How is Evolution a fact?

Sounds about right. Yes, it might seem so but it isn't. For instance, it was once regarded as true that the earth was the centre of the universe. This was a fact. It turned out to false. Calling it a false fact is an odd thing to do, but what can assign a true or false condition to such the proposition. A theory could be composed of factual pieces of information I suppose. One could say that it is a fact that selection can change the the allele frequencies of a population. However, the theory of evolution on a whole is comprised of a large body of hypotheses, some of which are less supported than selection. Also - their exact import on the change in life on earth so far can probably never be known to a degree which it would be regarded as a fact. And it is wonderful that we have a whole menagerie of words to help us colour our world, thanks for your input!

If the dictionary definition of the word "fact" requires "objectivity" in determination of that quality, then doesn't any proposed scientific definition require it also? And, is this not the case?Joman.

Dictionary definitions should not determine usage, but should reflect usage. Some dictionaries are better than others at doing this. The full entry in the current OED is likely to be better than the 1913 Webster definition which reads

quote:

---

The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes, even when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds with false facts.

---

I have seen the following definition as being pretty good description of the issues raised in the thread so far:

quote:

---

A fact ” from the Latin factum meaning something made or done ” is an event or thing in the real world. Facts should be distinguished from data, theories, and truths, as well as from opinion and things of such ilk. Just as a painting of a pipe is not a pipe, even accurate statements about facts are not the same as the facts themselves.

​

A fact, again, is an element of the world; something made or done; something that exists or happens. A truth, or true statement, is a linguistic expression or sentence which accurately describes a fact. "I ate salad with lunch" is not a fact ” it is a true statement. My eating of the salad, at the time and place it occurred, is the fact that true statement describes.

​

A truth must describe a fact accurately ” how accurately? That, of course, depends on the context in which one utters the purported truth. If a militant vegan asks me, "Did you eat any meat with lunch?" and I respond "I ate salad with lunch," I am describing a fact. However, I still may not be telling the truth, if I ate a chicken salad: in context, I am failing to describe fact with adequate accuracy.

​

We very frequently cannot judge immediately whether or not a statement is true. For instance, it is not immediately evident whether the statement "Humankind and the gorilla species evolved from a common ancestor" is true, in the sense that it is evident (to me) that "I ate salad with lunch" is true. In order to judge whether non-obvious statements describe facts, we can gather data, formulate hypotheses, and attempt to arrive at theories.

​

A datum is not a fact. A datum is the result of measuring some attribute of a fact. A sample of carbon extracted from a fossil is a fact; a measurement of the percentage of 14C in that sample is a datum. A datum, furthermore, is not necessarily an accurate datum ” if the mass spectrometer is not working correctly, a Carbon-14 reading taken with it will be a completely spurious datum.

​

A hypothesis, then, is a statement which describes a set of data, and a theory is a hypothesis which describes its set of data adequately accurately. Again, this word "adequate" ” adequate for what? The adequacy of a hypothesis is demonstrated by testing it; using it to predict data, and then going out and gathering the data which might confirm or refute the hypothesis.

---

from hereA scientific definition is more 'objective' than other definitions might be. The scientific method has been honed in an attempt to be as objective as a group of subjective entities can define anything.Is it the case that a fact is defined objectively? It is defined as objectively as is it is possible to do so. However, each person probably has their own subtle understanding of the exact meaning and correct usage of the term. Therefore anybody that uses the word fact to describe something may be asked to define how they are using the word. An example of this kind of definition can be found in the link posted in the OP.

Modulous,
I think it's far simpler.Fact: Something that is, or is presented to be, objectively real.If the definition of "scientific fact" voids the need for objective reality then the proposed definition lends itself to the establishment of personal biases as though those biases had the authority of valid and repeatable experimentally established facts. But, such isn't the goal of the science of evolution is it?In my opinion any definition which is lacking in the utmost simplicity, achieves only the benefits of miscommunication.Joman.

