Gearing Up

[Glenn]

Check out fig 6:

"Architecture of a flagellar apparatus in the fast-swimming magnetotactic bacterium MO-1"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1215274109

[RonO]

Is there some reason why the intelligent designer would do such a thing
for that specific bacteria and stick the others with some other designs?

Is there any reason why the designer would do such a thing?

You know that there isn't any evidence that the designer did it, so why
would it be evidence for the designer doing it?

What about Luskin's series on the great positive arguments for the ID
scam? Why is this type of junk just as bad as what you are already
running from? You know that it isn't any better than what you are
running from, so you should be able to determine why it is as bad or
worse than what you are running from.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:16:11 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 2:06 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > Check out fig 6:
> >
> > "Architecture of a flagellar apparatus in the fast-swimming magnetotactic bacterium MO-1"
> >
> > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1215274109
> >
> Is there some reason why the intelligent designer would do such a thing
> for that specific bacteria and stick the others with some other designs?
>
> Is there any reason why the designer would do such a thing?

The such a thing the designer did is not what's shown on Figure 6, which is a schematic drawn by a human being who has looked at a lot of gears and filled in the analogy by drawing the flagellar apparatus as though it were a bunch of human-built gears.

[RonO]

The EM shows that the small "gears" are actually the base of fibers that
form a type of honeycomb like tube around each of the 7 flagellar tails.
This honey comb like structure keeps the flagellar tails from tangling
up and is enclosed in a glycoprotein sheath that has a helical support
structure. It sort of looks like a bunch of cables wrapped by another
cable, but the honeycomb like wrap around the flagellar tails allows
them to rotate without interferring with eachother.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

Sure, I understand that. What I find interesting is the way that ID folks latch on to schematics in articles like this, when the schematics are explicitly drawn to highlight an analogy that the human artist sees. The structures in the schematic are not really there. What's really there is what's shown in the EM, sort of, once you take the EM sample preparation into account. But just because an illustrator draws a diagram that looks like a set of gears or an outboard motor, does not mean that the actual structure has all that much in common with gears or outboard motors.

[Glenn]

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/get-a-load-of-this-souped-up-hyperdrive-magnetotactic-bacterium/

"Here is a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli."

"a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears"

"They can’t see actual gears, of course, but physics demands that the mechanism of rotation must have something like it"

"suggesting that the bundle acts like a gear-driven hyperdrive"

Ever heard of a friction gear, oh ye of much understanding?

Oh, and:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/this-insect-has-the-only-mechanical-gears-ever-found-in-nature-6480908/

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

So unguided natural processes evolved gears. They have also evolved
levers, cogs, pumps and electric motors. You got a problem with that?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

Why is it that you only want to wallow in the denial that the ID perps
feed you? Why have you run from the Top Six since 2017. Why not put up
any of Luskin's recent news on what ID is and how it should be defended?
Why not try to make a positive case for the creationist ID scam?
Isn't it sad that there never was anything positive that was ever
accomplished in the over quarter century of the creationist ID perp
organization, and instead of putting up anything useful that may have
been done in all that time, you keep wallowing in the lies that they
continue to tell you about biology.

Demonstrate that you want to understand the design of this type of
flagellum. Isn't it sad that all you use it for is the denial? What
would your designer have had to do in order to create this design? Why
do you think that he gave this design to some lowly bacteria a very long
time ago, but not to humans. Your sperm would likely have been more
competitive if they were faster, but we got a design that twitched side
to sided instead of making a propeller.

The magnetotatic bacteria evolved from an ancient lineage of proteobacteria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811606/

Other proteobacteria flagellum but not like this one. Fig. 3 is an
unrooted tree, so you just see MO-1 among the alphaproteobacteria as
part of the most ancient sub lineage. Another alphaproteobacteria was
coopted to become our mitochondria, but we didn't inherit the flagellum,
but if it did have a flagellum it likely wasn't like MO-1.

Can you tell us what you think all that we know tells you about your
designer if an IDiotic type designer did diddle fart around with the
MO-1 flagellum?

Why would you rather put up this junk than proudly put up the Top Six.
The ID perps claim that the Top Six are the best that they have, but you
never thought so.

Top Six, put up on the same creationist news site that Glenn got this
junk from:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Ron Okimoto