From Newsgroup: talk.origins

From the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and overturn
the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically minimal.
Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor possessed
a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella appear to
have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those
in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific remodeling of
an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the evolutionary steps
that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

From the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and overturn
the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically minimal.
Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor possessed
a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella appear to
have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those
in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific remodeling of
an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the evolutionary steps
that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

From the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and overturn
the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically minimal.
Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor possessed
a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella appear to
have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those
in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific remodeling of
an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the evolutionary steps
that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

First off if you read the paper they only analyzed Bacteria. No Archaea
were included in the study, so they can't say anything about the last
common ancestor of eubacteria and Archaea. It is presumed that Archaea evolved their flagellum independently because they do share some basic components (The F0 ATPase (the motor) existed in the last common
ancestor of both bacteria and Archaea). Versions of the F0 ATPase
likely existed in both the chemotrophic pathway and possibly an early
version of anaerobic photosynthesis. The parts are assembled a little differently, though the progenitors of the flagellar parts likely
existed in the last common ancestor. One major difference is how the
tail is attached to the motor assembly. Bacteria grow the tail from the
tip out (extend the tail by adding units to the tip. Archaea adds tail proteins to the base and pushes the tail out.

This paper doesn't do what you think that it does. It only indicates
that the common ancestor of bacteria may have had all the components to
make a flagellum, some lineages may not have evolved a flagellum or lost
it. The Archaea flagellum has not been found to have very much sequence similarity to the Bacterial genes. This just means that they likely
would not be able to identify the same genes in Archaea.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1

This is what you are dealing with. The last common ancestor of bacteria
may have existed a billion years after the last common ancestor of both bacteria and Archaea existed. This paper indicates that we only have
lineages of bacteria going back to 3.2 billion years ago, while the last common ancestor of both bacteria and Archaea may have existed as far
back as 4.2 billion years ago.

This just means that the last common ancestor of bacteria may have
evolved the flagellum by 3.2 billion years ago if the existence of the progenitors of the flagellar genes means what these guys think it means.

When Behe made his claims it was believed that the flagellum evolved
over a billion years ago, but it seems that by 2007 it was being kicked
around that the flagellum arose early in bacterial evolution (possibly,
over 3 billion years ago). This paper is just confirming that the
flagellum may have existed very early in bacterial evolution. According
to the phylogenetic paper that I linked to, surviving lineages of
Bacteria only go back to 3.2 billion years ago. That is as far back as
this study can go.

Why would when the bacterial flagellum evolved help Behe? It destroys
your anti-evolution stupidity. It means that the flagellum has been
evolving in the different lineages for over 3 billion years. It evolved
a couple billion years before multicellular animals evolved. It means
that the Bible is wrong about the creation as stated in the first
chapter of Genesis, and that life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years.

Ron Okimoto


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/6/2026 4:36 PM, sticks wrote:

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

-aFrom the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a
complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and
overturn the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically
minimal. Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor
possessed a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components
than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella
appear to have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed
a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to
those in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven
primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific
remodeling of an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the
evolutionary steps that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

If you understand the paper it means that Biblical creationism is dead.
The flagellum may have evolved among Bacteria more than 3 billion years
ago. The flagellum has continued to evolve and many lineages do not
retain all the 52 original parts with some lineages missing quite a few
of the genes. They have not determined if the flagellum in those
lineages is also missing the parts or if they have been replaced by
something else. They just know that some lineages have lost some of the
52 original genes. This paper should tell you that microbes were
evolving billions of years before multicellular life existed. The
Cambrian explosion ID gap denial argument depends on the accurate dating
of the event because Meyer claims that 25 million years is too short of
a period of time to have evolved all the phyla that evolved during that
period over half a billion years ago (not all existing phyla evolved
during that 25 million year period of time). This is hundreds of
millions of years before the first land plants evolved (Angiosperms
(flowering plants) did not evolve until around 180 million years ago,
and ancestral grasses that evolved into the grain plants described in
the Bible as being created on the 3rd day did not evolve until around 80 million years ago). Dinos existed over 200 million years ago even
though land animals were not supposed to have been created until the
sixth day. Have you come to grips with why most of the IDiots quit the
ID scam because they could not deal with the Top Six best evidences for
ID? Why not ask MarkE why he could never deal honestly with the Top
Six, and why he has to lie to himself about the origin of life gap?

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

From the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and overturn
the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically minimal.
Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor possessed
a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella appear to
have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those
in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific remodeling of
an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the evolutionary steps
that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

As noted this is no vindication for the junk in Darwin's Black Box. If
the book was not a total failure the ID bait and switch scam would have
never been needed. No ID science has ever existed that could be taught
as science in the public schools. The sad thing is that Behe claimed in Kitzmiller that the book had been through peer review by five reviewers.
It had been reviewed, but three of the reviewers gave it negative
reviews and a fourth claimed that he was never sent a copy of the
manuscript and only responded to a description of what was in the book
in a phone conversation. Wiki doesn't have a response from the fifth reviewer, but notes that due to the reviews the initial publisher
refused to publish the book and Behe had to find another publisher that
would publish the book in spite of the reviews that the book had gotten.
This means that the book did not pass peer review, and was eventually published with the knowledge that the contents were suspect.

Nothing has ever vindicated Behe's claims. The only excuse Behe has for continuing to claim that his type of IC systems might still exist is due
to gap denial. He has no positive evidence for their existence, and is dependent on the fact that those systems do not have his required step
by step evolution figured out. His argument has devolved to the same
argument that the Scientific Creationists would use when they put up the bacterial flagellum as something that looked like it had been designed
by an engineer in the 1980's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 7/08/2026 7:36 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

-aFrom the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a
complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and
overturn the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically
minimal. Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common ancestor
possessed a highly complex flagellar system comprising more components
than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose flagella
appear to have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed
a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to
those in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven
primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific
remodeling of an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the
evolutionary steps that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

I would qualify that this paper does not "vindicate" Behe in a final or complete sense, but rather it lends supports to Darwin's Black Box,
insofar as it shows the evolutionary origin of the integrated flagellar machine remains a substantial unresolved problem. It would be
overstating though to conclude on this basis alone that unguided
evolution could not produce the flagellum.

All the same, I believe that this is an example of many discoveries to
come that will chip away at prevailing materialistic models and,
ironically, widen the gaps in the explanatory capacity of that framework.

OOL seems to be a leading area for this shift, hence my own focus. OOL
models must demonstrate a chemically plausible pathway by which
sufficiently persistent, functional and heritable molecular systems can progressively accumulate complexity without presupposing the
sophisticated replication, repair, metabolic and translation machinery characteristic of life. There's a chicken-and-egg paradox here that I
think will only deepen.

Systems such as SpudCell illustrate how difficult it is to establish and maintain organised cell-like states even under intelligently controlled laboratory conditions. Prebiotic models must explain not merely the
production of biomolecular building blocks, but a plausible cumulative
pathway through which functional polymers, compartments, metabolism and sufficiently accurate heredity could become mutually reinforcing before sophisticated biological machinery existed. Moreover, appeals to
enormous numbers of chemical trials - brute force - are insufficient
unless a mechanism is specified that preserves useful innovations and progressively searches the relevant functional landscape.

Maybe AI will at some point independently deduce this from the data.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/7/2026 10:33 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 7/08/2026 7:36 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

-aFrom the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a
complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and
overturn the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically
minimal. Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common
ancestor possessed a highly complex flagellar system comprising more
components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose
flagella appear to have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed
a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to
those in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven
primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific
remodeling of an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the
evolutionary steps that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved." >>>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

I would qualify that this paper does not "vindicate" Behe in a final or complete sense, but rather it lends supports to Darwin's Black Box,
insofar as it shows the evolutionary origin of the integrated flagellar machine remains a substantial unresolved problem. It would be
overstating though to conclude on this basis alone that unguided
evolution could not produce the flagellum.

It dooms the flagellum as ever being determined to be Behe's type of IC.
There is no doubt that IC systems exist in nature in terms of if you
take a way a part the whole system stops working, but Behe had to accept
that such systems can evolve by natural mechanisms. You just have to
think about the lever and fulcrum. A tree branch falling between two
rocks creates such a natural system, and there is no reason that the
same thing could not happen among macromolecules. Behe had to start
claiming that his type of IC systems could not evolve by natural
mechanisms, but he was never able to demonstrate that any such systems existed.

Behe's last hope was that if he could demonstrate that 3 neutral
mutations could be determined to have had to occur in order to form a
new function in his IC system, but since the flagellum now seems to have evolved before the last common ancestor of Bacteria existed there is no
way for Behe to determine if his 3 neutral mutations had to ever occur.
He requires branching lineages at the time that the flagellum was
evolving in order to determine the ancestral sequence so that he could determine how that sequence has evolved. Since no branching lineages
exist (they all went extinct since the evolution of the flagellum) Behe
will never be able to determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever had to
occur. He has already given up on using his scam "well matched" parts
and the number of interacting parts because he was never able to define
well matched so that he could determine if his systems had enough of it
when they were evolving to be his type of IC, and he was never able to determine how many parts were too many. Once Behe admitted that IC
systems could evolve by natural mechanisms IC just became ID scam bait.
Bait is all IC has ever been for decades.

Ron Okimoto

All the same, I believe that this is an example of many discoveries to
come that will chip away at prevailing materialistic models and,
ironically, widen the gaps in the explanatory capacity of that framework.

OOL seems to be a leading area for this shift, hence my own focus. OOL models must demonstrate a chemically plausible pathway by which
sufficiently persistent, functional and heritable molecular systems can progressively accumulate complexity without presupposing the
sophisticated replication, repair, metabolic and translation machinery characteristic of life. There's a chicken-and-egg paradox here that I
think will only deepen.

Systems such as SpudCell illustrate how difficult it is to establish and maintain organised cell-like states even under intelligently controlled laboratory conditions. Prebiotic models must explain not merely the production of biomolecular building blocks, but a plausible cumulative pathway through which functional polymers, compartments, metabolism and sufficiently accurate heredity could become mutually reinforcing before sophisticated biological machinery existed. Moreover, appeals to
enormous numbers of chemical trials - brute force - are insufficient
unless a mechanism is specified that preserves useful innovations and progressively searches the relevant functional landscape.

Maybe AI will at some point independently deduce this from the data.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/7/2026 10:33 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 7/08/2026 7:36 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

-aFrom the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a
complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and
overturn the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically
minimal. Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common
ancestor possessed a highly complex flagellar system comprising more
components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of whose
flagella appear to have been shaped by lineage-specific gene loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely possessed
a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to
those in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was driven
primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-specific
remodeling of an already complex ancestral machine, whereas the
evolutionary steps that gave rise to this system remain to be resolved." >>>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

I would qualify that this paper does not "vindicate" Behe in a final or complete sense, but rather it lends supports to Darwin's Black Box,
insofar as it shows the evolutionary origin of the integrated flagellar machine remains a substantial unresolved problem. It would be
overstating though to conclude on this basis alone that unguided
evolution could not produce the flagellum.

All the same, I believe that this is an example of many discoveries to
come that will chip away at prevailing materialistic models and,
ironically, widen the gaps in the explanatory capacity of that framework.

OOL seems to be a leading area for this shift, hence my own focus. OOL models must demonstrate a chemically plausible pathway by which
sufficiently persistent, functional and heritable molecular systems can progressively accumulate complexity without presupposing the
sophisticated replication, repair, metabolic and translation machinery characteristic of life. There's a chicken-and-egg paradox here that I
think will only deepen.

Systems such as SpudCell illustrate how difficult it is to establish and maintain organised cell-like states even under intelligently controlled laboratory conditions. Prebiotic models must explain not merely the production of biomolecular building blocks, but a plausible cumulative pathway through which functional polymers, compartments, metabolism and sufficiently accurate heredity could become mutually reinforcing before sophisticated biological machinery existed. Moreover, appeals to
enormous numbers of chemical trials - brute force - are insufficient
unless a mechanism is specified that preserves useful innovations and progressively searches the relevant functional landscape.

Maybe AI will at some point independently deduce this from the data.

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual. It is
appreciated. Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe is
on to something they cannot dispute effectively. The earlier attempts
to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by evolving from
something later found to have come much later is typical of materialist
theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets dismissed. This
paper effectively claims that as far back as we have gone, the flagellum
was exactly like Behe claimed. "A structurally and functionally
sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many modern bacteria". I
say, keep looking boys. You'll keep running into that wall that you
will call a gap. Lather, rinse, repeat.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/8/2026 9:09 AM, sticks wrote:

On 8/7/2026 10:33 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 7/08/2026 7:36 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/6/2026 3:38 PM, MarkE wrote:

-aFrom the preprint "The last bacterial common ancestor encoded a
complex flagellum":

"These findings revise models of early bacterial evolution and
overturn the notion that the ancestral flagellum was genetically
minimal. Instead, they suggest that the last bacterial common
ancestor possessed a highly complex flagellar system comprising more
components than are typically found in extant bacteria, many of
whose flagella appear to have been shaped by lineage-specific gene
loss."

"Taken together, our results support a revised view of flagellar
evolution. The LBCA [last bacterial common ancestor] likely
possessed a structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum
similar to those in many modern bacteria. Subsequent evolution was
driven primarily by selective retention, repeated loss, and lineage-
specific remodeling of an already complex ancestral machine, whereas
the evolutionary steps that gave rise to this system remain to be
resolved."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.11.731707v1.full.pdf

Uh oh, they're not gonna like this.
Thanks for the link, Mark!

I would qualify that this paper does not "vindicate" Behe in a final
or complete sense, but rather it lends supports to Darwin's Black Box,
insofar as it shows the evolutionary origin of the integrated
flagellar machine remains a substantial unresolved problem. It would
be overstating though to conclude on this basis alone that unguided
evolution could not produce the flagellum.

All the same, I believe that this is an example of many discoveries to
come that will chip away at prevailing materialistic models and,
ironically, widen the gaps in the explanatory capacity of that framework.

OOL seems to be a leading area for this shift, hence my own focus. OOL
models must demonstrate a chemically plausible pathway by which
sufficiently persistent, functional and heritable molecular systems
can progressively accumulate complexity without presupposing the
sophisticated replication, repair, metabolic and translation machinery
characteristic of life. There's a chicken-and-egg paradox here that I
think will only deepen.

Systems such as SpudCell illustrate how difficult it is to establish
and maintain organised cell-like states even under intelligently
controlled laboratory conditions. Prebiotic models must explain not
merely the production of biomolecular building blocks, but a plausible
cumulative pathway through which functional polymers, compartments,
metabolism and sufficiently accurate heredity could become mutually
reinforcing before sophisticated biological machinery existed.
Moreover, appeals to enormous numbers of chemical trials - brute force
- are insufficient unless a mechanism is specified that preserves
useful innovations and progressively searches the relevant functional
landscape.

Maybe AI will at some point independently deduce this from the data.

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe is
on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier attempts
to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have gone, the flagellum
was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many modern bacteria".-a I
say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into that wall that you
will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Self deception is all IDiotic creationists have left. You and MarkE
just have to keep lying to yourselves about reality. Nature is not
Biblical. What MarkE has put up as support for Behe's IC scam junk is
no support at all. It even demonstrates that Behe will never be able to demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC because it evolved
before the last common ancestor of Bacteria had evolved. Since the
branching lineages that Behe requires to exist in order to determine the sequence of the flagellar genes before they were used to make a
flagellum no longer exist (they became extinct). Over 99% of the
species that have ever evolved on this planet are extinct. They do not
have direct surviving descendants. There is no way for Behe to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations occurred in any of those genes. It
is estimated that there was a billion years between the existence of the
last common ancestor of Archaea and Bacteria and the last common
ancestor of Bacteria that may have had a functional flagellum, but we
have not found any bacterial lineages that branched off in this gap.

If you accept this research you would be accepting that life existed for billions of years before plants were created on the 3rd day or period of
time. This paper documents the further evolution of the flagellum over
a 3 billion year period. Lying to yourself about one aspect of the
research while running from what else the research demonstrates is the
only way that literal Biblical creationism can survive. You even claim
to be some type of YEC. How does the flagellum evolving over 3 billion
years ago fit into your creationist beliefs? This research would
document the evolution of the flagellum over the last 3 billion years.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

MarkE wrote:

I would qualify that this paper does not "vindicate" Behe in a final or complete sense, but rather it lends supports to Darwin's Black Box,
insofar as it shows the evolutionary origin of the integrated flagellar machine remains a substantial unresolved problem. It would be
overstating though to conclude on this basis alone that unguided
evolution could not produce the flagellum.

All the same, I believe that this is an example of many discoveries to
come that will chip away at prevailing materialistic models and,
ironically, widen the gaps in the explanatory capacity of that framework.

OOL seems to be a leading area for this shift, hence my own focus. OOL models must demonstrate a chemically plausible pathway by which
sufficiently persistent, functional and heritable molecular systems can progressively accumulate complexity without presupposing the
sophisticated replication, repair, metabolic and translation machinery characteristic of life. There's a chicken-and-egg paradox here that I
think will only deepen.

