Flagella Myths
be gradually built up via two-part, tlien three-part,
How Intelligent Design proponents
created the myth that bacteria flagelia
iook iike man^nade machines
M A R K P E R A K H
IN 1996 A PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY AT
Lehigh University named Michael Behe pub-
lished Darwin's Black Box, ' in which he outlined
his concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC).
Behe and his Intelligent Design (ID) colleagues
claim that IC is strong evidence of the "design"
of biological systems. After the publication of his
txx)k IC became one of the main pillars of the
Intelligent Design platform.
Tlie concept of irreducible complexity was in
fact considered many years before Behes book.
The Nol^ei Prize winning biologist Hermann J.
Müller liad already discussed it (under the slightly
dilîèrent name of "interlocking complexity") in
1918.^ Some 10 years before Behe's book the
same idea was explored by A. Graham Caims-
Smith.3 Unlike Behe, however, these pioneers
did not claim that the concept in question was a
great discovery on a par with those by "Newton
and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur,
and Darwin" (as Behe immodestly asserted in
DaruHn's Black Box). Neither did they claim
that "irreducible complexity" was a "marker" of
a supernatural design. To the contrary, accord-
ing to Müller, development of interlocking com-
plexity in biological systems is to t>e expeaed
from Darwinian evolution. Therefore the con-
cept in question, as such, evoked no com-
plaint from niaiastream sdence.
When Behe suggested a mousetmp as an
example of an allegedly irredudbly complex sys-
tem, Intelligent Design advocates reproduced
endless images of mousetraps in multiple publica-
tions. The moLisetrap, however, was not accepted
by the mainstream scientific community as a
good model for IC. For example, professor of
biology John McDonald su^ested in an animat-
ed illustration how, starting with just a piece of a
hook-shaped wire serving as a primitive mouse-
catching device, a fliU-fledged mousetrap could
Í- V O L U M E 14 N U M B E R
etc. contraptions, improving iLs mouse-catching
ability at each step in a Darwinian fashion.'*
Apparently realizing that a mou.setrap was
not a very successful example for illustrating
Behe's IC concept, ID advocates switched to
another example—the baaerial flagellum, a
"device" used by bacteria for motility.'' By 2002,
the ubiquitous image of a flagellum adorned the
books, papers, and lecture slides of ID enthusi-
asts. According to William Dembski, a main
advocate of ID, the flagellum had become ID's
"mascot". The image of the flagellum appeared
on the cover of Dembski's book Ab Erve Lunch^,
on creationist blogs and so forth. Figure 1 shows
an image of a flagellum as it appears on
Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent. Notice the
smooth surface of the depicted contraption, its
perfect symmetry, its tightly fitting comptïnents—
features we usually associate with man-made
machinery. Because these images look like
machines, ID advocates argue, they must be
designed. But figure 1 Ls the produa of an artist's
imagination of how a flagellum "should" look.
Does this image truthfully represent the real
flagellura-' No.
Flagelia are tiny oiganelles that can't be seen
directly by the unaided human eye. Their
dimensions are measured in nanometers
(billionths of a meter). But modem cryogenic
electron microscopy and X-ray techniques
have enabled scientists to form a pretty good
understanding of a flagellum's structure and
shape. Figure 2 shows a schematic model of a
fiagellum's stnicture." This model (one of several
published in sdentific literature) is a theoretical
interpretation of the data obtained by electron
microscopy, and mainstream scientists consider it
an idealized schematic rather than a tnie-to-life
representation. ID advocates, when they com-
pare the flagella to a designer created machine,
present such images as if they are real depictions
of the actual structure of the tiny flagella, usually
providing no liint of the degree of idealiziition
inherent in such images.
In 2004, when Dembski debated PpDfessor
Niall Slianks (at UCLA) he displayed a diflerent
image of a flagellum (Figure 3). Unlike Figures 1
and 2, Figure 3 is neither an artist's rendition, nor
a schematic theoretical model; it is a "real" photo-
graphic image obtained from an electron-micro-
scopic. While produced by scientists, such images
3 2 0 0
 í-igure 1. Ail artist ^ as it appears on the Unconiman üesceiit blog of WiHiam
Dembski. A stmtlar ii the dust cover of Dembski's book No Free Umch.
are often exploited by ID advocates who are
fond of pointing out their striking similarity to
man-made machines. However, such illustrations
are misleading, picturing the ñagellum as a
fully symmetrical geometric shape, consisting of
geometrically perfectly formed parts. The real
flagellum is far from having such a perfect geo-
metric shape. Unlike machines, which can be
for all practical purposes perfect replicas of
each other, the real flagella have shapes with
many deviations from a perfect geometric
symmetry, and there are no two flagella
exactly alike. Individual flagella differ in various
respects, just as biological organisms vary from
individual to individual.
