Evolution as a "fact"

[gilbo12345]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

Now to pre-emptively avoid any equivocation attempts here is the definition of "fact"


fact
[fakt] Show IPA

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. Compare question of fact, question of law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact


Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

 

[australopithecus]

Of course facts exist in science. The purpose of a theory is explain observation. Evolution, organisms changing over time, is a fact. Organisms do change over time. That what degree and how they change is explained by natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium...ect. Theories are not static, they change depending on evidence, but you can't change the intitial observation.

Gravity, the speed of light in vacuo, atoms...all facts, all well observed phenomena. As is evolution. All explained via theories. No theory is 100% absolute because we don't have 100% knowledge, however the facts are facts.

 

[Prolescum]

This is clearly the same chap being laughed at in AronRa's thread.

Must be something of a masochist.

 

[Inferno]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

Very well, I'll bite. The first distinction is the one between fact, law, hypothesis and theory.

In laymen's terms, you'd define a fact as "anything that is true", as you have done above, and continue from there until you arrive at "theory", which would be "an unsubstantiated guess". In order of importance, you'd class them fact > law > hypothesis > theory.

But that's not how scientists use the term. In science, the definitions are as follows:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

We would thus classify them in the order fact < hypothesis < law < theory. So in science, a theory is the most important thing of the whole.
You're right in saying that "every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence", but since "evidence" = "facts" and since they are "accepted as 'true'", there's not really any change to them.

As such, the dictionary you quote from is wholly inaccurate.

So to see how well you've understood this, take the following test.

Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

As shown above, no.
Also, what is only "taught at the university level"? That evolution is "absolute"? I'll let you answer that before I ridicule you.


Now on the last (or rather first) point: Which is evolution, a fact or a theory?

Well, you'll be delighted to hear that it's both.
Wait, what? Yeah, that's right, BOTH!

There are two excellent articles going into just that:
Richard E. Lenski's "Evolution: Fact and Theory" and Stephen Jay Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The summary is a quick one! The facts of evolution are the following:

It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it's strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.

Now why do these mutations occur, why does biodiversity increase and so on? THAT'S the theory.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

Now to pre-emptively avoid any equivocation attempts here is the definition of "fact"


fact
[fakt] Show IPA

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. Compare question of fact, question of law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact


Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

Clearly your biology teacher is referring to hypotheses and theories, rather than data, which are entirely different. If the teacher didn't explain that or you failed to ask for clarification, that's unfortunate.

Whenever I'm told by someone - usually a creationist - that "There are no absolute answers in science!", I point out that there are - "Absolute zero, for one" - before explaining further.

Absolute zero is but one of a whole list of "facts" in science called "constants": the speed of light, Planck's constant, Avogadro's Number, etc.

Then there are further constants in the form of relationships - Pi, for example: no matter how large or small the circle, it remains the same.

There are further "facts" of this type, such as Boyle's Law, which encapsulates the relationship between the pressure, temperature and volume of a gas: given any two, you can calculate the third.

The ultimate set of "facts" in science is the periodic table of elements - including their isotopes.

Given that these are the building blocks of everything we see around us, that gives science a foundation of "facts" on which to build theories - including that of evolution.

Abiogenesis, as I've explained elsewhere in LoR, is a natural consequence of the laws of chemistry: life can't help but occur given the right conditions.

And evolution is equally the result of the laws of chemistry.

So far, everything that's been observed and each new fossil, etc, that's discovered, shows that the theory of evolution is correct - it's a theory that's becoming more and more of a "fact" as time goes on.

And please note that the theory of evolution is not the same as what Darwin first proposed - which creationists continue to call "Darwinism".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Based on the definition you gave for fact, evolution is a fact by definition. Please define evolution in its biological context and you will see how it is an observed fact.

 

[gilbo12345]

Of course facts exist in science. The purpose of a theory is explain observation. Evolution, organisms changing over time, is a fact. Organisms do change over time. That what degree and how they change is explained by natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium...ect. Theories are not static, they change depending on evidence, but you can't change the intitial observation.

Gravity, the speed of light in vacuo, atoms...all facts, all well observed phenomena. As is evolution. All explained via theories. No theory is 100% absolute because we don't have 100% knowledge, however the facts are facts.

If nothing can be absolute then by definition they cannot be facts since facts are by definition absolute... Refer to the definion I gave... Unless you're going into a tangent about how "scientific facts" are different to facts as pertained to the dictionary... Which in reply I'd ask why even call them facts if they are not absolute? Why not call them something else, since the definition of fact (as given) means something absolute.

Greetings,

Whenever I'm told by someone - usually a creationist - that "There are no absolute answers in science!", I point out that there are - "Absolute zero, for one" - before explaining further.

Absolute zero is but one of a whole list of "facts" in science called "constants": the speed of light, Planck's constant, Avogadro's Number, etc.

Then there are further constants in the form of relationships - Pi, for example: no matter how large or small the circle, it remains the same.

There are further "facts" of this type, such as Boyle's Law, which encapsulates the relationship between the pressure, temperature and volume of a gas: given any two, you can calculate the third.

The ultimate set of "facts" in science is the periodic table of elements - including their isotopes.

Given that these are the building blocks of everything we see around us, that gives science a foundation of "facts" on which to build theories - including that of evolution.

Abiogenesis, as I've explained elsewhere in LoR, is a natural consequence of the laws of chemistry: life can't help but occur given the right conditions.

And evolution is equally the result of the laws of chemistry.

So far, everything that's been observed and each new fossil, etc, that's discovered, shows that the theory of evolution is correct - it's a theory that's becoming more and more of a "fact" as time goes on.

And please note that the theory of evolution is not the same as what Darwin first proposed - which creationists continue to call "Darwinism".

Kindest regards,

James

Thanks James for the kindest regards, its rare for such niceties from an atheist (considering from some of the first replies given here)

As your mod agreed there are no absolutes as per scientific theory, hypothesis or law. I stated that all must be ammenable to future evidence which may at some point overturn a particular concept or interpretation of said evidence.. For example if I observed the motions of the sun and the stars one could conclude that we are the centre of the universe, however we now know this to be untrue due to new evidence that has created a new way of interpreting the same data, we now know that the sun seems to rotate around the earth because the Earth is rotating itself on its axis. Meaning that we are not necessarily the centre of the universe, further discoveries has put this idea to the grave...

Now this would never have occured had there been a claim that "Earth as the centre of the universe is a fact" since by stating such its an apriori commitment that one will continue to view the data within the sole context of that statement and not allow for new evidence to overrule it... Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.


Abiogenesis is not a fact of chemical law, there has yet to be any experiments demonstrating that nature itself can create life, (the current experiments require human intervention in some way or another, which itself doesn't demonstrate that nature "did it" since it requires an intelligent agent (human scientists), meaning technically its evidence of ID since if intelligent agents are required to manipulate settings during the experiment then this infers that intelligent agents are required nevertheless. What I'd like to see would be an experiment whereby all the conditions were setup and then it was left to run... all by itself.. no human manipulation allowed after starting the experiment.

Now considering the nature of chirality of molecules abiogenesis is almost certainly impossible, since DNA / RNA / Proteins require one "form" of molecule, (left handed form or right handed form depending on what is being made).. Yet these are found in a 50/50 mix in nature.. Meaning there needs to be a natural mechanism of selection of only choosing the correct "form" of molecule, since over time the odds of continually getting the right one via chance is slim indeed, ( more so as the conc. of the correct "form" lessens as its used up) . There is no natural mechanism given for such a thing, in fact I'm not sure if many people realise this problem.

It would be interesting to see the evidence given for the claim that life can't help to occur under the right conditions. What are these conditions, how have they been verified? However one thing that people miss is that even if scientists find a way for nature to create life, that doesn't necessarily mean that that was what actually happened. There is no time machine for anyone to go and verify, hence the only thing that can be claimed for sure is that there is the possibility. Anything more than that and someone is using their imagination a little too much

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

Very well, I'll bite. The first distinction is the one between fact, law, hypothesis and theory.

In laymen's terms, you'd define a fact as "anything that is true", as you have done above, and continue from there until you arrive at "theory", which would be "an unsubstantiated guess". In order of importance, you'd class them fact > law > hypothesis > theory.

