if we are talking about moving genes then its not new at all. remember that even according to evolution a complex trait need at least milions of years. so even according to evolution we cant see evolution of a complex trait in real time. otherwise it will flasified evolution (if you remember the other discussion we had).
It is new, since the gene insertion resulted in the creation of an entirely new gene, with a different function than was present in the first generation. These bacteria are not descended from individuals that glowed at all. Also, every change in function for a bacteria is relatively complex and significant, since their basic structure is so simple. When you add 1 to 4, that's a 25% increase in amount. When you add the same amount to 1000000, that's only an increase of 0.0001%. It's all relative. And who told you it needs millions of years? Evolutionary speed depends on generation time, not literal time passage, which I have told you before. E. coli can have about 26,000 generations in a single year. Multiply that by a million, and you get 26,000,000,000 generations in 1 million years. Let's compare that to humans, which have a new generation of about 25 years, but I'll be extra generous and lower that to 20, which is closer to the generation length that we have had through the majority of human history, making it such that there would be about 50,000 human generations in 1 million years. In comparison, E. coli has more generations than that within 2 years. Hence why it is pretty silly to try and make claims about evolutionary developments in terms of years rather than generations. Starting to understand why we use bacteria to study evolution so much? Furthermore, bacterial evolution is significantly different than eukaryotic evolution (especially in multicellular ones such as ourselves), so there are mechanisms which can cause genetic change in bacteria that simply don't apply to us (it's not like I can touch a dead person and incorporate some of their genes into my genome, but bacteria can do that to each other).
how? are you saying that you only need one part to change a ss into a flagellum? are you aware about the fact that even a ss and a flagellum doesnt share even the same genes? (they are homologous and not identical).
-_- sigh, perhaps this will help explain
http://www.abc.net.au/science/indepth/img/4251468/flagella.jpg
Note that the 9 shared ancestry genes in the structures are in reference to 3 different parts, not the entire structures as a whole.
Also, you really need to look at type III secretion mechanisms, since there are plenty of bacterial secretion mechanisms entirely different from flagella.
a tipical flagellum have about 30-40 parts:
The FliK protein and flagellar hook-length control
"In total, at least 40 proteins are involved in flagellar formation and function, encoded by at least 13 different operons in the Enterobacteriaceae (
Kutsukake et al. 1990)"
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n1/images/nrmicro1493-i1.jpg flagellum
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...nt-secretion-systems-found-in-Pseudomonas.png secretion system examples for bacteria. Notice any similarities between the first image and the examples on the far right? The flagella evolved from secretion systems, you can even see a partly retained secretion system in the flagella, how hard is this to understand? I have been telling you this whole time that it would only take a handful of mutations at most to transition from a secretion system to a flagella, NOT that it would take only a handful of mutations to produce a flagellum FROM SCRATCH. Most evolutionary developments involve alterations of pre-existing structures such that they have a change in function, NOT something 100% new in every regard. Hence why your lungs and your digestive tract share orifices, even though that's a choking hazard.
To mention the horrible comparison you keep trying to push, you aren't even talking about turning a watch into a phone; you're talking about just building a phone. Which, biologically, is actually a more difficult thing to do (again why your comparison of the watch becoming a phone is a garbage comparison, since it would be easier to just build a phone than to turn a watch into a phone).
this is actually prof dawkins claim.
Dawkins is a tactless twit and is not the lord of evolution, who deems all that is in the theory. He's especially bad at talking theology and really easy to quote mine. Furthermore, I have no obligations to defend his personal (and often rash) claims. That's on Dawkins, go bother him for a defense of his claims.