I don't believe Dembski got the memo

[Valkhorn]

I of course can't be sure with Mike Gene but his scientific facts have not been questioned as far as I know. Behe is practicing science:

We're questioning them right here in this very forum. So yes he has been questioned.

Behe also doesn't practice Science. He himself said that the definition of science would have to change to even include ID as science to the point that even astrology would be science.

Did you get that memo?

In your opinion.

No that is fact. Natural selection can produce enormous amounts of diversity with ample time and enormous amounts of adaptation to environments.

Dawkins has an agenda, so I feel that his information can be somewhat questionable. I have to admit that I have not read either. So I really can't honestly give comment.

And Behe doesn't? What kind of double-speak is this?

Besides, Dawkins is far more qualified as an evolutionary biologist than Behe ever was.

Not necessarily. You can not say that natural selection is not in some way aided or guided by God.

Specifying a god is NOT SCIENCE.

the evidence shows that TTSS evolved from the flagellum

Besides which your Mike Gene paper (which is not peer-reviewed nor does it contain valid sources) where is your evidence?

Name one organism that had a bacterial flagellum before an organism that had the TTS.

Name. One.

Hey, it doesn't matter what my paper is claiming.

So why are you using it as your argument?

Although, I do believe that God has created the universe and everything in it, I have not argued ID but rather that the statement made in the op was not true.

You are arguing against Evolution and for ID. Why else are you backing up Behe and "gene's" arguments?

In response to the comments during this thread ID of course has been discussed.

And thoroughly refuted.

The Bacterial Flagellum has been shown in peer-reviewed papers as not irreducibly complex. I have even posted a huge list of papers which showed this. All you have provided are two articles by Behe and Mike Gene - both of which are not science.

 

[Valkhorn]

I also should note that OnceDeceived thinks it is completely ok when Behe's and Gene's agendas match hers, but somehow it isn't ok when Dawkins's doesn't.

Let's just ignore the fact that Behe and Gene do not practice valid science (Behe even said so in the Kitzmiller trial) and that Dawkins does.

How convenient of Deceived to sweep that under the rug.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, because clear steps have been shown in the Matzke paper amongst others. That's the peer-reviewed literature on this. That is the literature that actually uses realistic ways of determining whether such a pathway is plausible, instead of unrealistic ones. We cannot determine those steps by looking at previous organisms. We can, however, determine them by looking at homologues of the same proteins in other structures.

Ok, please give me the credentials of Matzke. Please provide the peer-reviewed literature that he has published.

No, that is not what I am claiming. I am claiming that we have a plausible pathway that is substantiated by evidence that can be realistically obtained. I am claiming that what you have so far asked for as evidence is not realistic. I am further claiming that the evidence in no way points toward an impossibility to evolve the flagellum, which is the claim Behe makes. Just the opposite.

I know what you are claiming and it is not substantiated by evidence, it substantiated by homology which is not in anyway conclusive. It seems to me that at this point neither side has sufficient EVIDENCE to support their premises conclusively.

Why would they need to? Nothing in the pathways proposed asks them to function outside the systems they are in.

True, but what is needed is to show how such a system could function and adapt to the finished system by gradual steps and each of those steps do have to have a function that is advantageous.

An incredibly large puzzle piece usually, with many different possible outcomes. Many proteins have multiple functions. Look for example at the proteins of the p450 enzymes that have a wide range of substances they break down and the specificity of this breakdown depends on the specific enzyme. Proteins work via a lock and key mechanism, but the lock and keys vary in specificity, locks can have different keys and keys can have different locks. There is a specificity in proteins, but it is not nearly as precise as you imply here.

Example please.

But if the proteins are alike in shape, they can fit the system. That is because the function of a protein is determined more by shape then anything else and proteins can have varying levels of specificity in their tasks. You are pretending that a protein either does it's job or not, but that is not how proteins function. Many proteins function in different capacities in different environments.

I agree except that you are making it very much simpler than it actually is.

How does that differ? Why would he make a different point for the BF? I do not think Behe is a logically thinking person, but I do grant him some consistency in his viewpoints.

It doesn't really, it was just that I had not read anything like that in my research. The reason then being that it wasn't there, it was in information about the immune system.

Feel free to point out which haven't. That's what the guys who are actually researching this say.

Perhaps I have missed something, could you provide the resource for this information.

So what? Why would that matter? All of these have specialized functions in the environment they are in. But when bringing them together in a different environment, this changes. The bacterial flagellum did not evolve in the current environment, it evolved in one where no BF existed yet.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that its evolution due to the ToE's mechanisms were the cause.

You have already been provided with one. The scientists who are actually researching this do feel this is true. Matzke et al are an example, as well as other articles that have already passed the revue here. They are the ones doing the research, they are the ones who are determining these pathways, they are the ones who already have come up with answers to this.

So just what credentials does Matzke have?

Behe is not the one researching this, he just ignores all research concerning this. Where do you think the models that have been provided in this thread come from? How do you think the scientists proposing these have arrived at them? Do you think they were inspecting there noses and pulled them from there?

LOL. Most of the articles that have been cited are in direct rebuttal of Behe and his premises. For the most part, although there are a few, the scientists that have produced papers on the subject have done so to refute ID rather than anything else.

What about them? They may not have homologues in living organisms anymore. They may have homologues that we have not discovered yet. There are a number of ways they can have arisen. We have to go with the data we have, not with the data we do not have.

That is the problem, You are saying that it doesn't matter what we don't have and telling me that I should agree. We only know in part anything in the universe. In fact, we know very little in regard to the whole spectrum of knowledge, so why should I think that you know when in fact you don't. I don't. The fact is, you would rather go with a naturalistic viewpoint than a world view with God. You have chosen that stance.

In my dreams I am omnipotent and have all the data, as well as a time machine which allows me a firsthand analyses of the creatures. I've also get infinite time in my dreams. When I wake up reality kicks in and I'll have to go with the data we have.

Well then, the answer to the op is just as I said. We do not have a clear step by step pathway for the evolution of the BF...do you agee or not? You have said as much so why do you continue to argue against it.

The data we have point towards a pathway for the BF to have evolved as described by Matzke et al. What they proposed is not the last word on it. It raises questions for further research that his group and other scientists are now working on.

Which it should. Regardless, Matzke or any other scientist out there will tell you that there is still very much unkown about the evolution of the BF and that it not as stated by the op.

But the data we have does not indicate that it is impossible for the BF to have evolved. Some of the objections you raised above are interesting, definitely. Further research into homologues will provide some more interesting results. Other research teams may come to different pathways. The connection between the current BF and it's current homologues will be interesting. But none of these objections point to an impossibility of the flagellum to have evolved.

Now wait, I didn't say that it was impossible to evolve, I said that the known mechanisms of evolution are not adequate to explain the BF. There is a difference.

Other objections you raised, for example about the specificity of proteins, point toward an unfamiliarity with how proteins work rather than to real objections.

See next post.

Meanwhile, the current research points toward the conclusion that evolution of the BF is plausible and points to possible pathways. The research is not definite and never will be.

Pointing to a conclusion can take many forms and since there is so much unknown it is more in line with what one wants the conclusions to be.

I'm afraid we, as humans, are not omnipotent or omniscient. That is what Behe requests in his fairytale view of science. Unfortunately, the rest of us live in reality.

This is only a personal attack against someone not able to defend himself which I thought you were above doing.

 

[FishFace]

That aside, how can you say something is possible if you can't see it, test it, or provide evidence for it?

It's not the most obvious of burden-of-proof situations I'll grant you, but it's still pretty clear cut when you get down to it. You claim that there exists something (be it a mechanism or designer) which allowed the BF to exist because existing mechanisms cannot account for it, i.e. it is impossible that it could have evolved under known mechanisms.
How can you say that it is impossible when before you there is a perfectly plausible situation through which the flagellum could have evolved? The only way to resolve this is to show how the flagellum did come into existence, and for that you need positive evidence. Until then, the plausible situation is what we go with - just as we judge it is possible that fingers evolved even though we haven't the precise evolutionary pathway for them.

Is that not what you are claiming that I can't do for an intelligent designer? Why the double standard?

I never said it was impossible for a designer to exist. There is a hugely important philosophical difference. No, I'm merely saying that we have no reason to believe in one without evidence. In the same way, we don't have excellent reasons for believing the flagellum evolved in the way I said it did (although we have more reason than for believing in a designer) because we don't have a vast amount of evidence.

What was the pore selected from?

I have no idea. I'm sorry, Oncedeceived, but we just don't know the entire evolution of every single organism on the face of the planet, which is what you seem to be requesting.

You would assume this why?

Because otherwise it wouldn't be able to gain nutrition from the stuff.

This is completely vague and uninformative.

