[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.

[microgood]

Read it again, more carefully this time, nothing "circular"

It is totally circular. You are coming to the same conclusion based on opposite scientific methods to support the same theory - classical circular reasoning - which is of course a logical fallacy. Evolution theory does it all the time and it is well documented.

In fact, when I was in college and a philosophy major, this very topic was used in our textbooks as a classical example of what circular reasoning is.

From a quote on Wikipedia on circular reasoning from a couple of philosophers : Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". - which is exactly what you are doing.

As far as "definitive truth", that was definitely miscue on my part but the point is the same as if it was "definitive proof" which I was correct about - that this was not stated by a scientist.