And what I'm saying is that if the scientific method is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent as you claim, that doesn't help you. Your 'science' and your belief in evolution is based on fallacy.
"This is how the study of evolution proceeds. Macroevolution implies certain molecular relationships between species; instances violating those predicted relationships are not observed; the theory of macroevolution is strengthened. Macroevolution implies a certain order of succession of fossils; clear violations of that succession (e.g., the Precambrian rabbit) are not observed; the theory is strengthened. If you want to claim otherwise--that evolutionary science only looks for Q, never for not-Q--then yes, the burden of proof is on you."
You have simply combined the fallacy of affirming the consequent with the fallacy of burden of proof. You now have 2 fallacies 'supporting' your position. The more logical fallacies you invoke, the weaker your position becomes.
"Also, as I've pointed out before in other threads, once a theory is strengthened enough, it does become an assumption in the sense that scientists don't feel the need to demonstrate it all over again when they find new evidence. It's not an assumption in the sense of something taken to be true without evidence. Your blurring of the distinctions in the meanings of the word "assumption" is, in fact, a great example of the fallacy of equivocation."
I never claimed that the fallacy of assuming P from Q was without evidence. That's your misrepresentation of what was presented. Clearly, Q is the evidence but that does not mean that P is not assumed through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is.
Evolution is clearly based on fallacy and you claim that much of 'science' is also. That doesn't strengthen your position, it merely demonstrates that you believe that fallacy is appropriate as support for 'science'.
I must conclude that while you’ve learned the names of these logical fallacies, you really don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. I did not claim that science is based on affirming the consequent. Conclusions are not drawn from observations of Q, they are drawn from nonobservations of not-Q. And it is only considered evidence strengthening P; it does not turn P into an assumption. There is no fallacy.
You seem to be insisting that it would be fallacious to draw any conclusions from predicted evidence. You admit that Q is evidence for P, and yet you deny that confidence in P can be strengthened by the accumulation of Qs (not to mention the nonexistence of not-Qs). “If this man is the killer, we should find his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes. We found his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes! But it would be a logical fallacy to draw any conclusions from that.”