Not completely vague, but pretty uninformative. That's because it's a hypothetical example - please try and distinguish between an example and what actually happened. May I please stress that we don't - and may never - know the definitive evolution of everything, every organ, every biomolecule on the planet. That's not a reason for saying that they didn't evolve.

No it is not false. If you have no evidence to back up your hypothesis it can not be said to be possible or impossible...you can't know.

If you don't know that something is impossible then it's still possible.
If you don't know that something is possible then it is also still possible.

There's slight equivocation there (slight because the definitions of possible are blurry) but hopefully you understand what I mean. Epistemologically speaking, we assume things are possible unless proven otherwise. The state of "not knowing" is equivalent in every sense (bar one) to the state of believing something is possible.

No it doesn't, it says nothing of precursors being non-functional and non-selectable.

If the precursors were functional (and therefore selectable) then there would be zero problem for evolution, so the argument falls apart.

If you could provide the possible way, but you don't know if it is possible or not without knowing all the dynamics and parts of the system and the precursor system as well. You don't.

Your argument rests on the premise of all evolutionary pathways being impossible but at best you are in the same boat as us of not knowing whether the pathways are impossible. On sounder epistemological ground, you're worse off, since we assume things are possible unless there's good reason not to.
Even in your best case scenario, where you don't know whether it's possible or impossible for the flagellum to evolve, you lose out due to Occam's razor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I also should note that OnceDeceived thinks it is completely ok when Behe's and Gene's agendas match hers, but somehow it isn't ok when Dawkins's doesn't.

I hate to admit it but you are right.

Let's just ignore the fact that Behe and Gene do not practice valid science (Behe even said so in the Kitzmiller trial) and that Dawkins does.

No in the Kitzmiller trail he was taking about the ID stuff he was doing. He is has published in peer-reviewed journals...some 40 articles I believe.

How convenient of Deceived to sweep that under the rug.

Sometimes our own worldviews blind us to our own imperfections.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, please give me the credentials of Matzke. Please provide the peer-reviewed literature that he has published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Matzke

1. ^ Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke (2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nature Reviews Microbiology 4 (10): 784-790.

I know what you are claiming and it is not substantiated by evidence, it substantiated by homology which is not in anyway conclusive. It seems to me that at this point neither side has sufficient EVIDENCE to support their premises conclusively.

It doesn't need to be conclusive, it needs to be plausible. From what I have seen up to know, the evolution side has provided evidence, the ID side assertions.

True, but what is needed is to show how such a system could function and adapt to the finished system by gradual steps and each of those steps do have to have a function that is advantageous.

And that was shown in the Matzke paper. Gradual steps, all steps have a function that is advantageous. The Matzke paper fullfills this criteria.

Example please.

p450 enzyme. Was in my previous post, look it up.

I agree except that you are making it very much simpler than it actually is.

How? This is exactly what can happen and how proteins function, so what is there to complicate it?

It doesn't really, it was just that I had not read anything like that in my research. The reason then being that it wasn't there, it was in information about the immune system.

Ok.

Perhaps I have missed something, could you provide the resource for this information.

Of course first Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke (2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nature Reviews Microbiology 4 (10): 784-790.

Then the most recent one (I think) of Liu and Ochman: Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system, who take the same approach as Matzke does. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1 ) (Interestingly, Matzke did not agree with the route they proposed for reasons that at least have been discussed on several blogs.)

http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/145/2/279: Faguy and Jarrell who look at the evolution of the flagellum of archaea through the investigation of homologues.

Gophna et al, Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events: use of genetic and molecular homologues to determine the evolutionary history of type III secretion systems, leading to the conclusion that these share a common ancestor with bacterial flagella but are not derived from them (http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/ArticlesPDFs/gophnaetal2003.pdf)

Szekely et al, DNA sequence adjacent to flagellar genes and evolution of flagellar-phase variation. Uses sequence data (ie homologues) to determine mechanisms behind the evolution of a regulatory region important for the flagellum (http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/1/74)

Other research on the evolution of molecular structures also makes use of homologous structures, for example:
THE EVOLUTION OF GENETIC REGULATORY SYSTEMS IN BACTERIA by McAdams et al, which uses functional and genetic homologues to draw conclusions on the evolution of genetic regulatory systems (http://genomics.lbl.gov/Group/Manuscripts/nrg1292.pdf)

As all of these articles show, authors rely heavily on homologous structures to determine the history and mechanisms behind the evolution of molecular structure. This shouldn't really be surprising, since Darwin already started this by proposing a possible route for the evolution of the eye this way. The method really hasn't changed, only the accuracy and the scale of it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that its evolution due to the ToE's mechanisms were the cause.

But it does make it plausible.

So just what credentials does Matzke have?

I couldn't care less. He is not the only one doing this, others use the same route. As long as the conclusion follows from the evidence, I couldn't care whether Matzke was a high schooler with a passion for bacterial flagella and time on his hands. Matzke is one of the people who has collected and discussed the peer-reviewed literature on this.

LOL. Most of the articles that have been cited are in direct rebuttal of Behe and his premises. For the most part, although there are a few, the scientists that have produced papers on the subject have done so to refute ID rather than anything else.

Which still makes them the ones researching it, and not Behe. Behe just thinks it is complex and gives up before he has even tried.

That is the problem, You are saying that it doesn't matter what we don't have and telling me that I should agree. We only know in part anything in the universe. In fact, we know very little in regard to the whole spectrum of knowledge, so why should I think that you know when in fact you don't. I don't. The fact is, you would rather go with a naturalistic viewpoint than a world view with God. You have chosen that stance.

Well, I would definitely not go for God at this point, given the complete absence of evidence of the existence of any god. That's the point here. We have evidence for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, even if it is incomplete. That this evidence is there already negates the assertion that the bacterial flagellum could not evolve. Yes, we do not know everything. But for the conclusion that the flagellum most likely evolved we do not need to know everything.

Well then, the answer to the op is just as I said. We do not have a clear step by step pathway for the evolution of the BF...do you agee or not? You have said as much so why do you continue to argue against it.

I continue to argue against it, since such a clear pathway has been given. Even given that we do not know every detail of this pathway, it is good enough to negate the claims by Behe that the BF could not have evolved. That is the claim Behe makes and until he gives extensive evidence against the pathway proposed he cannot make that assertion.

Which it should. Regardless, Matzke or any other scientist out there will tell you that there is still very much unkown about the evolution of the BF and that it not as stated by the op.

What is stated in the OP is that the evolution of the BF has clear steps in evolutionary science. It is not necessary to know everything for that statement to be correct.

Now wait, I didn't say that it was impossible to evolve, I said that the known mechanisms of evolution are not adequate to explain the BF. There is a difference.

And that is? If the known mechanism are not sufficient to explain the BF, then the BF could not evolve. Otherwise the known mechanisms would be enough.

See next post.

Pointing to a conclusion can take many forms and since there is so much unknown it is more in line with what one wants the conclusions to be.

There is not enough unknown to point away from the evolution of the BF in this case. The homologues point to a plausible pathway that is selectively beneficial in all steps. That points toward the possibility of the evolution of the flagellum and away from the impossibility of it.

This is only a personal attack against someone not able to defend himself which I thought you were above doing.

I agree that it is a personal attack. Given Behe's statements though, I also think it is completely justified in this case. If someone makes the statement that to accept a certain conclusion he needs evidence that can never be reasonably supplied, that person has left this reality and substituted his own.

But I'll rephrase that without the personal attacks. Behe requires a level of evidence that cannot reasonably provided scientifically. What Behe should be doing then is searching for a different way to still answer the same question. Behe doesn't do this however. This indicates to me that Behe has lost the interest in drawing up tests for his ideas, which in turn indicates that Behe has stopped doing science in the case of IC.

 

[Tomk80]

Man, those posts get too long

What I wanted to add is that it may be important to recognize that in the pathway proposed by Matzke proteins do not really change their function. Rather, the combination of two proteins changes the combined function, while each protein keeps doing its own. For example, in the step from a passive pore to a selective one, the pore keeps its function. It does exactly the same thing as before, namely let things pass through. The only change is that the added protein adds "select what goes through and what doesn't". This keeps on in all steps.

As an analogy, I can add four wheels to a motor and I'll have a car. I can add a pulley and I end up with a crane. The motor keeps doing the thing it always did, the wheels and the pulley also. Only the combination gives a different result.

 

[Valkhorn]

No in the Kitzmiller trail he was taking about the ID stuff he was doing. He is has published in peer-reviewed journals...some 40 articles I believe.

The BF is the ID stuff he is doing. So it is not science for him to claim what he is claiming.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We're questioning them right here in this very forum. So yes he has been questioned.

I think that if there were problems with his scientific facts that there would be more readily available critiques online which I don't find.

Behe also doesn't practice Science. He himself said that the definition of science would have to change to even include ID as science to the point that even astrology would be science.

