ID-friendly journal paper makes testable predictions

ARN.org ^ | 5/25/05 | Denyse O'Leary

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

If you have been following the intelligent design (ID) controversy, you could paper a wall with announcements by boffins that ID makes no testable or falsifiable predictions. Of course, many of the same people do their best to keep ID-friendly papers out of journals. But now and then they slip up, and a paper gets published.

In his recent paper in Rivista di Biologia, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?”, Jonathan Wells makes the following testable predictions regarding his hypothesis that the centrioles of cells generate a polar ejection force:

Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?

A. It [the hypothesis] predicts that spindle microtubules in animal cells begin to oscillate at the beginning of prometaphase, and that those oscillations rapidly accelerate until metaphase, at which point they decelerate or cease. By metaphase the oscillations may be of such high frequency that they would be difficult to detect, but the lower frequency oscillations early in prometaphase should be detectable by immunofluorescence microscopy and high-speed camera technology.

B. It predicts that the centriole contains a helical pump powered by dynein molecules located in the inner wall of its lumen. Improved imaging techniques may make it possible to elucidate the complex internal structure of centrioles, characterizing more fully the helical structures in their lumens and determining the precise localization of dynein in their inner walls.

C. It predicts that the polar ejection force is regulated, at least in part, by intracellular calcium concentration. It should be possible to test this by observing chromosome behavior in the spindles of dividing animal cells while artificially raising the concentration of intracellular calcium during prometaphase or blocking its rise at the beginning of anaphase.

He adds, “If the hypothesis presented here withstands these and other experimental tests, then it may contribute to a better understanding not only of cell division, but also of cancer.”

Wells makes clear in the paper that his assumptions are based on the thesis that the centriole is a designed object, like a machine, and should be studied as one. Asked whether he considers the centriole irreducibly complex, he told me, “I suspect so, but I don't know. The fact that there seem to be no intermediates (you either have a working centriole, or you don't) strongly suggests irreducible complexity, but people would have to do experiments similar to those done on the bacterial flagellum (i.e., removing parts to find out if they're needed for function) to find out for sure.”

About getting his paper published, Wells noted that Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is an English-language peer-reviewed journal published in Italy, “whose editor (Giuseppe Sermonti) is a geneticist critical of Darwinism.”

Yo, Darwinists. Get hold of that editor’s e-mail address and start showering him with abuse immediately. Why should an American, Richard Sternberg, be the only one who has to apply to the government to stop the persecution? You shouldn’t let the Americans be first at everything; it looks bad.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

ID Ping

[Kenny Bunkport]

When was the last time an evolutionist made a testable prediction?

[snarks_when_bored]

Suppose experiment confirms Wells's hypothesis; why should one conclude that the centriole is a designed object? Why not just conclude that nature has hit upon a near-optimum mechanism for the centriole's action?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[r9etb]

Why not just conclude that nature has hit upon a near-optimum mechanism for the centriole's action?

Can you test for that?

[From many - one.]

Did you read the link?

A serious case of conclusions preceding facts.

[Ichneumon]

When was the last time an evolutionist made a testable prediction?

All the damned time. Just how do you excuse your arrogant ignorance on this topic?

A wise man once said, "never argue with a fool, bet him money". I'll bet you $1000 that I can post over a two dozen testable predictions made by "evolutionists" in April 2005 alone. Please, oh please, take me up on this bet.

I await your response.

[tallhappy]

Wells makes clear in the paper that his assumptions are based on the thesis that the centriole is a designed object, like a machine

But the testable predictions have no bearing on ID vs evolution. They are purely dynamic and address molecular questions.

In other words if the same "testable predictions" were made based on "the thesis the centriole is an evolved object" it would make no difference to experimental design and techniques used to test the hypothesis.

It's a purely biochemical/molecular question.

[The_Reader_David]

One wouldn't. The point is that if one clears away all the smoke, obsuscation over definitions, and the like, both ID and Darwinism (note, not evolution, the explanatory program proposed by Darwin and its intellectual descendants) are really what Popper originally characterized evolutionary biology as: metaphysical research programs, frameworks for testable theories, but not testable theories themselves. (And notice Popper's 'recantation' was subtle: he said natural selection 'could be' so formulated as to be far from tautological. The observable fact, evident from the polemics surrounding evolution and the facility with which evolutionary biologists generate 'just so stories' to explain any observable trait, and retreat to 'it must have provided an as-yet-ill-understood adaptive advantage' when their skill at generating such post-hoc explanations fails, is that natural selection is not so formulated, and is invoked in its tautological, and thus unfalsifiable, form.)

The reported research provides an example of a testable hypothesis initially formulated on the basis of the currently disfavored metaphysical research program, that's all. It no more proves ID in any global sense than a neat account of how a trait could have arisen by adaptation to a hypothesized environment proves Darwinism.

[Mulch]

Why not just conclude that nature has hit upon a near-optimum mechanism for the centriole's action?

Do some statistical analysis for the likelyhood of that outcome and let us know your findings.

[Fester Chugabrew]

A wise man once said, "never argue with a fool, bet him money".

How much should we bet that you, with your great knowlege and wisdom, will never win the Origin of Life prize? Shouldn't be much to it, since science already knows how the universe ticks without intelligent design.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

When was the last time an evolutionist made a testable prediction?

Line of Evidence	Prediction of descent	Prediction from design	Data	Best explaining theory:
1. Biochemical complexity	High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.	High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.	High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found.	Design.
2. Fossil Record	Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.	Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.	Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.	Design.
3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics	Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.	Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.	Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms.	Design.
4. Genetic Code	The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."	The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."	Increased knowledge of genetices has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function can be expected or explained under a design pardigm.	Design.

Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions (From IDEA)

[balrog666]

I don't see it, just how does this molecular analysis hypothesis falsify ID?

[AndrewC]

Why not just conclude that nature has hit upon a near-optimum mechanism for the centriole's action?

Because that is just-so.

[Kenny Bunkport]

So, in other words, "descent" has made numerous predictions, none of which have been borne out.

[doc30]

entertainment ping

[xenophiles]

I don't really hope to accomplish much in what is basically a religious debate, but just for fun I'll take a swing at your arguments. Any one of the four would be a good target; I'll take the first, "irreducible complexity". The site you cite defines it as describing a system of many parts which won't work at all if any part is missing. Leaving aside the fact that creationists often make this claim about systems that can actually still work fairly well with some elements removed, there is the larger problem of these systems working well with other elements added. Such a system can evolve slowly and blindly from other less efficient but more complex systems. Perhaps you falsely identify evolution with a steady increase in complexity, but in any case this "irreducible complexity" argument is an oft-refuted fallacy.

If you're serious about this you should advise IDEA to address the counterargument or delete the argument from their site.

[PatrickHenry]

entertainment ping

Thanks, but it's low-grade stuff. No ping to the evolution list.

[Heartlander]

Predictions from evolution…
Heck, anybody can make up some testable predictions from evolution… It’s easy and obviously anyone who disagrees with your prediction could be labeled as ‘anti-science’.