This is the definition of irreducibly complexity. The knock out experiment were done at Idaho state by Scott Minich.
Billâs favorite flounce out excuse. Everyone is misrepresenting him, not that his argument sucks like a top of the line Hoover. 
Iâll suggest that you can do better than addressing Bill with a demeaning nickname.
2 Likes
Please post them. Then explain how they establish a minimum historic requirement for mobility.
Lighten up and grow a sense of humor, eh?
1 Like
Iâm honestly trying to understand what youâre arguing. Help us out. What is your argument?
If I understand correctly, these âknockoutâ experiments only demonstrate that, if you remove parts from a mechanism, sometimes it stops working.
Do IDâers really think they were the first people to notice this simple and obvious fact?
What makes IDâers think that systems produced by evolution should be indestructible and continue to work no matter how many pieces you remove? Thatâs just silly.
1 Like
In contrast, pro-ID microbiologist Scott Minnich has properly tested for irreducible complexity through genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho. He presented this evidence during the Dover trial, which showed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of thirty-five genes. As Minnich testified: âOne mutation, one part knock out, it canât swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. Weâve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.â[37]
Itâs very simple. If the odds of failure are substantially larger than the odds of success changes in a sequence will break it down over time.
Bill dodges the question again, just regurgitates some C&Ped IDC propaganda.
How did this experiment determine the minimum protein configuration required for historic mobility in bacteria?
2 Likes
How did you or Behe determine the âodds for failure and the odds for successâ in biological genetic sequences? Letâs see your calculations and validation for any assumptions you made.
I know Iâm joining late to the conversation, but Iâm really curious about these statements.
Is this what Behe writes, or is this your hypothesis, Bill? Iâd be really curious to hear how this would potentially work out. Obviously, apoptosis would be a rather insurmountable issue for single-celled organisms and would be really difficult to explain how common ancestry (which Behe accepts) might work. DNA repair is not 100% effective, there will always be mutations that are not repaired. If all mutations were damaging, DNA repair would only postpone the inevitable demise of living organisms. Finally, what happens when âsomething resists that breakdownâ? Does mutation miraculously cease?
I shows that the flagellar motor needs all 35 proteins to function.
It only shows extant bacterial flagella may need 35 proteins. It doesnât say anything at all about the minimum number required for simple mobility in evolutionary precursors. FAIL again Bill.
1 Like
Mutation is reduced by all three mechanisms. Repair Apoptosis and purifying selection. When the repair mechanism broke in the Lenski experiment the mutation rate shot up. Mutation has a limit to the point where the organism cannot function. This is very obvious so I am having trouble understanding the confusion here.
Science is based on available evidence not some speculation based on absence of evidence. The current flagellar had to be built and is irreducible complex. What is your explanation for this structure. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
Where is your positive evidence of your Magic Designer POOFING all bacterial flagella into existence?
Science has already shown how IC structures can evolve through co-option of function and genetic scaffolding. That means merely finding something IC (and there are lots of examples) isnât evidence for conscious external Design.
All you have is your standard argument from ignorance Bill. itâs all you ever offer.
1 Like
We disagree here and thatâs fine. You need to organize 100K plus nucleotides to build this motor. There are 4^100000 ways to arrange these and a smaller subset that will build a flagellum. The genes need to be expressed in a very specific order. A mind can do this. I am not sure what mechanism you are proposing.
Of course youâre not sure Bill. No one has ever explained the basic mechanisms of evolution to you in your years of posting ID-Creationist claptrap across the web. 
Not one that can organize 100k nucleotides that can build this motor during every cell division.