(1) the cilium, (2) the bacterial flagellum with filament, hook and motor embedded in the membranes and cell wall and (3) the biochemistry of blood clotting in humans....Each of which which has been debunked. I guess honesty only goes so far in ID-land.
Well, if it has been debunked then you can't say it's unfalsifiable, can you?
Please point to any scientific article which delineates the actual, not hypthetical, merely conceivable, or logically possible, but ontologically possible, confirmed by experimental evidence, origin of the bacterial flagellum by purely Darwinian means, i.e., by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
Cordially,
Doing so wouldn't falsify ID. It would just falsify a particular claim made be some ID proponents, which is that the BF could not have evolved.
Why do you set the bar so high for this particular disproof? Why is a hypothetical path not sufficient to disprove the notion, since the essential contention of Behe is that no hypothetical path exists.
You have unwittingly described why ID is not falsifiable. It starts with the premise that there is no possible path to the flagellum by small steps. When a possible path is presented, suddenly the criterion is: no speculation; show us the actual path.
When the flagellum was first proposed as irreducible, it was found to be have subcomponents that actually exist in living bacteria. When this was pointed out, ID advocates came up with other excuses. The gaps are getting smaller, along with the god people insist on finding in them.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."- and -
(Behe - Darwin's Black Box)
In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal... In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process.The claim is bacterial flagellum was "irreducibly complex" and an evoluntionary sequence was impossible.
(Behe - Biology and Philosophy. Nov 2001
Please point to any scientific article which delineates the actual, not hypthetical, merely conceivable, or logically possible, but ontologically possible, confirmed by experimental evidence, origin of the bacterial flagellum by purely Darwinian means, i.e., by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
I hear the scraping noise of goalposts moving ...
Raphidiophrys pallida - axopodia that aren't used for motility.
A choanocyte from a freshwater sponge - Choanoflagellates critters with flagella that don't swim.
Synechococcus - A nonflagellated swimming cyanobacterium.
Halobacterium salinarum - flagella unlike the E. coli "motor".
Analysis of the motA flagellar motor gene from Rhodobacter sphaeroides - I guess the designer forgot the reverse gear in this model.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified - Swimming Systems
Yersinia enterocolitica - Type III Secretion Depends on the Proton Motive Force but Not on the Flagellar Motor Components MotA and MotB
Evolution in (Brownian) space - a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
Secretion by bacterial flagella - Linking the Type III secretion system (TTSS) to flagellum.