But that's not how scientists use the term. In science, the definitions are as follows:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

We would thus classify them in the order fact < hypothesis < law < theory. So in science, a theory is the most important thing of the whole.
You're right in saying that "every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence", but since "evidence" = "facts" and since they are "accepted as 'true'", there's not really any change to them.

As such, the dictionary you quote from is wholly inaccurate.

So to see how well you've understood this, take the following test.

Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

As shown above, no.
Also, what is only "taught at the university level"? That evolution is "absolute"? I'll let you answer that before I ridicule you.


Now on the last (or rather first) point: Which is evolution, a fact or a theory?

Well, you'll be delighted to hear that it's both.
Wait, what? Yeah, that's right, BOTH!

There are two excellent articles going into just that:
Richard E. Lenski's "Evolution: Fact and Theory" and Stephen Jay Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The summary is a quick one! The facts of evolution are the following:

It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it's strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.

Now why do these mutations occur, why does biodiversity increase and so on? THAT'S the theory.

If a fact in science is different to the actual definition of fact then why even call it a fact? Why not call it a "zebu" and just give it that definition you gave? There is no need for the term fact to be taken and given a new meaning since many lay-people would not know the difference ergo would believe that it is an absolute even though it is not.

Many of the "facts" you claim are actually hypothesises derived from the "theory" of evolution... I write "theory" since there is no empirical test / experiment defined for evolution meaning that under the guidelines of the scientific method

Observation > Hypothesis > Experiment > Result

Evolution is simply still at the hypothesis stage... DNA similarities, fossil similarities, ERVs etc are all observations and "evolution did it" is the hypothesis for these observations. Now all that is needed is a test to ensure that evolution was the cause of these observations, sadly no test is currently available, evolution is merely assumed as the conclusion.

Gee thanks for giving me the heads up for your ridiclue, considering that the rules state that there is to be no abuse, one would ask how could you ridicule someone without breaking those rules... Hmmm... Its taught at university that there are no absolutes within scientific understanding, as your mod agreed to before.

Based on the definition you gave for fact, evolution is a fact by definition. Please define evolution in its biological context and you will see how it is an observed fact.

That would depend on what definiton of "evolution" you wish to agree to.

Change over time = observed
Change in frequency of alleles = observed
Change from one species to another (common descent as per Darwin) = not observed

Now I'd ask you whilst small changes are observed and the larger ones are not, how does one logically extrapolate that over time many small changes can equate to a larger one.

Consider frequency of alleles, under this definition the change of a population of 50% blonde haired humans to 45% blonde would be considered "evolution" however one must ask, how does hair colour change lead to the new structures that are required for a species to be different (ie- legs for fish).. Using the fish, how does fin colour changes lead to the formation of hips and legs? Until this is answered there is an impasse in that small benign changes which do not alter the relative basic body plan of an organism cannot add up to the larger extrapolated changes since in their very nature the benign changes are incapable or redefining the basic body plan, (hence they are benign).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Based on the definition you gave for fact, evolution is a fact by definition. Please define evolution in its biological context and you will see how it is an observed fact.

That would depend on what definiton of "evolution" you wish to agree to.

As I stated, the biological definition.

Change over time = observed

This is the general definition of evolution.

Change in frequency of alleles = observed

This is partially the biological definition of evolution; you left out time and populations.

Change from one species to another (common descent as per Darwin) = not observed

Wrong. We have observed speciation events. The fact that you did not know this before posting in this forum is quite telling.

Now I'd ask you whilst small changes are observed and the larger ones are not, how does one logically extrapolate that over time many small changes can equate to a larger one.

What is the mechanism that stops this? As I pointed out above, we have observed speciation events. Until a mechanism is proposed that stops the changes from building up, the logical conclusion is that changes will always build up onto each other.

Consider frequency of alleles, under this definition the change of a population of 50% blonde haired humans to 45% blonde would be considered "evolution"...

Exactly. Thus, you accept evolution based on its biological definition. You just disagree with common descent.

