From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 11:42:34 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: One more thing"

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:07:19 -0500
      "Steve Petermann" <> wrote:

    >I suppose
    >that would
    >be fair if there were already some examples of detailed descriptions
    >of the
    >Darwinian evolution of something like the flagellum. But there
    >aren't. Why
    >is that?

    I'm sorry, but have you critically evaluated this claim?
    A lot of the hoopla over "the flagellum" has to do with
    a selective definition of the problem. This is a real
    hot button issue for me. Michael Behe just came in front
    of the Texas board of education to say that evolution is
    in trouble because it can't explain why bacteria (which
    ones?) have outboard motors. What's "Darwinian evolution"
    supposed to be? Note that ID dismisses exaptation out of
    hand in any case of supposed IC to be improbable. Behe's
    book doesn't even say the word. He calls it "indirect
    evolution". Note that lots of bacteria have lots of
    appendages, some for swimming, and some for other things,
    and some don't have them at all, see eg,

    Yet "the flagella" is supposed to be some kind of deathly
    problem for "darwinian evolution" whatever that is supposed
    to be, and the existence of "outboard motors" on some (one?)
    bacteria proves it. What I would like to know is, what are
    these folks who are researching flagella and secretory systems
    in bacteria supposed to DO about IC? Ooops. This is IC.
    Waste of time, let's quit trying to figure out how this
    works & how this evolved?

    And how is that a challenge to evolutionary biology?

    This reminds me of Behe's literature searches that others
    can't replicate, that supposedly show silence in the literature
    about molecular evolution, see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 11:42:47 EDT