The Bacterial Flagellum
Way back in 1996 Behe published a book, Darwin's Black Box, claiming that so-called "Irreducibly Complex" (IC) systems disprove evolution. An IC system can be defined as one in which removing a part stops it working altogether. This supposedly means it cannot have evolved.
The argument has been soundly trashed, including in a court of law, but IDists still use it because... well what else do they have?
The modern argument involves two different definitions of IC, changing between them as convenient.
- Definition 1: A system is IC if it fails if a component is removed.
- Definition 2: A system is IC if there is no evolutionary route, direct or not, to it.
We see systems that fail if a component is removed, and they are IC, by definition 1. Then we quietly swap to definition 2. If the system is IC then it cannot have evolved.
The Bacterial Flagellum
One such system is the bacterial flagellum. This is a tail-like structure in some bacteria that spins to provide forward motion. This was cited by Behe in his book, and became the poster child for the D movement.
Since Behe published his book work was done to explore how it could have evolved via an indirect route. It was originally thought the type three secretion system (T3SS), a mechanism some bacteria use for injecting proteins into another cell, was a precursor, but it now looks as though the T3SS evolved from the flagellum. This dates from 2021.
It is interesting that it is evolutionary biologists who determined this, not creationists. I expect that is because evolutionary biologists do science, creationists do not.
So this is an area of on-going research, and I am aware of at least two groups working on it, one in the UK and one in Australia.
This page is about the Australian work, and only says how it is starting.
One interesting point is that the project is valued at 1.8 million Australian dollars, so about 1.2 million US dollars. Bearing in mind the Discovery Institute has a revenue of over 9 million dollars a year, this is well within their reach. So why are they not doing any research on this?
I suspect it is because they know it will fail.
The UK team have published some results, working back from the 17-part system, to a 12-part system.
Clearly this is on-going work. That is what science is like - new results come to light, and it heads off in a new direction. I have faith that science will have an answer one day, probably in the next ten years.
In contrast, the DI clearly have no faith in their position.
Proving A Negative
If IDists want to claim there are no evolutionary routes, direct or otherwise, to an IC system, the burden of proof is on them to support that claim. If they cannot then the default position is that we do not know if indirect routes are possible or not, and that position is sufficient to defeat the IC argument.
If we do not know if a system could have evolved, it is nonsense to conclude evolution could not have happened.
This feels like it is obvious, but IDists will still try to claim the argument stands.
Comments
Post a Comment