Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Flagellum Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nick Matzke at Panda’s Thumb, what evidence is there that the type III secretion system appeared in nature before the flagellum? If the flagellum coopted the ttss then the ttss must predate the flagellum. The ttss mediates elaborate interactions with plant and animal hosts of the bacteria. The flagellum on the other hand is for locomotion, not parasitic or pathogenic relationships with more complex cells. The flagellum is useful absent more complex organisms in the environment while the ttss is not. It seems to me quite likely that the flagellum appeared in nature before the ttss. Probably billions of years before as the following supports:

J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2000 Apr;2(2):125-44.

Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems.

Nguyen L, Paulsen IT, Tchieu J, Hueck CJ, Saier MH Jr.

Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla 92093-0116, USA.

Multicomponent Type III protein secretion systems transfer gram-negative bacterial virulence factors directly from the bacterial cytoplasm to the cytoplasm of a host eukaryotic cell in a process that may involve a single energy-coupled step. Extensive evidence supports the conclusion that the genetic apparatuses that encode these systems have been acquired independently by different gram-negative bacteria, presumably by lateral transfer. In this paper we conduct phylogenetic analyses of currently sequenced constituents of these systems and their homologues. The results reveal the relative relatedness of these systems and show that they evolved with little or no exchange of constituents between systems. This fact suggests that horizontal transmission of the genes encoding these systems always occurred as a unit without the formation of hybrid gene clusters. Moreover, homologous flagellar proteins show phylogenetic clustering that suggests that the flagellar systems and Type III protein secretory systems diverged from each other following very early duplication of a gene cluster sharing many (but not all) genes. Phylogenies of most or all of the flagellar proteins follow those of the source organisms with little or no lateral gene transfer suggesting that homologous flagellar proteins are true orthologues. We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.

Update: I found this paper by Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer to be extremely helpful in understanding the relationship of the TTSS and the flagellum.

