You are churning on and on about how it functions. Function is important to evolution, but it is not a mechanism for evolution. You keep repeating the functional aspects over and over in a nearly neurotic chant as if that is meaningful to refuting the evolution of bacterial flagellar motor. It isn't. It is just the substance of your personal argument for incredulity. The extent of your knowledge of research on the evolution of this structure seems mainly to be that your claim of an increasing negative association between the terms "evolution" and "bacterial flagellar motor" in the scientific literature. A claim I may doesn't seem to hold up.<quoted text>
I read that one way back, summarized as follows, we have a substrate, then a diode, then a transistor, then an IC, then a computer with out intelligence then presto we obviously have a proton powered motor for our tiny little bacteria. Common decent evolutionary Nano-homology style at its worst. No reconciliation of the convergent and complex information required to make these jumps, and as all these part and party life forms live at the same time today, the notion of evo common decent theory falls again. Its a cut and tape job and a decade behind the times. I give you credit for an answer, better than the rest here. Try the Yale paper,he touches on origin's in his summary. I really doubt he and Berg at Harvard would debate this but I will see if they will say anything to me about it.. Thanks.
Demanding answers about the mechanisms of function doesn't address or refute the evolution of this structure.