How is Evolution a fact?

Agreed - as I said...we don't know certain things (they aren't facts), and universal common descent is not considered a fact by many (though it is by some). I think there is reasonable doubt, and so - not a fact. But universal common descent is not an explanatory framework from which to explain the facts, not in the way other theories are. As the article also states (as its majority view, though with some discrepancy), theories don't become facts, there is no sliding scale. One might have a theory of universal common descent that was somehow different from the theory of evolution, but I doubt it. The theory that describes the facts is evolution. If universal common descent became strongly confirmed it would be yet another fact about our natural history that (hopefully) the theory of evolution is able to help us explain.The theory of evolution will never become the fact of evolution - no matter how confirmed the mechanisms appear to be to us. Observed speciation would evidence. That speciation occurs is a fact derived from that evidence. The theory of evolution helps to explain this fact by proposing mechanisms that can cause speciation. The facts are that life changes. This is explained by the theory. The fact is that common ancestry is rife, which is explained by the theory.There is the possibility that all life has a universal common ancestor. There is not enough evidence to call this a fact yet. Evidence is still being gathered by it. In layman's terms it is a theory. Science terms (as defined in the OP) it isn't. It is instead an idea - a hypothetical possibility. A strong possibility, but not strong enough to be a fact. It is (not to sound confusing) theoretically possible that life shares universal common ancestry.The word theory, having two meanings (a framework of scientific explanation vs an idea or possibility) is a classic place for equivocation to slip in. The theory of evolution is a theory, but not like universal common descent is a theory.We can choose to use the words interchangeably or in different ways, which is why defining terms is useful. As defined in the OP, universal common descent is neither a fact nor a theory.

Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post deleted

I'm not saying they do - it's a distinction between process observed and that the process universally applied is sufficient to explain other data where observation is incomplete or insufficient. Universal common descent is not a necessary part of {descent with modification} or {change in species over time} or {change in the frequency of alleles within populations} or other common expressions of the theory of evolution, such as on this boards Glossary:
http:///WebPages/Glossary.html

quote:

---

Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead to differences among them.

---

This doesn't rule out nor require that all forms of life have a common ancestor at some point. There could be a number of lines of life, there could be multiple starts: we don't know for sure even though the evidence - the facts - point in that direction for the majority of life as we know it. It's more like a corollary of the theory of evolution - "an easily drawn conclusion" - rather than a stand-alone theory. Invalidating evolution invalidates common descent, but invalidating common descent doesn't necessarily invalidate evolution (you'd still have "micro"evolution of multiple lines of life - "kinds").This is why the real conflict is not between evolution and special creation but between common ancestor and special creation. Agreed. Every instance where it is an observed fact is just a point on a line and you can never have enough points to make a complete line. You can pan out to see the appearance of a complete line (or complete segments anyway) or pan in to the point where you only see one point. Connecting the points is theory. The genetic evidence that all life currently {existing\tested} shares genetic signatures of the kind you get from common ancestor relationships is a pretty strong set of points.The fossil evidence for relationships between organisms that can be arranged logically into lines of descent that converge together in the past is also a pretty strong set of points.Both of these trendencies are confirmed in modern observations of speciation and descent and in new transitional fossils.If we carry the analogy of facts as point data further we can say theories are formulas that go through the points: there may be a number of formulas that go through all the known points, some much simpler than others. Each makes predictions of what a new point would be, some of them quite different from the others, and until we find that next point we don't know.No matter how many points we accumulate there will always be different formulas that can be developed that go through all the known points, and there will be formulas that are eliminated as not able to keep up with the new data.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well if no one has anything else to say I would like to propose a final summary. Since no one likes my summary's, I would like to ask Razd if we can use what he wrote in one of his posts. Heh, Razd, you seem like the only person that knows what he's talking about in this thread. But I particularly liked message 21, because it explains most parts of this subject. If you want to add anything go ahead.

lost-apathy has concluded by saying he agrees with RAZD. Let me also conclude.

Evidence vs facts

A fact cannot be tasted, smelled or touched or heard. I cannot taste that Queen Elizabeth was queen of England. Nor can I see that gravity causes matter to attract. I thankfully cannot smell that Fred West committed murder most horrid.What I can taste (if I chose) is a wealth of documentation that shows Elizabeth was queen.I can see that an apple falls from a tree.Things I can touch and see etc are evidences. From the evidence I can infer the facts.This is much the same way as a court decides facts based on the evidence that is lain before them. In criminal law a fact is something which the evidence so strongly infers is true, that the fact is beyond reasonable doubt.

Semantics vs Pragmatics

Anybody is able to decide what the word fact means to them. What is important is understanding what others mean when they use fact.

How is Evolution a Fact?

The OP asks how evolution is a fact. It links to an article that discusses evolution as the theory and the fact. The article says that when they say 'fact' they mean something similar to a fact in court. By this definition evolution is a fact. What is evolution? They are facts because the many multiple lines of evidence that infers them is so strong, so compelling, that they are beyond reasonable doubt.It is possible that somebody would not conclude that evolution (however the choose to define it) is a fact (however they choose to define it). Given the definition of evolution given as well as the definition of fact - that is How evolution is a fact.In a court of (criminal) law, it is the jury's job to determine the facts. (source): In the scientific community, scientific facts are determined by consensus. One scientist will make a factual hypothesis: Fossils are the mineralized remains of a now deceased organism. When it clear that almost all knowledegable experts accept the hypothesis as a fact then it said that it is beyond reasonable doubt. It does not mean the fact is true.

