Mozilla crashing can ruin your whole day...
It's probably not even worth it to address this post, but by this point it is blatantly obvious that you have little to no scientific background.
True...but it should be blatant not for that reason...but because I'm a freshman computer engineer....
What were the initial hypotheses Darwin and others had before synthesizing ToE...there were none, it was those original OBSERVATIONS that led to its formulation.
I was not referring all the way back to Darwin. Though I could have been referring to a number of his proponents, such as Haeckel. But, also...remember, many of the "conclusions" that many evolutionists come to when looking at the evidence iss nothing but materialistic philosophy that the evidence does NOT support, so it's possible that Darwin was just pouring materialistic philosophy into his works, and not science (because he did come up with his theory even though he knew evidence contradicted it).
If you're speaking in terms of today's experimentation, it's not like we can pretend to ignore the volumes of all previous observations that support evolution.
What volume of observations for evolution? Also, you can't use any observations interpreted assuming evolution to be true to support evolution, that is circular.
Even if that is what you'd expect from science (starting at square one with no preconceived notions before each study), what other testable alternatives/conclusions do you think would arise from those studies that researchers should be considering? I'd really like to know.
First, nobody has shown how evolution itself is testable and therefore falsifiable. Second, I don't see how not having an alternative theory (since you wish to ignore ID, though it IS testable) would weaken my position. Not all critics of evolution wish to replace it with something else...they just criticize it because it has big problems.
You may consider it a circular path when studies of evolution support evolution...I consider it continued reinforcement of a sound theory.
Strawman! Cut it out. I never said anything like that.
If a study examines the effects of gravity on something, and we interpret the results in the light of what we have observed in the past, is that circular logic?
No, and not what I said. I said it is circular reasoning to interpret observations assuming something is true, and then using the conclusion reached to then go back and support the assumption.
You seem to think the notion of evolutionary scientists is "we need to provide even more support for evolution", but that is hardly the case.
Actually, a little bit of evidence would be nice.
Evolutionary science is beyond trying to convince those with insurmountable preconceived notions, and we are now describing how the process works.
Ah, so you don't realize that your statement cuts both ways?
