Evolution

Evolutionary theory explains something, but reading the theory of evolution, no one will deduction zebras and giraffes. This is the main conundrum of science as possible, that: (a) we create on the basis of facts, a theory that is not seen with any senses in the observed facts (b) on the basis of theory, we can predict facts before we even make observations. Law science has its own specificity, but it does not exist in a vacuum separated from the methodology of science at all.

In high school, we discussed the theory of evolution – the manual explained how reptiles, reptiles, mammals from mammals developed from amphibians. However, the manual gave, JUST ONE EXAMPLE of an organism that was an intermediate link in this evolution: ARCHEOPETHYRKS – an animal with the characteristics of a bird and a mammal. From archaeoptery it is possible to infer evolution, but not the other way around. The Romans created concepts and legal concepts starting from SPECIFIC CASES. The OBITER DICTA and RATIO DECIDENDI concept applies to any application of the law, and if not used, this will lead to an erroneous settlement. It is impossible to move away from abstraction and to maintain that by endlessly analysing the rules and words we will inferre a solution for a particular case. The application of the law practiced in this way is the same as trying to deduction zebras and giraffes from the theory of evolution.