Lyell had four principles you say historical sciences don't and never did hold to any of Lyells principles
Correct. Lyell is known for his work in Geology. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.
Here they did accept some (any) of Lyells principles (if not all at all times) and presumably still do. Genetic mutation is a mechanism of Toe. It, I gather, holds to a rate of mutation which provides raw material for Survival of the fittest to work on.
I know of nothing about uniform rates of mutation being necessary for evolution. Please reference.
ToE needs an old enough earth in order for the rate of mutation to have the time necessary for evolution to occur. No old earth, no evolution. How do they avoid any of U's principles?
YOu need to explain this question. It appears that your understanding of evolution is crude and fragmentary. This is a common sign of Evolution learned form YEC websites. Who is 'they' and what principles are you talking about? Some examples would be nice here. Why do you continue to pursue uniformitarianism when that is not the modern understanding of nature?
If uniformity of rate isn't held in geology then how are radioactive clocks employed?
Did you ever think that some processes might be uniform and others not? Do you think it is erroneous for Geology to recognize this fact?
Is it that different principles are used in different areas and if so, on what basis?
Uniformity is utilized when processes, rates etc., are thought to be uniform. Do you have an alternative?
How does one chose to decide for uniform rate in one area and non-uniform rate in another?
Obseration, extrapolation, logic. YOu name it. HOw do you do it?
Surely it can't be the observation which determines it. How can you observe something without a uniformity presumption of whatever sort then presume a uniformity exists on the basis of the observation.
Why not? Do you think the sun will 'rise' tomorrow? Why do you think so?
Is that not circular reasoning:
If it is circular reasoning to impute uniformity because uniformity is observed, you have completely redefined the definition of 'circular reasoning' and perhaps 'uniformity.' Look it up sometime and get back to us.
What I'm trying to get at, but probably not explaining clearly, is that uniformity principles seem to be applied when things appear to be happening uniformly and not when their not apparently happening uniformly.
This is a problem?
But on what basis does the appearance of uniformity imply actual uniformity?
When a process, rate, etc. is uniform we assume uniformity. Do you have an alternative?
I am sorry, but your thinking on this is so muddled that I cannot even begin to tell where to start answering these questions. Whether you know it or not, you are a uniformitarianist. Do you assume that the sun will 'rise' tomorrow? Why? Do you assume that your alarm will work to wake you up? Why? Do you assume that your watch is correct? Why? Is it all based on observation?
™ Version 4.2
