The bacterial flagellum is a symbol of the Intelligent Design movement, and rightly so. After all, bacteria are commonly recognized as the “simplest” organisms on the planet. Nevertheless, their amazingly well-designed locomotive system has continued to amaze the scientists that study it. In 1996, Dr. Michael Behe highlighted the intricate design of the bacterial flagellum in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. While some have tried to explain it in terms of Neo-Darwian evolution, they have not come close to succeeding.
Not only is the bacterial flagellum amazingly well-designed, it is far more versatile than anyone imagined.
Some bacteria (like Escherichia coli) have multiple flagella, which makes it very easy for an individual to navigate in water. All the bacterium has to do is adjust which flagella are spinning and how they are spinning, and the single-celled creature can do acrobatics in the water. However, the vast majority of bacteria have only one flagellum. It was thought for a long time that because of this, it is difficult for them to make sharp turns in the water.
Two years ago, this thinking changed abruptly when a group of physicists from the University of Pittsburgh showed that the bacterium Vibrio alginolyticus, which has only one flagellum, can make sharp turns with ease. They showed that in order to execute such a turn, the bacterium backs up, lurches forwards, and swings its flagellum to one side.1 The entire maneuver takes less than a tenth of a second and results in a 90-degree turn. So not only is the bacterial flagellum an exquisite “outboard motor” that propels the bacterium through the water, it is also a rudder that allows the bacterium to make sharp turns at will!
Of course, the question of how the flagellum can act as a rudder is a bit of a puzzle. If you look at the diagram above, the flagellum isn’t connected to the bacterium in a way that allows it to pivot, so how does the bacterium manage to swing it to one side, turning it into a rudder? That question has been answered by a new study published in Nature Physics. The authors of the study show that when the bacterium reverses direction, the hook shown in the illustration above stretches. When the bacterium then begins to move forward, the hook is suddenly compressed. That compression is strong enough to cause the hook to buckle under the stress, and when the hook buckles, the flagellum is thrown to one side. In other words, the bacterium forces the hook to “fail,” turning its motor into a rudder.2
Now here’s the amazing part: the speed at which the hook buckles is the same as the speed at which the bacterium normally swims. This means that the hook should be buckling all the time, but it only buckles when the bacterium makes a turn. This indicates the hook is stiffer when the bacterium is swimming in one direction. The act of backing up must “soften” the flagellum in some way so that when the bacterium begins forward motion again, the hook buckles under the stress.
As an article about this study in Science News tells us:3
The microbe’s minimalist approach to turning could work for tiny robots, says Bradley Nelson of the Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems at ETH Zurich. “It certainly provides inspiration to us to consider designing artificial flagella that also exhibit buckling.”
That’s not surprising, of course. Engineers are usually inspired when they examine the designs of the more talented members of their profession. Where better for an engineer to get inspiration than from the designs of the Greatest Engineer?
REFERENCES
1. Li Xie, Tuba Altindal, Suddhashil Chattopadhyay, and Xiao-Lun Wu, “Bacterial flagellum as a propeller and as a rudder for efficient chemotaxis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(6):2246-2251, 2011
Return to Text
2. Kwangmin Son, Jeffrey S. Guasto, and Roman Stocker, “Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction,” Nature Physics doi:10.1038/nphys2676, 2013
Return to Text
3. Cristy Gelling, “Flagellum failure lets bacteria steer,” Science News, August 24, 2013, p. 17
Return to Text
I have long believed that all inspiration comes from God. I believe this because the only places that we seem to get inspiration from is nature and other people. That makes nature the root of all inspiration since it precedes people. Therego all inspiration comes from God who designed nature.
Thanks for bringing up again the flagellum phenomenon. Some of the links you offered were particularly clarifying in the descriptions they offered.
Dr Wile, since you enjoy making lists, would you give the list of your top five or ten such intriguing phenomena which you find most compelling, either for the difficulties they present to evolutionary theorists or for the beauty of creation that you perceive in them?
Thank you also for including in this article the quote concerning finding inspiration in the design of nature for developments in the field of robotics. I enjoy practical application like this to real issues.
Yes, I do like making lists, Bill! Here are my “top five” phenomena that demonstrate amazing design in creation.
1. The entire process of mutualistic symbiosis screams of design, and the kind that requires more than two individuals is particularly compelling (see here, here, and here, for example).
2. The ampullae of Lorenzini in sharks.
3. The analogs of modern technology found in nature (see here and here, for example).
4. The guidance mechanisms of migratory animals (see here and here, for example).
5. The information storage ability of DNA.
Here are my “top five” phenomena that provide enormous challenges for evolution:
1. The fossil record.
2. The fact that DNA does not agree with evolutionary lineages based on fossils.
3. The fact that mutation and selection do not produce novel information in genomes.
4. The lack of junk DNA.
5. The huge genetic gulf between humans and our supposedly closest living relative.
In about 45 minutes you just knocked down ten pretty demanding topics. It will take me 45 days reading just to be introduced to some of these. Thank you.
Well, that’s not quite right, Bill. Those articles took me a long time to write, and it took me even longer to keep up with the scientific literature so I could learn about such topics!