Comment: Do you realize what you just posted?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: How about 29? (see in situ)

Do you realize what you just posted?

It's quite interesting, generally, so thank you for posting it.

In the intro it states:
-Precisely, almost word for word, the description of the scientific method I provided above
-They create a NEW definition of "observations" which is not compatible with traditional scientific method: "By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis."
-The imply that inference is equivalent to testing, which it is not, per scientific method, unless inference is made on repeatable test observations
-The correctly observe that "maximum likelihood" (ML) is used in scientific method
-But then they apply ML to inTRA-specie mutation and do a bait and switch, attempting to extend observations drawn on inTRA-specie mutation to specie-to-specie evolution, which is not scientifically valid.

So, the fact remains, that despite how interesting and informative what you posted was, and I thank you for that, ZERO scientific proofs were provided in the article that one specie evolved out of another.