Once there was a highly intelligent turkey that had nothing to do but reflect on the world’s regularities. morning always started out with the sky turning light, followed by the master’s footsteps, which were always followed by the appearance of food. other things varied, but food always followed footsteps. the sequence of events was so predictable that it eventually became the basis of the turkey’s theory that footsteps bring food. one morning, after more than 100 confirmations of this theory, the turkey listened for the master’s footsteps, heard them, and had its head chopped off. scientific theories can be revised upon the discovery of inconsistent evidence. the absence of absolute certainly has led some people to conclude that "theories are irrelevant because they can change." if that is so, should we stop doing scientific research? why or why not?

We shouldn't stop doing scientific research because is better than the alternative, which is to do nothing. Sciencie taughts us that things are most likely to stay the way they have been for thousands of years. And scientific research provide us with the means to know if a change is to happen in the near future and correct it.  

Explanation:

In most cases, the absolute certainly is given by the rules of mathematics and, yes, the world's regularities. They are the foundation of sciencie (and philosofy), which led the way for scientific research.

the cladogram shown here shows similarities and differences among several classes of vertebrates. anatomically, the four have limb structure as their common ancestor. we might separate the mammals from the other three classes because they a) divergent; do not lay eggs b) identical; are warm-blooded c) varied; a four chambered heart d) homologous; have mammary glands