Home » Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design » Okay, I was wrong. The flagellum did evolve after all . . .

Okay, I was wrong. The flagellum did evolve after all . . .

. . . from a grain of salt:

Evolution of flagellum

Dr. Jackson Martin, Director and Professor of the Flagellum Project at the Hoboken Nature Institute, today announced completion of software that successfully demonstrates the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Critics of evolution have claimed that the flagellum is too complex to evolve using the gradual changes required by natural selection.

“The flagellum is very complicated,” said Martin. “Like a motor, it has a rotor, a stator, and complex control mechanisms.”

Martin and his students have demonstrated, however, that the complex flagellum can be easily created using the forces of natural selection.

“We have not only shown that the flagellum can be evolved, it’s hard not to evolve the flagellum.”

In simulation software called EvolFlag, Martin and his students carefully apply gradual modifications to an initial set of boundary conditions.

“During the flagellum simulated evolution, my students like to play Devo’s Whip It in the background,” smiled Martin. “They joke it supplies natural selection forces.”

Martin’s most impressive demonstration was evolution of the bacterial flagellum from common table salt.

“Salt, of course, contains no biochemicals,” offered Martin. “The ability to evolve a fully functional flagellum from simple table salt is a tribute to the miracle of evolution.” . . .

For more details, go here.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

15 Responses to Okay, I was wrong. The flagellum did evolve after all . . .

  1. That is great. Proof that Behe is wrong, I knew all this ID talk would eventually be shown to be the rubbish that it is. Proof, proof at last.

    Ok i’ll add the appropriate smiley this time :P

    I wonder if there is an easy way to find out if anybody picks up on and runs with this claim, not realising that it is a joke. After all, it is the sort of handwaving silliness that is put forward as evidence all the time.

  2. Dembski’s not playing fair.
    I was working up a good head of righteous indignation .. “who cares what his students listen to? … the miracle of evolution? … is this guy a nut?” Then I decided to follow the link.

    As per the simulation, however, I don’t think Dembski’s a particularly convincing intermediate along the way to the flagellum as I’m quite sure he’s irreducibly complex.

    I’m still wondering, though, are the Brites a mutated version of SARS?

  3. To really make an ironic statement they should devolve Booji Boy back to a grain of salt.

  4. Guys, let’s face it. I bet that, oh I don’t know, let’s say 70% of evolutionary biologists would have read this, minus the table salt part (or scarier- even WITH that part) and would have said to themselves- ‘ah ha, I knew this wouldn’t be such a big deal’ to evolve and this program proves it. They have avida and claim that it’s actual evolution in action, not just a simulation. I’ve heard stories far more fantastic than this.

    I mean, it honestly didn’t sound that different from REAL stories that claim A, B, and C from the miracle of evolution via NS.

  5. Evolution’s New Central Dogma: If we can morph two virtual things in a computer simulation, then the real things corresponding to them could, by natural selection, evolve into one another.

  6. “……and if you don’t believe in that, what is your alternative?” (Typical Darwinian reply)

  7. Prof. Dembski?!?! You are still here? I thought you were a flagellum! The article didn’t say that it could transfer flagellums back to its original state, or did you have to go through the transitional state of being salt and then evolving back to being you! Got a good laugh out of it! :) LOOOOO

  8. #5 “Evolution’s New Central Dogma: If we can morph two virtual things in a computer simulation, then the real things corresponding to them could, by natural selection, evolve into one another.”

    … but we know that a stronger empirical statement in computer science says: “thrash in trash out” :-)

    Kairos

  9. The so-called, ‘B.R.I.T.E.S’ website, is a joke. The song for the darwin youth is indicative of what the theory really is, philosophy and anti-religion diatribe masquerading as science. The fact that this guy thinks he knows how to evolve a bacterium via a speculative program that has no real basis is laughable. Just another lame attempt by the Darwhiners to hide their true colors: the colors of denial, and disbelief for no other theory. When will they stop?

  10. “We have not only shown that the flagellum can be evolved, it’s hard not to evolve the flagellum.” It’s hard not to laugh at these poor people.

    Saxe

  11. Wouldn’t it lead to quicker ID acceptance if ID proponents could stop their childish parodying of the biological sciences long enough to do some actual scientific research and publishing on ID itself?

    Last time I looked, the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research.

  12. Tiggy, you’ve become boring. Farewell. –WmAD

  13. 13

    Here is a partial list of structures that never “evolved,” but appeared full blown at their inception in their present configuation.

    1. The cell membrane both prokaryotic and eukaryotic.
    2. The nuclear membrane.
    3. The centromere.
    4. The centriole.
    5. The bacterial flagellum.
    6. The eukryotic flagellum.
    5. The cilium.
    7. The chromosome, both eukaryotic and prokaryotic.
    8. The ribosome.
    9. The endoplasmic reticulum.
    10. The microtubules.
    11. The mitochondrion of which there are several varieties.
    12. The chloroplast of which there are also several varieties.

    I am sure that in my haste I overlooked many others.

    It is hard to believe isn’t it?

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  14. Actually, parody and humour are sometimes the most effective forms of the “reductio ad absurdum”. There should be a website dedicated entirely to the mockery and parody of Darwinism that would really bring home how silly it is. Something really sharp that would be attractive to youth.

  15. Oops, just saw the “brights” site, good to see these forms of “reductio” popping up.

Leave a Reply