This is why the images that Behe, Dembski,
and their ID colleagues show are often not pic-
tures of real flagella. Some of them are products
of an artist's imagination (Figure 1) or computer-
generated images of imaginary machine-like
OMt
I Basal body
Figure 2. A schematic nwdel of a flagellum.
From Vonekura, K., S. MaM, D. G. Morgan, D. J.
DeRosier, F.Vonderviszt, K.lma<la. and K. Namba,
2000. "The Bacterial Fl^ellar Cap as the
Rotary Promoter of Ftageltin SeK-AssemNy",
Science 290: 2148-2152.
objects. The schematics like that in Figure 2,
while refleaing many actual features of flagella,
are products of a modeling approximation which
likewise can't pretend to reflect adequately the
actual struaure of a tiny organelle. However,
some other pictures of flagella may indeed be
"real" photograpliically obtained images (Figure
3). Are the images in die latter category adequate
representations of the flagella structure?
Lcxik again at Figure 3. It is, at a glance,
impressive. Indeed we see here an d:)ject which is
Figure 3. An electron micrograph of about
100 superimposed, rotatJonally averaged
images of Hagelia—a technique that is much
iike superimposing multiple photographs of an
object spinning on a lathe. From Francis, N. R.,
Sosinsky, G. E., Thomas, D. and DeRosier, D. J.,
1994. "Isolation, Characterization and
Structure of Bacteriai Ragellar Motors
Containing the Switch Complex." Journal of
Molecular B/otogy 235 (4), 1261-1270.
W W W . S K E P T I C . COM

ngure 4. The stmcüj!. .. part of a
Samatey F.A., IVIatsiHiami, H., Imada, K., Nagashima, S., Shaikh,
T.R., Thomas, D.R.. Cheii, J.Z., Deroslef, DJ., Kttao, A., Namba, K.
"Structure of the Bacterial Rageliar Hook and Implication for the
Molecular Universal Joint Mechanism." Mature. 2004. Oct 28; 431
{7012):1047. (In the online version the Image on tlie left Is artifi-
cially colored and »limated to illustrate the flagellar hook's rotation
in three dimenskMis-see http://motvls.sdsc.edu/flagetlar^hook/
index.htm). Reproduced In accordance with the blanket permis-
sion granted In the referenced website, stlpulatii^ that a refer-
ence to the above article and to proteinexphrer.ois Is provided.
Figure 5. The structure of the flagetlar Utament Side views show the
Inner side (left) and outer sui^ce (right). The amino acki sequence
of each flageiiin subunit is cok>rcoded in the original image. From
Ybnekura, K.. Maki->t3nekura. S., Namba, K. Xomptote Atomic Model
of the Bacterial Fiageliar Riament by Electron Cryomicroscopy. "
Nature. 424; 643-650 (2003): Oniine version: http://vvww.fbs-
osakai].ac.jp/eng/pubiicatk>ns/namba2003/Namtei2003eng.html
fi- V O L U M E 14 N U M B E R
a symmetrical, machine-like stmctiire, so it is easy
to understand the satisfaction Dembski and Behe
liave at the sight of this objea that fits so neatly
with their "design" hypothesis. There are, however,
tvto important points to be made. The first is that
the image in Figure 3 is a computer-generated
composite photo that was created by a technique
that i^ much like superimposing photographs of
an object spinning on a lathe. About 100 Images
of several flagella rotating around an axis were
superimptxsed .so that their natural irregularities
and individual differences were smoothed out.
The symmetrical image that results gives the
object the artificial look of a man-made machine.
The second point is that the resolution of this
picture is in.sufficient to see the flagellum's
intrinsic structure. To appreciate the significance
of this, recall, by analogy, the "face on Mars," or
Lowell's nonexisting Martian "canals." Wlien the
resolution is insufficient, we "see" nonexisting
structures, which on closer inspection dissolve
into natural patterns. This Ls equally taie for the
images of very small objects seen without suffi-
cient magnification and/or resolution. The images
of flagella obtained at higher resolution, and
enhanced by other modem sophisticated meth-
ods of investigation reveal the actual configura-
tion of flagella, demonstrating that die seeming
machine-like appearance of the flagella in Figure
3 is deceptive.
It should be noted that scientists often use
such terms as "machine" when describing
various biological assemblies. This usage,
however, unlike in the case of ID advocates,
is purely metaphorical, reflecting the superfi-
cial resemblance of certain biological .structuires
to man-made machinery. Scientists normally do
not imply that biological entities are intriasically
similar to man-made machinery. Perhaps such a
usage by scientists is unfortunate given ID advo-
cates' misuse of the superficial resemblance
between the designed man-made objects and
natural biological entities. We have to realize,
though, that scientists by and large are ncrt aware
of ID advocates' misuse of such terminology, as
only a small minority of scientists pay any atten-
tion to ID advocates' claims.
