To simplify the abduction evaluation chart, notate your theories A1, A2, etc. and your data D1, D2, etc. and then use A1, A2, etc. across the top and D1, D2, etc. down the side in your abduction evaluation table. The formatting of such a table could be done by using tabs instead of creating tables. I am not worried about how pretty it is. It is okay if everything doesn't exactly line up!
| A1 | A2 | A3 | |
| D1 | yes | yes | no |
| D2 | no | yes | no |
| D3 | yes | no | no |
| D4 | yes | yes | yes |
The Hummingbird abduction outline is a good specific example, but remember that for this homework you need to specifically show that each theory meets at least half of the criteria for scientific merit.
An initial observation is that hummingbirds drink.
There are two theories posed to explain how hummingbirds drink:A1: Capillary Action Theory. The water is drawn up small capillaries in the tongue due to the attraction of water molecules to each other.
A2: Micropump Theory. The theory says: "Instead, bird bills squash the tongue and its grooves flat. When the tongue tip touches nectar, the grooves spring open, pulling up a column of nectar as they expand."
Write a couple of paragraphs showing that each theory meets at least half of the criteria for a scientific theory. One paragraph would start out with something like "The Capillary Action Theory is coherent and internally (logically) consistent, it is also consistent with fundamental principles, . . ." Each of the eight criterion should be addressed for each of the theories and the number of criterion being satisfied should be more than half.
Also, each of the theories could explain the initial observation (as described above).
D1: Hummingbirds do this tongue dipping fast.
D2: Hummingbird tongues don't have muscles.
D3: Capillary suction is important in drawing nectar up the grooves.
D4: When tongue met nectar, the fluid moved fast — averaging nearly 1 meter per second as it rose up the tongue. Even under ideal conditions, a simple capillary rise would draw in nectar much slower, only about 36 centimeters per second, the new paper reports.
D5: A bird bumped one side of its tongue against a feeding tube and the tongue’s compressed groove opened prematurely before touching the nectar. In this instance, nectar did a typical capillary rise — but moved more slowly than nectar in the groove on the opposite side of the tongue that sprang open later.
D6: Mathematical models agreed with the micropump theory.
A1 A2 D1 no yes D2 yes no D3 yes yes D4 no yes D5 no yes D6 no yes
From this data (Capillary Action - 2, Micropump - 5), it would seem that hummingbirds drinking by using micropumps is the best theory!