Garbage. The framework was established by looking at actual creatures, not from a philosophical viewpoint, not from a theoretical viewpoint but from an observational viewpoint. The framework is just a shortcut embodying what is already known. The framework cannot expand our knowldedge, all it can do is blind us to the possibility of new unique finds. The only way we can expand our knowledge of different species is by observation, not by theory.
Paleontology closes our eyes, it does not open them. It does not rely on observation, but instead it makes up stories from a pre-defined procrustean bed that of course verifies its pre-conceived notions and pre-defined opinions. It is therefore not science because it assumes instead of observes. Because it replaces facts with theories. Because it replaces observation with circular reasoning.
Bingo! By Jove, I think he's got it! Oh wait, the rest of his post proves that any insight was purely a fleeting thing. Okay, now g3k, you've finally understood, after how many months, that scientific frameworks are built upon observation -- but the kicker is, those observations can be used to predict things that cannot be observed, such as the prediction that no dinosaur ever had mammary glands (where's Dr. Demento when you need him?). That, my boy, is science.
Sometimes I get the impression I'm arguing with a 14-year-old.