Flagellar tangle

Call it a row, a kerfluffle, a spat, or what have you. A linkurl:paper in __PNAS__;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1 has whipped up some convoluted discussion in science and non-science blogs. Here's the basic run down: 1. A group publishes an linkurl:explanation;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1 for the stepwise evolution of the flagellum, an interesting scientific question, which linkurl:intelligent designers (IDers);http://www.the-scientist.com/2007/4/1/57/2/ have long promoted as proof of irreducible complexity. 2. Scientists who have done a great deal of blogging to counter IDers' claims nevertheless linkurl:find a flaw;http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/flagellum_evolu_1.html in the paper. 3. linkurl:IDers rally;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/darwinism_gone_wild_neither_se.html behind anti IDers. 4. Anti IDers sensing that's just the sort of thing an IDer would do attempted to linkurl:head them off;http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/uhohpoor_science_alert.php at the pass. 5. linkurl:Hilarity ensues.;http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/all-flagellar-genes-derive-from-a-single-gene/ 6. Anti IDers focus on the details of the paper linkurl:here;http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/update_on_pnas.html and linkurl:here.;http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/flagellum_evolu_3.html 7. IDers... seem to lose interest. Oddly I haven't seen any follow up posts. Questions remain: Will linkurl:web 2.0 take over;http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/04/17/when_scientists_go_all_bloggy.php science publishing? will...