[microgood]

And here is the ultimate confirmation of those scientific "assumptions": radiometric dating can predict which types of fossils will later be found in a particular geological strata, and/or the types of fossils found in a particular strata can predict the results of later radiometric dating.

Actually, this is what is known as circular reasoning.

I agree that science is doing the best job possible with the information it has, but constructing the past via inductive reasoning alone is a tough assignment. That is why I objected to the claim of "definitive truth" in the article.

[BroJoeK]

microgood: "Actually, this is what is known as circular reasoning."

Read it again, more carefully this time, nothing "circular" about it, FRiend.
Let me say it again, more slooooooooooowly this time:

1. Accurate radiometric dating of an unknown geological stratum can predict which types of fossils will be found there.
   If that type of fossil is later found, it confirms the accuracy of the radiometric prediction.
   Nothing at all "circular" about it, only scientific theory confirmed.

2. Or conversely, the types of fossils found in a previously unknown geological stratum can predict later results from radiometric dating.
   Again, nothing "circular" about it, only scientific theory confirmed, yet again.

microgood: "I agree that science is doing the best job possible with the information it has, but constructing the past via inductive reasoning alone is a tough assignment.
That is why I objected to the claim of "definitive truth" in the article."

But that term "definitive truth" was not used in the article, so you object to your own overheated imagination!

Yes, the article does say the discovery of such well-preserved fish-eyes provides "definitive proof" that complex eyes first developed at least 300 million years ago.
"Proof" is a legal term, not a scientific word.
The proper scientific term is "confirmed".
So, the news-reporter is just giving us his opinion that if presented in a court of law, a jury would consider it "proof" of the scientific claim.
Science itself doesn't' work that way.

Indeed, this article itself, dated December 23, 2014, uses neither terms "proof" nor "confirmed", but only "evidence" and "suggests".
Those are the correct scientific words.