@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?