Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.
But you can see that the "new discovery" has not led to a fresh examination of all the evidence and the establishment of a new working model. Instead the old model is taken for granted and the new discovery is made to fit within that model. That is what I am looking at with my statement on uniformity. The so-called science is paradigm building, and its experiments are self-fulfilling predictions. There is no critical examination of the evidence to test the original hypothesis.
Yes, I can see that and agree with your analysis.