ID Predictions

Over at Uncommon Descent, Dr. Dembski has asked for some suggestions about predictions from ID that have been shown to be correct. I was thinking about this today, and have a couple of ideas.

If biological systems have been influenced by an intelligent designer, then we should see discontinuities in at the genetic and biochemical level. I mean this in two ways. First, we will see complex biochemical mechanisms that cannot have evolved in a stepwise manner. This is, of course, irreducible complexity, and is no doubt one of the predictions Dr. Dembski has in mind.

Second, we will see discontinuities is in the phyogeny of genes. Under the usual Darwinist assumptions of common descent, the phylogenetic tree should be the same for every gene. But Intelligent Design allows for some genes to have different trees, because the designer could have acted to change a gene. The effect would be to change the shape of the tree for that gene.

And, would you believe it, we find exactly this! For example, Clarke et al. (2002) state:

Darwin’s paradigm holds that the diversity of present-day organisms has arisen via a process of genetic descent with modification, as on a bifurcating tree. Evidence is accumulating that genes are sometimes transferred not along lineages but rather across lineages. To the extent that this is so, Darwin’s paradigm can apply only imperfectly to genomes, potentially complicating or perhaps undermining attempts to reconstruct historical relationships among genomes (i.e., a genome tree).

Of course, being Darwinists, they interpret the evidence as being due to other mechanisms (i.e. horizontal or lateral gene transfer). But this could also be explained by ID at least as well. (For instance, I will predict significant evidence for design in Vitis species, and in Humulus lupulus). And, this is not an isolated paper – google the words phylogenetic tree discordance if you don’t believe me. Now, one could argue that this is only really a problem in prokaryotes, but to do that one would have to claim that fruit flies don’t have nuclei.

In reality, this will just be the tip of the iceberg. When you talk to people who work on phylogenies, you quickly discover that it is full of fiddles and tricks to get your data to give you a “good” answer. There are several methods for making a tree (parsimony, maximum likelihood, Bayesian), and a whole host of things to tweak within each one (e.g. the mutation model, the parameters of the model). So, if you find a bad result – a gene totally in the wrong place in one species, or a whole clade mis-behaving, then you just change the parameters a bit to remove the problem. This sort of thing is done all the time.

So, my ID prediction – if we look at the data honestly, we will see that gene trees are different from species trees. And, this will be better interpreted as evidence for design, not some mysterious ability of eukaryotes to pick up odd strands of DNA. This is not really ID, but I would also predict that Darwinists will blather on about how this is really due to something else – they haven’t got quite the right model, or there is another mechanism (that they haven’t observed) that would give the same result.

Advertisements

2 responses to “ID Predictions

  1. The problem with the first prediction is determining whether something can evolve in a stepwise manner. Behe’s tried a couple of approaches, but they’ve been shot down.

    The other prediction is pretty good. Yes, there’s a competing explanation for the same prediction that doesn’t involve intelligent design. As I understand it, there’s considerable progress on that side showing when, where, and how lateral transfers happened. What work has been done on the ID side to support the ID explanation?

  2. No, Behe’s approaches have not been shut down. Darwinists are still scrambling to show step-wise manners for most of the organisms that Behe has pointed out as being IC. Just-so stories with no evidence to back them up do not count.

    As to your other statement, what work has been done on the Darwinist side to show lateral transfers? The “evidence” is usually of the variety that an observation is made that doesn’t jive, so it must have been lateral transfer. But, this doesn’t work, because it’s begging the question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s