... however one must ask, how does hair colour change lead to the new structures that are required for a species to be different (ie- legs for fish).. Using the fish, how does fin colour changes lead to the formation of hips and legs? Until this is answered there is an impasse in that small benign changes which do not alter the relative basic body plan of an organism cannot add up to the larger extrapolated changes since in their very nature the benign changes are incapable or redefining the basic body plan, (hence they are benign).

Hair or fin color change would not lead to a new structure change, but the process that produced the new type of hair or fin color can also produce different structures. Mutations provide new features to be selected for in different environments. If a new feature arises that leads to a better fitness in an organism (and is heritable), that feature will be passed down to the next generation at a higher rate. This is very simple stuff.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Gilbo12345, may I ask, with no disrespect intended, why you talk of layman definitions as if they are more correct, or take higher precedence, then the definitions used by scientists, when you are talking in a scientific context? And for that matter, why do you feel that the layman definition of a term has any merit whatsoever, regardless of the context?

 

[gilbo12345]

As I stated, the biological definition.



This is the general definition of evolution.


This is partially the biological definition of evolution; you left out time and populations.


Wrong. We have observed speciation events. The fact that you did not know this before posting in this forum is quite telling.


What is the mechanism that stops this? As I pointed out above, we have observed speciation events. Until a mechanism is proposed that stops the changes from building up, the logical conclusion is that changes will always build up onto each other.


Exactly. Thus, you accept evolution based on its biological definition. You just disagree with common descent.


Hair or fin color change would not lead to a new structure change, but the process that produced the new type of hair or fin color can also produce different structures. Mutations provide new features to be selected for in different environments. If a new feature arises that leads to a better fitness in an organism (and is heritable), that feature will be passed down to the next generation at a higher rate. This is very simple stuff.[/quote]


All claimed "speciation events" have been mere variants of the same species, ergo no new species, (though I have met some evolutionists who claim that different breeds are different species). If you feel this is wrong, please give examples of a new organism being formed... In the same light of a fish to an amphibian or a dinosaur to a bird, are these scale changes observed?







I accept change, I do not accept common descent. Using wikipedia is not going to help in the creditability department considering that it can be altered at will.

Where is the evidence that a colour change will result in a major structural change in the basic body plan of the organism, as Dawkins claims we need evidence to believe things... If a colour change doesn't result in new structures then why is such cited as "evidence" of common descent, (as per moths and variants of lizards etc)? Additionally if it doesn't lead to such changes then shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Or does confusion on the definition of large scale and small scale change and what is applicable between them equate to scientific integrity?

Gilbo12345, may I ask, with no disrespect intended, why you talk of layman definitions as if they are more correct, or take higher precedence, then the definitions used by scientists, when you are talking in a scientific context? And for that matter, why do you feel that the layman definition of a term has any merit whatsoever, regardless of the context?

I ask because the actual definition of fact long existed before the "scientifc" defintion meaning it gets priority, if a scientific fact is not a fact then it shouldn't be claimed to be a fact.. Simple.. This should have been self-evident in the formation of the term "scientific fact" ergo intellectual honesty would dictate that the term fact not be used since its actually being used out of its original context.

 

[Inferno]

If nothing can be absolute...

Hold it right there, sir! That's NOT what australopithecus said. I'll quote him for your benefit:
"No theory is 100% absolute because we don't have 100% knowledge, however the facts are facts."

There may well be absolutes, but theories are not among them. Facts, as australopithecus pointed out, are among the absolutes you speak of.

... then by definition they cannot be facts since facts are by definition absolute...

Since you misunderstood the first part, as quoted above, the rest of your paragraph is meaningless and I'll leave it at that.

Which in reply I'd ask why even call them facts if they are not absolute? Why not call them something else, since the definition of fact (as given) means something absolute.

This question comes up quite frequently in your texts, so I'll answer it briefly. In every field, there are specialized terms.
For example, if I told you that I told you there's a "positive feedback", you'd probably think "it's something that keeps getting better and better", but in science it actually means "it keeps getting stronger and stronger". The reverse applies for a "negative feedback". There are other terms like "to force", "to enhance" and so on. In science, they mean something completely different to what they mean in every day language.

