Brian Hendrsn wrote:
>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?
Precisely. Loren's post ***sounded*** like he gave a test of evolution.
But on Brian's interpretation we find it devolves into a non-test. Is
evolution false, or is it unfalsifiable? Either way it has no grip on
reality.
>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.
Brian gave a pseudo-test of evolution. I couldn't ask for a better example.
Let me interpret Brian in plain English. He is claiming that one way to
falsify Darwinism would be to DEMONSTRATE SOME OTHER METHOD OF EVOLUTION.
Evolutionists would not be dismayed at this result. They'd be overjoyed!
There is no test of evolution here. Just the usual run-around.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128