Perhaps, but then one has to go on to define what 'objectively real' means and you land yourself in a similar quagmire, no?Also: leaving the 'or is presented to be' means that everything can be considered a fact depending on its presentation. Thus 'the earth is six minutes old' is a fact. In this definition of fact (Which is fine), evolution is certainly a fact. Nobody is suggesting the definition of scientific fact voids the need for objective reality. Indeed, I said the opposite, that scientific definitions are the specifically tailored to provide as much objectivity as is possible by subjective entities. It depends how deep one wants delve into the semantics. In this thread we have delved deeply into it, despite the simple definition offered in the thread linked to in the OP. The definition of fact is simply defined as something which has so much independly supported evidence that it is beyond any reasonable doubt to accept it.However, since there are other uses of the word as described in the thread, equivocation becomes possible and yet equivocation is unecessary since there is a clear criteria for why evolution is judged a fact. The debate was whether the definition was good enough - indeed, in order to debate whether or not evolution is a fact, the definition needs to be complicated. That inevitably lead to miscommunication and the conclusion which was 'What is important is how the word is being used in context, not the opinion of one person as to how a word should be used'.Check out the link in the OP to determine how the word is being used - it's very simple.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In terms of the OP ... evolution has two meanings, and this confusion equivocates between those two different meanings. We can say that people include many things within their parameter bound of {fact}, different people include different things, but that within that parameter set are common elements, facts that are

• felt
• tasted
• smelled
• heard
• seen

sensed.In this regard natural selection is fact - it has been observed; mutation of genetic material is fact - it has been observed; speciation is fact - it has been observed.Evolution is the change in species over time by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, thus evolution has been observed, and thus the evolution that has been observed is a fact.Whether the degree or amount of evolution observed is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet is theory. Robust, validated, supported theory, but not fact in the same sense that the observed evolution is fact.We could lessen the confusion by differentiating between the observed data and the theory rather than use the same name for both.We can call the observed phenomena "micro-evolution" and the theory "theory of evolution" (or ToE) to help defuse confusion.Compare this to say gravity - we have weight and we have the theory of gravity. We don't say people have gravity, or increase gravity after a large thanksgiving meal, and we don't talk about a theory of weight, so this confusions doesn't appear in other sciences that I am aware of.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.

Theories get changed or thrown out when new (repeatable) observations challenge them. The body of observations and their interpretations - known as the ToE - has evolved with each new set of observations and will continue to do so - but it hasn't yet been necessary to throw it out because there isn't any repeatable observation that makes it implausible. Having stood the test of (I'm not sure how much) time and plenty of passionate, well-resourced opposition, I personally regard it generally as a fact, subject to adjustment/refinement at the level of detail. I also accept that all of this logic may be missing a greater, logic-free truth.All the best

"Objective evidences" are the established facts of science.
It is the need for "objectivity" that drives scientists toward establishing facts by use of valid and repeatable experiments.
There is there a difference between an understanding established by observations of repeatable experiments and an understanding established by repeatable observation.Experimentation is superior to mere observation. Whereas, valid experiments involve and invoke observation under the constraints of the experiment, mere observation does not.
When we observe a phenomenon in nature we seek to establish understanding of it by intense observational analysis. But, as questions, notions, hypothesis, theories and mere opinions accumulate due to independent thought the need for discrimination arises.
And, experimention is the chosen methodology of science used to provide the "objectivity" that the scientist requires so that he can discriminate between the falsity or validity of the independent understandings being proposed.
Equating theory with fact will subjugate science to a tyranny of biases.Joman.

So a fact is something that is objectively real, and objective evidence is defines as being the facts.Sounds a little inconclusive to me. Anyway - as has been said, fact as used in the sentence 'evolution is a fact' has been defined in its context. Why don't you discuss that definition? Its easy to get into a quagmire isn't it? First we observe a phenomenon, then we break down the phenomenon using controlled experiments to learn what is exactly happening. There's nothing unusual about that. Agreed. Fortunately, as I have said, as the link in the OP says, various people in this thread have said and as scientists world-wide say theory and fact are different things. The only people that are commonly found to equivocate over the terms fact and theory are certain creationists. Facts are the world's data (As Gould is quoted in the OP (have you read the link?)), and theories are the frameworks which are used to explain and understand those facts.Example. Gravity could be called a fact and few people would object. The Theory of Gravity is a theory and is not a fact. If the Theory of Gravity was often referred to as gravity, then it would follow that gravity was both a theory and a fact.Thus, there is evolution. Life on earth has changed and much of life shares common ancestry. That is the fact of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. The Theory of Evolution is often simply called 'evolution'. Thus: Evolution is both a fact (in one definition) and a theory (in another). The word could refer to either, and it is important to avoid equivocation by describing how the Theory of Evolution and the fact of evolution are different (which the link in the OP (which is incredibly pertinent to the discussion by the way) makes very clear.Does that make it clearer for you?

