I’m with you on that, anyway. 
And I think flagella are really interesting. Maybe you missed this:
Did you not read my clarification? That was repeated SEVERAL times? You are pointing at me, but not actually ever engaging what is said. Forums are for interacting with other people, not just repetitively parroting other people’s arguments. Come have an actual conversation with us @DaleCutler. You might actually enjoy it more than this silly taunting.
1 Like
This entire thread is a grievous injury to @swamidass ’ s work… despite the fact he was seduced into becoming a participant.
This is the kind of useless grist volleyed around at BioLogos!
It’s not at all clear. Behe’s argument based on IC is about the capabilities of the Darwinian mechanism and there’s no reason to think IC systems cannot arise naturally if intelligent design is involved, or other, non-Darwinian, mechanisms.
How is the power translated into movement in each? Merely having a power source is trivial next to those mechanisms.
1 Like
IOW, Behe’s argument is bogus. It’s good to see that you finally get that.
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?
2 Likes
At its base, each flagellum has a rotory motor.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22489/
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.
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.)
2 Likes
@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:
- 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.
- 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