Not very much like phylogenetic trees at all.
The appearance of genetic similarities?
Phylogenetics does not work based on similarities.
I don’t see the point, and I’ve spent decades studying motor proteins.
Please explain. Let’s go deeper and see how the metaphor fails miserably.
Scientists use analogies and tend to anthropomorphize many objects and processes. They are meant as analogies, and are understood as analogies. Therefore, I don’t see how there is any misleading.
A nod to @swamidass field is found in that article:
Who is talking about genes? We’re talking about a rotory flagellum ‘assembly’ (is that a neutral enough word? ).
I think we should start a new conversation and call it “The Flagellum is Not a Motor?”
This one would by about myosin, the molecule that @mercer works on and enables our muscles to contract.
What? We’re talking about a rotary ‘motor’, not a linear one.
Muscles are biological linear motors.
linear motor - Google Search
Now that we’ve established that both humans and bacteria are equipped with what could be described as MOTORS…
CAN we move to the part where Creationists and Christian Evolutionists can agree that God designed these motors… even if science cant prove that?
Many of the Christian Evolutionists™ would have to use quite a different idea of what “design” means to agree on that. Is agreement with different definitions really agreement? The main idea for the evolutionists would be that God set up a process, evolution, that he knew would eventually result in a bacterial flagellum. Some would allow for the introduction of particular mutations at strategic points. Again, is that really agreement?
what could imperfectly be described as motors…
Well sure, if by “design” we mean created.
How about if we call them biological motors in order to distinguish them from non-biological motors?
Would it help to talk about what it does rather than taking it apart and gawping at how the parts are not at all like like parts in a human-constructed motor? Who ever though that they were in the first place?
Which, according to my lengthy conversation with @John_Harshman, makes the perfect analogy!!
Yes. If we imperfectly describe both the human engineered motor and the biological motor doesn’t that strengthen the analogy?
This seems reasonable. It also seems to fit nicely with what Howard Berg wrote in his article on the bacterial flagellar motor.
Any thoughts on where we can find a perfect description of a motor?
Certainly. As it has been said, three lefts do make a right!