No. It would simply demonstrate that long-term mummification can occasionally happen in nature.
I'm afraid the error of the the above sentences is to confuse the Theory of Evolution with science.
As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science. Like the theory of phlogiston, facts never overcome science, although correct interpretation of facts might overcome a misconception, such as the creeping gradualism of "evolution" as forced on the concepts of origins.
In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology. By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught.
Getting back to science, I can confirm Ohm's Law by conducting the experiment, thus reproducing the observation codified by Georg Ohm. It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced. To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought.
Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO.
Thanks for pinging me to this post. I read it twice, & found it helpful & fascinating. It reminded me of the basic thesis of Karl Popper’s Conjectures & Refutations. He posits that any truly scientific theory will be able to make specific, non-intuitive predictions, TEST those predictions, & either confirm or falsify the theory based on the outcome.
For instance, the theory of relativity predicted that light would bend under certain circumstances. Proponents realized that a certain African solar eclipse offered the perfect setting in which to test their prediction. They journeyed to Africa, set up their equipment, took measurements, & confirmed their prediction.
Popper then notes that junk/pseudo science does the opposite. I.e.: a non-scientific theory will make manifold predictions, & when few if any come to pass, they will say that what actually happened confirms their theory even more than if their actual predictions had materialized.
Popper wasn’t describing evolution per se, but he might as well have been. The more their predictions fail & the more the field discoveries run counter to prior evolutionary claims, the more fervently/religiously they claim whatever is discovered confirms their theory. No ‘falsifying’ test is ever devised, nor will it ever be. The idea of testing evolution in that way is unthinkable, not to mention impractical. Fwiw.
Of course evolution is science: it is at worst a scientific hypothesis and at best a confirmed theory.
Regardless, it is still science.
Your continued efforts to deny that simple fact say nothing about evolution itself, but speak volumes about the dishonesty ruling your own heart, FRiend.
imardmd1: "As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science."
The evolutionary hypothesis, as proposed by Darwin 150+ years ago has been confirmed -- making it a theory -- too many times to count.
Your repeated DeNiles simply expose your own ignorance and/or dishonesty.
imardmd1: "In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology.
By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught."
I coined nothing.
Mummification is a process of drying-out for long-term preservation of organic material.
That such processes can rarely occur in nature is likely demonstrated by that T-Rex bone material.
imardmd1: "It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced."
Not true.
Basic evolution theory consists of two often-confirmed facts:
Species can be seen modifying and being selected every day, there's no dispute about that, even amongst anti-evolutionists.
But the word "speciation" is a scientific construct, whose criteria are defined by science itself, not by you, and whose definition boils down to: changes significant enough to be classified as a separate breed, sub-species, species, genus, family, etc.
These changes are seen every day, and exact classifications are matters of often lengthy debates.
To pick just one example: Polar Bears were classified as a separate genus, but recently "downgraded" to just another species within the Ursus genus because, among other reasons, it was discovered they can and occasionally do interbreed with Brown Bears.
So degrees of "speciation" are matters of scientific definitions, and as such are seen and debated every day.
imardmd1: "To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought."
Of course, evolution theory is not the only explanation, it is simply the only confirmed scientific theory.
Over many years, other scientific hypotheses were proposed, but none confirmed, leaving evolution as the only accepted theory we have.
imardmd1: "Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO."
With all due respect, you in no way, shape or form speak for science, only for your own religious convictions.
As such, factually your approach falls short of scientific acceptance, FRiend.