Flagellum evolution updated

February, 2008: Dan Jones reviews the evidence in New Scientist:

Variants of at least seven T3SS proteins are also found in the flagellum, within a subsystem called the protein export system. This sits within the basal body and funnels replacement flagellin subunits to the filament, using a mechanism remarkably similar to the T3SS. In fact, the two systems are so similar that the flagellar protein export system is now considered to be a subclass of the T3SS (Trends in Microbiology, vol 14, p 157).Such similarities, or “homologies”, are strong evidence that the two systems evolved from a common ancestor – analogous to the way that the arrangement of bones in the limbs of horses, bats and whales reveal their common ancestry despite their very different outward appearance and function. Similar homologies can be seen in the DNA sequences of genes, and in the amino acid sequences and 3D structures of proteins – all are clear evidence of shared descent.

The evolutionary events linking flagella and T3SSs are not clear, but the homology between them is a devastating blow to the claim of irreducible complexity. This requires that a partial flagellum should be of no use whatsoever – but clearly it is. “The T3SS is a useful model of how a ‘partial flagellum’ could function in protein export,” says Nicholas Matzke of the University of California, Berkeley, a prominent defender of evolution and author of a number of academic articles on the flagellum. Miller adds: “The notion that these proteins can only be used in flagella simply falls apart.”

One Response to “Flagellum evolution updated”

  1. themayan Says:

    “The evolutionary events linking flagella and T3SSs are not clear, but the homology between them is a devastating blow to the claim of irreducible complexity. This requires that a partial flagellum should be of no use whatsoever – but clearly it is. “The T3SS is a useful model of how a ‘partial flagellum’ could function in protein export,” says Nicholas Matzke of the University of California, Berkeley”

    Matzkey has never named or produced any evidence that there was a common ancestor in fact the common ancestor is never named, only implied. Behe was speaking of the BF not the T3SS and the only way Matzke’s argument holds water is if he can prove that the T3SS is ancestral. He nor Miller have been able to do this.

    You dont seem to understand that these are homologous proteins, not the same proteins. The T3SS Contains a needle like component. The BF a whip with a completely different function, one beneficial the other not so beneficial. Miller himself admits that if you knock out even on component of the BF it will not function. This is a fact that Mazke and Miller never discuss unless they’re pushed into admitting it.

    When you look at Matzke’s model, it is based on front loading requiring direction of an intelligent agent. The question is how does a Darwinian model accomplish this? In fact biologist are now using the help of design engineers in trying to help figure out these complex systems and I can give citations if required.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: