I don't think the two disciplines are comparable. Anthropology and Paleotolongy are far more speculative. I think- though am no expert. I just take umbrage at the fact that every three years the "theory" changes in regards to Human ancestry. I am only 32 and I can tell you that the evolution I learned is utterly useless in regards to what has been seen today. I don't think they have a clue. Astronomy deals with hard math and some speculation. It seems to me that it is the other way around with the fossil hunters- they find a bone and it is all speculation. By they way- last I heard the Bing Bang theory is not exactly Gosspil any longer either.
The point I am trying to make is that evolutionist theory is still trying to fight creationists and in doing so may be holding on to some very false premises. The Earth ain't 8000 years old. But I also think evolution theory as it is now can't be supported even by the weight of it's own evidence. The theories get more convoluted every day. But then again- I am just an amateur science page reader.
You're right. Astronomy is considered to be the least speculative of the sciences.
And you're right again. There are highly speculative theories in astronomy.
And right a third time. Evolutionary theory is currently a mess. So was astronomy in the time of Kepler and Galileo.
I was trying to say this is really hard stuff. A scientist looks at the new skull and tries to fit it into his existing theories. If he can't he's got to come up with new ones. The only alternative is to throw out the evidence and keep the theories. That's a real loser .
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the science of origins [beit cosmology or "evolution"] can only be part science, at best. That is, the scientific method relies on observation, and there is no way to observe the past, without speculating to some degree [or to a high degree as in the above article].
Personally, I think evolutionists have gotten away with unwarranted speculation for far too long. The fossil record either shows a continuous development of life from the presently extant organisms to the extinct ones of the past, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't they should just deal with it.
Simply explaining away the absence of fossil evidence in the form of transitionals or conjuring up stories to fill in the gaps is not science.
Brian.