(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.
This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.
"This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired."
Exactly. Evolution follows the same fallacious pattern.
Evolution predicts 'change' (your quote), 'Change' is observed; therefore evolution is 'supported'. This is and always will be a logical fallacy.
Life could have been created with the adaptive attributes that we observe. Evolution is not the only option. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to claim that it is.
Amazing that you still don't see that?