Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events, U. Gophna et al. / Gene 312 (2003) 151–163Abstract: Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems.
One is an argument for evolutionary theory.
No, one is an investigation into what the evidence best supports.
The other supports intelligent design, a science expert said Monday.
ERRRNNNTT!! Yet again, we have the childishly simply (and simplistically fallacious) implication of "if not evolution, then ID". Wrong again. Even if the flagellum was discovered to have arisen earlier than the TTTS, that *still* wouldn't be "support for ID".
For the first time since the trial began in a U.S. Middle District courtroom three weeks ago, a scientist testified that intelligent design is science, one based on a fully testable, falsifiable theory.
...and yet, no one has ever managed to actually present this mythical "theory of ID".
Attorneys for Dover Area School District started presenting their case with Michael Behe, the Lehigh University biochemistry professor who came up with the term "irreducible complexity."
...by stealing the idea from Darwin.
In the first nine days of testimony, science experts for the plaintiffs argued that intelligent design was just revamped creationism based on an old premise that life is so complex, it couldn't have evolved without a guiding hand.
Bingo!
But Behe, one of the intelligent design movement's most prominent voices, said they're wrong.
Of course he does, that's how he sells his books.
Just as a mouse trap's working parts reveal a designer, design can also be determined in nature by the "purposeful arrangement of parts," Behe said.
This is a gross misrepresentation of even Behe's own arguments. Fascinating.
"Not being able to explain something is not design," he said.
Bingo again.
Behe pointed to the writings of numerous scientists supporting the appearance of design in the universe.
I can point to the writings of numerous scientists supporting Cold Fusion, too.
As an example, he referred to Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, who wrote in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But Dawkins was writing about what he considers to be a fallacy in the intelligent design argument. While living creatures may appear designed, most scientists agree they are actually the products of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation.
...because that's what the evidence and research results indicate.
He uses the bacterial flagellum as an example, arguing that for the propeller-like appendage to move, between 30 and 40 protein parts are needed. Removal of any one of those parts causes the system to stop working — just as a mousetrap depends on all its pieces to operate.
Behe can assert that all he wants, but it just isn't true -- many simpler flagella continue to work just fine. Nor has Behe actually experimented with flagella to demonstrate the truth of his mere presumption.
Darwinism's theory of intermediate and incremental evolutionary steps can't explain this, Behe said.
Behe's argument in support of this conclusion is fatally flawed.
Miller had testified that if 10 of the protein parts were removed, the flagellum would take on a different function, one allowing bacteria to inject poisons into other cells.
Behe disputed Miller's assertion Monday, saying it mischaracterizes his idea.
Miller's identification of the flaws in Behe's argument is 100% accurate.
Essentially, Dover's attorney Richard Muise asked, Miller takes irreducible complexity, applies a different definition, "then claims your concept is incorrect?" Behe agreed and said that the protein group's different function — in this case a "type III secretion system" — does not discount irreducible complexity.
Behe is either lying, or stupid. The fact that Behe's narrow definition of "irreducible complexity" fails to take into account alternative functionality completely torpedos Behe's argument. It is the most serious (but hardly only) flaw in Behe's "proof".
Miller says the separate purpose is an explanation for how a complex system might have evolved through genetic mutation and natural selection.
Exactly.
To illustrate his side of the argument, Miller showed up the first day of the trial wearing a partially disassembled mousetrap as a tie clip. He took it off before taking the stand.
ROFL! Furthermore, even *as* a mousecatcher, a mousetrap (which Behe repeatedly keeps using as a familiar example of an "IC" object, is not actually irreducible, even by Behe's most narrow definition of the term. OOPS! If Behe can't even get something *that* simple right, how can we trust him with the hard stuff?
Behe also testified that some scientists question which came first — the bacterial flagellum or the type III secretion system. Behe pointed to references in which some scientists wrote that they believe the flagellum evolved first — which would still leave open the argument that the flagellum needed all its working parts in order before it could function.
Behe sort of "forgets" to mention that those references have been superseded by subsequent research. But even if it hadn't, that still wouldn't rescue Behe's "IC" or "ID" arguments.
"Darwinian theory can live with any results," Behe said. "Then it goes back and tries to rationalize the results post hoc."
Wow -- is Behe really *that* ignorant, or is he just a vicious liar? No, "Darwinian theory" examines results based on the evidence. This is not "rationalization". This is science. Further evidence or research *could* easily falsify evolutionary biology if indeed it happens to be incorrect. But Behe is out of line when he gets petulant and dishonest and insulting just because to date the evidence *has* been supportive of evolution, and that evolution *has* passed all falsification tests that have been done to date.
What's the point spread?
It does not matter whether the removal of any portion of a complex system in biology results in a non-functioning system. Irreducible complexity is nothing but a red herring, designed to fool the uneducated, unwary and illogical.
What is important is whether the system could be arrived at through cumulative changes in feature and in function. It is also up to those that say it is impossible to show why it is impossible. To say that it must be impossible because it looks impossible just does not cut it. Many things once thought impossible were later shown to be more than possible after sufficient knowledge and technology was acquired.
You often didact but I cannot recall every seeing you pedant.