A new article in Science magazine claims evidence that Alan Turing’s 1952 “biological model in which two chemicals — an activator and an inhibitor — could interact to form the basis for everything from the color patterns of a butterfly’s wings to the black and white stripes of a zebra” has been demonstrated to be correct.
From the PhysOrg item:
Harvard research now shows that Nodal and Lefty — two proteins linked to the regulation of asymmetry in vertebrates and the development of precursor cells for internal organs — fit the model described by Turing six decades ago.
[Notice that this was BEFORE DNA had been decoded by Watson and Crick in 1956]
From the April 12 issue of Science:
Alexander Schier, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and his collaborators
demonstrate a key aspect of Turing’s model: that the activator protein Nodal moves through tissue far more slowly than its inhibitor Lefty.
“That’s one of the central predictions of the Turing model,” Schier said. “So I think we can now say that Nodal and Lefty are a clear example of this model in vivo.”
Did you notice that this “prediction” is NOT based on NS? No, it is based on a “mathematical model” developed by Turing. This prediction was made solely on mathematical grounds——-this means it is based on raw intelligence since only thinking minds can formulate mathematical equations and then apply them.
“Turing was brilliant,” Schier continued. “There wasn’t a single molecule known that would regulate development or pattern formation when he proposed this model. For him, it was a pure mathematical model. The Turing equation is simple but there’s a certain beauty to it. It can be applied to many different biological systems and what you get are amazing and beautiful patterns.
Another instance where the concept of intelligent design was used to make a correct prediction. Should we also mention front-loading and junk-DNA? How about pseudogenes? The list keeps growing.
Let me also mention that population genetics “predicted” that genomes wouldn’t contain many polymorphisms. It couldn’t have been more wrong. Today we have the Neutral Theory proponents simply because population genetics turned out to be so wrong. Let’s notice that a “neutral” trait can’t be directly “selected-for”. So, upon invoking the Neutral Theory, NS has been left behind—in the dustbin of history where it belongs.