Specifically Biology presents some problems for me. For instance, now that we have Evolution we know what to look for. Thus we are bound to observe some adaptations, and over time even new species. Does this not confirm Evolution Theory?
From Genetics we might have an experiment where selecting and breeding for a specific trait is expected to increase the average lifespan. After several generations a statistically significant increase with respect to a control group. Again a positive proof.
Then there are people that take a piece of DNA from one organism, splice it into the DNA of another organism and we have algae that produce biofuel. Here there isn't even a gradient of change, the genetic theory either works or it doesn't.
It seems that a failed biology experiment doesn't disprove the theory, rather it shows the limitations of your equipment and data set. Biology is in a phase of working out the details, whereas Physics still contend with the great unknown and other dark matters.
So is there in actual fact different epistemic paradigms between the sciences? And who has argued for/against it?