[Moseley]

Another law-like observation might be that organisms can be categorized into hierarchical groups based on morphological similarities et al. The Theory of Evolution explains why that should be so.

There is no such thing in science as a "law like observation." There are only observations.

That is Step #1 of the Scientific Method: Observe a phenomenon.

So you observe what impresses you as a certain kind of order. So you have completed Step #1 -- You observe a phenomenon.

You then imagine a plausible explanation.

But that is not science. The mere possibility that something could be true is no more science than alchemy or voodoo.

Your frustrated science fiction writer's heart gets all excited by imagining what COULD be true.

This is Step #2 -- Formulate a hypothesis.... at least assuming that it is well-designed, coherent hypothesis.

But the fact that X is explained by Y, is a mere hypothesis -- the very definition of a hypothesis -- not proof of anything.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

There is no such thing in science as a "law like observation." There are only observations.

Is there such a thing as a law? If so, what is it besides an observation that has been recorded in every relevant circumstance? So if an observation can be universal enough to be called a "law," I think I'm entitled to label an observation that as far as I know is universal "law-like."