The Flagellum is Not a Motor?

No, those are the essential similarities. the differences you keep pointing to are non-essential.

In science fiction novels.

Behe does not however make this concession. He argues against the Darwinian mechanism, as if that was the only mechanism available to evolution.

I know. But still, it’s good to see that Mung is finally acknowledging that point!

1 Like

And also for Voyager 1 and 2, in the real world. Catch up on the basics. Ever heard of a gravity slingshot?


At its base, each flagellum has a rotory motor.

So I agree that the flagellum is not a rotary motor. It’s also clear to me that if someone refers to “the bacterial rotary motor” they are in fact referring to the rotary motor that each flagellum has at its base. I don’t lknow why that requires a special thread, unless you’re intentionally trying to make someone look bad by taking what they wrote out of context and reading it in the most unfavorable light possible.

@swamidass, perhaps you could change the thread title. I propose the following:

Is there a rotary motor at the base of each flagellum?

That seems more appropriate to me. Then we could ask @bjmiller if he agrees with the following statement:

At its base, each flagellum has a rotory motor.

Any quotes from Behe saying this?

Well I just read his book with @nlents. Wait for the circus when it gets published and there will plenty of opportunities to clarify his current view with quotes.

7 posts were split to a new topic: Dale’s Tone Policing Thread

This is a good distinction @Mung, but I would also had it is a rotary motor almost entirely unlike any rotary motor designed by humans.

Moreover, how many parts does this motor have? Just 4 or 5 (not over 20), and they are all homologous to one another. This is an example of how totally different this motor is from ours. There are no rotary motors I know that humans have made that are nearly this simple. Our motors are complex, but this motor is very very simple. A better analogy would be a water wheel, but a water wheel has far more parts too.

Is this the appropriate time for me to mention that some motors are reversible? Some motors, in fact, can be rotating slowly backwards, from back-pressure, say, and when they start, run in the wrong direction, even though they are designed to only run one way. I have seen it happen. Anyhow, I’m done with the topical posts… feel free to get back to talking about the really important issues… like tone (which is entirely subjective in written form.)


@Mung I have been confused when I have read “rotary motor” and even more so when you added the Mazda mention earlier. When you are speaking of a “rotary motor” are you referring, in general, to a motor (like an electric motor), a “rotary engine” (like Wankel’s), or something else? I just want to understand where you are coming from.

@Mung Thanks for your note. I appreciate what you are saying and I think that anyone who reads this thread from top to bottom will find two things:

  1. There was a lot of unnecessary talk about nothing on the part of so many people. I’ve never seen so much talking about, talking about something, in my life. Without ever getting to any actual discussion. But there is a reason for that, and see point 2 below.
  2. There was a breakthrough, of sorts, in terms of understanding the anxiety over this topic. There’s a feeling, justifiably so, I believe, on the part of the evolution camp that to use the word “motor” in the name is to create a slippery slope that slides straight to the design camp. To say that the bacterial flagellum should not be described as “bacterial flagellar motor” is not defensible. To refer to it, descriptively, as a “motor” is certainly justifiable because there are so many aspects of it that remind us of an electric motor. That said, far too many people are leaping at the use of the word motor and, unjustifiably, claiming that motor = design = designer.

I think that Joshua asked for a list of aspects that were similar between the two, as well as a list of aspects that were dissimilar in order to help each person realize that to describe something as a motor does not mean that it is a motor. There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with putting forth a training exercise that helps anyone to avoid leaping to a conclusion. Especially an incorrect one.

I don’t understand why the conversation did not progress… I thought it was an interesting thought exercise, myself. I don’t think that it was a disgrace. I think that it was more needless posturing instead of conversing and working through an exercise.

But I’m still curious about the use of the term “rotary motor.” When you used that term, you weren’t referring to any other kind of motor. You were just using that term generically, too?

1 Like

Yes, I was using it generically.

Under the new Zoom-Zoom 2030 plan, Mazda will build a purely electric car, which will arrive sometimes next year. No other details are available at the moment, but Brink has confirmed the EV will be optionally available with a range-extender in the form of a new Wankel engine. Despite being “not really necessary, because the average buyer travels an average of 37 miles (60 kilometers) per day from home to work and back again,” the rotary motor’s main goal will be to “take away any concerns from customers.”

1 Like

Interesting… so this is truly an electric rotary motor, built in the style of the Wankel rotary engine, and different from the traditional electric motor?

Did Joshua ever define the two elements necessary for his objection to hold water?

  1. What is a motor?
  2. What is a “rotary” motor?
1 Like

I don’t believe the “range extender” is itself electric.

1 Like

Honestly, I do not know. I only jumped in to this conversation near the middle. And only because I saw that people were arguing about using the word “motor” as a label, when that was not really the issue. As for where he ended up, I am certain that he’s in agreement that it is not wrong to label the bacterial flagellum as a motor, but at the same time, he wants, as I said earlier, to ensure that one does not leap from the label motor, to design, to designer, because that label has been used.

I think that is prudent. The real issue is not whether or not motor as a label is appropriate, it is whether or not the bacterial flagellum evolved or was designed. Again, my efforts were in steering the conversation away from the label issue, and toward the design vs. evolved issue.

Well, they’ll be in the same shape as Volkswagen if they advertise a “purely electric motor” and it is not!! :slight_smile:

Yes, i thought it rather pointless to argue about whether the flagellar motor “really is” a motor. But it sure seemed to me that the point Joshua is trying to make is that it is not a motor. Interesting the different perspectives.

And i will also point out that Brian wasn’t arguing that the flagellum is designed because it is a motor. One has to go back to the original thread to get the context. But perhaps Joshua was trying to vaccinate against a claim that no one has yet made.

If @swamidass truly desires dialogue with ID proponents I’d suggest that the Swamidass v. ID strategy needs to be abandoned and replaced with something more along the lines of a conversation rather than a witch hunt.

The motor at the base of the flagellum does not use gasoline nor does it use internal combustion. Rotary engines are not constructed of proteins. Is that what you mean?

Just wondering, are you an expert in rotary motors?