    idnet.com.au says:

    What is that line about “nothing but wishful speculations”?

  25. 25
    Mats says:

    Finaly some evidence for flagellar evolution. Now we can all go and rest, and wait for the ID boat to sink. I can’t believe it took 10 years for someone to answer Michael Behe. I wonder how creationist Behe well deal with this devastating evidence.

  26. 26
    TRoutMac says:

    The video also claims this…

    “Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems”

    Isn’t an argument of homology between particular proteins a little silly in a context where every protein in a cell is made from combinations of the same 20 amino acids? What about THAT homology? The amino acids are homologous, are they not? Even in different proteins, the same pool of 20 amino acids might be used. (albeit differently)

    I guess what I’m saying is that if I can explain the homology of amino acids which make up proteins which are completely DIFFERENT via Intelligent Design, then why should I be afraid of the homologous protein argument? Wouldn’t that be EVEN EASIER to explain via ID?

    TRoutMac
    The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

  27. 27
    WinglesS says:

    I won’t say that it’s a bad video. Most people, myself included, have difficulty knowing the truth behind it’s assertions. While at first glance the evolutionary process seems overly simplified and again appeals to chance through natural selection to form everything, I can’t say that’s impossible because I don’t study biology. I guess this is the age of knowledge specialisation. I might be in universtity, but I still don’t even know exactly how and why my computer works.

  28. 28
    shaner74 says:

    “Do NOT laugh at the X-men! Naturalistic evolution is most certainly capable of bestowing such abilities upon mankind.”

    crandaddy, the funny but sad thing about your comment is that some people actually think like this. I have had conversations with some Darwinists that believe evolution is really capable of producing x-men like powers, if given enough time of course. I guess they now have a method of proving this scientifically – just design an animation of evolution giving someone wings, or letting them control the weather. Add some snazzy background music, and there you have it, evidence that would hold up in a JJ court of law.

  29. 29
    JGuy says:

    “What idiot thought it clever to put a powerpoint presentation into a video with background music?

    Amazing. ” – DaveScot

    Didn’t you know. The cooler the music, the more legitimate the material. Who cares whether you can concentrate on the information being ‘presented’… just watch the colors and shapes, and let the music enter your psyche.

    Kind of reminds me of the story about cannibals rubbing the back of your neck to soothe your fears.. next thing you know, your head rolls off.
    —sorry if that was gross 😛

  30. 30
    kairos says:

    #8 GD

    I’m sure that the scientists who made the video have done an exhaustive analysis of what mutations would be required to engineer this marvelous transformation, and have done the relevant statistical calculations to demonstrate that such a process could have taken place with the available probabilistic resources.

    Good point Gil; certainly they didn’t perform those computations just because they couldn’t, and even if they could results would be largely under 10^-150.

    But my strong opinion is that examples such as the flagellar one are simply devastating for NDE. Let only allow people to watch how complex its structure is …

  31. 31
    JGuy says:

    Just curious.. anyo0ne have an answer for this…

    In the video, it says the ATP synthase would be added to a selective pore, whereby it imparts active transport.

    How would the ATP impart active transport exactly??? Even in a loose way. It’s not as though the ATP syhnthase has an intakeport and output exhaust…. or does it? If you can’t think of a way, then say it like a Darwinian.

  32. 32
    bFast says:

    I have found an even finer example of proof by story for your enjoyment:

    http://www.livescience.com/healthday/600271.html

    I do wish I could post threads on this board. Merry Christmas.

  33. 33
    grendelkhan says:

    Every time a hypothesized sequence of evolutionary events is proposed, there are comments like #12, which don’t really make any sense to me. Establishing an possible chain of events (like that series of 1%-magnitude changes in some structural properties leading from a light-sensitive spot to a fish eye) doesn’t mean that it did happen that way; it’s only meant to show that it might have happened that way, which may not seem like much, but it’s a response to the argument that it couldn’t have happened, except in one great Designed leap.

    Like so:

    A: There’s absolutely no way x could have evolved from y; it must have been designed in one fell swoop.
    B: No, it could have come about in a gradual manner; here’s an example of how it could have happened.
    A: What’s the point? You don’t know it happened like that.
    B: Yes, but we know you were wrong when you said it was impossible, which is why you should be more careful about making “there exists no” style claims.

