Evidence to expect given a designer

Hi Chuck, No, scientists have not studied every fossil that exists. Are you suggesting that we reserve judgement until every single tiny shell that ever got stuck in a rock is studied? I would hope not.For now it suffices for me that every single time I find a new fossil it is completely consistent with the ToE. What's more, every time anyone finds a new fossil, it is completely consistent with the ToE. Every single time.No-one is forcing those fossils to support the ToE. There is no conspiracy to hide the counter-examples. All it would take to completely rewrite our understanding of how evolution works would be a single Cambrian rabbit fossil. Or a Devonian ginkgo fossil. Or a Silurian albatross fossil. Or any one of an unimaginably long list of anachronistic fossils. They're never found.Why do you suppose that is?Mutate and Survive

And all you can respond is You made a claim about what microbiologist have said. When challenged that this is NOT what microbiologists say, you provide a list of microbiologists who do make that claim......except many of the names you provide are not microbiologists!I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable comeback from PaulK. If you want to support your position on what microbiologists say, giving a list of non-microbiologists who say this isn't really evidence of what microbiologists say.

It appears to me that the so-called "cambrian explosion" supports Creationism with the sudden appearence of these animals.

Sorry cavediver but making liitle laughing smiley faces (which seems to be your trademark) does not make Berlinski's credentials any less credible. Nor does it make PaulK's point.Give it another shot. This time without the smilies

Well again I don't think anyone here really want's us to debate what my "holy writ" book does or doesn't say. Suffice to say that just because it doesn't tell us the how, doesn't mean there wasn't a "how." But that's the great thing, as some refer to it as the "Living" Word, it speaks to each of us right where we are. From the simplistic to the analytic, it will meet you right on your level. Lol. I could pinch myself and see if I wake up. (grin) Seriously though you are very right. How could I know. However that kind of reminds me of a saying my old Pastor used to say. "Even puppy love is real to the puppy." Excuse me? Unfalsifiable? Lets look again and see if that is true.Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)Scientific observation B: the universe "began." (Can be falsified by observations which show it has always existed.)Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources. (Can be falsified by one observed case of something with this kind of specificity being formed by unguided natural processes.)Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. (Can be falsified by just one case to the contrary)Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)

The gradual evolution of hard-bodied creatures over a period of millions of years supports a dogma which invariably denies evolution and usually denies the millions of years?Apparently we are in Opposite World.

quote:

---

Sorry cavediver but making liitle laughing smiley faces (which seems to be your trademark) does not make Berlinski's credentials any less credible. Nor does it make PaulK's point.

---

The fact that you can't cite any of Berlinski's qualifications in biology supports my claim that he doesn't have any. Working as a research assistant is not a qualification.

Well thank you Chuck, its good to hear another friendly voice out there. I really enjoy your posts as well. I specially like your avatar pic.Brad

A couple of problems with that;Firstly, it doesn't do anything to falsify the ToE. Such a well evidenced and successful theory isn't going to be cast aside unless you can provide falsifying evidence. In other words, it isn't really enough to say that it supports creationism. You need to falsify the ToE. No Cambrian fossil even comes close to the kind of falsification I'm talking about. If we found a rabbit in the Cambrian, it would blow our current understanding of natural history out of the water. Instead, what we find is that the fauna of the Cambrian was very different to today, with Cambrian examples of major phyla looking radically different to modern organisms. Familiar groups like mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc. all absent. This is the complete opposite of the biblical account, which has such groups being created at the beginning.Secondly, the idea of "sudden appearance" is outdated. We have plenty of pre-Cambrian fossils, including proposed ancestors for some of the Cambrian animals. Too often creationists hang on to a Nineteenth century view of the fossil record and this is a prime example.Overall, the fact remains that no equivalent to the notorious Cambrian rabbit has been found. Not one. Millions upon millions of fossils have been studied and not one has falsified the ToE. Not one. Doesn't that look a little odd to you? Don't you think that if the ToE were false, then fossils would be found that falsified it? If not, why not? And why aren't creationists out there looking for such a fossil? It would only take one Cambrian rabbit (or equivalent) to throw a monkey wrench into the ToE; why aren't creationists out there looking for it? Could it possibly be because, deep down, they know they won't find it?Doesn't this worry you at all?Mutate and Survive

No, Berlinksi's credentials make him that much less credible Ok

quote:

---

The author spent part of 1971 as a research assistant and something of a post-doctoral fellow at the department of biology...

---

Hmmm... no academic qualifications in evidence there. Why would another shot be required?I think my mocking laughs are doing an admirable job, but thanks for the concern. It is noted

So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position? By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory?If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified?It's setup to cover anything that would dare come againt it. Like the definition of a "scientific theory"It leaves the door open to cover everything under the sun and whenever someone comes along with different intepretation on all the evidence available to everyone you just say we're not following the scientific method.Well then what exactly is the scientific method. Do you agree that science follows the scientific method for the TOE?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Does a tiny computer program based solely on the mindless repeated application of trial and error qualify as a person?

quote:

---

So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position? By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory?

---

You think that evolutionary theory really DOES say that we should find rabbits in the Cambrian ? If not, how can it be a strawman ?

quote:

---

If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified?

---

You think that if something IS false, then it can't be shown to be false?If you don't understand these points, how can you hope to discuss the issues ?

You what?This conveys paranoia but not much else. Try my thread on The Scientific Method For Beginners.

Well I did name at least one "off the top of my head."Douglas Axe- is the director of Biologic Institute. His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles, including Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris,others include:Ann Gauger- is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis.Matti Leisola- is Professor of Bioprocess Technology of Aalto University. His habilitation in biotechnology was completed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH). The research on enzyme engineering and function and other aspects of biotechnology done under his direction has led to over 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers and about 3000 citations in the scientific literature.Will Little- is a research scientist and software developer currently working on the Stylus project. Will holds a BSE in Interdisciplinary Engineering and an MS in Bioengineering from the University of Washington. He earned a PhD from the ETH (Zrich) for his work on biomaterials and mechanotransduction.Philip Lu- is a biotechnologist specializing in protein purification and process column chromatography applications. He received his BS in microbiology from the University of Washington. He has been involved in a wide range of research and development projects, including studies of glycoprotein G from the Herpes Simplex II virus and bringing the cytokine product Leukine from development to production for Immunex.Jonathan Wells- is a cell and developmental biologist with a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley. His current research includes experimental testing of a hypothesis about centriole function with implications for cancer, and theoretical work on the role of endogenous electric fields in establishing spacial coordinate systems to control morphogenesis in animal embryos. His work has appeared in BioSystems, Development, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Lisanne Winslow- is a professor of biology at Northwestern College. Her research focuses on the cellular biology of sea urchin immune cells. She received her BS, MS, and PhD from Rutgers University. She was recently awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to conduct research on the structure and function of sea urchin immune cells at the Misaki Marine Biological Station in Japan.