It always depends on the situation they're used in. Even in everyday language, you have multiple meanings for the same word, but you know which one to use, depending on the context. Here, the context is scientific, so get used to them.
For example:
"Go right" and "you're right" both employ the word with the same spelling and same pronunciation, but they clearly mean different things.

As your mod agreed there are no absolutes as per scientific theory, hypothesis or law.

The same applies here. I don't even need to read what you replied to James because your answer is based on an erroneous understanding of what australopithecus said.

For example if I observed the motions of the sun and the stars one could conclude that we are the centre of the universe, however we now know this to be untrue due to new evidence that has created a new way of interpreting the same data, we now know that the sun seems to rotate around the earth because the Earth is rotating itself on its axis. Meaning that we are not necessarily the centre of the universe, further discoveries has put this idea to the grave...

Now this would never have occured had there been a claim that "Earth as the centre of the universe is a fact" since by stating such its an apriori commitment that one will continue to view the data within the sole context of that statement and not allow for new evidence to overrule it... Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.

You misunderstand what a fact is. Did you take the quiz I gave you?

A fact in reference to gravity would be "If I jump out a [high enough] window I will die." Another fact is "Unless an opposing force acts on the object, things fall down". Those are facts!
"The inverse-square law for gravity and Newton's Laws of motion explain why orbits are ellipses." That's a theory.

It's really not that hard.
And it doesn't affect the plasticity of science because you're still mistaken over what a fact and what a theory is.

I'll continue this later, but please look up the test paper (by NASA) I gave you. It explains perfectly what a Fact and what a Theory is.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I ask because the actual definition of fact long existed before the "scientifc" defintion meaning it gets priority, if a scientific fact is not a fact then it shouldn't be claimed to be a fact.. Simple.. This should have been self-evident in the formation of the term "scientific fact" ergo intellectual honesty would dictate that the term fact not be used since its actually being used out of its original context.

Please do not use inaccurate modifiers like "actual" when what you mean is "generally accepted in a layman's context." I could argue that the actual definition of "fact" is it's original definition, which was used in law and meant an "act of a person."

That is as much the actual definition of "fact" as anything you have posted, more so if one were to place undue importance on timelines. It would be like arguing the original definition of "accent" (which was "to sing") should be the only definition we use, mountaineers and spelunkers be damned.

There is a time and place to discuss proper word usage and the evolution of language. That would be in a place designed for etymology among English and linguistic scholars.

I hope you now realize that words have different meanings based on what context the word is being used in, and that there is no all-true definition for a word. Language is flexible. So can we can all move on to discussing something of importance, and not try to score imaginary "gotcha" points by splitting hairs over a triviality?

(Edited to fix formatting)

 

[gilbo12345]

I ask because the actual definition of fact long existed before the "scientifc" defintion meaning it gets priority, if a scientific fact is not a fact then it shouldn't be claimed to be a fact.. Simple.. This should have been self-evident in the formation of the term "scientific fact" ergo intellectual honesty would dictate that the term fact not be used since its actually being used out of its original context.

Please do not use inaccurate modifiers like "actual" when what you mean is "generally accepted in a layman's context." I could argue that the <i>actual</i> definition of "fact" is it's original definition, which was used in law and meant an "act of a person."

That is as much the <UI>actual</i> definition of "fact" as anything you have posted, more so if one were to place undue importance on timelines. It would be like arguing the original definition of "accent" (which was "to sing") should be the only definition we use, mountaineers and spelunkers be damned.

There is a time and place to discuss proper word usage and the evolution of language. That would be in a place designed for etymology among English and linguistic scholars.

I hope you now realize that words have different meanings based on what context the word is being used in, and that there is no all-true definition for a word. Language is flexible. So can we can all move on to discussing something of importance, and not try to score imaginary "gotcha" points by splitting hairs over a triviality?

And this refutes my point how?

I've had lecturers at uni use the term fact interchangably in fact... the claim "evolution is a fact" is using the original definition otherwise it would be "evolution is a scientific fact", ergo the dishonest attempt to impose more authority to something via wordplay.

