Imagine if someone said; "I wasn't at the scene of the crime because I was in a shop which has CCTV, and you can go and see the video of that CCTV and you will see me on it."
Equivalent claim; Darwins, he predicted as part of his theory, we would find the transitionals in time.
Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.
Imagine now if the police told him that and he responded by saying this;
"Oh well, technically speaking did you know that it is possible that if I go into that shop and twist and jump at a certain angle very quickly behind a shelf, then roll over, do the splits whistle dixie, do seven more jumps then roll out of the shop, then I won't be caught on the CCTV camera, and because this is a possibility, you can't say I wasn't in the shop."
One can see the tactic. What is it? It's this; "Ahh but you haven't falsified evolution, you have only falsified a version of it, because we now argue that evolution can perform gymnastic manoeuvres in order to avoid being evidenced."
So then as an example, the "Hard type" hypothesis was an excuse for why none of the soft-bodied organisms were found fossilised. But such extra hypotheses are only invented to wriggle out of falsification.
We now know plenty of soft bodied fossils have been found.
It seems to me, after-the-fact conjecture in science, such as Gould's excuses for evolution, should be regarded as extremely logically tenuous attempts to rescue evolution from obvious falsification.
Sure, it might be possible to do those gymnastic moves in that shop and not be caught on the CCTV, but the point is, why would anyone believe it? Evolutionists believe evolution happened even though all of the direct evidence is missing, only because they're evolutionist and want evolution to be true, but what reason does that give me to believe it happened? If you give a conjectural explanation of why the transitionals are missing, why shouldn't I reject that and instead say; "no, Darwin said we should find them, and we haven't which is reason enough to dismiss evolution."?
[mc]Why? Why shouldn't I go with what the genius scientist Darwin said rather than what some amateur forum bounder says? Are you saying you are up there with Darwin?[/mc]
(mc = mischief content)
Now, count the excuses;
mike the wiz: Imagine we have a theory that the cat ate the carpet. If this theory is true, surely we would find some carpet in the dead cat? Surely it couldn't have digested a whole carpet? So we conduct an autopsy and find no carpet remains. Ergo it is time to invoke a secondary hypothesis. We shall hypothesise that the cat regurgitated the carpet which is why we find no carpet within the cat. Okay then, where did it regurgitate the carpet, since the cat was found dead within the abandoned house? The hypothesis explains that the cat found a way out of the house before it died, to vomit out the carpet. Okay, where did the cat vomit out the carpet and why did it come back to the house? Yet another hypothesis, it went out of the house, vomited out the carpet into a river, so that the carpet was washed down the river so that we would find no carpet. Cat's are very clean which is why it found the energy to do this..........OR, we can go with the evidence that this particular house, just didn't have a carpet.