ok. but if it can already spin i think its a motion system in first place. and for what reason the structue ( ttss?) will spin without the flagellin anyway?
actually the vibration system in a cell-phone work just like that: there is a tiny motor which make the vibration and the cell-phone can even move a bit.
Trying to make me do your work againâŚ
No, you are asserting the impossibility of function all along the way. An assertion you have not supported.
Could you provide the evidence that leads you to believe this? Thanks.
Since @scd has now changed his definition of a motion system to include anything that provides any movement, now matter how small or in what form, his âchallengeâ is now trivial.
A system with no motion can become a system with motion by the addition or extension of a component that can act as a fin or sail and allow the system to be moved by air or water currents.
(Will @scd now argue that anything can be moved by currents, so everything already has a motion system? I wouldnât put it past him).
No you arenât. You never have been. You have always been extremely reluctant to be corrected on anything, to the extent that you will ignore presented evidence and make up the most ridiculous rationales to avoid changing your views.
Cf your attempts to claim that Tyre (below) has not been rebuilt since its destruction by Alexander.
i thought someone might say that. thats why i said that it needs to move by its own.
So if something moves itâs a motion system? Then all molecules are motion systems because all molecules move. Thatâs silly of course.
ATP synthetase rotates but it doesnât make bacteria able to swim around. A âmotion systemâ or âmotility systemâ would be one that makes something able to move around. Thatâs the only sensible way to understand your initial challenge.
It is known that the rotation of the system aids(speeds up) protein secretion. The mechanism isnât well understood, but experiments have shown that in non-flagellar Type-III secretion systems, mutations that inhibit rotation also reduces the speed of protein secretion. So the rotation of the system is apparently intrinsic to the protein translocating mechanism of T3SSs.
See:
In an electromagnetic field electrons can move on their own. Theyâre a fundamental particle thought to have no internal structure. They literally do not have any components.
So the plan here is to just keep going until @scd collapses from exhaustion from repeatedly moving the goal posts, right? 
You actually said "âŚmove from A to B on its own⌠but abandoned the âA to Bâ clause when presented with an object containing a pump-engine or a fan that might cause vibration.
Will you now concede that connecting an existing engine that doesnât allow an object to move from A to B âon its ownâ to a set of wheels that doesnât allow an object to move from A to B âon its ownâ[^1] meets your challenge?
Or will you retreat to an excuse even more desperate than the pretense that vibration counts as moving from A to B?
Also, youâve effectively not ruled out any mechanical system that uses air or water currents from moving âon its ownâ, including not just yachts, land-yachts, hot air balloons and men-o-war, but also any living creature that uses such currents, including plankton, vultures, spores, tumbleweeds, dandelion and similar seeds, condors and men-o-war (the other kind). It could even be argued that youâve ruled out anything solar powered (since canât move without the sun), or fuel-powered (canât move without fuel), which would take care of every other human-build machine as well as the rest of the animal kingdom.
Perhaps you could provide an example of something that does ââŚmove from A to B on its ownâŚâ, and also something that does not, so that future goal-post moving can be avoided.
[^1] Since youâve just ruled out air or water currents because they donât make the object move âon its ownâ, anything else that pulls or pushes the object, including a horse, is ruled out too.
Surely an electromagnetic field is equivalent to air currents in this context?
well, maybe you refer to the micro level. but at the macro world things dont move by their own without using a complex motion system (thats include animals). even if you refer to the protein level, i dont think that a folded protein will start to move and spin without a complex change (from a protein that wasnt able to move before).
even in this case i think there is a problem here. the flagellum tail contain many flagellin proteins in a specific order. so we probably need not only a flagllin but also some new regulation:
(image from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18379)
also keep in mind that the previous function (if was essential to the organism) should not be compromised.
The moon seems to be moving around without a complex motion system, and itâs considerably far into the scale of âmacroâ. Last I checked the entire solar system, the milky way galaxy, and even the large-scale structure of the universe is in a perpetual state of movement, and itâs got no legs, wheels, or propellers. All it takes for movement to occur is a force acting on something.
No. Itâs the same protein repeated over and over again. It will spontaneously self-assemble into the structure you see as one protein copy after another is transported to the end of the hook. There isnât anything unusual about that as many proteins can spontaneously self-assemble into huge symmetrical structures spurred by as little as a single mutation:
His goal posts have evolved into itâs own motility system. And itâs galloping faster than any horse.
actually the wheels are useless anyway without the engine. not only that but i also think that the connection between the wheels and the engine will also need some additional part\s. but lets assume that you are right- we can add a single part to an existing motor and it will start to move the object. do you think that the entire motor can be maded by small steps while every step is functional by itself? (i dont know what men-o-war means by the way but anyway).
you can also add clouds. but animals and man-made objects indeed moves by complex motion systems.
we do need for that a correct number of flagellin copies, a special mutation\site in the protein to stick with another protein, and that it should happen in a specific order to form the tail shape.
Centuries of horse-drawn vehicles demonstrate otherwise.
Iâm not going to let you move the goalposts.
The addition of a single part can produce a motion system where there was not one before. You asked the question, and now you have the answer. Use it.
Of course itâs possible that you didnât really want to know the answer, but were just blowing rhetorical smoke. But that would be dishonest.
Then learn how to use a search engine.
Artificial satellites are man-made objects which move using the same means that the moon does.
This is such an obvious counter-example to your point that you have no excuse for not taking it into account. Once again the implication is that you are not discussing in good faith.
But random walks donât get very far, very fast.
No, Behe said he hadnât read that particular stack of books and articles. But do you have the counterexamples that Behe said probably wasnât there?
That would support what? Iâve lost the thread hereâŚ
This paper about constructing the MOTB ancestor cites 90% sequence similarity. With about 300 residues, that would be 30 changes, to get to the ancestor, so say about 30 changes to get to a homolog.
Well, I donât see a function for just a hook, without flagellin, for instance.
Because a useless partial flagellum would be a burden to the bacterium, and would actually be selected against.
You didnât answer the question, which was about evidence. Youâre not working from evidence.
His claim in the book was that none of them even exist. He claimed that he meant something completely different when challenged under oath. It was not convincing.
Your claim that antibody binding sites arenât new.
I know, yet you reproduced the thread that you are claiming to have lost.
Your point being?
What you donât see isnât really evidence, particularly since you have no idea how structures are built or function in real time. Behe counts on that ignorance.
