I wrote:
>If Loren were serious about [his test], then evolution is already falsified.
>For the evolutionary assumptions required to fit the historical data (e.g.
>the wide gaps between fossil life forms) systematically contradicts the
>bounds set from the experimental sciences.
Let me expand the point, as it is so central. There are two INDEPENDENT
means to potentially establish evolution as a fact. Here they are briefly:
1) Show that the gaps between life forms can be bridged by experimental
demonstrations. (Not all gaps, or even most gaps, but a sufficient number,
large and small, to establish the pattern.) Any evolutionary mechanism
would be acceptable, just demonstrate it sufficiently.
2) Show clear large-scale patterns of ancestors and lineage.
Life fails to oblige evolutionists on BOTH these points, not just piecemeal
here-and-there, but systematically. It's a breathtaking systematic failure
of evolution.
Loren says that view "is respectable, defensible, but nevertheless a
decidedly _minority_ opinion among experts in the field." Is evolution
falsified? Or is it unfalsifiable? Either way it has lost grip of reality.
If you really must categorize it, then I say evolutionary theory -- as
practiced by its proponents -- is unfalsifiable.
Loren asks: "What's the best option?" I can list them.
A) Find organisms (fossil or living) to close the gaps and bring them in
line with the, rather limited, experimental demonstrations.
B) Find experimental demonstrations of ever greater scope, in an attempt to
bridge the gaps.
C) Find clear-cut ancestors and lineages.
But that is not what evolutionists do. Traditionally they created illusions
that A,B,&C had been found. The modern trend,however, is to abandon A,B,&C
(in favor of other evolutionary illusions). Many evolutionists today
insistently refuse to identify ancestors or lineages, claiming this "cannot"
or "ought not" be done.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128