Do you also think it's incumbent on the ID camp to
demonstrate a plausible pathway by which OOL and speciation
can occur? And what about the problem of identifying and
characterizing a designer and/or an implementor, and
mechanisms by which they do their work?

Or is it more expedient to give science as few opportunities
as possible to "chip away" at the ID model?

Systems such as SpudCell illustrate how difficult it is to establish and maintain organised cell-like states even under intelligently controlled laboratory conditions. Prebiotic models must explain not merely the production of biomolecular building blocks, but a plausible cumulative pathway through which functional polymers, compartments, metabolism and sufficiently accurate heredity could become mutually reinforcing before sophisticated biological machinery existed. Moreover, appeals to
enormous numbers of chemical trials - brute force - are insufficient
unless a mechanism is specified that preserves useful innovations and progressively searches the relevant functional landscape.

Maybe AI will at some point independently deduce this from the data.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe is
on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier attempts
to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have gone, the flagellum
was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many modern bacteria".-a I
say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into that wall that you
will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is
appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe
is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier
attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical
of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets
dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have
gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally
and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many
modern bacteria".-a I say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into
that wall that you will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that
can't evolve by natural mechanisms). Behe has never been able to
demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact. Now the only means that Behe has come up with to determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the
flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has
existed that it has evolved into different forms. The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar structure. It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny. It means
that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:58:58 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.a It is
appreciated.a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe
is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.a The earlier
attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical
of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets
dismissed.a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have
gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.a "A structurally
and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many
modern bacteria".a I say, keep looking boys.a You'll keep running into
that wall that you will call a gap.a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that
can't evolve by natural mechanisms). Behe has never been able to demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact. Now the only means that Behe has come up with to determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has
existed that it has evolved into different forms. The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar structure. It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny. It means
that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

God works in mysterious ways; mostly he used evolution, but did a designer flagellum, just so True Believers (TM) would have something to point to.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:58:58 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is
appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe >>>> is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier
attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical >>>> of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets >>>> dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have >>>> gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally
and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many
modern bacteria".-a I say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into >>>> that wall that you will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III
secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that
can't evolve by natural mechanisms). Behe has never been able to
demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact. Now the only means that Behe has come up with to
determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the
flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't
determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has
existed that it has evolved into different forms. The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar
structure. It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny. It means
that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

God works in mysterious ways; mostly he used evolution, but did a designer flagellum, just so True Believers (TM) would have something to point to.

Likely story.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 22:52:18 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.a It is
appreciated.a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe is
on to something they cannot dispute effectively.a The earlier attempts
to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by evolving from
something later found to have come much later is typical of materialist
theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets dismissed.a This
paper effectively claims that as far back as we have gone, the flagellum
was exactly like Behe claimed.a "A structurally and functionally
sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many modern bacteria".a I
say, keep looking boys.a You'll keep running into that wall that you
will call a gap.a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III >secretory system as a precursor.

Some people claim they both evolved from a common ancestor.

Also, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Flagella_and_the_intelligent_design_movement

"Some authors have argued that flagella cannot have evolved, assuming
that they can only function properly when all proteins are in place.
In other words, the flagellar apparatus is "irreducibly complex".[45]
However, many proteins can be deleted or mutated and the flagellum
still works, though sometimes at reduced efficiency.[46] Moreover,
with many proteins unique to some number across species, diversity of
bacterial flagella composition was higher than expected.[47] Hence,
the flagellar apparatus is clearly very flexible in evolutionary terms
and perfectly able to lose or gain protein components. For instance, a
number of mutations have been found that increase the motility of E.
coli.[48] Additional evidence for the evolution of bacterial flagella
includes the existence of vestigial flagella, intermediate forms of
flagella and patterns of similarities among flagellar protein
sequences, including the observation that almost all of the core
flagellar proteins have known homologies with non-flagellar
proteins.[41] Furthermore, several processes have been identified as
playing important roles in flagellar evolution, including
self-assembly of simple repeating subunits, gene duplication with
subsequent divergence, recruitment of elements from other systems
('molecular bricolage') and recombination.[49]"

More to come is my prediction.

