Do you know what guesses are? If I take a test on a subject I've never studied, my answers will be guesses. Guessing might be how math solves tough equations, but we don't take guesses in science.

Hypotheses in science have to be formulated from theoretical or empirical foundations. Theory-driven hypotheses are deductions made from theories; and data-driven hypotheses are induction made from previous observations. That is why when a theory-driven hypotheses is not supported it has consequences on the validity of the theory. Wrong "guesses" don't have consequences; wrong hypotheses do.

Nyar - "Criticizing a guess because it is build from the carcasses of failed guesses isn't meaningful since the new guess still must sink or swim on its own.."

Since you know statistics, suppose you did that with hypothesis testing. What happens to the probability of making a Type I error if I keep running planned contrasts on different combinations of the same groups? Its not true that each new "guess" sinks or swims on its own; each "guess" increases my chances of a Type I error. The more coins you flip, the more likely getting heads becomes.

Better yet, since planned contrasts are supposed to be a priori, suppose I did them post hoc. In other words, suppose I run a general analysis of variance on my groups, and then decided to run a planned contrast based on that information? Well, I actually don't know what happens, I just know its a big no-no (see attachment). So any statistical analysis I want to run, has to be planned ahead, has to be based on theory or data, and that data has to be separate from the current study; otherwise I'll run into issues with Type I errors and falsifiability.

@John

Interesting that the only sentence you didn't highlight in the attachment Sat, 05/19/2018 - 09:56 (Reply to #7)
is the one that says  "The best hypothesis is the one that best fits all the available data".

And which phylogenetic tree hypothesis are you talking about, John? You're writing like there's only one tree/one model, when there's many because there's many, many species. Some trees are disputed because we're missing data, yes, but others -many others- aren't disputed at all, and any tree you find in a biology textbook is there because scientific consensus agrees it is an accurate, reliable reflection of reality.

The trees with the missing data are the reason science has been able to predict future finds like feathered reptiles and toothed birds. Do you really need me to remind you Huxley proposed birds descended from dinosaurs in 1859 but we didn't find the first fossilized feather impressions until the 1990s and the first feathers in amber until 2011? How can you not see that as an accurate prediction of macroevolution? I'm asking in all seriousness- I really don't understand how you can see it as anything else. There's a reason the saying "Rare as hen's teeth" exists. The idea of feathered reptiles and toothed birds is ridiculous- until you find them. As ridiculous as whale legs.

I'm still waiting for you to evidence your claim that phylogenetic trees in general are rarely supported by scientific consensus, by the way: "once in a blue moon", I believe you said. Alternatively, point out specific examples of disputed trees, so we can talk about why those trees are disputed- that would be an interesting discussion- but please stop writing as though ALL phylogenetic trees are disputed because hypothesis.

You said: " At no point do you seem to allow for a wrong hypotheses to knock off points from the theory."

The picture below represents a cultural icon, and it's a piss poor model. It comes from a misunderstanding of an earlier picture:

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Progress#/media/File%3AHuxley_-...

It led to some very nasty stuff- like the notion of "survival of the fittest" being twisted into meanings it was never meant to convey. It justified eugenics, and it acted as a comforting reinforcement of Christian beliefs about our right to exploit other species as much as we like, because we are "more evolved" than they are. It's the reason poor old Cardinal Pell was able to tell Richard Dawkins we are descended from Neanderthals, straight faced on Q&A.

What the pictures didn't do is falsify the Theory of Evolution.

You said: "... you have a tendency to go only to theists, to complain about this forum not having biologists, and ask them why they don't take their comments to one."

Is it possible it's because the only people we've come across who don't accept the Theory of Evolution are theists? Most theists do accept it, of course, but experience has taught us the few who don't won't be swayed by the evidence we bring them, so it seems reasonable to refer them to evolutionary scientists who can argue it more proficiently than we can. Don't feel special : we refer atheist anti-vaxxers to scientists, too. And ask Russian Tank what we do with woo.

Edited to add time/date.

Additional edit: Sorry to keep harping on about birds /dinosaurs, but I'm a bit of a bird watcher and I never did outgrow my fascination with dinosaurs. I want a chickenosaurus for Christmas.