"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

AS I wrote JB This is becoming tit for tat, and we're not likely to
accomplish much here, so I'll address one thing, and let you have the
last word, then I bow out. Unless you want to talk the research, there
isn't much point.


"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief,
is that design explains things that natural selection cannot.
Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the
then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected
universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that,
while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found
nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm

I'm not sure who the peers are who did the review, but the main thrust
of the paper is that the Cambrian period, in which differing life forms
proliferated, did not have much in the way of transitional fossils
before it happened. The life forms were too complex.

An explosion of new life forms after the Cryogenian is not terribly
surprising, given that the earth was largely in a deep freeze during the
Cryogenian.

The Ediacarian, which happened before the Cambrian, was in fact the time
when many of the basic body plans that exist today came about. It
recieved a bit of short shrift in the paper.

But what is interesting is the conclusion. There are some questions and
interesting things about the Cambrian. We don't know everything for
sure. He concludes the answer is that it must be designed. I look at it
and say thanks for the idea for new research projects.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get
ID insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good
research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists
dont want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.

No conspiracy needed. Let's take another and similar issue, that of Cold
Fusion. When FLeischmann and Pons announced their discovery, a lot of
researchers flocked to reproduce thier results. They couldn't, and cold
fusion (at least at that time, was relegated to the back pages. The
internet is a haven for people who say that researchers were stymied or
discriminated against if they showed any evidence suggesting cold fusion
was real. And yet research goes on, if quietly. If someone comes up with
cold fusion, they will be a part of history.

IF I were a biologist, and IF I thought there was any chance that
Evolution wasn't real, you can bet your life I would be doing research
to find out the truth. The person who discovers that will completely
Rcck the entire scientific world to it's very core. And there are plenty
of people out there would be willing to do the research.

But the problem is that basic research that disproves evolution is just
not there. And looking at a lot of different papers and drawing a
conclusion is only step one. Now that your author has made his
conclusion - actually a hypothesis - synthesized from a number of other
papers, he has to act on it.

The main conclusion is that the complexity of Cambrian life forms is
beyond what is possible without purposful design. I would disagree,
given what happened in the ediacaran age, but disagreement is how
science moves forward.

Now they have to prove that

1. There are no transitional fossils

2. Come up with an adequate explanation of the lack of modern species in
the fossil record.

3. A "killer" would be to find anatomically identical animals along with
extinct of the same species in some provable ancient strata.


Now there is a danger in field research of item number one. Over the
years, the number of transitional fossils has grown quite a bit. The
Ediacaran and early Cambrian is a buzzing field at present, and there
may be more transitional animals to be found.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Of course if the research is repeatable, we should have rebuilt the dinos
because we would be able to create life, recreate life, and transition it as
well. We have lots of conclusion upon conclusion upon conclusion. As with
many theoretical belief systems, we construct intricate theories upon
preconceived notions.

We don't know what gravity is but we take note of it's existence. So we
construct intricate theories, but don't really know if some breakthrough
will suddenly make it all clear.

We have evidence of miracles, although they are often not repeatable nor
observable to a peer group. We have C14 dating that is corroborated by
Geological Strata theory, but Geological Strata theory is not reliable
because we assume that the Earth has been re-arranged significantly in ways
we can't always explain.

I prefer to leave some things unresolved and let others devote their lives
to their pursuits, but I take issue with God hating mad scientists seeking
to rule the world, or enabling evil. There are those who have decided that
there is no right or wrong, heaven or hell, no evil or morality and that it
would be just as well if a whole lot of other people could just be food or
step off the planet to leave more for the animals.

I leave it in God's hands though. He does what he wants.