I think perhaps you should get your facts straight, rather than state stuff without due evidence (doesn't Dawkins claim you need evidence to believe anything?)

fact (n.) 1530s, "action," especially "evil deed," from L. factum "event, occurrence," lit. "thing done," neuter pp. of facere "to do" (see factitious). Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred." Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; specific sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fact&searchmode=none

fact in 1530s meant "action" from L. factum meaning "event, occurence, thing done"

sounds disturbingly close to the definition I gave in the OP.... If something is known to occur or is known to have been done then it is known to be true, yes... Truth is an absolute ergo the absoluteness of fact.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I've had lecturers at uni use the term fact interchangably in fact... the claim "evolution is a fact" is using the original definition otherwise it would be "evolution is a scientific fact", ergo the dishonest attempt to impose more authority to something via wordplay.

If you wish to go down this path, you must then admit that every use of fact that does not mean "an act of a person" is just "wordplay," including the definition that you are working under. That's how my point refutes yours.

Further, this argument is akin to approaching a literary debate, wherein they were using the literary theory definition of "text," and demanding that they conform to a different definition of "text," as others us it. If you are too simple to understand that words mean different things in different contexts, please, I'm begging you, never work in a position that requires you to talk to people. Your communication skills are painfully underdeveloped.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thanks James for the kindest regards, its rare for such niceties from an atheist (considering from some of the first replies given here)

You're welcome - although I'd consider myself agnostic, rather than theist/atheist, as belief or the lack thereof has no bearing on truth.

As your mod agreed there are no absolutes as per scientific theory, hypothesis or law. I stated that all must be ammenable to future evidence which may at some point overturn a particular concept or interpretation of said evidence.. For example if I observed the motions of the sun and the stars one could conclude that we are the centre of the universe, however we now know this to be untrue due to new evidence that has created a new way of interpreting the same data, we now know that the sun seems to rotate around the earth because the Earth is rotating itself on its axis. Meaning that we are not necessarily the centre of the universe, further discoveries has put this idea to the grave...

Now this would never have occured had there been a claim that "Earth as the centre of the universe is a fact" since by stating such its an apriori commitment that one will continue to view the data within the sole context of that statement and not allow for new evidence to overrule it... Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.

The problem with the claim regarding geocentricism was that it arose from the early Christian Church adopting the Greek pagan belief and then making it dogma - when Galileo disagreed, based on the evidence, he was proscribed.

Science doesn't tend to do that - all theories are open to being over-turned.

Abiogenesis is not a fact of chemical law, there has yet to be any experiments demonstrating that nature itself can create life, (the current experiments require human intervention in some way or another, which itself doesn't demonstrate that nature "did it" since it requires an intelligent agent (human scientists), meaning technically its evidence of ID since if intelligent agents are required to manipulate settings during the experiment then this infers that intelligent agents are required nevertheless. What I'd like to see would be an experiment whereby all the conditions were setup and then it was left to run... all by itself.. no human manipulation allowed after starting the experiment.

Firstly, abiogenesis is a natural consequence of the laws of chemistry given the right conditions. It is a "fact" only under those circumstances, not in all cases. One might think of it in a similar sense to the Jesus' parable of the farmer sowing seed - depending on which ground it lands will determine whether it flourishes or not.

Secondly, the Miller-Urey experiment, which reproduced the conditions (at the time) thought to be extant in the early history of the Earth, has already been shown to result in the building blocks of life.

Now considering the nature of chirality of molecules abiogenesis is almost certainly impossible, since DNA / RNA / Proteins require one "form" of molecule, (left handed form or right handed form depending on what is being made).. Yet these are found in a 50/50 mix in nature.. Meaning there needs to be a natural mechanism of selection of only choosing the correct "form" of molecule, since over time the odds of continually getting the right one via chance is slim indeed, ( more so as the conc. of the correct "form" lessens as its used up) . There is no natural mechanism given for such a thing, in fact I'm not sure if many people realise this problem.

You're suffering under the misapprehension of how Nature works.

There is nothing to prevent molecules forming based on chirality or the availability of molecules with the correct chirality. I refer you to Carrier's paper - see the "Class VII Error" section - for an explanation.

Further, Nature doesn't run out of molecules, as you seem to believe.