A scientific fact always possesses the quality of "objective reality" because that is the very thing that experiments are designed to prove. That is, after a valid experiment proves that a particular result is be expected there is no longer a valid excuse to deny the reality of that expected result. In this way biases are exposed and discarded so that the foundation of further science rests upon the existence of an more accurately and better understood objective reality. Because, I don't think any theory deserves to be considered as a fact (an objectively real one). Why should they? Let the facts correct the theories. Then the theories will be solidly based upon experimentally proven facts. Which is a good thing I think.
This doesn't mean that a theory is irrationally considered believable. The more pertinent, reasonable and quantitative the facts are in support of a theory the greater is the certainty afforded the theory.
So, if evolutionists rest their understanding of the ToE on facts they're rational to trust to it's validity. I myself have no personal sense of there being any quagmire in this discussion. What is unusual for science is the notion that the mere observation of phenomenon is sufficient. Do you think that an interpretation of a fact is equal to a fact apart from some valid and applicable experiment? I haven't read the link. But, I agree with what is stated here. If gravity isn't a fact then what is? Why am I so confident that it is a fact? Because, I'm confident that it has been proven by repeatable experiment to the point that it is rational to understand it is real and irrational to deny as real.
This is what I would define as a "scientific fact". I would do that because it in it's utter context (science) is a phrase that to me means that "in accordance with the best that science can do(experiment) it is proven to have an objective reality. To me the adjective "scientific" expresses the idea that experiments were done it consideration thereof. My disagreement with this rests upon my understanding that there isn't any repeatable experiment that proves that microevolution begets macroevolution. It is as I have understood you to mean.Joman.Ps. I will read the links.

But that in turn rests upon the assumption that macroevolution is something other than cumulative microevolution.Question:If I put coins in a pile each night, and my children continue the practice and put coins in the pile each night, what limits the number of coins in the pile?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. No experiment can prove objective reality, but a well designed experiment helps us to be satisfied that we have removed a good element of subjectivity in our description of reality as we know it (which is to say: subjectively) Agreed. That is what I have been saying in this thread all along. A fact is something established which is beyond reasonable doubt. Scientific facts are concluded via direct experimentation etc and historical facts are derived from evidences. I agree. Evolution isn't a theory, it is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory and is not a fact. Do I need to repeat that the fact of evolution and theory of evolution are separate things? Interpretation of a fact? No, but inferring from evidence can lead us to facts. Then we both agree that gravity is a fact.The theory of gravity (one theory being that it is local curvature of spacetime for example) is not a fact.Thus there is a fact of gravity and a theory used to understand that fact. Just like with evolution. Every scientific theory is a theory of (something). That something is a fact the theory is attempting to explain.Theory of gravity (gravity is the fact)
Theory of evolution (evolution is a fact)
Theory of relativity (relativity is a fact)
Germ theory of disease (disease is a fact)
Heliocentric theory of the solar system (the solar system is a fact)etc Nobody is suggesting that in this thread (other than jar after you made the comment), so the disagreement is irrelevant. All we are suggesting is that the evidence that all life shares common ancestry is a fact that the theory of evolution attempts to explain.Your real issue is that you don't believe that evolution is a fact. We can discuss that if you want to. Vital, if you are to participate in a discussion about the link, which this thread is Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't want to assume either way.
Appropriate and repeatable experiment is the only way to negate a false assumption. The number of children, the number of nights and the available space.Question: Will you ever accumulate anything more than a pile of pennies/copper?Joman.

But once again, you are showing that you do not understand evolution or the theory of evolution.Your question is simply a strawman. Evolution never evolves anything other than living creatures. This is why the idea of Macroevolution is simply another such strawman. What evolves is living things just as the change pile is coins.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So design an experiment: How would you negate the micro --> macro proposition? What kind of "appropriate and repeatable" testing do you suggest? How would you go about determining whether or not evolution is a fact?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC