I see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

=/=

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
? in fact : in truth

THEORY IS NOT FACT. It's "assumed for the sake of argument or investigation" as in 6a above. But it is not FACT.

You can talk circles around it all you want, but you're wrong on this one, buckaroo.

---

What about that part?

"the general or abstract principles of a body of fact"



Again, you should know things are different in science....

"A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation."


"On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. "......."Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.




This is the best quote I have found that explains what I'm trying to say, it's from the National Academy of Science...

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."


Sorry, I'm not wrong on this one :) It is accepted as fact. And as for the "stands until proven otherwise" part, that was right too.

It's all about word play and calling evolution a theory / fact is a very recent trend, designed as I pointed out earlier, to silence critics.

I find it pretty silly actually.

If you are calling evolution a fact because mutation is a fact (which judging from your quote of the National Academy of Science you are) then there is a problem with understanding that the evidence for a leap to true evolution is sadly lacking. Mutation is is a fact, mutation leading to actual evolution is a theory. If you are trying to claim that the evidence exists to proclaim actual evolution a fact then you are again mistaken.

I'm actually reminded of Hitler's "big lie".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

It's all about word play and calling evolution a theory / fact is a very recent trend, designed as I pointed out earlier, to silence critics.

I find it pretty silly actually.

If you are calling evolution a fact because mutation is a fact (which judging from your quote of the National Academy of Science you are) then there is a problem with understanding that the evidence for a leap to true evolution is sadly lacking. Mutation is is a fact, mutation leading to actual evolution is a theory. If you are trying to claim that the evidence exists to proclaim actual evolution a fact then you are again mistaken.

I'm actually reminded of Hitler's "big lie".

---

I am sorry R13, but Gotch is right on this one.

Mutation is proven. But the link between gene mutation and evolution has not been proven, yet.

We have many many years left to prove the theory to be a fact. But at this time, its simply inaccurate to claim we know the whole theory of evolution is a fact.

And I am not the religious right wing just trying to crush evolution, you guys know me better than that.
I firmly believe in the theory of evolution. But, I can realize that is has not been proven to be a 100% fact, yet

Since in all likelihood we will not be able to find the true "Missing Link", it will take more time to determine how we can proclaim the theory as a fact.

Its simple as this; we, and you, know that all faucets of the theory has not been proven to be true yet.
Until that, it only does 'us' R13 harm to try and make people believe that it is 100% proven yet.

To me, you saying evolution is a proven fact is the same as people saying God is a proven fact, or the Bible is proven fact.

Let me be a lil more clear;

Evolution, the scientific process, is in fact proven. We know animals and humans alike have evolved.

BUT, Darwin's theory of evolution has yet to be proven to be 100% true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

Let me be a lil more clear;

Evolution, the scientific process, is in fact proven. We know animals and humans alike have evolved.

BUT, Darwin's theory of evolution has yet to be proven to be 100% true.

---

Again, it's in the terminology, mutation is proven, but there is no evidence that mutation within species can lead to true evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Again, it's in the terminology, mutation is proven, but there is no evidence that mutation within species can lead to true evolution.

---

I would agree if mutation was a completely random occurence, occurring at the same clip with all humans.

But its not, climate, social structure, population growths, etc.. play a factor in mutation, then its not simple random mutation anymore, its evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

I would agree if mutation was a completely random occurence, occurring at the same clip with all humans.

But its not, climate, social structure, population growths, etc.. play a factor in mutation, then its not simple random mutation anymore, its evolution

---

No it's not. It is adaptation through mutation, which I do not agree is evolution nor do I believe it can come close to explaining the full diversity of life.

Quote:

---

What about that part?

"the general or abstract principles of a body of fact"

---

See that "of" up there? That changes things drastically. It doesn't say a theory is "a body of fact"...it says it's "the general or abstract principles...OF...a body of fact".

So--a theory isn't a fact in and of itself, it's the general or abstract principles thereof.

If you're trying to use that to say that general/abstract principles = facts...then you're still plain wrong.

Quote:

---

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

---

If that's the case mr. igotaquotefromNAoSsoyoucan'targuewithme, WHY do scientists all around the world, every-fargin-day, continually test & look for examples of evolution? Why are there ongoing case studies still to this day regarding the theory of evolution? If it's so factual...there wouldn't be any need to test it. That sentence, hell--the whole NAoS definition, falls over top of itself once you take that into consideration.

Anything else, youngin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

No it's not. It is adaptation through mutation, which I do not agree is evolution nor do I believe it can come close to explaining the full diversity of life.

---

Whether or not you agree with it, by definition, it is evolution. Its organisms having mutation caused by different factors, not random, therefore its evolution.

I did not say we can explain everything about the evolution of man.

I said that when mutation happens based on other factors besides random occurrences, its not random mutation anymore, its evolution.

How is that not true?

Random mutation is just that, random.
But if other factors can lead to mutation, then its not random genetic mutation.
Its mutation caused by situation, which is evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

If that's the case mr. igotaquotefromNAoSsoyoucan'targuewithme, WHY do scientists all around the world, every-fargin-day, continually test & look for examples of evolution? Why are there ongoing case studies still to this day regarding the theory of evolution? If it's so factual...there wouldn't be any need to test it. That sentence, hell--the whole NAoS definition, falls over top of itself once you take that into consideration.

Anything else, youngin?

---

Why wouldn't they? That's what scientist do, you should know there's no such thing as "case closed" in science. Of course things are tested and experimented on, there's things discovered everyday to be tested..they have to be, there's no assuming. That's really an easy question, I've said a million times that not all in clear, not all has been uncovered, it's constantly on going as it should be. And observing evolution in present day is part of that, it will always be experimented on. It stands as where we came from right now, it's not even close to being debunked...anyone have any alternative theories(that are backed up)? Like I said, it's not close to being debunked, it's only been solidified with all of these experiments. There may be another theory in the future that explains it better, but the basic principles will hold true.