Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,411
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − − ==The flagellum and the argument for Intelligent Design== − − The flagellum has frequently been presented as a counter-example to evolution. <ref>Dembski, W. 2002a, No Free Lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.</ref> <ref>Behe, M. 1996a. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press.</ref> Anti-evolutionists argue that it could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary pathway. − − ===The argument from irreducible complexity=== − − The flagellum is said to possess "irreducible complexity," meaning it could not have been produced by evolution. This argues for an outside intelligent designer operating beyond the laws of nature. Behe defines an irreducibly complex structure as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." <ref>Behe, M. 1996a. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press.</ref> − − Behe asserts that the flagellum is a structure "in which the removal of an element would cause the whole system to cease functioning" <ref>Behe, M., 2002. The challenge of irreducible complexity, Natural History 111 (April): 74.</ref> and that its individual parts must have been specifically designed to work as a unified assembly. − − The argument is that because a minimum number of protein components are needed for a working biological function, evolution could not have selected to produce those components a few at a time, since they do not have functions that natural selection would favor. The logic of irreducible complexity dictates that these individual components should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which point the function appears. Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working" <ref>Behe, M., 2002. The challenge of irreducible complexity, Natural History 111 (April): 74.</ref>. An irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore it must have been designed. − − − − ===The Combinatorial argument=== − − William Dembski <ref>Dembski, W. 2002a, No Free Lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. </ref> calculated the probability of assembling an object like the flagellum by working out the probabilities that each of its components might have originated, been localized to the same region of the cell, and assembled in the right order by chance. − − Dembski states that, given enough time, any event with a probability larger than 10<sub>-150</sub> might well take place. He puts the odds of evolving the 30 proteins of the bacterial flagellum at 20<sub>-30</sub> ("around 10<sub>-39</sub>") and explains that since the flagellum requires 30 such proteins, they "will all need to be multiplied to form the origination probability", which would give an origination probability for the flagellum of 10 <sub>-1170</sub>. This is well below the universal probability bound, demonstrating, in his view, that the flagellum could not have evolved. − −
no edit summary
Archaeal flagella appear similar to bacterial flagella, but are different in many details and considered by biologists to be an example of [[convergent evolution]].
Archaeal flagella appear similar to bacterial flagella, but are different in many details and considered by biologists to be an example of [[convergent evolution]].
==References==
==References==