It’s apparently now okay to just admit this:
To build the machinery that enables bacteria to swim, over 50 proteins have to be assembled according to a logic and well-defined order to form the flagellum, the cellular equivalent of an offshore engine of a boat. To be functional, the flagellum is assembled piece by piece, ending with the helix called flagellar filament, composed of six different subunits called flagellins. Microbiologists from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) have demonstrated that adding sugar to the flagellins is crucial for the flagellum’s assembly and functionality. This glycosylation is carried out by a newly discovered enzyme FlmG, whose role was hitherto unknown. Based on this observation — which you can read all about in the journal eLife — the researchers followed up with a second discovery published in Developmental Cell. Among the six flagellins of Caulobacter crescentus, the model bacterium in the two studies, one is the special one serving a signalling role to trigger the final assembly of the flagellum.Université de Genève, “The sweet spot of flagellar assembly” at ScienceDaily
They ADMIT this? It sounds like a Recovery Meeting. “I used to be a serious Darwinist but then my life got out of control and… “
Yes, you called us so you are on the right track. Stay real. Avoid the bad stuff. Stick with “logic,” “well-defined order …”
Paper. (paywall) JAWA at 1 (to whom much thanks is due)says the paper can be accessed free here.
Do we need a no-crap helpline for recovering Darwinists? We wanna make this easy. There’s a whole world out there.
20 Replies to “What? An honest admission about the bacterial flagellum from Darwin-driven biology?”
See if you can open this PDF copy of the paper:
They ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
As biology research continues to make discoveries that increasingly confirm the ID paradigm, many scientists will realize how wrong they were getting intoxicated with the macroevolutionary elixir.
It’s just a matter of time.
And it will happen sooner than many expect.
Considering how many times Darwin has been proven wrong, Darwinists are incapable of accepting the error of their beliefs.
That’s an interesting observation. Hmm…
Does anyone seriously doubt that the bacterial flagellum is complicated? Even when discussing its evolution, Mark Pallen & Nick Matzke describe it as complicated, and Liu & Ochman called it “a primary example of a complex apparatus“.
Specificity in glycosylation of multiple flagellins by the modular and cell cycle regulated glycosyltransferase FlmG
Does anyone seriously doubt that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex?
Does anyone seriously doubt that the bacterial flagellum is a clear evidence of ID?
Bob O’H, who has his own problems with letting the evidence speak for itself, (instead of trying to force the evidence to say what he wants it to say),,,
Bob O’H, who has his own problems, has appealed to Nick Matxke and company to try to support his belief that the flagellum was the product of unguided Darwinian processes.
To put it bluntly, that is like one criminal who is on trial appealing to another criminal who is on trial as a character witness at a trial.
Contrary to what Bob O’H personally believes, Nick Matzke has not even gotten close to ‘scientifically’ explaining the origin of the flagellum. (FYI Bob, ‘just so stories’ do not count as scientific explanations.)
In fact, as the article in the OP makes clear, the ‘problem’ that the flagellum presents for Darwinists has only gotten worse, not better, as more scientific evidence has come along since Matzke first wrote that article back in 2006.
For instance, Behe’s 1 in 10^20 ‘prediction’ for the rarity of protein-protein binding sites, a ‘prediction’ that he made in his book ‘The Edge of Evolution’,,,,
Behe’s 1 in 10^20 ‘prediction’ for the rarity of protein-protein binding sites, has now been empirically confirmed to be a true limit:
A few related notes,
OK, so nobody wants to dispute that everyone thinks that bacterial flagella are complicated. That’s progress, I suppose.
What is evolution? What is a fact? Well, the fact is that hereditary changes happen and that their frequencies fluctuate based on environmental factors. The fact is also that wind, rain, fog or radiation happen. People often fail to understand that the fact that a process happens has nothing to do with imagining what this process can or cannot do. And this is exactly what the theory of evolution does. It imagines that process of evolution can lead to rapid functional changes that are observed in the fossil record or inferred from it. Functional changes are de novo appearances of organs, organ systems or body planes (for e.g. Cambrian explosion) or transformations of pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones (for e.g. imagined whale evolution where forelimbs supposedly transformed into flippers, tail into flukes, nostrils into blowholes, teeth into baleen, etc.). But that what is imagined in the theory never happens in reality.
