Interesting choice. Requests for falsifiable hypotheses generally get "variation happens" (more wordy) as a response these days. It's also tricky, because it's easy to get into genetics on this. Genetics is going to be a can of worms.
But if you can think of something non-circular involving variation sans genetics, I'll be glad to re-evaluate.
So, I ask you to explain how it is circular reasoning to use variation as evidence supporting evolution and you shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to show how it is not circular reasoning.
OK. Variation is an observation not a conclusion. We see variation within a population of the same species of birds. It is an observation like seeing a house is not painted yellow, green, blue, or red. We would use the fact that a house is not painted those colors in order to provide evidence that it may be painted white or brown. We use variation withing a population to provide evidence that under certain conditions the predominant traits withing the population might change over time.
That is my stance on how variation as support for evolution is not circular reasoning.
It is expected that any hypothesis conform to reality as it is already known. Testing by use of observations he possessed is meaningless, because he already knew the outcome. The most that can be made from that category is that he didn't screw up and overlook something.
You are accusing Darwin of making up evolution then going out to cherry pick evidence to support it. Do you have some evidence that shows Darwin saying that, or writing that? Maybe a diary entry or something? Otherwise this is sheer speculation and slander.
I don't see it as circular, but I am willing to be persuaded to the contrary.
You've got me thinking too. I'm trying not to just focus on Darwin, but science in general. Usually observations used in support come after the hypothesis exists, at least in the examples with which I'm familiar. Have you some other examples of this pattern: offer hypothesis right along with support? I'd prefer something where the hypothesis is clear.
I really don't think one can get away with that. I think the hypothesis needs to be in place first, then supporting observations.
You are saying the a hypothesis should be made before any observations are made. How can this happen? You don't even do that in your regular life. You see something then you think about how it happened.
You provide an example of a hypothesis that clearly was made before any observations and I will provide one that was made after observations. We can then go back and forth until one of us runs out of examples.
Darwin didn't make this easy. He doesn't give a simple scientific hypothesis speaking to one single issue. He offers an historic hypothesis which encompasses all these things, and addresses more than one scientific issue. Whether he actually says so or not, he's actually offering an explanation for all of the things he's observed. Confirming that they can indeed be observed doesn't contribute much.
Offering an explanation for all the things he observed is called making a hypothesis. Those observations support the hypothesis which is why Darwin made the hypothesis. Continuing to observe those things (more closely, now) and seeing that those observations have not contradicted the hypothesis means those things are STILL support for the hypothesis.
Adding carbon to molten iron has been observed to make the steel harder. So I hypothesize that adding things to molten iron will change its characteristics. Further tests that show adding things does change the characteristics are evidence supporting the hypothesis. That is not circular reasoning.
I am just as curious/confused by your other choices, but I can deal with them one at a time if it is all right with you.
Probably best.
Now that I think of it, he's predicting variety on another scale. Forgot my evoscope when I typed that up.
That's alright, I have my cretinist scope with me at all times so I can recognize allusions to real science.
