|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
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. From The website you provided: In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. Evolution uses the observation of variation as evidence that changes are possible, over time, that could change the major characteristics of populations of organisms. Is observation of variation in populations of particular organisms assuming evolution to be true? If you say yes, then please provide detail on how you can equate seeing differences between individuals in a population of squirrels to assuming evolution to be true. Are you saying that you don't see differences between individuals in a population of squirrels because you don't believe in evolution? If you say no, then you agree that using variation in populations of organisms as evidence in support of evolution is not circular. Since the antecedent (variation) is not false, you cannot claim that evolution is a vacuous truth. The best you can claim is that variation is not enough evidence to truly support evolution. Fortunately, variation isn't the only thing evolution hangs its hat on. 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. Then, by the same token, your stating your testimony of your conversion experience as evidence of your being a follower of Christ is also circular. Therefore, your statement that you are a follower of Christ is a vacuous truth. 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? No. He may not have been aware of the previous statements concerning Natural Selection. He may have been detailing the definition. If someone makes a statement of fact, that doesn't stop someone else from making the same statement independently or refining the original statement. You said, "It could not be observed in detail until it was fully defined." Are you claiming Darwin performed this service? Perhaps. His defining Natural Selection could have made it easier to observe and document its occurrence in nature. 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. Thanks---see above concerning circular reasoning and vacuous truth
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
