> If we take Loren's test seriously, then evolution is already falsified,
> because new species already do appear suddenly in several separate locations
> around the globe -- in the fossil record. And we will find more examples of
> it tomorrow and the years to come, perhaps even among living organisms in
> unique environments such as rain forests and ocean vents.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that "suddenly" in the
fossil record doesn't satisfy Loren's requirements. Define "sudden"
as it applies to the fossil record. Does this equate to the short
time period of Loren's statement or to a relatively short geological
time period, perhaps thousands or even tens of thousands of years?
> In that case, Loren is using the old "dramatic observation" ploy to make a
> theory seem testable -- a method which can (falsely) make anything seem
> testable. For example, if the planets stopped moving and everyone's
> personality remained unchanged, then astrology would be falsified. If the
> planets moved in squares instead ellipses, then guru Hasbro's mystic theory
> of gravity would be falsified. Etcetera. The fact is that no one operating
> without benefit of those theories would expect such observations either.
Not so. It isn't a particularly dramatic observation and I suspect
that you realize it. What Loren was suggesting is that if we
observed a single species originating at several locations
simultaneously without any evident evolutionary pathways, we would
have to assume that evolution was false. You've blown it completely
out of all reasonable proportion.
> They do not test those theories. No one, neither creationist nor
> evolutionist, expects to see the instantaneous appearance of new species
> simultaneously around the world. Loren's notion does not test evolution, it
> is just another run-around.
Whether you expect to see it or not, it is certainly an observation
that would falsify evolution. Can you propose a similar test that
would falsify creationism?
-Brian