The Flagellum, Design Considerations
by Steve PetermannThe other day I was watching the wonderful movie about the bacterial flagellum put out by the Nanotechnology Researchers Network Center of Japan and as a machine designer I began to ponder what would be involved in designing such a wondrous machine. I've designed many machines over my career, and as I watched how this machine worked and is assembled, I was struck by the tremendous number of analyses and decisions that would have to be made to design it. Of course, in the back of my mind I'm asking is it possible that all the choices necessary for this device to work could have come about by chance or is a design inference unavoidable?
Read the rest of this entry >>
November 19th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Nice essay, Steve. It provides plenty of material to chew on.
Comment by MikeGene — November 19, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
November 21st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Excellent work, Steve Peterman.
Interesting how a design approach leads in new and fruitful directions, isn't it? I noticed how a traditional mechanical design approach runs into problems involving combinatorial design (e.g., issues of tolerances and fittings).
Like solving a jigsaw puzzle, combinatorial design selects from a given parts list, each part having given fits and tolerances, and its not an option (it is a constraint) to "shave the edges" (machine) the parts to fit.
So selection replaces machining.
It reminds me of the poetic statement that upon close comparison, close inspection, each blade of grass, reveals an exquisite intricacy and precision of design that one does not see in human design.
(Who said that, BTW? I would have quoted, but I can't remember.)
Comment by Rock — November 21, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Good piece, Steve. I can't help but note the contrast of your article, which outlines the significant challenges and details involved in designing a flagellum and Nick Matzke's article: Evolution in (Brownian) space:
a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum Somehow, Matzke seems to bypass all the detailed design considerations that must be explained if the Darwinian account is to hold. Dembski's response, Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:
A Response to Nicholas Matzke also give some idea of the significant hurdles involved.
Good work!
Comment by DonaldM — November 22, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Just a sidenote, but I seem to recall a comment from Ken Miller (I wish I had the exact quote — perhaps someone will recall it) a while back to the effect that before we (meaning Behe, et.al.) eliminate the possibility of a Darwinian pathway for the evolution of the flagellum, at least give us (the Darwinists) time to figure out how it works. I suppose that Miller meant that the more we understood about how the flagellum works, the easier it would be to construct the Darwinian pathway that created it. Given this new work, I wonder what Miller think now — easier or more difficult to construct that pathway? I think door #2 seems more likely!
Comment by DonaldM — November 22, 2005 @ 12:08 pm