Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
The bacterial flagellar motor is an amazing nanomachine: built from approximately 25 different proteins, it uses an electrochemical ion gradient to drive rotation at speeds of up to 300 Hz. The flagellar motor consists of a fixed, membrane-embedded, torque-generating stator and a typically bidirectional, spinning rotor that changes direction in response to chemotactic signals. Most structural analyses so far have targeted the purified rotor, and hence little is known about the stator and its interactions. Here we show, using electron cryotomography of whole cells, the in situ structure of the complete flagellar motor from the spirochaete Treponema primitia at 7 nm resolution. Twenty individual motor particles were computationally extracted from the reconstructions, aligned and then averaged. The stator assembly, revealed for the first time, possessed 16-fold symmetry and was connected directly to the rotor, C ring and a novel P-ring-like structure. The unusually large size of the motor suggested mechanisms for increasing torque and supported models wherein critical interactions occur atop the C ring, where our data suggest that both the carboxy-terminal and middle domains of FliG are found.
I presume this is the type of structure often appealed to by ID proponents in terms of irreducible complexity.
Does this just better demonstrate the components involved or is there something to be derived from the additional information in terms of assessing the probability of such a nanomachine evolving?
Could you put the cookies on a lower shelf for those of us (myself included) who need a little more concrete explanation?
Thanks!
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Canuckster1127 wrote:Does this just better demonstrate the components involved or is there something to be derived from the additional information in terms of assessing the probability of such a nanomachine evolving?
I would say the former, but Bgood can answer better than I. The letter just seems to be about a better image since the parts weren't isolated as in earlier studies. I think this is a different type of flagella than the ones the ID'ists use. This flagella does not extend outside of the bacterium for propulsion but instead sits in the periplasm, which according to Wikipedia seems to be some outer layer. I am not sure what the flagella does. [Of course, even if there were more data re evolution, it would not change anyone's mind. ]
Canuckster1127 wrote:Does this just better demonstrate the components involved or is there something to be derived from the additional information in terms of assessing the probability of such a nanomachine evolving?
I would say the former, but Bgood can answer better than I. The letter just seems to be about a better image since the parts weren't isolated as in earlier studies. I think this is a different type of flagella than the ones the ID'ists use. This flagella does not extend outside of the bacterium for propulsion but instead sits in the periplasm, which according to Wikipedia seems to be some outer layer. I am not sure what the flagella does. [Of course, even if there were more data re evolution, it would not change anyone's mind. ]
This type of flagellum is involved in propulsion, by rotating the entire cell. The rotation is slower and the mechanisms is larger than flagellas from previous scans.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
]