Unfortunately, you appear not to understand the fallacy and it's relationship to belief in the 'theory' of evolution.
What you are doing is observing an existing system and trying to understand it. You may believe that evolution created that system, but the origin of the system is irrelevant for your purposes. You are simply studying the system and trying to understand how it works and adapts.
You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits.
The fact that biological systems do this, that or some other yet-to-be-discovered thing is irrelevant to the 'theory' of evolution without the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.
My brother who is very scientific and mathematically minded explained to me that very thing. Especially since in our day the tools are avaible to do that, they find the more they splice and dice to the smallest element....the more they are faced with how very limited their understanding really is. Though it's rewarding and exciting to "discover".
What you are doing is observing an existing system and trying to understand it. You may believe that evolution created that system, but the origin of the system is irrelevant for your purposes. You are simply studying the system and trying to understand how it works and adapts.
You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits.
The fact that biological systems do this, that or some other yet-to-be-discovered thing is irrelevant to the 'theory' of evolution without the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.
What I am doing is using a theory that ties together the known facts into a coherent whole, and informs me as to how I should form the hypotheses that guide my research.
That is exactly what any scientist does with a theory, no more and no less.
You can try to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I chose a field of research in which the theory of evolution is central (instead of, for instance, where the theory of electromagnetism is the central guide). But whatever beliefs and motivations you want to assign to me mean nothing. What I research today can result in improvements to medical practice ten or twenty years from now; better medicine is my motivation.
That's just it - evolution is a philosophy, not empirical science. The error that evolutionists make is to confuse the two.