Intelligent Design

An engineering perspective on the bacterial flagellum

Spread the love

A new paper at Bio-Complexity:

This study examines the bacterial flagellum from an engineering viewpoint. This examination concentrates on the structure, proteins, control, and assembly of a typical flagellum, which is the organelle imparting motility to common bacteria. Two very different, independent approaches are applied and then compared in three separate papers: Parts 1, 2, and 3. The first approach is a constructive or top-down approach, covered in this Part 1. It considers the purpose of a bacterial motility system, its typical environment, new and existing required resources, and its physiology. It sets forth the logically necessary functional requirements, constraints, assembly, and relationships. The functionality includes a motility control subsystem and provision for self-assembly. The specification of these requirements is intended to be independent from knowledge of the flagellar structures. This is original material not covered in academic papers on the flagellum. Part 2 will cover the second approach, an analytical or bottom-up approach. It will document the known 40+ protein components and the structure, assembly, and control of a typical flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is a well-researched molecular subsystem. However, in Part 2 the assembly relationships will be illustrated graphically in a form and detail not found in previous literature. Part 3 will compare the two approaches and conclude with several original observations. Those include the coherent assembly orchestration and an ontology of the exceedingly specific protein-binding properties. The latter observation is significant, and it suggests future modeling to elucidate how the strong, coherent, multi-way protein binding is achieved at the molecular level. Paper.

Waldean A Schulz, “An Engineering Perspective on the Bacterial Flagellum” at Bio-Complexity

8 Replies to “An engineering perspective on the bacterial flagellum

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Amazing. Maybe IDers should focus more on the maintenance aspects of life and less on origins and development. Janitorial services are the most ingeniously designed parts of life.

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    “Can any partial implementation of a motility system be even slightly advantageous to a bacterium? Examples of a partial system might lack sensors, lack decision logic, lack control messages, lack a rotor or stator, lack sealed bearings, lack a rod, lack a propeller, or lack redirection means. Would such partial systems be preserved long enough for additional cooperating components to evolve?” So the author asks.
    Another question might be – which of the myriad parts of the system appeared first? Whether it was a true first or happened by gene duplication there still needs to be a first.
    This paper is long wanted and though detailed is easy to understand- the diagrams really help.
    I look forward to papers 2 and 3.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Evolutionary biologists don’t have a clue how any bacterial flagellum came to be. They don’t even know how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it. And evos don’t understand the reality of biology- that it needs to be looked at by engineers: Approaching Biology From a Different Angle

    I pity people like stevestory/ retired physicist who is too stupid to understand what science requires.

    It is very telling that there still aren’t any peer-reviewed papers supporting the blind watchmaker evolution of any BF.

  4. 4
    doubter says:

    Needless to say, this paper could never get published in any mainstream scientific journal. The Darwinist thought police are still too strong in the scientific establishment. Come to think of it, however, just maybe it could get published in an engineering journal, maybe mechanical engineering or even electronic engineering (like the IEEE).

  5. 5
    AndyClue says:

    @Doubter:

    Imho a systems biology journal would be more fitting. The paper even mentions systems biology in the very first sentence. Lot’s of journals to choose from: http://info-centre.jenage.de/s.....rnals.html

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Evolutionary biologists can’t even answer the basic biological question- what makes an organism what it is? They definitely don’t have any idea how any bacterial flagellum came to be. They don’t have anything to lose and everything to gain by reading this paper.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    The problem is the materialists’ basic principle doesn’t actually explain a set of observations, the way a principle of science is supposed to. HT Henry J, clueless evoTARD.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    And another clueless evo chimed in with:

    Someone needs to gather a group of biologists to travel around to different engineering projects and tell the. They’re doing it wrong.

    Biologists can’t even take care of their own field. If they could then engineers wouldn’t need to intervene. But that is moot as educated people understand that biology is a multidiscipline science, that encompasses system engineering.

    People like Bob O’H are too dim to grasp those facts.

Leave a Reply