The Bacterial Flagellum, as an example of Irreducible Complexity, proves evolution unlikely.

I want to begin my rebuttal by discussing my opponent's opening statement: "Evolution is not a process of stepwise, incremental nature. The resolution about "irreducible complexity" is hence flawed to begin with." -Well, I certainly agree with you that the different forms of life did NOT come about by an incremental process, but I"m not the expert on current neoDarwinian evolutionary theories. I do know, however, that that was once a necessary part of Darwin"s theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." R13; Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species -What support does my opponent have to claim that this basic tenant is now gone from neo Darwinian evolutionary theory? ******************************************************************** I agree with my opponent's definition of evolution. I refer to it as neo- Darwinian evolution, but we"re talking about the same thing. No need to quibble about definitions. Cheers :) ********************************************************************** My opponent went on to describe the origin of the flagellum: "So how did the bacterial flagellum come into existence? [after citing and quoting an article] ""This means that the FLAGELLAR FILAMENTS formed in sea water, possibly long before bacteria even existed. It's the natural state of these long-chained proteins in salt water"" I thought my opponent had taken it for granted that I was talking about the ENTIRE FLAGELLUM ASSEMBLY rather than just the FLAGELLAR FILAMENTS. But I like to see him taking enough rope to hang himself :) The above finding seems to show why these proteins would have been used by an intelligent designer - because they self-assemble easily, making it the perfect material to use on a "whip" of an electric motor, where it would need to be healed or replaced often. *********************************************************** "As for the "irreducible complexity": "Integration of phylogenetic information with our interaction and phenotyping data reveals a conserved core of motility proteins, which appear to have recruited many additional species-specific components over time." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; "This means that all flagella in existence each contain ADDITONAL, hence OPTIONAL, proteins and would work - and did work - well without them. So, elements could be taken away, or replaced by others, and mobility would still be there, making the point moot to begin with." Wow, that"s a real leap of faith to go from the research described in that article and ANY solid conclusion. I perused the article, cross-eyed most of the time, didn"t really understand their experiments, so had to go to the conclusion and discussion sections" I understood this sentence" "A major goal of this study was to find novel flagellar components among the many proteins of still unknown function." " i"m not sure what they mean by "among the many proteins"" but it"s saying that they"re trying to discover the FUNCTION of proteins (in the flagellar mechanism, or in the cell? I"m not sure what it"s referring to) whose functions haven"t yet been determined. In the article cited above, there is the section: "The Evolution of the Flagellum". It starts with the sentence: "Given the amazing complexity of the bacterial motility system, we wondered whether our interaction data and phenotypes can contribute to the understanding of its evolution." Notice, the assumption is made at the oustet that the flagellum evolved. What follows in the article is no compelling reason to make such an assumption. But it is quite interesting, so I"ll discuss the 3 points under the heading: 1. [something to do with a phylogenetic super tree that they made] shows that the flagellar system EVOLVED TOGETHER WITH OTHER CELLULAR SYSTEMS AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY." I have no problem with that statement, but my opponent said the flagellar filament evolved before the first bacterium existed, so HE might have an issue to deal with. Let"s just leave that for later and go on to the next point: 2."Evolution of the flagellum is also consistent with the fact that neither any flagellar proteins nor any of their interactions is conserved"This indicates that protein interactions may be evolutionarily less conserved than generally believed." -Intelligent Design is also consistent with this fact. For that matter, it shows that there are LESS chances for protein evolution than previously thought. 3."An evolutionary model also predicts that core proteins, which have been associated with the flagellum, should be tightly integrated"" -An Intelligent Design model also predicts that core proteins" should be tightly integrated. -All that was said about evolution of the bacterial flagellum is window dressing that can be applied to support evolution and intelligent design equally. Finally, about my opponent"s so-called account of how the evolution of the flagellum ACTUALLY HAPPENED: -His own cited paper contradicted his claim that the flagellum developed before the bacterium cell. -The rest is just more Darwinian story-telling. No details of HOW, just the blithe statement: "SOME mutated bacteria merged with this bit of organic crystal...etc" -HOW do you propose "some" mutated bacteria merged with the flagellum? -What was the evolutionary PATHWAY? I know you EXPECT that story to be true, based on Evolutionary theory, but you haven"t cited any research that DEMONSTRATES this narrative to be true. Without it, you"re just begging the question.