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: "this is another example of how I.D. is actually anti-science. (in terms of methodology) While I.D propenents are certainly imaginative in their questions (a very good thing!!) They are imaginative for the purpose of trying to find a question so difficult and so complex that they feel it can’t be answered. To them, unanswered questions are the ultimate goal, since it creates a safe haven for their “supernatural” answers. Finding a good difficult question is the last step in their “research” and it closes the door for them. (ie “how could the flagellum have evolved step by step? Designer did it. Door closed.”)" Blah blah blah. 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.mike1962
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Fross: this is another example of how I.D. is actually anti-science. This could be very entertaining. Fross: While I.D propenents are certainly imaginative in their questions (a very good thing!!) They are imaginative for the purpose of trying to find a question so difficult and so complex that they feel it can’t be answered. That is false. But even if it were true why would that impact ID? Fross: To them, unanswered questions are the ultimate goal, since it creates a safe haven for their “supernatural” answers. Again that is false and it also misses the point that nature's origins had to have come from something outside of nature regardless of ID. Fross: Finding a good difficult question is the last step in their “research” and it closes the door for them. (ie “how could the flagellum have evolved step by step? Designer did it. Door closed.”) Three false statements and counting! ID was formulated to first detect and then understand the design. We understand the design by studying it. As for closing doors that is the anti-ID position to a tee. The door that is shut is the door that allows the design inference in. And given the materialistic alternative to ID is "sheer-dumb-luck" that appears to be one door that should remain open.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
this is another example of how I.D. is actually anti-science. (in terms of methodology) While I.D propenents are certainly imaginative in their questions (a very good thing!!) They are imaginative for the purpose of trying to find a question so difficult and so complex that they feel it can’t be answered. To them, unanswered questions are the ultimate goal, since it creates a safe haven for their “supernatural” answers. Finding a good difficult question is the last step in their “research” and it closes the door for them. (ie “how could the flagellum have evolved step by step? Designer did it. Door closed.") Science on the other hand has another reason to be imaginative in finding difficult and hard questions. Science is more about finding the correct question than the correct answer, because in science questions aren’t used to shut doors, but to open new doors. In this regard, it’s good to have the I.Dists around because sometimes they can offer up some imaginative questions that might not have been asked otherwise. Someone already mentioned this, but it looks to me like a lot of flagellum research is being done these days and I think at least a small part of that was influenced by the ID throwing down the challenge. (of course that’s just a guess)Fross
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Matzke castigates Luskin for saying that 2/3 of the proteins have no definite homolog. But in his 2003 paper, Matzke claims that 26 out of 40 proteins lack definite homologs. That sounds like about 2/3 to me. From Matzke's evolution in Brownian Space- 17 have no potential homolog - (Flif, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and 12 axial proteins) 2 have "little current supporting evidence" of homology - (FlgA and FliG) 8 have suggestive homology (inconclusive) - (FliHJOPQR, FlgI, FlgH) What's more, his latest paper claims 15 unique (no homolog) proteins. But many of those are proteins that he previously claimed to have known homologs for. (FlgJMN, FlhE, FliELOSTZ) Has he lost the data, or changed his mind? Matzke also uses several different levels of criteria for determining homology - from a BLASTP, to a "slightly relaxed" PSI-BLAST, to "structural/other". "Other" presumably means that Matzke can postulate a homolog without any BLAST or structural data. What gives? Spearing Luskin for coming to the same conclusion he did 3 years ago? Changing status of homology? Including postulated homology as evidence for actual homology? I'm no molecular biologist, but something seems fishy here. Cant wait to hear from some actual molecular biologists on this.chunkdz
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
” NM: Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities.” “Joseph: It appears Nick conflates ID with anti-evolution. Sad but typical” Ofro: C’mon, aren’t you just a bit disingenuous? Anything is possible. Ofro: The statement was about the flagellum being evolved, and nothing else. It could have been designed to evolve. The debate is about the mechanism, ie unguided, purpose-less (blind watchamker) processes vs guided, purposeful processes. or "sheer-dumb-luck" vs intent. Ofro: I understand that ID tries its darnest not to be confused with creationism and some (few?) adherents may even accept evolution to a certain extent. That is being disingeneous. It is the anti-IDists who confuse ID with Creation. IDists and Creationists know and understand the differences. Ofro: According to your response, I am going to have to start looking for an ID statement like “we know that the flagellum was designed, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t evolve”. Only if you don't understand the debate, which it appears you do not.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
I found an interesting article on livescience.com http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html In this article Ker Than agrees that both IC and SC are testable. He states of IC, "This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack." and of SC, "There is a way to settle this, however, because like Behe's irreducible complexity, the concept of specified complexity can also be tested." Yet Than shoots down IC with this simple statement,
"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."
He then goes on to state, "A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells" Ie, he is using the above example as his proof positive that IC has been falsified. He concludes that nylonase completely demolishes the Dembski's SC case, saying:
The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?
Hey, if the "ID is not testable" argument is gone, then its time for ID research to be given a fair hearing by the journals. If the ID arguments are this flimsy, then ID really needs to just blow away.bFast
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
" NM: Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities." "Joseph: It appears Nick conflates ID with anti-evolution. Sad but typical" C'mon, aren't you just a bit disingenuous? The statement was about the flagellum being evolved, and nothing else. I understand that ID tries its darnest not to be confused with creationism and some (few?) adherents may even accept evolution to a certain extent. According to your response, I am going to have to start looking for an ID statement like "we know that the flagellum was designed, but that doesn't mean it didn't evolve".ofro
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
It might have been nice for Michael Behe to have had this experiment at the Dover trial. The judge might have even succeeded in understooding the implications of this study.PaV
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
This could just be a semantic issue but I do not know in what context Nick Matzke is using "homologous". According to Wikipedia*: Homology
In biology, two or more structures are said to be homologous if they are alike because of shared ancestry.
Similarity does not equal homology. It could be that Nick's search uses similarities that assume common ancestry. It will be interesting how that aspect of his argument pans out.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
NM: Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities. It appears Nick conflates ID with anti-evolution. Sad but typical. It is too bad that he neglects the data that demonstrates how the various proteins can be formed, assembled and function as a motile device via unguided, purpose-less processes. Nick if you are reading this you missed the boat, again.Joseph
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
In any case, co-option is a completely irrational fantasy to begin with. See my little essay on this topic here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1276GilDodgen
September 7, 2006
September
09
Sep
7
07
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply