Irreducible Complexity, bacterial flagella, and simple motile systems

From: Peter Vibert (wrcc@i-2000.com)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 03:39:18 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "Is the resurrection story a "vehicle" for reflecting divine/human relationships?"

    Forgive me for late entry into the discussion of Dembski's paper. I
    have been "out of the loop" (and off the list) for a while, and have
    not paid enough attention recently: when did the bacterial flagellum
    become the prime biological example of Irreducible Complexity? Where
    does Dembski get the certainty that "we know the flagellum is
    irreducibly complex"? I suggest it's no better an example than Behe's
    terrible choice (in Darwin's Black Box) of the eukaryotic flagellum -
    one of the MOST COMPLEX motile organelles known!

    (For the non-biologists, the two classes of flagellum are utterly
    different in design and function; the bacterial one is like a rigid
    corkscrew/propellor powered by a rotary motor inserted in the cell
    wall; the eukaryotic one is an undulating structure based on the much
    used motor+track system of motility).

    As I understand Ken Miller has observed (I haven't read his Finding
    Darwin's God), too little is known about the bacterial flagellum to be
    able to say what's required for its function. I observed some of
    DeRosier's structural work on the bacterial flagellum over the 20+
    years he and I worked in the same structure lab, where I was working
    on the best characterized motor+track system - the muscle cell. For
    the flagellum, the structures of none of the (as I recall more than
    20) gene products are yet known at high resolution, and the nature of
    the rotor/stator interaction remains unclear. DeRosier rightly says
    that the "mechanism of the flagellar motor" is still unknown.

    If Dembski (and Behe) want to identify IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY in
    motility, logically they would do well to ask what is known about the
    LEAST COMPLEX motile systems. Start from the muscle cell, every bit as
    "machine-like" as the flagellum, and ask what it's essential
    components are: two proteins, myosin (the motor) and actin (the
    track); four genes (myosin heavy chain, two classes of myosin light
    chains, actin). Muscle myosin is just one member of the myosin
    "superfamily," which (when I left the field 5 yrs ago) comprised about
    13 myosin families, found in everything from plant cells to yeast to
    muscles to the human brain. Actin is found in almost all cells.

    (Motor+track systems include not only myosins that move along or tug
    on actin tracks, but kinesin and dynein motors (both protein
    superfamilies) that move on tubulin (microtubule) tracks).

    Unlike the flagellum, how myosin+actin motile systems work is known in
    detail. From crystallography, the atomic structure of muscle myosin in
    the presence of several nucleotide species (motor+track systems are
    ATP-driven) is known, and the changes of structure that drive the
    motions of myosin's "lever-arm" are now largely understood. The atomic
    structure of actin is also known; the structure of the myosin-actin
    complex is known at sufficient resolution to map the protein-protein
    interactions at the level of amino acid residues.

    So it's possible to guess with some degree of confidence what an
    "irreducible" motile system of the motor+track type would look like.
    Indeed we have probably seen something like it in one of the dozens of
    known myosin-actin complexes. A "minimal" myosin-like motor would
    probably be a protein no bigger than 200kD; actin is a ubiquitous
    globular protein around 50kD that self-assembles into
    filaments/tracks. The "irreducible" basis of the most common form of
    motility would then be the directional interaction of two small
    proteins, fueled by ATP.

    What "complexity" is left at this point? The sequence of two
    proteins? But if that's what's "irreducible", the flagellum (or a
    muscle cell) are straw men, and Intelligent Design in biology amounts
    to the argument that "you can't produce a protein by chance," which
    seems to be Dembski's main theme.

    So I would argue, for the case of motility that I know most about,
    that "irreducible complexity," (in any but the sense of specific
    DNA/protein sequences) remains an unproved assertion.

    Grace and peace,
    Peter Vibert
    ----------------------------------
    wrcc@i-2000.com

    Pastor
    Wading River Congregational Church
    PO Box 596
    Wading River, NY 11792

    Guest Senior Scientist
    Biology Department
    Brookhaven National Laboratory
    Upton, NY 11973



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 08:37:09 EST