Is evolution a fact?

What other side is there? There isn't any other explanation for the diversity of life on earth that's backed by science, other than evolution. If you have another side, by all means, present it. It seems more like you are still confusing things with terminology and evolution itself. It doesn't require faith to believe scientific fact, in which the process of evolution is, which I clearly stated above in my response, but it seems it was ignored.

Unfortunately, while I'm sure you read my post, you failed to understand what I was saying. I am not confusing terminology and evolution and I am not contesting the science behind evolution and in fact said the science was sound. I also never mentioned faith, that is irrelevant to the discussion. My posts were directed at making the point that there is indeed a difference in the definition and intention between scientific fact and practical fact, ones that can be said to consistent unchanging facts like saying a human has five fingers.

That has nothing to do with evolution. You are talking about origins and the state of the universe. Not knowing these answers doesn't somehow make evolution less viable.

I would argue that those questions and answers have everything to do with evolution and it's viability but our difference of opinion on this point is likely philosophical and not one of great importance to the subject.

Absolute unchanging fact? I hate to tell you this, but the earth (and universe) is in a constant state of change. What is fact today, may not be fact tomorrow, but the process of evolution is solid, and unless genetic mutations stop happening, it will continue to be a fact.

I agree with some of this statement but not all of it and that is probably because the two statements that you make are in conflict with each other.

I don't think that's what people are saying. They are saying that evolution is a fact, not that god doesn't exist or that all other unknown possibilities are automatically false. It's not arrogance, it's simply following the facts. It's logical. Evolution is a fact just like gravity. Denying it or suggesting that it's not fact because we don't know every single detail about every single part of it, is very foolish.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood everything that I have said. I claimed arrogance from one poster. The poster who asked me if I even knew what the word fact meant. I didn't say all science minded people or any specific group was arrogant. I do however feel it is arrogant to take a view that scientific facts are absolute but I think you have already agreed with that.

I also never once stated that evolution wasn't a scientific fact, it is, clearly. What I did state was that scientific fact differs from practical fact in definition and rightfully so because if both were defined exactly the same way, reality may get a little chaotic.

I am glad you mentioned gravity though, I see in gravity the same possibility of change in perception as I do in evolution. While the laws of gravity are unlikely to change, how we understand it, perceive it and the nature of it's origin and source could and most likely will change in the future. This is how I view possible change in the concepts of evolution.

Now, with all that said, you might be surprised to know that I believe in evolution. I never disputed evolution only the claim that a scientific fact which can be altered or amended by the acquisition of new data is the same as a practical fact such as a human has five fingers, my car is white, water is wet, fire is hot. I'm sure you get the point and hopefully see the difference!

reply to post by Helious

Evolution, much like many, many other scientific facts are merely theory's that the majority of the scientific community feels there is enough supporting data to consider it fact. There is nothing to say that evidence or data discovered in the future will not change these "facts". They are not considered absolute. They are not the same as saying water is wet.

No, there's a distinct difference between evolution, the observable phenomenon aka "fact" and evolution, the overarching theory that seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of evolution. Think of it in terms of gravity, the observable phenomenon, and the theory of gravity, the overarching theory that seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of gravity.

Here's some better explanations of how the the word theory is used in science, as distinct from fact in the same context...

From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Helious

 

Evolution, much like many, many other scientific facts are merely theory's that the majority of the scientific community feels there is enough supporting data to consider it fact. There is nothing to say that evidence or data discovered in the future will not change these "facts". They are not considered absolute. They are not the same as saying water is wet.

No, there's a distinct difference between evolution, the observable phenomenon aka "fact" and evolution, the overarching theory that seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of evolution. Think of it in terms of gravity, the observable phenomenon, and the theory of gravity, the overarching theory that seeks to explain the facts surrounding the phenomenon of gravity.

Here's some better explanations of how the the word theory is used in science, as distinct from fact in the same context...

From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

I never said that scientific theory was the same as scientific fact. I merely stated that scientific theory turned into scientific fact. Honestly, re read my own quote in your post. I was arguing definition between scientific fact and practical fact. One that is easily understandable when you consider that scientific fact starts as a theory and turns into fact while practical facts are always so.