Namely, from their last divergence point until today, all the existing species have continuously been under the evolution process. That is, they have undergone hereditary changes whose frequencies have fluctuated based on environmental factors. So basically, what we have had is a live experiment that tested whether the evolution process can lead to functional changes. And today, we can observe its results. Without an exception, the results show that not a single species has even started transforming organs into functionally distinct ones, let alone created de novo organs, organ systems or body planes. Take humans for example. We and chimps share the DNA of a species that lived 5 myr ago. At that time, the divergence between us and chimps happened. Since then, we have undergone a lot of evolution. Yet today, all humans are functionally the same. Meaning, not a single human population or subspecies has been observed that would have some novel organ, like the Cambrian species had. Nor the changes lead to transformation of pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones, like in the imagined whale evolution. Specifically, even when change, such as webbed fingers happened in an individual – which the theory imagines is the first step towards the flipper-like organ, this never got speciated into a separate human subspecies and became the norm, that is, the fixed trait. Rather, it always ended up being just an abnormality that lead to an evolutionary dead-end.
The same is true for all other species, regardless of their last divergence point. For lemurs, this point was 40 myr ago. For fig wasps, rats, crocodiles, coelacanths and nautiluses this point was 60, 100, 200, 350 and 500 myr ago respectively. But again, all the individual changes lead to evolutionary dead-ends instead of becoming traits. That is why not a single population or subspecies within said species has been observed that would have de novo organs or functional transformations of the existing ones. So the live experiment has shown that regardless of time, the evolution process literally never leads to functional changes. That means, first, that the evolution process is not the cause of rapid functional changes that are observed in the fossil record. Second, that the evolution theory imagines the opposite to what is observed in reality. Imagining the opposite to what is observed in reality is called pseudoscience.
1. Given the experiment presented here – which shows the complete creative powerlessness of evolution, it logically follows that the divergence was designed. Namely, the designer used the DNA of a species that lived 5 myr ago to produce two separate species – chimps and humans. This is how design operates. New things are not created from scratch but are rather just updated with new functional information. That is why we observe, for e.g., shared ERVs among human and chimps. Or the progression from a land animal to whales in the fossil record. In the creation of whales the designer simply decided to use the DNA of some pre-existing land animal to see what kind of aquatic animal will turn out. So both the fossil record and patterns observed in the DNA are in line with the Intelligent Design view of biological development.
Neither Pallen nor Matzke understand how blind and mindless processes could have produced any bacterial flagellum. Their paper was pure speculation and imagination. It should never have made it into a scientific journal. It just exposes the desperation of mainstream science that it was.
And it isn’t just that 50 or more proteins are required. Those subunits are required in varying quantities. It isn’t enough to have one of each.
“Neither Pallen nor Matzke understand how blind and mindless processes could have produced any bacterial flagellum.”
what is worse, most lay Darwinian clowns (e.g. Seversky or BobOH) don’t even know, that a flagellum allegedly arose/evolved at least 3 times independently :)))))
Yes, this miracle allegedly happened 3 times !!!
Darwinian clowns do really believe in miracles…. (actually, Darwinian clowns like Seversky or BobOH don’t even know what they believe in)
Here you go:
These three flagellum are NOT EVOLUTIONARY RELATED !!!!
These three flagellum allegedly ‘evolved’ INDEPENDENTLY !!!
So, who believes in miracles ? Darwinians do …
‘Offshore engine’ is an odd term. It doesn’t have a standard definition; the engines that seem to be classified informally as offshore engines are giant house-sized multi-cylinder diesels used in freighters. Normally the flagellum is compared to an ordinary electric motor; a stepping motor as used in printers is even closer and more familiar to moderns.
polistra @17: “… Normally the flagellum is compared to an ordinary electric motor”
No, normally it is compared to an outboard motor.
like this one:
What’s pathetic is that Pallen, Matzke and other evos think that Pallen and Matzke solved the problem. Evos are a cluelessly desperate lot.
Do you have anything to contribute besides, ‘Ho hum, So what?’ ?