It would be interesting to see the evidence given for the claim that life can't help to occur under the right conditions. What are these conditions, how have they been verified? However one thing that people miss is that even if scientists find a way for nature to create life, that doesn't necessarily mean that that was what actually happened. There is no time machine for anyone to go and verify, hence the only thing that can be claimed for sure is that there is the possibility. Anything more than that and someone is using their imagination a little too much

The above paper also addresses these concerns.

Although scientists may not be able to say categorically "This is how life arose on Earth", they'll be able to give a possible path to the origin of life on this planet, if not elsewhere.

One other point you claim regarding no new species been observed, I refer you to Douglas Theobald's article, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

"Ring species" are just one example of new species occurring.



Kindest regards,

James

 

[Darkprophet232]

My apologies, I misread your last post and as such didn't respond to its entirety. I shall rectify that now.

To say that "event, occurence (sic), thing done" isn't close to "an act done by a person" requires you to be absurdly obtuse. I apologize that I do not have my law books on me and went with a simplified expression for the sake of ease. It does not change how the term was used in 16th century law, however.

Furthermore, in the OP you gave a host of definitions of fact, some which are incompatible with others. 1 and 5 in particular cannot be reconciled, as something that is alleged to be true can still not be true, which creates a contradiction. Again, I point you to words meaning different things depending on context.

 

[gilbo12345]

If nothing can be absolute...

1. There may well be absolutes, but theories are not among them. Facts, as australopithecus pointed out, are among the absolutes you speak of.


2. Since you misunderstood the first part, as quoted above, the rest of your paragraph is meaningless and I'll leave it at that.


3. This question comes up quite frequently in your texts, so I'll answer it briefly. In every field, there are specialized terms.
For example, if I told you that I told you there's a "positive feedback", you'd probably think "it's something that keeps getting better and better", but in science it actually means "it keeps getting stronger and stronger". The reverse applies for a "negative feedback". There are other terms like "to force", "to enhance" and so on. In science, they mean something completely different to what they mean in every day language.

4. It always depends on the situation they're used in. Even in everyday language, you have multiple meanings for the same word, but you know which one to use, depending on the context. Here, the context is scientific, so get used to them.
For example:
"Go right" and "you're right" both employ the word with the same spelling and same pronunciation, but they clearly mean different things.

As your mod agreed there are no absolutes as per scientific theory, hypothesis or law.

5. The same applies here. I don't even need to read what you replied to James because your answer is based on an erroneous understanding of what australopithecus said.

For example if I observed the motions of the sun and the stars one could conclude that we are the centre of the universe, however we now know this to be untrue due to new evidence that has created a new way of interpreting the same data, we now know that the sun seems to rotate around the earth because the Earth is rotating itself on its axis. Meaning that we are not necessarily the centre of the universe, further discoveries has put this idea to the grave...

Now this would never have occured had there been a claim that "Earth as the centre of the universe is a fact" since by stating such its an apriori commitment that one will continue to view the data within the sole context of that statement and not allow for new evidence to overrule it... Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.

6. You misunderstand what a fact is. Did you take the quiz I gave you?

A fact in reference to gravity would be "If I jump out a [high enough] window I will die." Another fact is "Unless an opposing force acts on the object, things fall down". Those are facts!
"The inverse-square law for gravity and Newton's Laws of motion explain why orbits are ellipses." That's a theory.

It's really not that hard.
And it doesn't affect the plasticity of science because you're still mistaken over what a fact and what a theory is.

I'll continue this later, but please look up the test paper (by NASA) I gave you. It explains perfectly what a Fact and what a Theory is.

1. Evolution is deemed a "theory" meaning that if theories are not absolute, (as you admitted and I underlined) then they cannot be fact, there is a huge contradiction here... .. I thought this was the league of "reason" for a reason.

2. Really...

3. Not relevant to this discussion.

4. Again, not relevant. I'd simply ask why not call it a zebu instead of a fact? and proceed to give it the definition you gave?

5. How can such be in error when you state the exact same thing as I underlined?.... Again... "reason"...

6. Shakes head... This is not relevant to my point.... Answer this please...

Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.

 

[gilbo12345]

My apologies, I misread your last post and as such didn't respond to its entirety. I shall rectify that now.