Scientific facts are not considered absolute. It's a simple concept and quite true.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Quit that. You are being intellectually dishonest. If your viewpoint is worthy of consideration, then you can present it without gross misstatements. Either that, or you really are too dim to understand. And I don't believe that. So just quit it. If you want to talk, then talk genuinely. Because I will not participate otherwise.

I am not intentionally being dishonest, intellectually or otherwise. I find it frustrating to be presenting such a simple argument, one that is clearly correct and yet meet such fervent resistance because some people fail to see the basic logic in what I posted and mistakenly assume I am somehow attacking the idea of evolution or even of science itself.

I agree with evolution, I agree that all evidence and data supports it and I also agree that it is scientific fact. I don't make any argument against it at all actually.

My argument or point if that better describes it is that there is a difference between scientific fact and practical fact and that scientific fact is regarded as not being absolute. Evolution is just the topic of the thread to state it in. It could have been made in most threads that discuss scientific fact, it was by chance the topic was evolution but that is irrelevant to my argument.

And tell me 1 change that would refute evolution. Thats right, you can't.

I can tell you one change that is a possibility, I could cite many but you asked for one. The biggest chance and perhaps the most obvious is the rapidly changing study of DNA almost monthly there are new developments and changes in theory and understanding. It is not impossible that we could make discoveries in our DNA that force us to rethink the classic model of evolution or more directly, human evolution. You must understand that I am not saying that this is probable, I am saying it's not impossible, how likely that is is speculative but that is one way that a change could come about.

I am saying that the methodology is obvious. We have used it for thousands of years, calling it animal husbandry. I am not explaining how dinosaurs became birds here, only pointing out that the basis of evolution is grounded in easily observed facts. Everything you say is wholly unobservable. If better facts come my way, I will pay attention. Until then.....i stand by my assertion that it is morose to dispute them.

But you see, I agree with everything you just said. I feel the same way. I however was trying to illustrate the difference between facts. Scientific and practical.

Evolution is scientific fact. It is not absolute, and is subject to change (however unlikely that may be) in light of new data. As are all scientific facts.

To say my car is white is a practical fact, it is an impossibility that new data will be gathered that could change my car being white.

The difference between the two is very simple, as is the point I made about the distinction. At the end of the day, this was all way more than I cared to type on the subject and I am kind of left feeling that I wish I had just posted nothing instead.

reply to post by Helious

You see an actual fact would be that water is wet. In a hundred or thousand years from now, that would still hold true, water is indeed wet.

Not quite, exactly....


An "ACTUAL" fact is that Water is Wet.

a "Scientific Fact" is that Water is wet when it is a liquid.

OH, and just to be sure I am understood... A Fact is a Fact, and putting adjectives in front of it, does not make it a different "Kind" of fact.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

OH, and just to be sure I am understood... A Fact is a Fact, and putting adjectives in front of it, does not make it a different "Kind" of fact.

Quite frankly and respectfully, your wrong. Arguing semantics isn't going to change that or strengthen your case.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

The very definition of fact has a subset of criteria to explain scientific fact because they are not the same and yes, adjectives do define what kind of fact it is. It's also very easy to distinguish between the two.

Fire is hot, that is a fact. There is no possibility of new data that will change that statement. It is absolute. This statement has always been true and thus it has always been a fact.

Scientific fact is used to describe theory that has formed into fact because of overwhelming evidence to suggest it is true and correct. It is considered to not be absolute and there is a possibility however small that new data could change some or all aspects of it's status as fact. Scientific facts have not always been facts, they are evolved into facts.

reply to post by Helious


Simply put, i misunderstood you. And it appears that we pretty much agree wholly.

Funny, that.

Originally posted by Anonymousman

Originally posted by Painterz
Look up Abiogenesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's how life evolves from non-life.

Some of the theories regarding the mechanism of it have been replicated in a laboratory too.

Sorry, but this deosn't explain anything, Does it ?

Just because he is an eminent chemist does not give him super-intelligence and knowledge. If he doesn't understand evolution, it does not mean it does not exist.
And if he is so blind that he cannot see evolution everywhere he goes, then I don't think he's a very good chemist. Just look at viruses, and you will see evolution right in front of your eyes. Regardless of how small it is.

So what if he doesn't understand it. Did Albert Einstein understand what is on the inside of a black hole? No. Does that mean the center of a black hole does not exist? Of course not.