Is that something you wish is going to happen, or something that you
have some logical reason to believe will happen?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/9/2026 10:15 AM, Lane W wrote:

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:58:58 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is
appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe >>>>> is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier
attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical >>>>> of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets >>>>> dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have >>>>> gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally >>>>> and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many
modern bacteria".-a I say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into >>>>> that wall that you will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III
secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that
can't evolve by natural mechanisms).-a Behe has never been able to
demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact.-a Now the only means that Behe has come up with to
determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the
flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't
determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has
existed that it has evolved into different forms.-a The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar
structure.-a It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny.-a It means
that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

God works in mysterious ways; mostly he used evolution, but did a
designer
flagellum, just so True Believers (TM) would have something to point to.

Likely story.

More likely than everything in a flat earth geocentric universe being
created in 6 days with a morning and evening for each day.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 19:20:00 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 10:15 AM, Lane W wrote:

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:58:58 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.a It is
appreciated.a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe >>>>> is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.a The earlier
attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical >>>>> of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets >>>>> dismissed.a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have >>>>> gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.a "A structurally >>>>> and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many
modern bacteria".a I say, keep looking boys.a You'll keep running into >>>>> that wall that you will call a gap.a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III >>>> secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that >>> can't evolve by natural mechanisms).a Behe has never been able to
demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact.a Now the only means that Behe has come up with to >>> determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the
flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't >>> determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has
existed that it has evolved into different forms.a The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar >>> structure.a It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny.a It means >>> that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

God works in mysterious ways; mostly he used evolution, but did a
designer
flagellum, just so True Believers (TM) would have something to point to. >>

Likely story.

There may be a flaw in my theory. I wonder if anyone can spot it.

More likely than everything in a flat earth geocentric universe being created in 6 days with a morning and evening for each day.

and this one.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/10/2026 3:55 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 19:20:00 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 10:15 AM, Lane W wrote:

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:58:58 -0500
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/9/2026 7:52 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 9/08/2026 12:09 am, sticks wrote:

You're being kind and very fair in your analysis as usual.-a It is >>>>>>> appreciated.-a Yet, after 30 years this new work does indeed show Behe >>>>>>> is on to something they cannot dispute effectively.-a The earlier >>>>>>> attempts to show the flagellum not being irreducibly complex by
evolving from something later found to have come much later is typical >>>>>>> of materialist theory being given a chance, while creation theory gets >>>>>>> dismissed.-a This paper effectively claims that as far back as we have >>>>>>> gone, the flagellum was exactly like Behe claimed.-a "A structurally >>>>>>> and functionally sophisticated flagellum similar to those in many >>>>>>> modern bacteria".-a I say, keep looking boys.-a You'll keep running into
that wall that you will call a gap.-a Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thanks. At the very least, the paper debunks the much-touted Type III >>>>>> secretory system as a precursor. More to come is my prediction.

It not only does that, but means that Behe will never be able to
demonstrate that the flagellum is his type of IC system (the type that >>>>> can't evolve by natural mechanisms).-a Behe has never been able to
demonstrate that any of his proposed IC systems are his type of IC.
That is just a fact.-a Now the only means that Behe has come up with to >>>>> determine if something is his type of IC (3 neutral mutations in a
lineage within a limited period of time) no longer can apply to the
flagellum because the extant branching lineages that Behe needs to
determine if his 3 neutral mutations ever occurred are extinct.

This just means that the flagellum is now worthless because Behe can't >>>>> determine if it is his type of IC.

It also means that over the billions of years that the flagellum has >>>>> existed that it has evolved into different forms.-a The Type III
secretory system has always had the option of evolving from a flagellar >>>>> structure.-a It obviously co-opted many parts from the flagellum.

This is just more evidence that you and Sticks have to deny.-a It means >>>>> that biological evolution has been a fact of nature for billions of
years on this planet.

Ron Okimoto

God works in mysterious ways; mostly he used evolution, but did a
designer
flagellum, just so True Believers (TM) would have something to point to. >>>>

Likely story.

There may be a flaw in my theory. I wonder if anyone can spot it.

Are you claiming that Behe's assertion of a thesitic evolutionary
tweeker god existing is flawed? It was never a theory, more like an untestable hypothesis based on Behe's interpretation of a book that he probably read.

More likely than everything in a flat earth geocentric universe being
created in 6 days with a morning and evening for each day.

and this one.

No matter what the flaw your proposal is still more likely even though
both are interpretations of the same book. Not only because of this
flagellar research, but due to other things that has been learned since
the Bible was written.

Ron Okimoto



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2