  34. 34
    jwrennie says:

    Ok I agree the video is childish in its triumphilism and rather pathetic evidence wise, but at least they are giving it a go.

    Now what needs to be done is to hold peoples feet to the fire and say “fine”, lets look at the evidence in detail. You tell a fine fairy tale, where is the evidence that it is anything more than that ?

    The note about the TTSS and the evidence it came about after the Flagella is an obvious hole to start with.

    Although I suspect you are right, the people that will consider this just so story conclusive are not the sort of people that care about reason and logic in any meaningful way.

  35. 35
    mentok says:

    jwrennie I think you are giving them way to much credit. Their feet have been held to the fire on IC and they have been shown the error of their ways. Every single aspect of evolutionary theory is fraught with insurmountable problems when looked at criticially rather then trusted on blind faith. For every single one of those insurmountable problems, the darwinistas claim to have solved those problems by always relying on hyper improbabilities and then believing that because if they can think of a way to solve the problem that therefore it is solved. They reject problems with their theories because they don’t care. They have a job to do. What’s more they also always ignore the math. It’s like me believing that if I threw a ball fast enough that I could send it into earth orbit because if a ball can theoretically gain the velocity needed to go into orbit then there is some chance that I might be able to throw it that fast. All of their theories from top to bottom on any aspect of evolutionary theory are just like that. They ignore the actual probability for a theorietical possibility because they have no choice. For them intelligent cause is not acceptable on philosophical grounds therefore they are left with the unenviable position of trying to defend and promote absurdity and foolishness. We find people like Dick Dawkins saying things like evolution is not chance because he knows the absurdity of chance manifesting the complex life forms we see. But of course that is the epitomy of self delusion. Evolution is nothing but chance. Mutations occur randomly therefore evolution is chance. He tries to invoke natural selection as changing the essential character of evolution from that of chance to a guided process. But that is simply a lie to fool people with and he knows it. It’s an attempt to obfuscate the fact that chance mutations with or without and irregardless of natural selection, when faced with the mathematical probability of the complexity of life, cannot be realistically accepted as anything more then profoundly absurd.

  36. 36
    kairos says:

    #33

    … it’s only meant to show that it might have happened that way, which may not seem like much, but it’s a response to the argument that it couldn’t have happened, except in one great Designed leap.
    …..
    B: Yes, but we know you were wrong when you said it was impossible, which is why you should be more careful about making “there exists no” style claims.

    I would rather say that YOU should get more information before speaking about. And the information has been readily available from Behe book since 1996. Hint: point to the basic difference between direct and indirect evolution path.

  37. 37
    Atom says:

    #33, I could also come up with a quick possible path:

    protein one is floating around, then protein 2 joins to it which makes it better at keeping the bacteria in place. Then another one joins in, causing the same thing. All the way until you have a complete flagellum.

    I can now claim that design is not needed, because I described a possible unguided pathway.

    What is the problem with my story? I didn’t provide the DETAILS as to 1) the calculated probabilities of parts availability, of correct sequence arrival, of location avilability, etc etc. and 2) a mapping of the fitness terrain at each step that demonstrates that the newly constructed proto-flagella will increase fitness above the “noise” threshold, to actually become fixed in the population.

    Without those details, you have not shown anything. I didn’t provide those details and neither did the video.

    Try pulling off such a “demonstration” in physics.

  38. 38
    JGuy says:

    My YouTube video response went up from 80 users making ratings to 90 recorded ratings in the past 24 hours. It took about 70 days just to get to 80 ratings. So, I would attribute that to my recent post #19 above yesterday. BUT the rating stayed at 1 star – people didn’t like it. If the predominantly ID propoents on this board had all voted and vated 5 (hypothetically), then it should be up to 1.5 stars minimum. But it still remains at 1 star. This leads me to two probable conclusions.
    1) My response did legitimately suck – and I know youguys are fairly honest.
    2) PT lurkers are in the midsts… sabotage.

    Do they conspire against us?