Just because one person says something, even if that person very knowledgeable, does not mean you have to believe every single word that comes out of his mouth.

reply to post by Helious

I merely stated that scientific theory turned into scientific fact.

Which is incorrect. There's no linear progression of knowledge where a theory will become a fact. Theories explain facts, which is why theories are subject to revision as new facts become available.

Here's what we see all of the time. Evolution, defined as change over time (which is a fact), gets thrown in with every aspect of the theory. Their are too many unknowns to call the whole theory a fact. Certain aspects are, no doubt, a fact.

reply to post by Helious

Quite frankly and respectfully, your* wrong. Arguing semantics isn't going to change that or strengthen your case.

*You're

Also, I'm right, and you're wrong.

...The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability...

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

And your own "Quote" verifies this.

There is no difference between a fact, and a "Scientific Fact"

They are both just "Facts", and saying that one is "Regular" and another is "Scientific" is a specious argument.

You are guilty of the logical Fallacy known as "No True Scotsman"

The very definition of fact has a subset of criteria to explain scientific fact because they are not the same and yes, adjectives do define what kind of fact it is. It's also very easy to distinguish between the two.

And yet you cite nothing to verify your statement... it is merely an opinion that you hold, with no basis in reality, or semantics.

A Fact is a Fact.

Period.

fact /fækt/ [fakt]
noun
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

scientific fact
noun
1. any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

You see? Same thing.

A Fact is a fact.

Fire is hot, that is a fact.

Ah.... I see where you have misunderstood what a Fact is....

Fire is not Hot.

Hot:
1(a): a : having a relatively high temperature

Hot is not a measurement... it is a subjective perception.

To human beings... yes, Fire is hot...

But your sentence did not carry this qualifier... as your sentence has no qualifier.

If one were to have a normal fire on the surface of the sun, one would not say that the "Fire is Hot", because the temperature of the surface of the sun is *FAR* beyond the temperature of the fire, and thus, in that instance, the fire would be COLD.

Your statement, as it stands, is not a fact, because the statement is not specific enough to ever be true in all circumstances (As your statement does not qualify what circumstances it applies to, and thus implies that it applies to all circumstances.)

Hence, "Fire is Hot" is not a factual statement.

A FACTUAL statement, is that "Fire is Hotter than Normal Human body temperature" or something of the like.

As this statement is true in all circumstances.

This is the definition of a Fact.

A "Scientific Fact" is merely a FACT that is used by Scientists.... of which "Normal Facts" qualify....


The reason that there is no such thing as a "Scientific Fact" is because the term itself is a meaningless tautology

As Science *MEANS* Fact.

science (n.)
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study,"

www.etymonline.com...

fact
/fækt/ [fakt]
noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

dictionary.reference.com...

reply to post by Helious


I swear I already responded to this! Weird. Yeah, I admit I did misconstrue some of what you are saying. I do agree with a large portion of it, though.

But what is the difference between scientific fact and practical fact? You seem to think that practical facts never change, but even something like "humans having 5 fingers" could indeed change over millions of years. The sun rising in the east will inevitably change in a few billion years. No facts are absolute, but evolution IS a solid fact that will not change unless genetic mutations stop happening. In reality, that's what it boils down to. The process of evolution is absolutely proven at this point in time. Given enough time, anything can change, however. What is fact today, may not be fact tomorrow, but it wouldn't mean the original fact was wrong. Either our knowledge was incomplete, or something changed in the universe to affect it. To me a fact is a fact. It's either true and verifiable or its not. Scientific vs practical means very little in the grand scheme of things.

I would argue that those questions and answers have everything to do with evolution and it's viability but our difference of opinion on this point is likely philosophical and not one of great importance to the subject.

They do not, though, and it's based on science, not difference in opinion. Evolution is about the diversity of life, and how genetic mutations are sorted by natural selection. Once again, you are equating that to the origin of life. They are not the same, not even in the least. That's like saying gravity is part of electromagnetism. While one could affect the other, they are completely different subjects of study

Absolute unchanging fact? I hate to tell you this, but the earth (and universe) is in a constant state of change. What is fact today, may not be fact tomorrow, but the process of evolution is solid, and unless genetic mutations stop happening, it will continue to be a fact.

I agree with some of this statement but not all of it and that is probably because the two statements that you make are in conflict with each other.

