Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.
"People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times.
This time we have the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. The fact that people make extrapolations all the time and the fact that we cannot observe every process at all times does not mean that it is 'scientific' to extrapolate back into unobserved time frames and assumed unobserved events to support the philsophical belief in evolution.
Logical deduction =/= philosophy."
Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.
Oy. There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence.
Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.
Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation.