Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

It IS a fact that all science is tentative; it's all subject to further knowledge.But some things are so backed by the evidenced that we've found that we can call them facts - even proven facts - if we want to talk generally about them.Evolution - ie the observation that organisms change over time - is often called a fact now because we've got so much knowledge about it. But Universal Common Descent - a projection from the ToE - is still regarded as a hypothesis - although a strong one. There is less certainty about it - particularly down at the unicellular level.People speak loosely at times and don't always qualify their terms, but it would be really tedious if they did.
​

Why are you continuing with these pointless semantics? Do they have some real-life importance to you? What point are you trying to get across and if you're rejecting our answers why?From here it just looks like you¡re stuck in a corner. We'll happily lets you out if you can give us a an indication of where you think you're going with this.When discussing stuff casually scientists will use all sorts of language but I doubt you’ll find any that provide an unqualified answer to a specific scientific question.

I have no idea what I'm disagreeing with - I've lost the plot.As far as I can gather you're trying to tell us that science claims absolute truths about things. But that's so obviously false I doubt you're saying that. So I'm trying to understand what it is you're saying. Perhaps it would help if you could just remind us of your position? Maybe we're not in disagreement?

Here's what Bing's AI 'thinks'

Bing:

---

Tentativeness is one of the characteristics of scientific inquiry, meaning that scientific ideas are subject to change based on new evidence and observations. Tentativeness applies to all science, but not to the same degree or in the same way. Some scientific ideas are more tentative than others, depending on the amount and quality of evidence supporting them, the level of consensus among scientists, and the nature of the phenomena being studied. For example, some basic facts and laws of physics are very well-established and unlikely to change, while some hypotheses and models in fields like astronomy, biology, or climate science may be more provisional and open to revision. Tentativeness also applies to both data and models, as data can be affected by measurement errors, biases, or limitations of instruments, and models can be incomplete, inaccurate, or oversimplified. Therefore, scientists always try to improve their data collection and analysis methods, and test their models against new observations and experiments. Tentativeness does not mean that scientific ideas are unreliable or untrustworthy; rather, it means that science is a dynamic and ongoing process of seeking the best possible explanations for natural phenomena. You can learn more about tentativeness in science from these web sources: Understanding Science, Ars Technica, and Chem LibreTexts.

---

For God's sake please show us these damn claims! Are they just inside your head?

Well I'm trying but I'm a getting lost in your perpetual contentless, one line replies that normally contain an insult. I've gone back seven pages and before I lost the will to live I found this which may be one of the things that surprised us.

sensai:

---

Every scientist who claims UCA is a fact, basically posts it as absolute truth, if you ask me. Do you agree on this or do you see it differently?

​

Dawkins does it, I think. Among many others.

---

Although you haven't yet been able to provide evidence of any scientist - including Dawkins - saying this, I'm sure someone probably said something resembling this sometime. In casual speech people tend to be less careful than in print or when carefully considering an answer to a technical question. But anyone claiming that the UCA is fact, or truth is factually wrong - and you can dismiss anything they say - s/he is not a scientist.fyi Here's a link to the wiki on the UCA.I did a word search. Number of words in the article containingproof - nil
truth - nil
absolute - nil
evidence - 123
hypothesis or hypotheses - 11Evidence of common descent - WikipediaI also asked Bing whether Dawkins has ever called the UCL a fact. This is its reply

Bing:

---

According to Wikipedia, Richard Dawkins has listed the “concestors” of the human lineage in order of increasing age, down to the last universal common ancestor (human– bacteria) in his book The Ancestor’s Tale1. He also stated that the evidence for this is that all organisms share the same genetic code and was not invented twice2. However, he also acknowledged that there are some variations in the genetic code among different organisms, such as some mycoplasmas that use a different codon for tryptophan2. He also admitted that the last universal common ancestor is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that there is no direct evidence for its existence2. Therefore, it seems that Dawkins has not claimed that the universal common ancestor is a fact, but rather a plausible inference based on the available data.

---

UCA is a special case of CA. An evolutionary biologist will almost certainly tell you that while the UCA is a decent hypothesis we are far from certain that it's correct at the very base of the tree. One reason is the possibility of gene transfer in unicellular organisms.But the same biologists would tell you that CA is as certain as anything in biological sciences can be. I'm sure some would tell you that it is a fact, after all, you can create a family tree of your own family showing common descent. There is no alternate theory and enormous, unqualified support for it. This is how knowledge grows, we're sure of some things (speaking in general terms) and less sure of others depending on the evidence we have available to us.

Came across this in an old bookmark. It pretty much kills the point.

quote:

---

Evolution as fact and theory

​

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".[1] A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

​

Each of the words evolution, fact and theory has several meanings in different contexts. In biology, evolution refers to observed changes in organisms over successive generations, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation capable of great consensus; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

​

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

---

Lots moreEvolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia