That might be due to the fact that F1-ATPase might not be a flagellar motor.
In the past, I have asked ID critics just what would the flagellum look like if it was not designed. After all, if you pay attention as I do, they commonly argue that this and that does not look like it was designed. Nevertheless, the critics have not answered this question. Yet if the transport/secretion system is a logical ingredient that solves a design problem entailed in making the flagellum, and the flagellum was indeed designed, those looking for non-teleological explanations would misinterpret the significance of such a subsystem and mistakenly impose an historical interpretation on an engineering solution.
But it seems that there is always someone who might say something like this:
· Duplicate a proton F1ATPase gene. This should be evolutionarily almost neutral.
· Mutate a gene for another fibrillar structure so it sticks to the rotor part of the F1ATPase.
Here's the recipe for making a just-so story. First, survey the biological world for structures/functions. Find those that seem useful for coming up with a precursor to the system in question and patch them together without much regard for biochemical and/or genetic details. Place the patchwork in an imaginary creature from the distant past that has conveniently gone extinct. Invoke a vague selective pressure that selects for the patchwork and then imagine it is plastic and amenable to further selective modification that just happens to arrive at the system in question.
It reminds me of that old Steve Martin bit How to be a Millionaire:
· First get a million dollars
or how to build a car from scratch:
· First get an engine
· Attach it to a drive shaft
But there is always time Yes, time solves all. Or maybe not:
Now, if someone wants to start this story with "any ol' transporter," I'm afraid that's not good enough. Remember, that we need to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum (not some "flagellum"). That means we need to account for the flagellum's type III export machinery, which includes flhA, flhB, fliR, fliQ, fliP, fliI, and more. All of the other bacterial transport/secretion systems cited to support the EFM hypothesis merely illustrate that the majority of transport/secretion systems are dead-ends from a flagellar perspective, as none of them have spawned a eubacterial flagellum, despite them all being equally good starting material at this point in the EFM hypothesis.
Yet by proposing that the flagellum once existed as a type III system and later acquired the ability to rotate is not hardly any different that proposing type III systems could reacquire the ability to rotate and violate Dollo's Law.
I think I need to quote Nebullus on this one:
The only proper response is to reject something like that.
I don't need to defend logical thinking.
The irony, obviously, in claiming, Look, this disproves ID! is that by disproving ID, it becomes a theory