How is Evolution a fact?

You can't prove this assertion of yours. And, I don't believe you are correct. I disagree. A fact is objectively real and exists apart from any doubters ability to question it's existence or any believers inability to prove it. The truth of this statement hasn't been scientifically proven. There isn't any "fact of macroevolution" is there? Inference requires facts. And, where inferences my lead us requires validation at every step including the last one. Yes. True. Or, to misunderstand the fact. Who can tell apart from valid experiments. Theory of gravity (gravity is the proven fact)
Theory of evolution (evolution is a proven fact)
Theory of relativity (relativity is an unproven assertion)
Germ theory of disease (disease is a proven fact)
Heliocentric theory of the solar system (the solar system is a proven fact)The theory of macroevolution (macroevolution is a unproven assertion) This statement is false.
My belief is that macroevolution is unproven. In your opinion. I don't see where you obtained any useful knowledge from having read yourself. Either that, or you have failed to present it properly. Which is the only reason I will risk wasting my time to read it.Joman.

There is no such theory except in the minds of the Biblical Creationists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If I could prove my assertion - I would be disproving my assertion!You can disprove my assertion by proving some element of objective reality for me. I refer you to the work Descartes did towards this end, ultimately failing stating that the only thing that can be proven is that "I am". I was agreeing with you. However, where we differ is in objectivity. We cannot know whether a given fact is objectively real (knowing something is inherently subjective, once again see Descartes or if you want pop-Descartes see the Matrix. If you state that objective reality is what we experience with our senses, then you are taking the philosophical position that objective reality is subjective reality). We can say that a fact exists apart from any doubters ability to question it though. A fact then, is an assertion about objective reality which is beyond reasonable doubt. Scientifically proven is paradoxical statement. Nothing in science is proven. That evolution is a fact is a scientifically supported statement, nothing more. All facts in science are tentative, and the link you said you would read addresses the very issue of sciences insistence that no fact is 100% certain. I don't know what you mean by the sentence. There is a fact of evolution which is that most or all life shares common ancestry and it has changed in time on earth.Interestingly creationists agree that this is indeed a fact - they just disagree on the number and nature of the common ancestors. Agreed. That is why I said inference from evidence and not inference from nothing. Indeed. The theory could be bunkum, but we still use the theory to help us understand the fact, even if it means that we learn that the fact is not caused by the mechanisms proposed in the theory. Proven is a dodgy word, as we say. Proof can mean in a mathematical sense, which none of them are. However those things are all facts with a large degree of confidence with multiple lines of converging evidence that would lead to the same conclusion (that the fact is true).That is why we don't require proof that someone committed murder, but that it should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts are statements about reality which are beyond reasonable doubt and it would be perverse to deny them.Relativity is included, but this is a biology thread so it is not important. Shall we talk about whether or not macroevolution has multiple lines of converging evidence that leads to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt and would be perverse to deny? So, you agree that evolution is a fact. This is progress I suppose. It is my belief that macroevolution is unproven also. I suspect you might be using proven in a different way than I am.I believe, also that you are using the word 'macroevolution' to mean what I was using the word 'evolution' to mean. I thought I had made my definitions clear to you. In which case - my statement is not false, it is true: You don't think macroevolution is a fact.The offer stands: if you wish to discuss the grounds upon which macroevolution is considered a fact, then we can do so. No - it is a fact. The OP begins:

quote:

---

In the article "Evolution is a fact and a theory" it states that evolution is a fact.

---

Thus, the article "Evolution is a fact and a theory" is what is under discussion in this thread. If one wishes to meaningfully engage in a discussion about an article, one has to have read the article in question. Otherwise, one ends discussing something other than the article. Let me tell you, I learned under what definition of 'fact' evolution is considered a fact. Whether or not that knowledge is useful is irrelevant - it is required knowledge if we are going to discuss that knowledge! It is entirely possible that I have presented the article incorrectly. And it is about time that you got round to reading it, it being what we are meant to be talking about.If you decide not to bother reading the short 2,000 word essay on the subject perhaps this 53 word excerpt from its introduction will allow you to decide if I have been presenting it adequately:

quote:

