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.
variation > hypothesis > variation > true. Automatically. I call that circular. You call it what you want.
I call it leaving it in as evidence in support of evolution because it has already been observed. When you find a population that doesn't exhibit variation yet continues to survive sweeping changes in its environment, then you have evidence against evolution. Regardless, it is not circular reasoning because the conclusion (diversity of life by organisms evolving from other organisms) is not the same as the evidence (there is variation within the population of every species). Hey, you provided the definition of circular reasoning, it's not my fault that you incorrectly applied it to variation being used as evidence for evolution.
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.
Testing an hypothesis vs. the observations that inspired it isn't testing.
Can you show me a test of evolution that includes testing for variation? The closest I can find is looking for variation withing a species population to see what stresses it may be able to handle without going extinct. That's not really testing the theory of evolution, it's testing the species in question using evolution to predict changes in the population under particular conditions. So, I guess I'll have to wait for you to point out where we test for variation within a population to prove that there is variation within a population.
But this reminds me, [color:"green"] Natural Selection [/color] also belongs in box 1. It was an observation as well as part of the hypothesis.
Natural Selection was proposed as a mechanism that changed population characteristics over time. It could not be observed in detail until it was fully defined. So it is now observed. It is incidences of Natural Selection causing population characteristic changes that provide evidence of Evolution.
I'm going to propose [color:"orange"] Analyses of Variation over Time [/color] for box 2. This would include both macroevolutionary claims and statistical techniques. Cool with that?
At this point I'm not sure what the second box really stands for.
What do you think is in the first box? And the second?
Frankly, I think that you are misinterpreting what circular reasoning is or poorly communicating what your point is. That is unless your point is to just tell the peanut gallery what they think they want to hear.
Science requires testing and new observations. Confirming the old ones is nice if it makes one feel good. It's nice for history. But it's worth zero scientifically.
Suppose I base an hypothesis on the blueness of the ink in my pen. Can I prove my hypothesis by having a lab analyze the ink and verify its blueness? Heck no!
The ink in my pen is blue.
The paper is white.
My uncle will be able to read this note.
The ink in my pen is sure 'nuf blue!
=true
But for purposes of history, we can be more confident that my pen has contained blue ink.
When you show me an experiment where we are proving old observations, then I will consider seriously your statements above.
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.
Unless the other things are made of carbon - then it's circular.
But if they're made of something else, SOMETHING YOU HAD NOT ALREADY OBSERVED BEING USED, then the test is valid.
IF I USED CARBON AGAIN and said that my hypothesis is proven further then I would be making an erroneous statement. However, that does not invalidate carbon causing iron to be harder as EVIDENCE in support of my hypothesis. It just can't be used again and again to IMPROVE the likelihood of my hypothesis. It is still evidence and using it as evidence is not circular.