Comments
Fross: If you are an IDist who feels CD can’t be tested and doesn’t consider it scientific, then I doubt you’d use the predicted patterns of CD as a means to formulate your hypothesis on the soybean scenario above. There aren't any predicted patterns of CD just a lot of accomodations.Joseph
September 8, 2006
September
09
Sep
8
08
2006
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
A visitor to idnet.com.au has posed the following critique. "At your site I saw "The Bacterial Flagellum remains Irreducibly Complex" a paper with a number of obvious problems, before one even gets to the biochemistry. 1. It is written by a lawyer, not a biochemist. 2. The repeated referrrals to Behe's defn of IRC are wrong - taken from his book, rather than the later corrected version, which states "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." This is the defn required since the functional IRC implied by the first defn tells us nothing. 3. There is NO peer-reviewed article supporting the assertion that the flagellum (or anything else) is irreducibly complex under either definition. 4. There is no literature (peer-reviewed or otherwise) that puts forward an ID version of HOW the flagellum was "designed" as an actual historical process; ie, there is no competing hypothesis, which would be required to assess the competing claims since the theory choice here is necessarily probabalistic, not deductive. In other words, it just won't fly by any fair-minded criteria." Any responses?idnet.com.au
September 8, 2006
September
09
Sep
8
08
2006
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
Joseph, If you are an IDist who feels CD can't be tested and doesn't consider it scientific, then I doubt you'd use the predicted patterns of CD as a means to formulate your hypothesis on the soybean scenario above. (which is why I brought up the CD comment in the first place) Tie those goalposts down fellas!! ;)Fross
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
I don't throw common descent out the window. I'm rather well convinced that's the story of life on this planet. What isn't so convincing is that it happened by chance & necessity. It appears to me the best explanation is that the LUCA had a complex genome designed to evolve into myriad different forms. Phylogenesis and ontogenesis are the same process on different scales, neither of which rely on chance to determine the outcome. Neither Behe nor Dembski reject common descent although I suspect neither are quite as convinced of it as I am.DaveScot
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
I, as an IDist, don't throw CD out of the window. It is that I say it is not scientific because it cannot be objectively tested. And it can't be objectively tested because we do NOT know what makes an organism what it is.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Actually I was about to write a quick follow up post to correct that to "IDist who throws common descent out the window." IDists who actually accept common descent are a very rare breed. Speaking of which, I'm posting at "Uncommon Descent" am I not? ;)Fross
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Hey Fross, the "pattern" of common descent is consistent with IDE. IOW CD syas nada about any blind watchmaker. The point is one shouldn't reject ID a priori given the materialistic alternative is "sheer-dumb-luck". And anyone who thinks the bac flag arose via "sheer-dumb-luck" really isn't interested in reality.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Mike1962, if you were an I.D.ist, and never heard of genetically modified soybeans, and you “discovered” them growing wild in some field, how would you go about explaning that particular variety? Would you merely assume the designer of all other soybeans did it? Using Occam’s Razor, you might do just that. But you’d be wrong. Actually I'd guess that the biologist who also takes into account the pattern of common descent would be more likely to spot this "human design" over the I.Dist.Fross
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Joseph wrote,And it isn’t that IDists don’t want to know rather it is that ID doesn’t care.
Further, IDists know that the answers may not ever be discovered by the natural sciences. Indeed, we recoginize there are answers to questions about reality which must rely (at least for now) on inquiries requiring no material quantification.todd
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
minlay: "So what does it mean if NDE cannot give a fully detailed account of a particular biological system?" It means the jury is out. minlay: "And what does it mean that ID hasn’t given a detailed account of the origin of any biological system whatsoever?" Gene modification in soybeans is a intelligently designed biological system. Now, I'm just curious, but if you were a biologist, and never heard of genetically modified soybeans, and you "discovered" them growing wild in some field, how would you go about explaning that particular variety? Would you merely assume NDE produced it? Using Occam's Razor, you might do just that. But you'd be wrong. Dawkin's says that NDE is the study of biological entities that look designed but are not. ID-friendly folks say maybe they look designed because they are dsigned. Who knows? Moreover, some artifacts that look like they are not designed may in fact be. What's good for the goose. ID is in it's infancy. It's a particular approach to evidence. The basis of it is simply a jettison of methodological materialism, which some of us think is the more rational approach. NDE has huge gaps. Perhaps some of the gaps are the result of a designer. Maybe not. But the jury is still out. Way out.mike1962
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
MInlay: Where do you “go from there”? Where does any design-centric investigation go? We try our best to understand it. That is what archaeologists do. We do that because there is burning questions- who and why. And it isn't that IDists don't want to know rather it is that ID doesn't care.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Strangeglove: Why does a system need to be designed for it to be reverse engineered? Has anyone tried to reverse engineer "sheer-dumb-luck"? Strangeglove: We can reverse engineer ANY system we can understand, whether that system resulted from design or from evolution. IMHO that we can reverse engineer a system would be an indication that is was derived via some intentional method.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
By Jason, "That, in my mind, doesn’t make sense. I think the point is, it it is a designed system, it wouldn’t, in its very nature, have come about via a step by step process. To explain how a car was designed, you wouldn’t need to find a step by step process as to how it came about via random changes and such. You’d have to say- it was designed by some designing entity, and then you’d go from there." Where do you "go from there"? An IDist makes 2 observations, that biological systems are very complex, and that intelligence is capable of producing incredible complexity. So the IDist makes the hypothesis that biological systems are intelligently designed. Then what? How do you test this hypothesis? I'm just curious. However, this thread should be about the relationship between the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum, so I'll drop the tangent.minlay
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
To DaveScot, My example of IC is living organisms. Show they can arise via unguided and purpose-less processes and all of biological ID falls. However if we are restricted to systems or parts of oragnisms then you will get no quarrel from me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MInlay: My point here is whether or not the concept of irreducible complexity can be used to make predictions about what we will find in nature. IC is such a prediction. It can be tested. Some say it has been tested and found wanting.... Perhaps the following will clear things up: Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions MInlay: So what does it mean if NDE cannot give a fully detailed account of a particular biological system? And what does it mean that ID hasn’t given a detailed account of the origin of any biological system whatsoever? It means that neither should be rejected a priori and nothing more. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Casey, Just be happy that they spelled your name correctly. After that anything they say may be made up. :)Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html#comment-126826
Another thing that’s important to remember is that the bacterial flagellum was chosen as their biochemical mascot specifically because it’s so friggin complex. It’s not as though the flagellum is the cornerstone of all life on earth. I doubt it’s even required for the bacteria that have it. If they really wanted to look for evidence of design, they would focus on those systems that were actually critical to all organisms (DNA replication, transcription, translation, to name a few). It shouldn’t be surprising that the flagellum would give the most difficulty in explaining its origins, that’s why they chose it.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. The flagellum is not all that complicated and its operation is well understood. That's why Behe chose it. I have often faulted Behe for choosing something so simple. My preferred example of IC is the ribosome. Every living thing uses ribosomes. A ribosome is hideously complex, composed of both nucleic acid polymers and amino acid polymers. It requires the digitally coded information in DNA to construct it and DNA requires a ribosome to replicate. It's the mother of all chicken/egg paradoxes.DaveScot