---

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What if I said that "macro"evolution didn't really exist, that it's an artifact of classifications and nothing more? And a dog will always be a dog.No, you will never get anything more than a pile of pennies, but those pennies will change over time. The dates and mints will reflect limits to the times that they were deposited - while older pennies can always be added, it is impossible to add pennies that have not existed at the time the penny was put on the pile.Thus dates and mints are like alleles within the population, with constant new mutations and general drift of the population to the new alleles.If you went back far enough you would see pennies that are significantly different from modern ones - pennies that would be other species:And those alleles are extremely rare in the population of pennies that people use today, natural selection has removed most of them from the general population.The indian penny is a different size and the edges are rounded compared to modern pennies. During the Second WW the pennies were made of steel so that copper could be used for the war electronics.If we stretch this analogy to the breaking point, we could say there is a macro change between the copper indian penny and the steel lincoln penny, as they are different size, different composition and different patterns. Not one feature on the face of one is repeated on the other - even the "19" numbers are in different fonts.But this is really an accumulation of many small incremental year by year changes, punctuated by several more rapid changes when a new die was used, but in each case there is transition from one kind of penny to the next -- each penny still has the features "united states" on it and variations on "one cent" and many similar images.And we could go back further, to a time when there were no "american" pennies - and the coins would be english or dutch, but at this point the analogy gets to weak to carry much useful information other than to hint at greater past and trees of development of coins in the world.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : title

---

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.

Ok, we both know that all science is tentative. But the way Gould defines theory and fact says there is a fine line between both. A better way to define it in my opinion would be here
What is a scientific fact?
I understand exactly what Gould is saying, it's just that the way he defines them do not fit what he means. Yeah I guess i can agree with this, however "The pyramids were built" is not science. The theory of how they were build is science, and the measuring of the pyramids is science. It's kind of like gravity according to your definition there is the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. The theory describes how and why it works. The fact of gravity says that "there is a force that causes things to fall." The "fact of gravity" is not science. It does not fit into the scientific categories of theory or observation. It's kind of like calling the sky blue. It just gives it a name. According to you the sky is blue, is also a fact, however it is just naming it. It dosnt tell us data, nor does it tell us how or why. Because creationists misunderstand the word theory. They think that it is just a educated guess, when it is not JUST a educated guess.
Gould describes it here.
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"”part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science”that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.""I sort of agree with him, its just that wouldn;t it be easier to teach kids how reliable a theory can be? These are in context to history, and have nothing to do with science.My summary:What it seems like is the the main argument is whether evolution is observable or not.
Scientific facts usually require to be repeatable, however in this context they may not have to be.
Now I can see maybe microevolution as being a fact, such as we observe humans, dogs, and all life change just through each generation, however macroevolution would take thousands or even millions of years.My physics text book puts it like this. There are 2 sides of science. The first one is observation with careful experimentation and measurement. The other is the invention of theories, which explain the observations. "Theories are inspirations that come from the minds of human beings." Basically they are a result of human imagination. "The theory of relativity, the electromagnetic theory of light, and Newton's law of universal gravitation were likewise the result of human imagination."The big question is whether evolution came to us through human imagination. And I think it most certainly did. Some other examples of theories are all mathematical equations in physics. All these came from human creativity.Now about the scientific community considering it a fact, I would most likely agree, considering all the articles i've read say evolution is a fact. However most are from the same source. It's a tough question to ask and rely on a few articles on the internet.Edited by lost-apathy, : No reason given.

I don't see Gould saying that, but the opposite. Perhaps you are getting confused somewhere. This is the gist of what Gould said:

quote:

---

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

---

At what point when he is stating that there is no hierarchy of increasing certainty do you get the impression he thinks there is a thin line? Surely in his analogy the thin line would be a single rung on his ladder - something he outright rejects! So you believe that

quote:

---

What has not been refuted can be considered a scientific fact.

---

is a better definition? So be it - that most or all life on earth is related via common ancestry has not been refuted and is thus a scientific fact. No, it is history. Natural history is also history. We know they were built based on the evidence (people can build structures, people documented building these structures, there is physical evidence of a civilization large and complex enough to build these structures etc etc). Likewise what we consider factual about natural history is based also on the evidence. Like the physical evidence that helps concrete the pyramid fact, this evidence is gathered and interpreted by scientists to come to conclusions of varying strengths. Some conclusions are strong enough to be called facts.And your definition means they are facts - but your definition is too inclusive for me. If we follow the question and answer sequence here, things look a little confusing.LA: a lot of people just view a theory as a estimated guess, when in actuallity a theory can be very credibleMod: Why would people's lay-understanding of 'theory' make any difference to how scientists define what a fact is?LA: Obviously they care about what other groups think, such as creationists.Mod: I asked why people's lay understanding of the term theory would make a difference to the way scientists define 'fact'.LA: Because creationists misunderstand the word theory.So, can I ask again. Why people's lay understanding of the term theory would make a difference to the way scientists define 'fact'. You might not know but we are talking about facts that are relating to history. They call the subject Natural History for a reason...its a historical study of the natural world. Science is frequently employed to study historical evidence and formulate conclusions about the past.In light of the new arguments you put forward, another summary is required of me:My response summaryLike all history - the evolutionary history of life on earth is not observable. Like in history, science can be employed to examine physical evidence in order to reach conclusions about the past history of life on earth.You are right - theories are the cognitive invention of people. That the theory of evolution is included in this is not under contention.The fact of evolution: That life on earth has changed over time and all or most of current life is related via common ancestry.The theory of evolution: Change in life can be attributed to many factors, including (but not limited to): natural selection,mutations in the genome, epigenetics, recombination and horizontal gene transferThe theory has been conceived by scientists to help us understand the fact. Theory and fact are different entities. The theory helps us understand how life has changed and how current diversity has come about when there is such massive common ancestry.The fact is no more the creation of human imagination as the facts decided in a court of law. They both assess evidence and attempt to infer the facts from that evidence. The fact of evolution has been inferred from multiple independent lines of evidence meaning that it has been confirmed as a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Though my understanding of relativity is limited to the basics, calling it an "unproven assertion" is a bit bold. The best quote I have available is from Simply Einstein by Richard Wolfson The consequences of this are indeed odd, but it is measureable, testable, and fact. To believe otherwise implies you think physics only works here on Earth, but is somehow different elsewhere. Relativity simply shows there is "no favored state of motion". Completely off topic, but a good example of misunderstandings when talking factsMacroevolution is simply an unprovable assertion made by non-scientists. This is also a fact. As Jar stated - there is no such theory.

An assertion made by "non-scientists", eh?Let's hear it from some of those "non-scientists"."Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).---"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.---"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.---Do try to tell the truth, please.

Vacate, I have Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution 2nd edition on my bookshelf by Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor at the State University at New York. So your fact isn't.Macroevolution has a wealth of evidence in its support.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

There is much more evidence for relativity then might be reasonable to requre in order to cosider it a fact. More to the point though, Macroevolution is not an unproven assertion. it is not a proven fact. it is not a hypotesis. it is not a theory. It is just a load of non-sense , a red hearing, a stawman, a meaningless statement. This status mght change if a meaningfull definition for the term is given. Such a definition has not been forthcoming so far...

This is a case of equivocation. The word Macroevolution as described in this book has (As far as I can tell) nothing to do with the word Macroevolution as used by YECs in this fora.

fallacycop, Why? To paraphrase the books definition; macroevolution is the sum of changes that warrant placement in higher taxa. That implicitly means macroevolution as YEC's means it.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Except they don't see it as a sum of changes but as single changes large enough to be more than speciation.

---

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.

In my view of facts, facts are repeatable. When it comes to science and observation when making a report, you give the methods of how you do the experiement so it can be repeated as many times as desired. Yes, however we must remember that all science is tentative. It covers how people define the differences between fact and theory. So i say either change the way they define them or use the terms correctly.

RAZD, That's their lookout, isn't it? But the fact is that macroevolution is defined scientifically.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't