|
|
|
In his testimony, Michael Behe makes two claims: (1) that the flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to propelling bacteria, and (2) that if something is irreducibly complex with respect to a given function, it can't have evolved through natural selection, but must have been purposefully arranged, or designed. When Behe was asked whether any other scientists have acknowledged the design features of the flagellum, he quoted a paper by Brandeis University professor David DeRosier that was published in the journal Cell in 1998. "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human." Behe thus concluded that "David DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed."
Digital print from: Thomas, Dennis; Morgan, David G.; and DeRosier, David J. (2001). "Structures of Bacterial Flagellar Motors from Two FliF-FliG Gene Fusion Mutants." Journal of Bacteriology, Nov. 2001, 183 (21), 6404-6412. Copyright 2001, American Society for Microbiology. Reprinted with permission of David DeRosier, Brandeis University and American Society for Microbiology. Graphic from: Berg, Howard (2000). "Motile Behavior of Bacteria." Physics Today [http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm]. Copyright 2000, American Institute of Physics. Reprinted with permission.
|
Video
|
Watch the following video segment in which David DeRosier responds to Michael Behe's argument about the bacterial flagellum. Kenneth Miller, a biologist and an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover legal case, then uses a mousetrap to show why the argument for irreducible complexity falls apart.
|
Notebook
|
DeRosier and Miller testified that although a feature appears to be irreducibly complex, this does not necessarily mean that it did not evolve—even if none of the intermediate forms are capable of performing the given function, they may be capable of performing different functions and may be selected for in that way. Describe how the data presented by DeRosier and Miller provides evidence for their argument.
|
