In what manner does observing stellar incidences, and infering stellar histories, differ from observing fossils and morphologically similar modern forms and infering biological evolution? In both cases, you are pinning a theory that implies an enormous range of behaviors you have not observed on a tiny handful you have observed.
First of all, I do think that we have indeed seen some stars explode through our telescopes, so this stuff is not completely 'imagination'.
The reason you cannot infer evolution from fossils is twofold:
1. the bones show us only a very small part of what makes a species what it is. The DNA, the organs are the most important part of a species and there is no trace of that except in a handful of very special cases.
2. Homology is nonsense. There are far too many examples of totally unrelated species with similar features and what is worse, there are examples of closely related species with completely different features. Therefore homology, the only basis for paleontology is total nonsense. It's not science, it's fairy tales for atheists.
Just as we see speciation in action when we look at present-day specie-crosses, such as horse&donkey&zebra, or lion&tiger, or dog&cat, with their successively dwindling chances of successful fruition.
The reason you cannot infer evolution from fossils is twofold: 1. the bones show us only a very small part of what makes a species what it is. The DNA, the organs are the most important part of a species and there is no trace of that except in a handful of very special cases.
Oh, you know exactly, down to the minutest detail, what the makeup of Alpha Proxima is?
2. Homology is nonsense. There are far too many examples of totally unrelated species with similar features and what is worse, there are examples of closely related species with completely different features. Therefore homology, the only basis for paleontology is total nonsense. It's not science, it's fairy tales for atheists.
I'll assume you mean morphology when you say homology. What the micro-biologists do is establish homologies, what the field paleontologists do is investigate morphologies.
This is, of course, your patented brand of unscientific hogwash. Neither morphology nor homology is not the "only" basis for paleontology. Lining up the allied morphologies of the fossils with the geological strata in which they predominently occur is the primary basis of paleontology, and it was quite a compelling one, even before there was such a thing as micro-biology.