Plausible inductive arguments for simple non-organic systems or archaeology surely cannot be compared to inductive investigation of vastly complex organic morphology, especially when no one was there to see how it happened - so are theorizing and inductively hypothesizing based on vacuous interpretations.
Some specific examples of the alleged "vastly complex" organic taxonomies.
Is it not the case that paleontologists measure skeletal and other remains to arrive at "just-so" stories, for sparse data points, (for which no one was there, so couldn't be observed), about the alleged relationships between supposedly "look-alike" skeletal and other remains ? Is this not extrapolation/induction and therefore poor science - you can call it historical (or maybe forensic) evolutionary science to lend it seeming credibility, except it relates to vastly complex organic taxonomies, for morphological emergence, not non-organic archaeology, so there's an order of magnitude difference between the levels of investigation: Order_of_magnitude
Have you considered : Proposed evolution scenarios are just-so stories
Paleontology onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
SPECIES ALLEGED TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present
Not only do they extrapolate about supposedly look-alike fossil remains (homology) ape / human / bird / reptile / fish / plants & grasses / bacteria / other remains, but they claim to have comprehensive phylogenetic taxonomy. It's not much to do with detailed morphological observations, unlike detailed observations in hard science :
Also:
It would be surprising if mapping of all DNA to morphology and variations
would explain any more than adaptation, rather than morphological emergence
through macro evolution. I don't know of anyone that doubts or denies adaptation.
But given the vastly complex supposedly inter-related morphologies of the
Phylogenetic_tree - above, it seems that induction or extrapolation
from simple adaptation to arrive at this vastly complex "tree"
stretches credibility into the realms of being poor science.
It's tempting to over simplify it all by reducing it to DNA mapping I suppose, as though grass is related to a donkey. Someone commented that there isn't a linear one-to-one relationship between variations in DNA and morphology, and the matter apparently is subject to ongoing research and notable controversy, probably for some time yet.
Even the Bible warns against false science, while including genuine science (more detail in 'Angels & Evolution'). We know that successive approximation and sampling errors dog everything we do. Why are some sure they've not been taken in by naturalism's materialistic sophistry, so needing to apply critical thinking to the sophistry ?
1 Ti 6:20 "Science falsely so called", which mostly applies to the extrapolations of those who weren't there to see how it happened - the origins of humanity, so don't have rigorous observations to base their theories on. Which is one reason science commends itself on extolling theories and hypotheses that invariably can change.
All Rights Reserved.
Home/Cell Groups are a good alternative for those who prefer it.