The phrase "Evolution is a fact"

If the fossil record were really just an amorphous pile of dead things then you're right that it couldn't tell us much with any certainty, but the fossil record isn't an amorphous pile of dead things. It is a record of increasingly different forms with increasing depth and time. It is a record of change over time. That lifeforms have changed over time is a fact. The word that means lifeforms changing over time is evolution, and so it is correct to state that it is a fact that evolution has occurred.What is the explanation for this fact? Did an intelligent designer intervene innumerable and countless times? Is imperfect reproduction combined with selection responsible? Something else? That's a discussion for another thread, but that lifeforms have changed over time, that evolution has occurred, is a fact.--Percy

Hi Beretta,The topic is not, "Is the theory of evolution a fact?"The topic is, "Is the phrase 'evolution is a fact' a scientifically justifiable statement?" (read the OP, Message 1)Since biological evolution is just change over time, and since the fossil record undeniably indicates change over time, the phrase "evolution is a fact" is a scientifically justifiable statement.If you want to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the fact of evolution, find another thread.--Percy

Beretta doesn't need any help going off-topic.--Percy

I agree. But the proper definitions have been given, many times.The fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time. Allele frequencies change over time. These are facts.Perhaps the problem for you is that they are non-obvious facts that required a great deal of research to tease out. Perhaps you would prefer if we didn't refer to non-obvious facts as facts, but then your problem is with the English language. That the planets orbit the sun and not the Earth is also a non-obvious fact, but fact is what we call it because it has been so well-confirmed by evidence.You raised the issue of macroevolution, and while no has been going around saying "macroevolution is a fact," quite clearly it is, as there are enormous changes represented in the fossil record.Perhaps it is the description of the fossils in the geologic column as a record of change over time that you do not like. Perhaps you would prefer to call it a record of continual new creation over time with differences from previous forms ranging from tiny to huge. But whatever terms you use to describe the facts, this still isn't a thread about theories explaining them. This thread is neither about creation nor intelligent design nor the theory of evolution.If you'd like to talk about the merits of the theory of evolution as an explanation for this change over time then you should propose a new thread. Or you could peruse the topics over at the [forum=-5] forum to see if one matches what you'd like to discuss. But unlike your last visit, please stay on-topic this time.--Percy

And that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice-versa is an interpretation of many, many individual astronomical observations. And yet we call it a fact.You're using a quibble about usage of the word "fact" to shift the topic of discussion from this thread's topic, which is the confusion surrounding evolution as both fact and theory, to something that is not the topic of this thread, which is the evidence supporting evolution. Again, this thread is about evolution as fact versus evolution as theory. If what you want to do is argue simple facts, like changes in allele frequency over time which occurs even in the microevolutionary processes that creationists do not deny, then you need to find a thread where that would be on-topic.I understand that the tack you're taking is that the facts upon which the phrase "evolution is a fact" is based are not actually facts, but that issue is beyond the scope of this thread.You exhibited this same persistence in going off-topic during your last visit. If you persist I'll remove your posting privileges in this forum. What you want to discuss are perfectly legitimate topics, but they are not the topic of this thread. If you propose a new topic or two I'll promote them as quickly as I can.--Percy

Hi Killinghurts,The article you referenced is a relatively recent one about the E. coli long-term evolution experiment conducted by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University, and it is worthwhile providing a couple brief excerpts.The URL for the New Scientist article again: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the labFirst, there's this about producing a new species. E. coli are distinguished from other similar bacterial species by their inability to metabolize citrate, yet one of Lenski's lines of descent evolved that very ability: And here's a bit more detail about the current state of research as of June of this year: While some facts, like that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa, can only be ferreted out with great effort, other facts come to us simply because they happen before our very eyes. These E. coli evolved before the very eyes of Lenski's team of researchers at Michigan State University. There can be no rational denial that species change over time, that evolution happens.And though it is off-topic, I'll add that in this particular case, there can also be no rational denial that the mechanism of evolution was that postulated by the theory of evolution.--Percy

Why do some books on homebuilding have chapters about the origin of lumber?Peg, do you really think that Dawkins believes evolution includes the origin of life just because he opens chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene with some speculations about it? He even says he's writing about the origin of life in that chapter: "The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative..."A hundred and fifty years ago Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. Except in the minds of creationists, there was no confusion then and there is no confusion now.Note that no one is saying that evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated. Life had to begin before evolution could happen, and we believe that evolutionary processes conceptually similar to selection and mutation, but at a chemical level, must have been operative. But despite the obvious relationship, pre-life processes that we're barely beginning to understand must necessarily have also possessed very different qualities from evolution.Creationism itself provides one of the reasons for the importance of understanding the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, since some creationists believe that God created the first life and that evolution was responsible for the subsequent diversity of life.--Percy