Comments on Attempts to Explain Flagellum

Even one attempt shows Behe made a false claim. :slightly_smiling_face:

Darwinian points to a mechanism that gives direction to the change occurring. I think I may be mistaken that everyone would agree that you will not likely get a flagellum without any direction to whatever change is responsible for its origin.

It’s against the DI’s charter to mention anything about evolution without also sticking in “Darwin”, “Darwinian”, or “Darwinism”. All part of their propaganda strategy to confuse the public.

1 Like

Yes, but the more claims, the more false it becomes. Maybe Behe is gunning for the record! Let’s help him out.

1 Like

Come again?

1 Like

This thread is an irrelevant diversion.

Christians that accept Evolution dont have to stand on the head answering this question. God designed the various flagella … but flagella cannot prove God.

behe actually comment about this paper. even dr Matzke reject it.

im not sure that co-option will work. what is the chance to get say 10 different proteins from other biological systems to form a working flagellum?

All things are possible with God… even evolving flagella!!!


What is the chance that you’d get some particular mountain? What is the chance that Mt Fuji turned out exactly the way it did?

1 Like

its not the same. in the mountain example any shape is ok. not so with the flagellum example.

its not the same. in the mountain example any shape is ok. not so with the flagellum example.

So what? What is the likelihood you get some particular mountain?

Perhaps not quite as permissively varied as mountains, but not that particular either. Nature’s achievement of motility does not depend on a singular exact recipe. Motility can be had by a similar approach taken with a spectrum of proteins and arrangements, as per the linked survey paper:

Tree of motility – A proposed history of motility systems in the tree of life
Motility often plays a decisive role in the survival of species. Five systems of motility have been studied in depth: those propelled by bacterial flagella, eukaryotic actin polymerization and the eukaryotic motor proteins myosin, kinesin and dynein. However, many organisms exhibit surprisingly diverse motilities, and advances in genomics, molecular biology and imaging have showed that those motilities have inherently independent mechanisms. This makes defining the breadth of motility nontrivial, because novel motilities may be driven by unknown mechanisms. Here, we classify the known motilities based on the unique classes of movement‐producing protein architectures. Based on this criterion, the current total of independent motility systems stands at 18 types. In this perspective, we discuss these modes of motility relative to the latest phylogenetic Tree of Life and propose a history of motility.

1 Like

Lottery fallacy.

1 Like

very small but again-any shape is ok. its not the case with a biological system since most shapes are non functional. if you will take 10 different proteins and mix them by combination you will get a non functional system.

So how did we get this particular mountain if the likelihood is very small? Isn’t the argument that you are making that occurrences with very small likelihood can’t be believed so they must have been designed?

because there are many other possible shapes that can represent a mountain. thus any shape that we will get is ok. on the other hand not any mix of proteins will give us a functional system. thus its not the same.

So any mix of proteins that doesn’t function, will not stick around. Okay, so what?

1 Like

so what is the chance to get a working system by a combination of several parts from other systems?

If unlikely things can still happen(like specific mountains), why does it matter?