Let us now look at a few selected illustrations
of my thesis. The detailed images of tlie flagella
structure obtained via cryogenic electron
microscxipy combined with sophisticated X-ray
techniques are exemplified in Figures 4, 5, and 6.
3 2 0 0 8
These images show the actual configuration of the entirety of the available information about tk-
the flagellum, and have been selected practically gella. If they are familiar with images 4, 5, and 6
at random fixjm numerous similar images avail- (which are freely available both in print and on
able in the scientific literature. Instead of dghdy- the internet) could it be that diey are less inter-
fit machine-like pans, we see in dhese pictures ested in facts and truth and more focused on
convoluted garlands of protein molecules. These winning the "cultural war" by any means?
stRictures look similar to typical baaeriophage We must conclude that the aigyment in favor
viRises"^, and have nodiing in common with any of "design" of biological enddes based on dieir
man-made machine. They vividly illustrate that alleged similarity to man-made machinery Ls not
the image shown in Figure 3 is deceptive and supported by evidence. T
owes its machine-like appearance to the insuffi-
cient resoludon. This is even more true of the
Acimowledgment: My thanks to Matt Young, Paul
utterly artificial aitist's rendidons of flagella, whase
R. Grœs, and Nicholas Matzkefor pithy adtnce.
variadons serve as 'niascots" of ID.
ID advocates often point to die allegedly
fraudulent "icons of evolution" they claim are
utilized by "Ehirwinists" for nefarious purposes.^
One of diese allegedly fraudulent "icons" is that
of Ernst Haeckel s embryo drawings. In fact, die
faults of Haeckel's embryological illustrations
(dated 1874) were revealed'" not by creationists
but rather by the "Darwinists" themselves. On the
other hand, creationists of various hues,
including ID advocates such as Dembski and
Behe, incessandy reproduce images of flagella
that are often heavily stylized without admitting
to the great degree of idealization inherent in
these images. Indeed, look again at the images
of the flagella's actual molecular structure, as
shown above in Figures 4, 5, and 6, and it
becomes obvious that real natural flagella are far
from looking like man-made machines.
An interesting quesdon is: Why do ID advo-
cates and other creationists, who so eagerly and
persistendy display pictures like those in Figures
1, 2, and 3, never deign to show much more real-
istic representations of flagella structure such as
those shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6? It" they are 6. Partial structure of the flageilar fltanent's cros&«ectton.
By Keiichi Namba. http://www.nanonet.go.jp/engllsh/m^lniag
unaware of these more accurate pictures, per- /2004/Olla.html
haps they should try to educate themselves with

References 4. MacDonald, John. Online: Lanham, MD: Rowman & .org/archives/2004/06/three-

1. Behe, Michael, 1996. Darwir)'s
Black Box. New York: Free Press.
2. Müller. Hermann J. 1918.
"Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids 5. Luha. Salvador E.. Stephen J.
and Constant Hybrids, in a
Case of Balanced Lethal
Factors." Genetics 3: 422-499.
3. Cairns-Smith, A. Graham 1986.
Seven Clues to the Ongin of
Life^. A Scientific Detective
Story. Cambridge University
Press.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mo
usetrap.html, last accessed on
June 20, 2008.
Gould, and Sam Singer. 1 9 8 1 .
A View of Ufe. Menio Partí, CA:
The Benjamin Cummings
Publishing Co.
6. Dembski, William A. 2002. Wo
Free Lunch: Why Specified
Complexity Cannot Be
Purchased Without intelligence.
Uttlefield Publishers.
7. Yonekura, K., S. Maki, D. G.
Morgan. D. J. DeRosier, F.
Vtonderviszt, K. Imada, and K.
Namba, 2000. "The Bacterial
Ragellar Cap as the Rotary
Promoter of Ragellin Setf-
Assembly." Science 290:2148-
2152.
8. Perakh. Mark. 2004. "Tîiree SH's
and One D." Online at Panda's
Jhumtx http://pandasthmTb
shs-ando.html : last accessed tm
June 20, 2008.
9. Wells. Jonathan. 2002. Icons of
Evolution: Science or Myth?
Viâry Much of What We Teach
About Evolution is \Mor^. New
Yorti: Regnery.
10. Nie Tamzek (Nicholas Matzke).
"Icon of Obfuscation". In Ta/k
Reason: http;//www.talkrea-
son.org/articles/icon.cfm (last
accessed on June 20, 2008).

WWW.SKEPTIC.COM