Yesterday I foolishly believed I had gone "shopping." I went to a grocery store and exchanged money for a head of lettuce. It was only when I got home that I realized I had committed "the fallacy of equivocation" for believing that my exchange of money for lettuce had actually equated to "shopping."
"We could call this one the fallacy of begging the question for believing that what is observed is the result of 'evolution'."
I also realized that I had committed "the fallacy of begging the question" for believing that what I had just observed (my successful acquisition of lettuce in exchange for money) was the "result" of "shopping."
"Here, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is noted for believing that what is observed uniquely supports evolution' because it was a 'prediction' of 'evolution'."
And of course, I realized that I had committed "the fallacy of affirming the consequent" for believing that what I had just observed (my successful acquisition of lettuce in exchange for money) actually supported the concept of "shopping" because such exchanges are a "prediction" of "shopping."
Upon my realization that I had been a victim of these logical fallacies, my lettuce vanished. (Although my money didn't reappear, which kind of pissed me off.)
Not surprising.
Stories about evo confusion when shopping for lettuce are excellent examples of support for 'evolution'. They show that story-telling is the primary foundation of 'evolution' and that no story is too ridiculous to be rejected as support for 'evolution'.
I'd be completely surprised if this didn't pass peer-review for publication in a scientific journal.