“Empirical” doesn’t use the word “precise”. It’s simply “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”
I certainly hope you are not arguing to allow
imprecise observations into the scientific method.
Early in the Enlightenment period, the arguments between the rationalists and empiricists centered on the better (best?) way to do science. The rationalist stressed the
imprecision of subjective experience (kinda like rossum) and the empiricists stressed that experience could be objectified via precision. The result: logical empiricism.
There are very, very few “living fossils” today. The fossils we find came and went. And where we have multiple specimens, they show variations in their comings and goings.
Moreover, most of the critters found today, like us, simply can’t be found in the fossil record - at least not very far back.
The best explanation for this that uses the fewest assumptions is that life evolved.
Variations within types in the fossil record certainly indicate mircroevolution. And, if a definition of species included certain features, say in bone structure, the fossils may indicate macroevolution. But as noted previously, this is a circular argument requiring an elastic definition of species.
What is objected to in evolution theory, specifically in the macroevolution section, is the claim that a common ancestor exists (existed) for all living creatures. On this claim, all we have is one
assumption and no evidence. But although one is
few, it remains no more than that – an assumption.
Elevating an
assumption to a
hypothesis, to a
theory, to a
law is not the scientific method for either an empiricist or a rationalist.
Just an example of two species that haven’t fully speciated from their common ancestor. They’ve just nearly done it. They produce exactly what we’d expect to see - offspring with serious genetic issues.
Creatures with “serious genetic issues” works against the assumption that “they’ve nearly done it”. The better assumption is that the creatures are on a short path to extinction.
The protist (neither human nor plant) became algae and fish. Humans came waaaaaaaaaay later. Literally in the last blink, if geological time was compressed into one day.
Just repeats more of macroevolution’s speculation unsupported by any evidence.
