what does construction of flagellum bacteria motors prove?

Question

There is much debate and closed preconception about the validity of the construction of the flagellum bacteria motor as pro or con intelligent design. What do you think about what the construction of the motor proves?

Answer 1

The 'motors' don't seem to prove anything. Michael Behe put forth this claim most famously as an example of 'irreducible complexity' - that is to say, there are no possible intermediate steps, so the flagellum disproves evolution and offers evidence of design.

Many scientists have offered explanations, such as the adaptation of the 'Type Three Secretory System' mechanism that many bacteria display. Biologists have by and large had no real problems with showing that intermediate steps between the motors and other organism features can prove useful and are plausible.

Behe is notorious for continuing to put forth examples like this that have been disproved. A Pennsylvania judge once took Behe to task for making these claims despite a bulk of evidence: 'He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books... however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution.'

In general, arguing for creationism suffers from a lack of evidence when specific claims are examined. Labeling something 'irreducibly complex' is often a way of saying it hasn't been studied yet, or that a solution hasn't been sought.

Answer 2

The bacterium flagellum as an example of "irreducible complexity" has been demolished. If you are interested in the science behind it, see Kenneth Miller's (of Brown University) web page. There is an article about the flagellum, with references to the scientific literature: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html. These are the papers in which the scientists report on their discoveries about how smaller parts of the flagellum "machinery" were derived or adapted from other systems, rather than arising as a whole, as Behe et al. would have you believe.

Answer 3

Along with the flagellum bacteria motor take the simple mouse trap for an example. actually no. experiment with the mouse trap; first set it. stick your finger in it. observe. take the mouse trap apart. set it as best as you can. Stick your finger in it. Observe. Now throw it in a pile with a bunch of other junk. place an explosive under the junk. light the explosive (Big Bang. under laboratory conditions and yes I know it is not in a complete vacuum or zero gravity) and take cover. Observe. Add 100 years. maybe 1000 or 15,000,000,000 (the time that "most scientists" assume it has taken) Is it possible that the simple mouse trap took an intelligent designer? Is it possible that the extremely complex flagellum bacteria motor took an extremely intelligent Designer?
Also I would like to hear of a scientist intelligent enough to create one of those microscopic motors: without the use of a super computer.

Answer 4

The flagellum "motor" has indeed been refuted over and over and over, and yet people still bring it up.

(Incidentally, even the choice of the word "motor" is loading the question. It is a common tactic of ID advocates to refer to structures in nature using names we apply to man-made equivalents, in order to imply that these structures can *only* arise through deliberate design.)

As with ANY question of "irreducible complexity" the refutation only has to show that it is not irreducible at all.

Here is a nice description of the reducibility of the flagellum:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Answer 5

i have to say pro intelligent design because of the old saying "use it or loose it" lol! i mean it has to use it for a good reason. if it weren't to have a flagellum then it would be simple as a plant cell. no central nerve system.

Answer 6

Gosh, I think even Michael Behe had to surrender on this one--evolution wins again.