I do not see any conflict. Could you please point it out?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Helious

 

fact /fækt/ [fakt]
noun
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

scientific fact
noun
1. any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

You see? Same thing.

A Fact is a fact.

Whooooaa....not the same thing at all.

First off, there is a difference "between known to be true " and "accepted as true" and the latter is not absolute.

Example, and I lift this from one of Helious's earlier posts, Humans have five fingers.

This would be repeatedly observed and accepted as fact, but is it absolute? Has no human ever been born with more or less than the required number of digits?

I think you are being overly critical of Helious, and he is correct to state that there is a difference between how the word fact is used in science.....and I know I've seen most of the regular "evolutionist" posters on this thread having to explain the difference of the use of theory in science in multiple other threads., so you can imagine how frustrating it is to have someone insisting that "a fact is a fact", when we all know that in another argument, you will be informing us that "a theory has a different meaning when used in science"

There are few absolute facts in the universe, (things like if i have one item, and get another item, I will have 2 items) and many accepted facts (humans have five fingers) and science a has a very clear way of being exact as possible.

The problem anti-evolutionists have is that they fail to comprehend how scientific evidence is prepared and presented. They seem to think that if scientist a has a theory, and all the other scientists agree its a good one, it becomes an accepted fact.

To make the sentence "fire is hot" a fact, a scientist would have to give the conditions under which this statement is a fact.

"In comparison to ice (water at 0 degrees centigrade) fire is hot. However the temperature of fire generated from burning a piece of paper is cold when compared to the temperatures measured in a gas and oxygen powered blast furnace used for smelting steel."

Evolution is a fact....we may discover different mechanisms as our knowledge increases, but suddenly discovering that the genetic changes were caused by left over pasta from the flying spaghetti monster, doesnt mean that evolution never/isn't/wont happen(ed)(s)(ing)

ETA I see you went on to pretty much say the same later in your post.....that'll learn me to read the post, the whole post and nothing but the post before responding

reply to post by rockintitz


evolution is not a fact, thats why there is still an opposing side

reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

This is just a reverse appeal to authority -- there are people who oppose the fact that Earth is an oblate spheroid or the fact that our solar system is heliocentric. That doesn't mean these aren't facts, it just means that there are people who don't want to acknowledge them.

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets
reply to post by rockintitz

 

evolution is not a fact, thats why there is still an opposing side

Evolution as a natural phenomenon is a fact. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain it. There's an opposing side (or rather many sides) because some religious people are very good in rejecting reality.

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets
reply to post by rockintitz

 

evolution is not a fact, thats why there is still an opposing side

You post as if it is somehow up for debate . . . it's not. It happens. If you have specific issues with the theory, all you need to do is falsify any of the experiments/findings that led to those issues. That's the beauty of the peer review process. This means actually doing the work and showing how/why the findings are incorrect, not just claiming incredulity.

However, simply denying reality in favor of superstition and pseudoscience doesn't equate to a legitimate (or rational) argument against.

These threads that continually appear do nothing but make believers look hypocritical. Their belief, they don't need to prove anything. When it comes to evolution, you wont convince them unless you can show them a youtube clip where an animal is shown evolving.. this isn't pokemon lol

I used to enjoy reading these threads because of the intelligent debate, not so much anymore, its as if believers dont even want to debate.
From what ive read so far, this thread is a waste of time. Should have just used search OP.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by ICanHearTheTrumpets
reply to post by rockintitz

 

evolution is not a fact, thats why there is still an opposing side

Actually there is no opposing side. It is pure illusion, due to stubbornness. Not a single person has been able to come up with an alternate explanation, that can be verified by science. There are religious creationists who are blind to any view other than their own literal interpretations of ancient texts. People like us argue about that stuff, but there is no scientific opposition to modern synthesis to explain diversity of life on earth.

It is not a fact, although it is the most plausible theory we have and it has lots of data behind it. The data might not be true, but there is nothing suggesting otherwise currently.

Just like the big bang theory. It fits the scientifical theory.

We do not know full details about both of these theories although based on the current data we have and the scientifical theories, these are currently the most plausible theories.

The schools teach it as it is what is the most credible theory currently . I do not even remember whether I learned other theories Probably not. We just learned evolution for around a month in biology (8-12 x 45 minutes).