I see that it is not only creationists that misrepresent and misquote information. Here is the transcript:
Q I'll be happy to read the question and answer to you. I asked you whether intelligent design -- I asked actually on the top of 133, I asked you whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory using the National Academy of Sciences definition.
A What line is that, I'm sorry?
Q That's 133, line 18.
A Is that going -- question beginning, "Going back to the National Academy of Science?"
Q Yes. And you first said, "I m going to say that I would argue that in fact it is." And that's 134, line ten.
A Yes.
Q Okay. And I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
A Yes.
Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.
A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.
So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.
Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A I'm sorry?
Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?
A It seems like that.
Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?
A Yes.
Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.
A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Q Page 132, line 23.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?
A That's correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.
A I'm sorry?
Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?
A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.
Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you get that memo?

You can't get anything that wasn't there in the first place.

Besides, Dawkins is far more qualified as an evolutionary biologist than Behe ever was.

You know this makes me curious, do you have a list of the work he has done? I can't honestly say much about his work other than the books he has written.

Specifying a god is NOT SCIENCE.

I didn't say it was.

Besides which your Mike Gene paper (which is not peer-reviewed nor does it contain valid sources) where is your evidence?

From the paper you supplied:

The bacterial flagellum has received attention as an exemplum of biological complexity; however, how this complexity and diversification have been achieved remains rather poorly understood. Although several scenarios have been posited to explain how this organelle might have been originated (13), the actual series of evolutionary events that have given rise to the flagellum, as might be inferred from the relationships of all genes that contribute to the formation and expression of this organelle across taxa, has never been accomplished.
Insights into the evolution of the bacterial flagellum have been gained from the homologies between flagellar proteins and those functioning in other systems (13). For example, the sequence similarity between flagellum-specific ATPase FliI and the

-subunit of ATP synthase led to the speculation that flagellum possibly evolved from this highly conserved, membrane-bound enzyme, whose subunits rotate during catalysis of ATP from ADP (14). Because the flagellar motor proteins MotA/B are homologous to the motor proteins in the Tol-pal and TonB systems (15), the flagellum was hypothesized to have originated as a simple proton-driven secretion system (16). Most significantly, there are well established sequence and structural homologies between bacterial flagella and the type III secretion system (TTSS) demonstrating that the two apparati derive from a common ancestor (17). Most evidence, including their much broader phylogenetic distribution, supports the view that the flagellum arose much earlier that the TTSS, which are largely limited to Proteobacteria (18–20).
Here, we take advantage of complete genome sequence data to trace the history of each gene involved in the assembly and regulation of the bacterial flagellum. Our results show that flagellum originated very early, before the diversification of contemporary bacterial phyla, and evolved in a stepwise fashion through a series of gene duplication, loss and transfer events. In this article, we focus on the evolution of the core set of flagellar genes that is uniformly present in all flagellated bacteria. The later evolving and lineage-specific components of the flagellar gene complexes remain to be addressed.

Name one organism that had a bacterial flagellum before an organism that had the TTS.

Name. One.

I'll have to look into that, but I am not making the claim it is in your papers too.

So why are you using it as your argument?

Informational purposes.

You are arguing against Evolution and for ID. Why else are you backing up Behe and "gene's" arguments?

No I am not. I have no problem with the defined ToE. I do believe that God created the universe but I all I have presented here is that there is not a clear step by step evolutionary pathway for the BF.

And thoroughly refuted.

I disagree. IT has not been shown that the BF is not irreducibly complex. We don't have enough information for that assumption.

The Bacterial Flagellum has been shown in peer-reviewed papers as not irreducibly complex. I have even posted a huge list of papers which showed this. All you have provided are two articles by Behe and Mike Gene - both of which are not science.

That is not true. It has been presented that there are possible routes, that doesn't mean it is reality.

 

[FishFace]

No I am not. I have no problem with the defined ToE. I do believe that God created the universe but I all I have presented here is that there is not a clear step by step evolutionary pathway for the BF.

Then there is simply nothing to debate - there are scientific papers about the pathway in question, which may or may not be definite. We don't really care whether the pathway is correct or not, since if you're not arguing for ID, then it doesn't matter.
Not knowing the evolutionary pathway of X is not a problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then there is simply nothing to debate - there are scientific papers about the pathway in question, which may or may not be definite. We don't really care whether the pathway is correct or not, since if you're not arguing for ID, then it doesn't matter.
Not knowing the evolutionary pathway of X is not a problem.

So as long as I am not promoting ID you can agree that the op was wrong, but if I am promoting ID the op was correct?