The Flagellum is Not a Motor?

You’re too sweet. I was not making any argument for design, if you will look. I was merely making an argument for calling a motor a motor. I am not being disingenuous, and your accusation is… false. Thoroughly.

And I was referring to Creationists who equivocate over definitions. You seem to have this poor persecuted martyr complex, that or a guilty conscience.

@nwrickert Oh, man… guilty as charged. Thanks Tim.… If you hadn’t bolded the word, I would have misunderstood it once again! Thanks… so sorry Neil. Carry on. You’re still as logical and intelligent as I assumed you would be. My bad. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I think we can call this one over now. Anyone who is even open to the idea of design should now understand why those who are not open to it are sensitive to the use of the word “motor” to describe the bacterial flagellum. Probably for good reason, too. If we agree to use it to describe the part and how it operates, but not make the illogical assumption that motor = motor maker, we should be good!

Now, we (hopefully) can get on to other bigger and better things! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hahahaha… a motto to live by for sure!!

Then you would have been known as that former professor and minister who was killed in his sleep by his very angry daughter. And some think that there is no God!!! :slight_smile:

1 Like

:astonished:

4 Likes

It can be wrong without that implying that you are lying. And whether it is wrong depends somewhat on the context such as the strictness with which people are using terminology. In this thread, there isn’t much consensus on whether “motor” is an appropriate term.

It’s a disagreement about meaning rather than a disagreement about facts. At times, sorting out such a disagreement can be important. But this does not appear to be one of those times.

1 Like

Agreed. Sorry for the confusion. I was not being serious by I did misread “tie” as “lie”… Thanks for explaining.

2 Likes

I think you will only confuse people if you start bringing the eukaryote flagellum into a discussion of the eubacterial flagellum.

1 Like

I suggest that it may be a matter of friction and viscosity. Bacteria don’t coast. If the flagellum stops, the bacterium stops instantly because water resistance is more important at small scales. Similarly, if the flagellum stops being driven, it will stop very quickly. The water overcomes the filament’s inertia of motion, bringing it to a halt, ready to be pushed in the opposite direction.

3 Likes

If my family were a lot of biomolecular engineers, and from an early age I had been exposed to the workings of “the molecular world”, I might just intuit design. :wink:

The movement of a eukaryote flagellum could maybe be compared to piezoelectric oscillatory motion rather than a rotary motor.

Really? For starters, the bacterial flagellum is not a rotary motor. Didn’t you know?

Golly. I was raised in a family of engineers, I’m a genetic engineer, I’ve worked for decades on a different group of “molecular motors,”

yet I have neither produced nor encountered any evidence that even suggests design.

How do you explain that, Dale?

Could it be because you’re deliberately placing yourself very, very far away from any evidence, and unwilling (or maybe afraid?) to engage directly with any of it, while I’m producing evidence instead of watching YouTube?

1 Like

How so? Maybe you could be so kind as to list the identities.

The reason we have the scientific method is that human intuition is often wrong.

3 Likes

PROOF of the divine ~holiness pastaness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May He Bless Us with His Noodley Appendange).

Ramen.

AAARRRGGGHHH!!! :slight_smile:

I notice that never stops you from joining in the game. :wink:

2 Likes

Exactly the sorts of responses to be expected, I guess.

That statement of fact bears repeating.

And there is nothing wrong with—as long as one recognizes that it is a philosophical position based upon personal intuition and not a scientific position based upon the Scientific Method nor a mathematical position based upon a rigorous proof. However, that doesn’t render that philosophical position meaningless or inherently flawed. It just means that we must be careful that we not confuse philosophical positions about scientific topics with scientific methodology and scientific theories.

It is quite natural and to be expected that Christian theists would see the matter-energy world as designed by God—because we believe God created the universe. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind the difference between a faith position versus a scientific conclusion based upon empiricism and falsification testing.

2 Likes

Amen to that. Let design be proven… It’s okay to believe that something was designed or not. We just cannot insist upon it being so without evidence in a scientific discussion.

1 Like