Evolution of the the Bacterial Flagellum

[Esquilax]

That's certainly part of it. However, even if some of the proteins they found (for example FlgBCFG), those are homologous to each other! I'm no biologist, but I thought the purpose is to show homologies with precursor proteins, not flagellum proteins. I know all of this does not make ID more plausible, but to just say "It evolved and that's it" is not enough. Interestingly, this is what the authors said in the paper:

Notwithstanding the good scientific reasons for new forays in this direction, the lack of a scientific literature on flagellar evolution (emphasis mine) also has another undesirable consequence — it leaves open the suspicion among members of the public that maybe there is some mystery here, that maybe the ID proponents do have a point. Although all experts in this field agree that there is nothing to these claims, as Wilkins has recently pointed out , in these politically charged times, it is no longer enough to say, for example, that bacterial flagella evolved and that is that. Instead, scientific experts have to engage with a skeptical public.

It's like this: the fossil record is resplendent with examples of transitional creatures. The genetic evidence is incontrovertible. Evolution has been observed to happen in both laboratory conditions and otherwise. It's happening. So, given that we know that it's happening for every other organism on the planet, with a vast array of data to back that theory up, the fact that we may not know the exact mechanics of it with regards to this singular thing yet is not a huge problem for evolutionary biology. It's just an admission that we're not omniscient; saying "it evolved and that's it," would be shortsighted I agree, but saying "it evolved" is the only real conclusion we can come to based on the sheer weight of evidence out there.

Meanwhile, we have intelligent design, which only barely classifies as science. Intelligent design, which has been proven wrong on almost all of its salient points, offers no predictive power, no falsifiability, no way to test the things it claims and moreover, that offers no hypotheses of its own beyond negative arguments against evolution. The entirety of the claims made by the design movement boils down to "this couldn't happen by evolution, and therefore creationism." Real science doesn't work like this. Real science has predictive power such that it can be tested and falsified; all intelligent design is, is chaff to obscure the very real evidence for evolution, nothing more.

Even if we never, ever found a single other possibility for flagellar evolution, that doesn't make intelligent design true. At this point, almost nothing would prove intelligent design true, because by and large the proponents of it aren't interested in proving their own claims, just in proving false the claims of their opponents. Because intelligent design isn't real science, it's what happens when anti-science morons think that putting on a lab coat makes them credible.

We shouldn't stop studying and start assuming, though; that's the purview of ID, after all. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with simply assuming that this one creature isn't the exception to a rule that's been proved right over and over, across large swathes of the earth's biological history.

[Cato]

Now, if you can get a PDF to the 2009 paper (Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?) that would be awesome!!

I found the previous paper in five seconds with a simple internet search. Did you try? I also found this study, but I'm not paying $40 for it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ha. That article was co-authored by my fiancé's old second supervisor.

Incidentally I have access to that journal being at the same University, but I'm not posting it on here owing to the fact I don't have the permissions.

Mark Pallen is also a great evolutionary biologist who deals in bio-informatics, but he's also a bit of a twat.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Now, if you can get a PDF to the 2009 paper (Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?) that would be awesome!!

I found the previous paper in five seconds with a simple internet search. Did you try? I also found this study, but I'm not paying $40 for it.

i have the pdf. But it's illegal to share it. And I'm not gutsy enough, sorry.

[Rahul]

Meanwhile, we have intelligent design, which only barely classifies as science.

Totally following along with everything you said. Great stuff.

But this one sentence baffled me. ID classifies as science (even if barely)?

What testable hypothesis has ID generated? It needs at least one, right?

[Kim]

Even if we never, ever found a single other possibility for flagellar evolution, that doesn't make intelligent design true.

I agree. I didn't start this thread to discuss evolution vs. intelligent design, but to check on some problems in the proposed evolutionary model for the bacteria flagellum. Some folks feel quite defensive if anyone brings up any issues with evolution even though we are all suppose to be skeptics, aren't we?

i have the pdf. But it's illegal to share it. And I'm not gutsy enough, sorry.

Can you at least summarize the main points there, if have you have some time?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

k, it's not too long a paper so i went through it.

Key points:
-have evidence that suggests a homolog for FliG protein
-Flil used to be thought to be indispensable but now they find that the flagella functions fine without it. Apparently this is a point against ID because not all parts of the flagella is essential for its function
-It's premature to rule out horizontal gene transfer, guess this explains a lot, huh?

That's about it.

[Esquilax]

Meanwhile, we have intelligent design, which only barely classifies as science.

Totally following along with everything you said. Great stuff.

But this one sentence baffled me. ID classifies as science (even if barely)?

What testable hypothesis has ID generated? It needs at least one, right?

Well, technically the claim regarding the irreducibly complex flagellum could be tested, though even there I was being too charitable; not only had it been falsified, it had been falsified before it was hypothesized. And I'm not sure that a negative claim even counts as a hypothesis, since the actual claim part of the thing- an intelligent designer- can't be tested at all.

And even being this much of a devil's advocate for ID makes me kind of queasy.

I agree. I didn't start this thread to discuss evolution vs. intelligent design, but to check on some problems in the proposed evolutionary model for the bacteria flagellum. Some folks feel quite defensive if anyone brings up any issues with evolution even though we are all suppose to be skeptics, aren't we?

Well, can you blame us? No matter the evidence, no matter the quality of the presentation, nor the quantity of the data that's provided, we are called liars, frauds and fools by anti-science creationists with nothing but blind assertions on their side. It's tough being right, demostrably so, and still being denounced by people who don't even understand the thing they're denying.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree. I didn't start this thread to discuss evolution vs. intelligent design, but to check on some problems in the proposed evolutionary model for the bacteria flagellum. Some folks feel quite defensive if anyone brings up any issues with evolution even though we are all suppose to be skeptics, aren't we?

This is not an "issue for evolution". If the bacterial flag was actually created by an alien waffle 70 years ago to spoof us, it won't change anything else. That's the point I'm trying to convey. Sometimes, the legit answer to a question is "we don;t know" and when it comes to bacterial evo from billions of years ago...until we invent a time machine...-that's going to be the answer. In this sort of case, it's not -just- that we don't know, but that we can't even conceive of how we might know.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I actually don't doubt Kim's intention in bringing this up. But I can see how most people would, because you seek very specific answers and explanations about evolution in an atheist forum. Answers and explanations that a layman would not be able to give you. Surely, you can see why people would think that way.