Replies

Yes, I’m familiar with morphological studies of DNA. There is a vast difference between methodologies like those and hard, verifiable science. The hard sciences are the ones where we are dealing with phenomenon happening in the present time, so that we can observe it, control the conditions to run experiments that isolate various factors, make predictions, and test them to get experimental verification. Even with these more reliable scientific disciplines, science never can tell us anything with absolute certainty, but at least we can have confidence that our theories approximate the truth to some degree.

On the other hand, you have what I like to call speculative, or historical sciences, which deal with phenomena that happened in the past. This creates enormous, often insurmountable obstacles to making observations or verifying anything experimentally. So instead, scientists try to substitute speculation, computer models, or extrapolations based on data of unverifiable quality for the more reliable methods of science. It’s certainly possible to arrive at good conclusions using those methods, but there is simply no way to really verify most of the results.

Also, there are often underlying methodological problems with those types of research. For example, morphological studies can never be used as evidence to confirm evolution, because their methodology is dependent on assuming the truth of evolution as a given. They start by assuming all organisms have a common ancestor, then from that assumption, they deduce that all differences between the genomes of currently living organisms have accumulated from the original genome of the assumed common ancestor. The results of this method tell us nothing about the accuracy of the underlying assumptions, for if we held different assumptions such studies would produce wildly different results, and we would have no way to verify the truth of one set of results versus another, at least until someone invents a time machine.