I don't entirely disagree, more of a nit-pik: What WE can sense is the evidence given by people who DID taste, smell, touch, hear or see that these things actually occurred - the evidence that they actually sensed these facts.Secondary knowledge of personal experiences of people with primary knowledge.If one of these pieces of evidence had NOT been experienced by someone, then it would be fantasy, lies, delusion or something of that ilk.Facts at some level relate to actual experience by some person or persons.What I had said before was: Not that all facts were sensed directly, just that some are. That is what common definitions are for eh?Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

Fact -noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

---

Definition 5 includes all the other definitions of facts implicitly - "Often, facts.", implying definitions 1-4 - and explicitly "an actual" (definition 1, 2 and 3) "or alleged" (definition 4) "event or circumstance" (and I further note that (4) can be "highly questionable." ... (ducks)).Where facts can be demonstrated to actually have happend they carry much more weight than when they are only alleged to have happened: actual experience does count, experience via senses of someone.Where the only evidence is anecdotal it is not called fact. Here we have facts determined from evidence and above you have evidence determined from facts. Perhaps they are two sides of the same coin: our perception of reality, based on our personal knowledge and experience.Enjoy.ps - I've also used some of this on Message 113 as part of the discussion there, rather than divert this topic in that direction.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not sure its a nit pick when you agree with me.

quote:

---

What I can taste (if I chose) is a wealth of documentation that shows Elizabeth was queen.

---

The evidence we have, leads us to the fact that she was queen. Well, yes - depending on what you choose to call fact. In my discussion I was separating the words evidence and fact. I did this because that is what I understand 'fact' to be in relation to the article under question. Only observed facts. Do facts stop existing before mankind? I believe I have arguing for this very position from the beginning. Though slightly stronger since this would render Noah's Ark factual. I use (as the article in question does) an extension - that facts in (criminal) court are decided by a jury based on reasonable doubt (and lack thereof). Agreed, witnesses are evidence. That evidence might be enough on its own to convince us it is a fact. That would be the case in civil court for example. In criminal court, more evidence is usually looked for to put something beyond reasonable doubt (unless the witnesses were particularly credible or numerous). Agreed. Anecdotal evidence, as in the case of witnesses, is not usually enough to conclude that something is a fact. Instead we can ignore witnesses and look to physical evidence to demonstrate a fact. Sometimes there isn't any witnesses anyway and we can still draw facts from the evidence. Such as with Natural History. The jury doesn't decide the evidence - the court decides what evidence is admitted and it is put forward by the prosecution and the defense.In science, scientists don't get to decide the evidence. The universe decides what evidence is left and it is put forward by scientists who gather such evidence. Those scientists, and their peers attempt to determine what the facts are from that evidence. I may well reply there too - so we can let it go over there if you'd prefer.

No. But what we know about it is based on observations, senses. We know about Australopithecus afarensis from fossils that are touched, smelled, seen, being located in layers of rocks and dirt that can be likewise sensed.We extend our senses with instruments that can sense things beyond our human capabilities and transfer information into data that we can sense - DNA samples on Neanderthals, radiometric dating on rocks, pollen analysis in soils, etc.We take the bits and pieces and paste them together - in much the same way that courts piece together facts and evidence to try to derive the truth of the case (beyond a reasonable doubt) - to try to determine the truth of hominid ancestry, but that is also where the theory steps in to fill the gaps in our knowledge. It's the same process of weeding through the evidence and facts to try to determine the truth as best we are able. Sometime previous 'testimony' (old ideas) is contradicted by new ideas, but more often it is facts that cause this shift - such as Neanderthal being cousins rather than ancestors. Nicely put. We can compare this to the prosecution gathering their evidence together to see if they have enough to go to court and have a reasonable chance at getting a conviction. The scientific paper(s) then are the case being presented to the court to be judged by their peers (jury). Well that is the problem when you allow that facts can be an "alleged event or circumstance" -- and certainly in this regard the creationist is correct when he says that the bible is fact.Conversely, when you use this definition then you can also say it is "just a fact" with much the same intent as saying that evolution is "just a theory" -- neither one necessarily is the truth - and it can be argued that a scientific theory is an "alleged event or circumstance" and thus have theory = fact.This is also not very useful from a scientific point of view - this is not the kind of fact that can invalidate a theory, nor is it a good kind of fact to use in constructing or vetting a theory.Thus I would exclude definition 4 from facts used in science. One of the critical elements of science is that it is repeatable - that other people can go through the same steps to sense the results of an experiment, turn over the evidence in their hands, experience the validity of the experiment. This cannot be done where the events or circumstances are alleged.The facts and evidence - events or circumstances - I see used in science fit definitions 1 through 3, so there is no need to include 4 in scientific facts.There are {events or circumstances} for evolution that fit definitions 1 through 3, so for those {events or circumstances} evolution is a fact without needing definition 4. I don't think you can. One becomes the other and vice versa. I know I have trouble not using them interchangeably .

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We can touch evidence, but we can't touch a fact. The evidence is the fossil. The fact is that it is a cast of organic material that once belonged to a living being.Another fact (which could lead to confusion) is that the fossil exists. We cannot touch the fact, but we can derive it from the evidence (ie our brain tells us it is there, which is pretty damn good evidence it exists - though a philosopher may object that there is some reasonable doubt). It might be tricky in casual talk (actually, it is tricky ), but its not all that tricky when you keep in mind the court->evidence->jury->fact relationship. We don't decide the evidence, we decide the facts. The evidence is just there, waiting to be found.Using that understanding of fact - there are plenty of facts related to Natural History.