  39. 39
    avocationist says:

    JGuy,

    I’m sorry I forgot to rate it. Nothing wrong with the video, but I think this is a case where words are better than pictures. Having read a couple of pages or more about the assembly process, not to mention other problems with the idea of proteins that float around and decide what to do with themselves, I can’t imagine a video that gives an understanding of what is really involved in buiding a cellular structure like the flagellum.

  40. 40
    avocationist says:

    Trout,

    [i]Isn’t an argument of homology between particular proteins a little silly in a context where every protein in a cell is made from combinations of the same 20 amino acids?[/i]

    Try as I might, I couldn’t make heads or tails of your post, but I think the answer here is no, because an average protein has 300-500 amino acids. So that’s pretty specified.

  41. 41
    JGuy says:

    avocationist,
    Thanks. It’s funny, the rating went up to two stars all of the sudden. I think my hypothesis on the PT lurkers is invalid now.

    I know what you meant. I wish I had the right words to express the idea about assembly complecity. I did, however, write quite a long commentary to the right of the video [you have to click the *more* link to expand it]. The video was posted abruoptly in hopes of expressing to the numerate and/or logical (or those that love how crazy complex life can get) the specificity involved with the parts assembly and functions. If I redo this later, I’ll consider some verbage – if not just a dramatic background track… ha.

  42. 42
    PaV says:

    grendelkhan:
    “Establishing an possible chain of events (like that series of 1%-magnitude changes in some structural properties leading from a light-sensitive spot to a fish eye) doesn’t mean that it did happen that way; it’s only meant to show that it might have happened that way, . . . ”

    In response:
    I can imagine that in the upper part of a horse’s skull a circular area begins to calcify and bulge outwards. Just a chance thing. But there’s some advantage. If this horse butts heads with another horse, this raise circular area is more painful than a smooth snout. This ”advantage” horse has offspring where this circular area increases and becomes more raised–even more of an advantage. Lo and behold, over a thousand generations a “unicorn” evolves!

    Now, I’ve just imagined this. But it doesn’t exist. It only exists in the imagination. Yet Darwinism can only attempt to imagine some structures and yet we’re forced to believe it must be so. Strange.

    I like what “idnet” wrote:

    Darwinism is an argument from imagination. “Because I can imagine how something evolved, it must have.”

    As to the video proper, it all reminds me of Apollo 13. The CO2 scrubber stopped working. The “engineers” in Houston threw down all the kinds of”spare parts” that were on the space vehicle and started to fashion a CO2 scrubber. Solving the problem of flagellar evolution is not about having the parts on hand, it’s about how those parts were assembled. And, just as in Apollo 13, only intelligence can bring about functionality from “spare part”.

  43. 43
    devilsadvocate says:

    Evilutionary(a type-o but I kind of liked it so I left it alone) biology would probably not even be addressing questions such as the evolution of the flagellum if not for ID. ID has been instrumental in stimulating thought in areas where biologists were content to just say ‘wow, look at all the creative things evolution can produce’. If ID is not a testable scientific hypothosis then why are papers trying to disprove an ID null hypothosis considered science?

  44. 44
    JGuy says:

    PaV,
    Good point. about the unicorn (though I believe they probably exist somewhere in the fossil record). But you know, evolutionist will argue that unicorns didn’t evovle like that becasue the horses with the hooves evovled first to kick the aspiring unicorn in the head.. thus the hoof beat out the horn. Now, if the unicorn is found, then they will aruge that you were right and that proves the guy you refuted. Like Walter ReMine says… evolution adapts to the data like fog adapts to the landscape.

  45. 45
    DaveScot says:

    grendalkin

    Saying it could happen in some manner isn’t good enough. It must be demonstrated. The former is story telling. The latter is science.

  46. 46
    Joseph says:

    grendelkhan:
    A: There’s absolutely no way x could have evolved from y; it must have been designed in one fell swoop.

    IC does not say nor imply the structure in question could not have evolved. The debate is all about the mechanism- ie was it designed to evl0ve, designed in one fell swoop (how could we tell) or did it evolve via stochastic processes, ie the blind watchmaker?

