Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Behe was right: Bacteria eject flagella to avoid starvation

Denyse O'Leary
April 18, 2019
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

Here’s an example of what Michael Behe is (actually) talking about in Darwin Devolves The evolution strategy “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain”:

Eleven authors writing in PLOS Biology found that “γ-proteobacteria eject their polar flagella under nutrient depletion, retaining flagellar motor relic structures.” When there’s nothing to eat, these bacteria are willing to toss off their flagella and plug the hole in order to save energy. If you were out on a lake, would you unlatch your new Yamaha F250 4.2-liter V6 outboard motor and let it drop to the bottom? You might if the boat was taking on water and was about to sink, and you were about to die. …

The scientists confirmed that the remnants found are truly discarded relics of flagella, not assembly intermediates. Bacteria, unlike boats, contain the instructions and toolkits for building new flagella “outboard motors” when conditions improve. The bacteria that this team studied were observed under conditions of nutrient depletion. Pieces of flagella were found everywhere, and each hole had a plug in it. One can imagine a boater’s safety instruction book saying, “Warning: in case of emergency, disconnect the motor and let it go. Plug the hole with any substance on hand. Failure to do so may cause death.” “Darwin Devolves, Again: Study Finds Bacteria Eject Their Flagella to Avoid Starvation” at Evolution News and Science Today:

The eleven authors, of course, spin away the design inference, at least in their own minds, which is what counts.

Darwin Devolves:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #30,670 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Survival at a price: Bacteria cut off flagella to stay alive

Comments
Of course Behe is dead wrong talking about "devolution" which presupposes an opposite "evolution" which is a known hoax. Same exact mistake as accepting "microevolution" while rejecting "macroevolution". But what has camouflage or flagella ejection to do with "evolution"? Color changes as well as metabolic, antibiotic, antibiotic-resistance, and many other adaptations is what organisms do day in and day out http://nonlin.org/missing-evidence/ - not because of "evolution", but because of prior endowment with these characteristics. All these adaptations are reversible and none leads to the transmutation of organisms promised by Darwin. See for yourself in 100% of known examples from epigenetic inheritance, to peppered moth color, the Darwin's finches’ beaks, LTEE, and antibiotic resistance that goes away when antibiotic use decreases - no "evolution" anywhere. Also see how plasticity disproves "evolution" http://nonlin.org/plasticity/ Nonlin.org
The evolution strategy “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain”:
Except there is no strategy, simply mutations that might or might not be beneficial depending on the environmental context in which they occur. A mutation that degrades or disables a "functional coded element" is just that. As the old example points out, a mutation that leads to an animal growing a white coat of fur would be a disadvantage in a dark-colored landscape as it would make the individual more visible to predators or prey. But in snow-covered regions it would be excellent camouflage. Is the loss of the gene for making a dark-colored coat a loss of information or just a change in information. And if you do want to think of it as a loss of information, if it results in an increase in the chances of the animal surviving, is that honestly some form of degradation? If a genome, over time, has accumulated a lot of largely irrelevant or even detrimental genetic "information" can you honestly call the loss of some of it 'devolution'? Seversky

Leave a Reply