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

My dear opponent has somehow lost track of what he wants to prove. "I do know, however, that that was once a necessary part of Darwin"s theory:"Irrelevant. Abandoned theories prove nothing and disprove nothing. My opponent demonstrates his misinformation about the subject. If we were to discuss anything on this level, we would have to discuss whether Earth is a disk, too. Obviously, any objection against Darwin's initial flaws in Evolution theory are not applicable to modern research, so I will not go into detail on this part any further, as it only distracts from the matter at hand: Has evolution been made UNLIKELY by the findings about the bacterial flagellum? "I agree with my opponent's definition of evolution. " So: conceded. "I thought my opponent had taken it for granted that I was talking about the ENTIRE FLAGELLUM ASSEMBLY rather than just the FLAGELLAR FILAMENTS. "Oh, and I do. The filaments FORMED, they took the shape of the entire flagellum. I will turn to less complicated elaborations on the matter, so as not to overtax my opponent with scientific jargon again:"The flagellar filament is the long helical screw that propels the bacterium . .. the filament is made up of eleven protofilaments approximately parallel to the filament axis. Each protofilament is a series of tandem protein chains. . .. Assembly. During flagellar assembly, components of the flagellum pass through the hollow cores of the basal body and the nascent filament. During assembly, protein components are added at the flagellar tip rather than at the base. " (from: . http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Allow me to explain: the flagellar filament IS the key part of the entire flagellum, it's a protein chain that forms into that exact shape CHEMICALLY as it crystallizes in salt water - as its natural chemical state. The filament takes the final shape of the flagellum regardless of cells. Further parts of the flagellum are added to that molecule, again without any LIFE (metabolism and/or cell division) involved. That's CHEMISTRY, not BIOLOGY. Nothing evolved here. Because nothing "mutated". "mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements. " (from: . http://en.wikipedia.org... ). The filaments and other (additional) proteins constituting the flagellum do not have a DNA, they do not have a genome of any other kind, either. They are just lifeless molecules, crystals. So the construction of the flagellum does not contain any indication of evolution. My opponent agreed that evolution involves mutation and selection. The entire flagellum is formed from components that cannot mutate, as it constitutes out of crystalline proteins combining themselves to the filament, as quoted above. So research makes it no less likely that a fully functional flagellum completely formed before any metabolical processes and hence evolution were involved. This means that the complexity of the flagellum does not contribute to any answer about EVOLUTION at all. It can easily have formed before, by purely chemical processes. Later on, when life emerged, the flagella became subject of evolution and were slightly changed for different species, adding additional proteins along the way. "Ideas About The Earliest MembranesSeveral hypotheses of the origin of cellular membranes exist: Evolution subsequently took place in vesicles, which were formed by the accumulation of abiogenically formed amphiphilic molecules. The vesicles then transformed into envelopes, likely reminiscent of viral envelopes. Proto-cells evolved from the folding of vesicles, upon which the first life forms existed. " from: . http://en.wikibooks.org...As you can see, the forming of membranes PREDATES "life" and hence EVOLUTION. ABIOGENICALLY formed molecules like the flagellum were chemically bound to proto-membranes, just like a dust particle might stick to the surface of a drop of oil, forming proto-cells. Evolution started with the first cellular reproduction, so when the first DNA strand duplicated itself inside a cell, which must have been later as it requires a formed cell. All this is scientific fact to our best current knowledge. Any conclusion the quoted researchers DRAW from their facts is of no consequence here. We're not discussing their conclusions, we're discussing their FINDINGS, and in the course of a debate arrive at our own conclusions. If I wanted to simply quote conclusions, I would just quote from . http://en.wikipedia.org... and be done with it. "Wow, that"s a real leap of faith to go from the research described in that article and ANY solid conclusion. "I counter with a source more apt to the level of scientific knowledge my opponent will be able to understand:"Evolution. The evolution of bacterial flagella has been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. They argue that complex structures like flagella cannot evolve from simple structures. In other words, flagella are "irreducibly complex" and need all of their protein components to function. However, it has been shown by numerous studies that a large number of proteins can be deleted without (complete) loss of function. "from: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I was under the impression that someone asking for scientific proof would have the basic knowledge to UNDERSTAND the answer. My opponent admits that he does not understand the sources I present, and chooses to IGNORE them and skip the relevant part of the article, thus changing the topic at hand. As stated above, I'm discussing experimental findings. By his decision to omit this, my point is basically conceded. Now for his quotes from my sources:"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. "So? The answer is "no" as the flagellum is a protein complex and the term "evolution" is not applicable as we already agreed: Evolution = mutation + selection; Mutation = change in DNA; flagellum does not contain DNA; ergo flagellum does not evolve. It can thus not be used as an argument against evolution. "shows that the flagellar system EVOLVED TOGETHER WITH OTHER CELLULAR SYSTEMS AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY. " My opponent clearly states: "I have no problem with that statement"This is the final concession of my point, as my opponent completely abandons his resolution: "The Bacterial Flagellum, as an example of Irreducible Complexity, proves evolution unlikely. "So he has no problem with evolution ("EVOLVED TOGETHER WITH OTHER CELLULAR SYSTEMS"), but finds evolution unlikely at the same time? This is a clear contradiction, and my opponent has just disproved himself. Further: "Intelligent Design is also consistent with this fact. ""ALSO" means that evolution POSSIBLY accounts for the findings, TOO, making evolution NOT "unlikely" as demanded by the resolution. My opponent has thus admitted that evolution is a possible and thus admissible explanation! This is a clear contradiction, again. "All that was said about evolution of the bacterial flagellum is window dressing that can be applied to support evolution and intelligent design equally. "Exactly. Hence both are EQUALLY LIKELY. I consider this point conceded. "but you haven"t cited any research that DEMONSTRATES this narrative to be true. "And I didn't have to. The resolution clearly demands only that I show evolution to NOT BE UNLIKELY to make my point. And that I did. I have shown that the flagellum can have formed chemically, not disproving evolution. My opponent accepted that the flagellum evolved. Then so be it.