    DCO=Porigin*Plocal*Pconfig

    DCO-Discrete combinatorial object
    Porigin- getting the pieces in the first place
    Plocal- getting the pieces together in one place
    Pconfig- getting the pieces in the proper configuration

    And then there is the command and control center. Any bac flag is useless without one.

  47. 47
    JGuy says:

    Joseph,
    How about *Ptime also. Since, Plocal might be the same place, but not neccessarily the same time – unless you are positing accumulating repoire of parts. If P’s are not present at the same time, then there’s no combining. If this is granted/overlooked, then your argument of command and control can also include a neccessary set of assembly instructions (and/or assembly equipment).

  48. 48
    TRoutMac says:

    Avocationist:

    I’ll try to clarify my point about homology, proteins and amino acids, but I’ll use another example at an entirely different level to show you what I was saying:

    Evolutionists argue that homology between species necessarily means one evolved from the other… or at the very least, they ignore the fact that homology COULD mean organisms were designed by a common designer using common design themes.

    One popular example of this which relates more directly to what I wrote earlier is that evolutionists LOVE to point that chimp DNA is 98% the same as human DNA. Well, I understand there are other reasons why that’s a bogus argument, but one of my first reactions to that argument was to realize or remember that every single organism on the earth, whether plant or animal, uses the same DNA. That is, DNA is the information storage system used universally by every organism, except, as I understand it, by a few that only use RNA or something. Whatever. The point is, SO WHAT if a chimp’s DNA is “98%” similar to that of humans? DNA itself is EXACTLY the same, as an information storage medium, in every organism. Yeah, the CODE might be similar ‘tween chimps and humans, but the vehicle of DNA is the same EVERYWHERE. Now, I know how they use that to argue universal common ancestry… but if I prefer to enlarge the debate, not keep it confined to just chimps and humans. And if I can show that design is AT LEAST as valid an interpretation as universal common ancestry (and that’s easy… like fallin’ off a log) then the chimp/human DNA similarity becomes irrelevant.

    Okay, well that thinking applies to individual proteins as well. Just on a smaller scale. Yeah, different molecular machines share certain parts. But so what? They share something even GREATER than just their protein parts. What ALL protein parts have in common is that they’re ALL made from the same 20 amino acids. And again, if I can show that building assorted protein parts out of a library of 20 amino acids can be explained by design (again, easy to show) then the fact that some molecular machines (like the TTSS and the flagellum) share parts becomes irrelevant.

    I hope that makes more sense. I know I’m coming at this from an ‘odd’ direction… but it seems valuable to me in these debates to push the other side’s argument even further, in a sense, because if ID can explain the greater, then it can explain the lesser as well.

  49. 49
    JGuy says:

    DaveScot –
    Earlier, you were criticizing the guy that made the flagellum video. I agree the music was distracting (assuming that was what you meant to criticize)… a powerpoint presentation is hard to concentrate on when you have 70’s rock in the background with vocals..etc..

    But, I would like to say that music CAN be added to powerpoint presentations (or simialr to PP presentations) in such a way to make an impression effectively. Let me post an example… I am not saying the information is or isn’t accurate, but the idea is to demonstrate how media in a presentation format can be persuasive with the right music background and just enough tidbits of info. For the very critical thinkers, it might not be as effective, however if you just take it even a little at just cursory value, you can see how the multimedia can grab your attention well.. it’s like hypnosys.. chekc this out..

    http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

  50. 50
    JGuy says:

    DaveScot:

    If you would, post some feedback on my just posted comment. I’d like to know what you think… especially if you see the smal video.

  51. 51
    avocationist says:

    JGuy

    The music was fine, but the video had too much iformation, both pictorially and in words, to have it move that fast. I watched it twice and still couldn’t get it all. I found that frustrating.

  52. 52
    JGuy says:

    avocationist,
    Thanks for your feedback on that. I find the way multimedia is used as fascinating. Also I could not ,at times, read the words fast enough.. perhaps some verbage could be left out, or perhaps displayed more slowly. Anyway, it’s good to pick up how people use multimedia like that..but it’s also good to get viewers feedback as well.

Leave a Reply