A. It 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 Centrioles and Polar Ejection Force 89 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.
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.
Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
How exactly do these predictions suggest that there is 'design' in the origin of Centrioles, or their putative ejection force? I see nothing in here that would favour a design hypothesis over a naturalistic hypothesis, nor did Dr. Wells do anything more than give lip service to the idea of design in his article. He assumes that because the centriole looks to function as a turbine that it must be designed. He is assuming his conclusion.
For predictions to have any use they must predict consequences which favour one hypothesis over another, in this case 'Design' over 'Nature'. His predictions do not do that, in fact they do not in any way even address the possible origin. His hypothesis may very well be correct although I could not find any subsequent experiments that give support to his ideas, but his ideas are no better at explaining, without assuming the conclusion, than a naturalistic hypothesis.
All he has said in effect, is that if the turbine pushes it is designed but if it is pushed it is natural. Where is the basis for that comparison?
[His hypothesis may very well be correct although I could not find any subsequent experiments that give support to his ideas, but his ideas are no better at explaining, without assuming the conclusion, than a naturalistic hypothesis.]
Actually it would be a little better ex-planation than the naturalistic approach because the naturalistic experimentations have failed to explain the issue, and the naturalistic approach has been ongoing for quite sometime- it’s so far been a dead end, and introdiucing the idea of design is a logical next step which might very well lead to a deeper understanding- The patent process has been studied over the years, and it has been discovered that when design is studied, it leads to better and more sophsticated designs that all took their ques from previous designs. Studying hte design of cancer, one might just discover the correlating designs in other areas that might just give some insight into the functionings of the cancer itself.
Searching foir the answers by assuming systems evolved, rules out any idea of design, and assumes that all systems have evovled from one another, and must therefore have their clues in previous systems- however, if one goes about studying designs of systems, knowing that each design is unique, and not necessarily connected to another systems/process, but rather functions in conjunction with another uniquely designed system/function, then it opens up a different line of thinking that isn’t shackled by the idea that all systems are evovled from one another
To illustrate this perhaps a bit better, it would be liek assuming all car parts are evovled from one another (As an evolutionist assumes all species systems/functions must have evovled from common ancestors), and assuming that a Porsche exhaust is going to fit a Honda- and being baffled when it doesn’t- However, if a person understands the basic designs invovled, they can perhaps take their knowledge, expand their thinking a bit, and discover that the Porsche designed exhaust isn’t useless after all, and discover a modifiable element that would cause the exhaust to fit the Honda. What happened here is that the expnaded thinking, knoweldgeable in exhaust designs, understood thattwo similiar designs of exhaust systems could function together with a little exhaust knolwege manipulation until a new feature is discovered that could render the Porsche exhaust useable.
If you go at somethign with a closed mind, expanded thinking just won’t factor into the issue, and you’re closing the door on other possibilities which might just lead to a deeper understanding of the issue at hand. Which is exactly what is happening when Duesberg points out “The mutation theory of cancer says that a limited number of genes causes cancer, so cancers should all be more or less the same,”
Each UNIQUELY created system/function/organism etc is DESIGNED, and discovering and understanding the design, might just lead to connections between other uniquely designed systems/functions/organisms, and Deusberg points htis out by hypothesising about the chromosomal theory “even if cancers are from the same tissue, and are generated with the same carcinogen, they are never the same. There is always a cytogenetic and a biochemical individuality in every cancer.” In effect, he is breaking from the long held, but dead end hypothesis that all cancers have common ancestry, and points out hte need to now search in other directions- and this I beleive is quite relevent and important design inspired science.