To say that "event, occurence (sic), thing done" isn't close to "an act done by a person" requires you to be absurdly obtuse. I apologize that I do not have my law books on me and went with a simplified expression for the sake of ease. It does not change how the term was used in 16th century law, however.

Furthermore, in the OP you gave a host of definitions of fact, some which are incompatible with others. 1 and 5 in particular cannot be reconciled, as something that is alleged to be true can still not be true, which creates a contradiction. Again, I point you to words meaning different things depending on context.

No worries

Of course context is required, (notice how number five pertains to law whereas the others are general?) however there is no mention in the definition of fact, something akin to

"science: something which seems to be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence"

or something to that effect.

Actually when I look at scientific dictionaries there is no mention of any form of definition of fact, scientific or otherwise.. Meaning that the term "scientific fact" is not an official description or an actual word. If scientific dictionaries don't even support the claims of "scientific fact" then what leg is there to stand on?

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/search.php?ACTION=GET_SEARCH
http://www.science-dictionary.com/search.php?search=fact

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

My apologies, I misread your last post and as such didn't respond to its entirety. I shall rectify that now.

To say that "event, occurence (sic), thing done" isn't close to "an act done by a person" requires you to be absurdly obtuse. I apologize that I do not have my law books on me and went with a simplified expression for the sake of ease. It does not change how the term was used in 16th century law, however.

Furthermore, in the OP you gave a host of definitions of fact, some which are incompatible with others. 1 and 5 in particular cannot be reconciled, as something that is alleged to be true can still not be true, which creates a contradiction. Again, I point you to words meaning different things depending on context.

No worries

Of course context is required, (notice how number five pertains to law whereas the others are general?) however there is no mention in the definition of fact, something akin to

"science: something which seems to be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence"

or something to that effect.

Actually when I look at scientific dictionaries there is no mention of any form of definition of fact, scientific or otherwise.. Meaning that the term "scientific fact" is not an official description or an actual word. If scientific dictionaries don't even support the claims of "scientific fact" then what leg is there to stand on?

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/search.php?ACTION=GET_SEARCH
http://www.science-dictionary.com/search.php?search=fact

Yet I found the term "scientific fact" in your preferred dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

All claimed "speciation events" have been mere variants of the same species, ergo no new species, (though I have met some evolutionists who claim that different breeds are different species).

For someone that started wanting to argue from definition, it is surprising that you have just thrown out what speciation event means. Furthermore, evolution expects that speciation events would be new variations of the existing species. This gets back to what I asked. What mechanism would stop the small changes from adding up into a large change?

If you feel this is wrong, please give examples of a new organism being formed... In the same light of a fish to an amphibian or a dinosaur to a bird, are these scale changes observed?

Thus, you are asking me to present something that takes millions of years. Well, would you accept fossil evidence? The fossil record is spectacularly good for both of the examples you are asking about.

I accept change, I do not accept common descent.

Great. Now we can get to the real thrust of your disagreement.

Using wikipedia is not going to help in the creditability department considering that it can be altered at will.

I cited wikipedia because it is a quick and easy way for someone to learn about different things. From your comment, it is obvious that you did not know what a mutation was or how they worked. Reading the wikipedia page would have saved us the step of me explaining it to you. However, if you do not like wikipedia, obtain a biology textbook and look up the word mutation.

Where is the evidence that a colour change will result in a major structural change in the basic body plan of the organism, as Dawkins claims we need evidence to believe things...

I never said that, work on your reading comprehension (this seems to be a common characteristic creationists seem to have). I said the same factor that creates new color in hair and fins (mutations) can create new structures.

If a colour change doesn't result in new structures then why is such cited as "evidence" of common descent, (as per moths and variants of lizards etc)?

You act as if moth and lizard are species level designation. We have seen speciation events in both those groups, they could be found in my citation.

Additionally if it doesn't lead to such changes then shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Or does confusion on the definition of large scale and small scale change and what is applicable between them equate to scientific integrity?

There is a difference in terms. It is called macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution happens within a species and macroevolution happens at or above the species level. The fact that you do not know any of the basic makes it apparent that you have never actually studied the subject of evolution.