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.
Further observations of the observation being explained are useful for one purpose: To determine whether or not the case deals with
vacuous truth. But employing them as evidence that the hypothesis explaining them is true is clearly circular.
Further investigation of original observations is also valid for verifying
historic accuracy. I think you are confusing purposes.
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? ...{snippage}... 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.
I don't have to. If it's been done or not isn't the issue. I say that if/when it is done, it isn't valid science on the grounds that any such testing would be circular.
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.
Just what was Darwin claiming about those finch beaks? Was he not claiming they were an example of natural selection?
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Pre-Darwinian_theories says:
Pre-Darwinian theories
Several ancient philosophers expressed the idea that Nature produces a huge variety of creatures, apparently randomly, and that only those creatures survive that manage to provide for themselves and reproduce successfully; well-known examples include Empedocles[26] and his intellectual successor, Lucretius,[27] while related ideas were later refined by Aristotle.[28] The struggle for existence was later described by al-Jahiz in the 9th century.[29][30] Such classical arguments were reintroduced in the 18th century by Pierre Louis Maupertuis[31] and others, including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. While these forerunners had an influence on Darwinism, they later had little influence on the trajectory of evolutionary thought after Charles Darwin.
Darwin proposed NS to be a mechanism by which life evolved. Overlooking his lack or originality, was he proposing a mechanism which he believed had not been observed?
You said, "It could not be observed in detail until it was fully defined." Are you claiming Darwin performed this service?
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.
I'm sorry. This box represents evidence Darwin was not explaining with the theory of evolution. These are things that have the potential to be employed in non-circular reasoning when dealing scientifically with his hypotheses.
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.
If that's what you think, you're welcome to demonstrate my mistake.
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.
It depends on what you mean by "support". If you mean it insulates your hypotheses against charges of vacuous truth, fine. If you mean it can be used again once or twice (but not time after time after time) ... well, I shan't assume your meaning. I am unable to interpret your words here
with confidence.
Further tests involving carbon just show that the original observation was probably accurate. So what? We don't need your hypothesis to tell us what we already know, do we? And we can satisfactorily verify the effects of carbon without recourse to your hypothesis.