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
ofro: I'm just one little tiny person, but if it helps with your concerns about ID being 'anti-evolution', I can tell you that I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a fact. From my perspective it is a question of the mechanism of evolutionary change. I find the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake intriguing, and they are totally evolutionary, more radically so even than Darwinian evolution, because his proposed mechanism is a sort of non-materialist "field" theory which is basically Lamarckian.tinabrewer
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Minlay writes "If it doesn’t make any predictions, than it can’t really be tested." That doesn't exclude it from science. A valid hypothesis may be an explanation of observations and tests already performed. NDE certainly does this. Darwin was wrong in many particulars and the theory was modified to account for subsequent observations that didn't fit.DaveScot
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Minlay There are only two real research papers I could find on flagellar evolution - the one I cited and another which concludes that the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum had a common ancestor. Matzke in the past has mischaracterized the second paper saying it concludes the TTSS came first. No research concludes that. The best case for Matzke is that the TTSS and the flagellum had a common ancestor based on a few proteins in common and both evolved separately from there. The preponderance of evidence still favors flagella first. 1) TTSS is only used in pathogenic application targeting eukaryotes. Bacteria were ostensibly around for billions of years before the first eukaryote appeared. 2) TTSS is only in two distinct families of bacteria while the flagellum is nearly universal. Morever, in the common ancestor hypothesis the common ancestor could still be a flagellum. Imagine how a mutation could easily result in a malformed flagellum useless for locomotion but able to function as an injector. The mutation would not likely immediately eliminate all the proteins that make a flagellum but natural selection would eventually eliminate those not needed for an injector. How does this explanation not perfectly fit the facts?DaveScot
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Fross Supernatural is a specious term in reference to ID. Artficial is apt. The design is certainly not supernatural. We can and do investigate it through the scientific method. That leaves the question of whether the designer is supernatural. Not a single person has ever given me an adequate explanation of why a designer or designers must be supernatural.DaveScot
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
I just learned about this today--could somebody please remind me where did I say in a currently published essay that 2/3 of flagellar parts lack homologs and what does Nick say in response to Mike Gene's critique of his homology arguments?Casey Luskin
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
"You’d have to say- it was designed by some designing entity, and then you’d go from there." This brings up a question I've always wondered. Where exactly do you go from there? Let's say we show that something was designed... then what? Why does a system need to be designed for it to be reverse engineered? We can reverse engineer ANY system we can understand, whether that system resulted from design or from evolution. "Speculation is great, but it’s just a Just So story for now." Are you talking about Design or Evolution here?Strangelove
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
I would love to read the paper. Does anyone have it? Would you send it to info_idnet@yahoo.com.au ? Thanksidnet.com.au
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Minlay- That, in my mind, doesn't make sense. I think the point is, it it is a designed system, it wouldn't, in its very nature, have come about via a step by step process. To explain how a car was designed, you wouldn't need to find a step by step process as to how it came about via random changes and such. You'd have to say- it was designed by some designing entity, and then you'd go from there. Point is- I think it's quite possible there WASN'T any step by step process in which to detail to begin with. So, you'd be asking for something that really shouldn't be required of a designed system. You could maybe work to reverse engineer a system that is designed, but you wouldn't be looking for a stepwise process in detail that NDE claims to account for. Darwin said that slight successive modifications should be found in all things, all systems. Speculation is great, but it's just a Just So story for now.JasonTheGreek
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
by mike1962: "Bottom line is, put up or shut up. Either NDE can give a detailed account of the development of a certain biological structures or it can’t. I for one, couldn’t care less about who “wins.” I’m just tired of politically enforced empty claims." So what does it mean if NDE cannot give a fully detailed account of a particular biological system? And what does it mean that ID hasn't given a detailed account of the origin of any biological system whatsoever?minlay
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
by Joseph: "It is the mechanism driving the evolution that is being debated. Also the TTSS isn’t a functional subset. By that I mean if we strip away the proteins not homologous to the TTSS there would still be some major renovations that have to occur to get a TTSS from a bac flag. I don’t know about a prediction but unguided, purpose-less evolution via subtraction at least seems more plausible than building the structure from scratch." My point here is whether or not the concept of irreducible complexity can be used to make predictions about what we will find in nature. If it doesn't make any predictions, than it can't really be tested. So if we have a 5 part IC system (where all 5 parts are essential), and we find 4 of these parts in another organism, is the prediction (based on IC) that the 4 part system must have come from the 5 part, and not vice versa?minlay
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
"what evidence is there that the type III secretion system appeared in nature before the flagellum? " Umm ... Dave the answer should be obvious. It had to have to make the theory work, therefore is it logically necessary that it must have because we know the theory is true. You are so silly and confused Dave. :Pjwrennie
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Other flagellum news of interest: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602043103v1 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/nature05015.htmlPatrick
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
I agree with mike. The irony is so rich - There is no difference between 'God of the Gaps' or 'Infinite Monkeys & Typewriters of the Gaps'! Both gap fillers are ultimately philosophical and are not © Holy Science! The ID inference rests upon the observed complex products of our own intelligence and the logical improbability of similar structures observed at the micro level arising without intelligent guidance. ID fills in no gaps. It looks at what we do know (or think we know) and concludes biotic life appears to be designed because it was designed. ID allows philosophy to take on the implications of the science and does not revere hard science as the summit of knowledge of what is Real®, recognizing © Science is but one hand touching the elephant.todd
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Minlay, It is the mechanism driving the evolution that is being debated. Also the TTSS isn't a functional subset. By that I mean if we strip away the proteins not homologous to the TTSS there would still be some major renovations that have to occur to get a TTSS from a bac flag. I don't know about a prediction but unguided, purpose-less evolution via subtraction at least seems more plausible than building the structure from scratch.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
I wonder if DaveScot's argument could be extrapolated to make a general prediction about IC systems. Namely, if a functional subset of an IC system is discovered (e.g. TTSS a functional subset of the bacterial flagellum), that subset will be shown to have evolved from the original IC system, and not vice versa (e.g. TTSS evolved from the bacterial flagellum).minlay
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply