Argumentum ad populum

[infrabenji]

Oh wait are you the AEI guy? Sorry. I remember. How did this go from a conversation about the consensus of science being refuted by an oil company shill to wether evolution is a theory or fact. Trick question it’s both.

 

[infrabenji]

Maybe you should try reading posts. The theory of evolution is not a fact. Nowhere did you read "evolution is not a fact".... Or maybe this is the "evolutionists" play on words I refered to.

lmao I googled the theory of evolution is not a fact and the first thing that popped up was this statement
Evolution as fact and not theory
Futuyma writes in Evolutionary Biology (1998), "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." ummmmm yeah. I don’t have room in my brain or time enough to address everything everyone says in long form novels pulling every statement, whether true or not, apart. I don’t have time either to follow every piece of conversation on each thread so I get them mixed up sometimes. This isn’t the porn thread though I’m pretty sure. Do you ever think you take this too seriously?

 

[Heyo]

Refused to answer what?
There is no question in your post.
I responded to the post.

Actually, I am the one who asked the question in response to your post, and you are the one who refused to answer, although, I was not really looking to get an answer.

As for your "question" in the next post, I answered that, and responded to the post in its entirety.

Bye. Take care.

You know, I am a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, but sometimes it stretches my imagination to not deduce that my interlocutor must be a bad faith debater.
To test my hypothesis that you are the later (and should get a place on my ignore list) let me put it this way:

You responded to my post #638, but you ignored my request. (A request isn't formally a question, so it doesn't have a question mark at the end.)
Did you notice the request?
Did you not answer it because you didn't understand it? or
Did you not answer it because you can't?

My hypothesis is that you are not willing to admit that you can't and that you are wilfully obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that there is no alternative to scientific consensus.

Apologies to @infrabenji, @Jose Fly and @ecco in advance. I see the importance of countering anti-scientific trash talk, but I'm no longer willing to participate in discussions with bad faith actors. I may still talk about them but not with them. Besides my fondness of Hanlon's Razor there is also the principle "Don't feed the trolls".

 

[infrabenji]

You know, I am a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, but sometimes it stretches my imagination to not deduce that my interlocutor must be a bad faith debater.
To test my hypothesis that you are the later (and should get a place on my ignore list) let me put it this way:

You responded to my post #638, but you ignored my request. (A request isn't formally a question, so it doesn't have a question mark at the end.)
Did you notice the request?
Did you not answer it because you didn't understand it? or
Did you not answer it because you can't?

My hypothesis is that you are not willing to admit that you can't and that you are wilfully obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that there is no alternative to scientific consensus.

Apologies to @infrabenji, @Jose Fly and @ecco in advance. I see the importance of countering anti-scientific trash talk, but I'm no longer willing to participate in discussions with bad faith actors. I may still talk about them but not with them. Besides my fondness of Hanlon's Razor there is also the principle "Don't feed the trolls".

Hanlon’s razor hilarious! Wish I would have thought of that.

 

[nPeace]

You know, I am a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, but sometimes it stretches my imagination to not deduce that my interlocutor must be a bad faith debater.
To test my hypothesis that you are the later (and should get a place on my ignore list) let me put it this way:

At least you are willing to test your ideas and assumptions. That's good.

You responded to my post #638, but you ignored my request. (A request isn't formally a question, so it doesn't have a question mark at the end.)
Did you notice the request?
Did you not answer it because you didn't understand it? or
Did you not answer it because you can't?

My hypothesis is that you are not willing to admit that you can't and that you are wilfully obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that there is no alternative to scientific consensus.

I notice you did not say your idea was not falsified. You left it open. That's good too.
Let's show that your hypothesis has been completely falsified.

Did I notice the request? Of course I did. I told you as much in post #666. Hmmm. Interesting number.

Did I not answer it because I didn't understand it?
Did I not answer it because I can't?
As you said, a request isn't formally a question, so it doesn't have a question mark at the end.
So a response to a request does not carry a specific format. It can be something as simple as "this is irrelevant."
My response was not that simple. It was detailed.
Do scientists alone use the scientific method? No. A detective uses the scientific method. We do too.

In other words, "alternative to the scientific method?" Que?

It didn't stop there. It went further...
What do... the scientist who understands what science is about - say?
Do they [scientists] say the scientific method points them in the right direction, like a compass with no faults?

Many scientists appreciate the scientific method, but they do not treat it like their god, as Atheist try to do. They know its limitations. They know of the weakness of peer review. It's written all over the place heyo, for every person to see.

British entomologist Vincent Wigglesworth is reported to have said, 'the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.”'
Why would a scientist say that?

I quoted a scientist earlier, saying, "scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones."

[I wonder if he meant dismal, as in pitifully or disgracefully bad.]

He further said that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system.

So tell me heyo, if the scientific method is such an all powerful god to Atheists, why are scientists debating and fighting? That's healthy for science to progress right?
So why are you telling me about the scientific method?
It's a good tool, but what's so special about it? Don't scientists who disagree on the same data, use the method?

Questions - not requests. Direct questions.
Why you prefer not to answer them but take offense, is simple.
My hypothesis ... and it has not been falsified for over two years.
Atheist and "Evolutionists" here on RF are afraid to face the facts. They will stay and argue with someone post after post, thread upon top of thread, but produce a paper, that says something different to what they say - something they are refusing to admit - something they don't like, and all of a sudden, you are a waste of time; you are dishonest; etc. The character attack intensifies.

Never falsified.
In the first month of my being on RF, I refuted everything someone said, by simply providing one single paper, and all of a sudden, the person was too important and their time too precious for me.
The next couple of days they wanted to question me. Like

It's no longer a hypothesis. It not even a theory. It's a fact. You guys... all the same.

The other thing is, you all want to teach, and educate the ignorant. So never be familiar with what you are talking about. That's to cross the line, and be the target of unjustified accusations, and name calling - like being called stupid - whether directly, or subtly.

So I really don't mind the teachers here on a debate forum putting me on ignore. The forum rules are against using RF as a platform to preach and steer others to another view or belief.
So if the teachers here are vexed that people don't believe what they believe, and want to force them to, by ridiculing, bullying, and other means, then they are against RF's policy, and that's not my interests. i'm here to debate, discuss... and yes, that often involve disagreements.

If you believe I am dishonest about it, then by all means, you have the right to point that out, and not have further discussions with me, on the topic... even put me on your ignore list if you prefer. That's fine. Hanlon's razor is not 100% correct.

Apologies to @infrabenji, @Jose Fly and @ecco in advance. I see the importance of countering anti-scientific trash talk, but I'm no longer willing to participate in discussions with bad faith actors. I may still talk about them but not with them. Besides my fondness of Hanlon's Razor there is also the principle "Don't feed the trolls".

"Bad faith actors."? Lol.
Actually I quoted at least two persons, who are in agreement with the OP. so I guess that makes quite a few scientists and professors, "bad faith actors"... whether they believe in the theory of evolution, or not, or whether they are religious, or not.

 

[nPeace]

lmao I googled the theory of evolution is not a fact and the first thing that popped up was this statement
Evolution as fact and not theory
Futuyma writes in Evolutionary Biology (1998), "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." ummmmm yeah. I don’t have room in my brain or time enough to address everything everyone says in long form novels pulling every statement, whether true or not, apart. I don’t have time either to follow every piece of conversation on each thread so I get them mixed up sometimes. This isn’t the porn thread though I’m pretty sure. Do you ever think you take this too seriously?

I wonder why you had to google that.
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Sounds like something I agree with.
Do you agree with it? Did you notice... is not a theory.
Did you also notice... that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors...

Don't we all have common ancestors? Why would anyone in their right mind deny that?
Ancestor is "any person from whom one is descended.

That definition is different to the idea that all life share, or descended from a common ancestor. See LCA. or Common descent.

So right, evolution is an observable fact. It's not a theory. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an idea or ideas that are not observable. See here.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tsk tsk. You never stop lying do you.

This bothers me though. Why do you lie so much, and so casualty? Is that a habit from youth, that you thought was good? Did it get you the girl, and so you felt it can get you anything?
I absolutely hate liars and usually I cut them off, as you know from the past.
This is the last chance you get. Do it one more time, and you will be on my ignore list, permanently this time.

Bearing false witness is a serious crime.

Rather than report your posts, I'll just demonstrate how what I said is entirely accurate.

No.

Yes.

So why did you bring up atheists in your reply to me?

The theory of evolution is not a fact, and you can't find one reputable paper that says that.

There it is, in your own words....you still do not understand what "theory" means in science, despite multiple people trying to explain it to you countless times. So let's try this one more time and see if it gets through....

In science, theories don't become facts. In science, theories explain facts.

In this case, that populations evolve is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how populations evolve (mechanisms, pathways).

Can you, at the very least, grasp that simple concept and incorporate it into your thinking so that no one has to explain it to you again?

Que? Can you put that in English please. What are you talking about?

Let's make sure you understand the above first.

 

[ecco]

It would be nice if some people would just admit what really drives their beliefs...

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[infrabenji]

I wonder why you had to google that.
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Sounds like something I agree with.
Do you agree with it? Did you notice... is not a theory.
Did you also notice... that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors...

Don't we all have common ancestors? Why would anyone in their right mind deny that?
Ancestor is "any person from whom one is descended.

That definition is different to the idea that all life share, or descended from a common ancestor. See LCA. or Common descent.

So right, evolution is an observable fact. It's not a theory. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an idea or ideas that are not observable. See here.

I sometimes google stuff people say on here to see what comes up. Evolution is a vast body of science with cross disciplines and sub disciplines. There are observed facts about evolution, theories, hypothesis’s. I reached out to a biologist for clarification as I can’t find anything in available data or peer review, or journals that supports your opinion. I wanted to address the Wikipedia page you posted as supporting your argument. You said “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". Data is the byproduct of using the scientific method, right? The best method we have. We know what data is and how it’s applied. As for absolute certainty; Religious people are the only people I personally know who employ absolute certainty. But to my point the remainder of that paragraph you used goes “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”. It then goes on to make the point very clear by defining the scientific uses of the words fact and theory versus common usages. It even links a page for linguistic analysis to dispel the notion that the scientific method of determining facts and theories is a subjective philosophical practice of ideas. But one of hard observable facts based on reproducible evidence.You quoted “the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory”. He is obviously referring to the common usage of the word “theory”. It doesn’t look like any of these articles supports your position at all. A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. A theory is intended to explain or interpret facts. That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory. I still don’t see how it’s an “idea” when all information available to the laymen does not support the claim.

 

[nPeace]

I sometimes google stuff people say on here to see what comes up. Evolution is a vast body of science with cross disciplines and sub disciplines. There are observed facts about evolution, theories, hypothesis’s. I reached out to a biologist for clarification as I can’t find anything in available data or peer review, or journals that supports your opinion. I wanted to address the Wikipedia page you posted as supporting your argument. You said “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". Data is the byproduct of using the scientific method, right? The best method we have. We know what data is and how it’s applied. As for absolute certainty; Religious people are the only people I personally know who employ absolute certainty. But to my point the remainder of that paragraph you used goes “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”. It then goes on to make the point very clear by defining the scientific uses of the words fact and theory versus common usages. It even links a page for linguistic analysis to dispel the notion that the scientific method of determining facts and theories is a subjective philosophical practice of ideas. But one of hard observable facts based on reproducible evidence.You quoted “the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory”. He is obviously referring to the common usage of the word “theory”. It doesn’t look like any of these articles supports your position at all. A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. A theory is intended to explain or interpret facts. That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory. I still don’t see how it’s an “idea” when all information available to the laymen does not support the claim.

You keep saying "evolution is", while I am saying, "the theory of evolution".
Are you saying evolution is the theory of evolution? Are we on the same page, or talking about two different things?
Perhaps you can briefly tell me what "my position" or "my opinion" is, which you are referring to here.

 

[infrabenji]

You keep saying "evolution is", while I am saying, "the theory of evolution".
Are you saying evolution is the theory of evolution? Are we on the same page, or talking about two different things?
Perhaps you can briefly tell me what "my position" or "my opinion" is, which you are referring to here.

I think we are lol. That would be pretty funny if we spent all this time arguing the same point. What I am saying is not “evolution is the theory of evolution” I’m saying the “theory explains the body of facts”. When I say your position, which I hope I’m not misrepresenting, is and I’ll quote you “The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an idea or ideas that are not observable”. That’s what I was referring to at least when I said your “opinion” or “position”.

 

[nPeace]

I think we are lol. That would be pretty funny if we spent all this time arguing the same point. What I am saying is not “evolution is the theory of evolution” I’m saying the “theory explains the body of facts”. When I say your position, which I hope I’m not misrepresenting, is and I’ll quote you “The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an idea or ideas that are not observable”. That’s what I was referring to at least when I said your “opinion” or “position”.

Okay, cool. So we were on two different pages.
So we agree on this then? ... A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how"[. A] fact is a simple, basic observation...

So what I am saying basically, is the theory is not a fact, and never can it be.
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Nor is it a fact... period.

Are you with me so far, or have I lost you.

So when persons say evolution is a fact and theory, that is unscientific jargon, because evolution is not a theory. There is a theory... or rather theories of evolution - explanations given to explain the observable facts - evolution.

Let me know when I vere off course.

The theory of evolution is made up of many ideas - hypotheses - some testable... some untestable, but conjecture, and extrapolation is used to assume what is believed.

Hope that did not sound confusing.
Let me know. I'll pause here before I write an essay, although this is not even close to the number of words you used here.

 

[infrabenji]

Okay, cool. So we were on two different pages.
So we agree on this then? ... A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how"[. A] fact is a simple, basic observation...

So what I am saying basically, is the theory is not a fact, and never can it be.
The theory of evolution is not a scientific fact. Nor is it a fact... period.

Are you with me so far, or have I lost you.

So when persons say evolution is a fact and theory, that is unscientific jargon, because evolution is not a theory. There is a theory... or rather theories of evolution - explanations given to explain the observable facts - evolution.

Let me know when I vere off course.

The theory of evolution is made up of many ideas - hypotheses - some testable... some untestable, but conjecture, and extrapolation is used to assume what is believed.

Hope that did not sound confusing.
Let me know. I'll pause here before I write an essay, although this is not even close to the number of words you used here.

I know I wrote you a novel lol. Apologies. I don’t think I’ve ever equivocated theory and fact or whatever though? In my last post I clearly gave the definitions for both I accept. It’s not jargon. These definitions are literally codified by the experts whose work you’re critiquing. And I quote from my post “A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. A theory is intended to explain or interpret facts. That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory”. Also in my next post I further clarify the difference between theory and fact “theory explains the body of facts”. I wonder if it makes a difference if I say “the supporting evidence for evolution is composed of facts and the theory of evolution is built on those facts”? I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the lexical semantics of theory and fact. They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both. Some extrapolation and conjecture, amongst many other tools, are used. I imagine you’re not making a blanket term and applying it to the broad range of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. We would use specific examples of conjecture and extrapolation in context if we were to understand how they apply. Right? They are small parts of a whole system used to evaluate data. I would say they are part of what is used to establish what the facts are. Or something like that. It just sounded like you were saying conjecture and extrapolation are the only things used to “assume what is believed”.

 

[nPeace]

I know I wrote you a novel lol. Apologies. I don’t think I’ve ever equivocated theory and fact or whatever though? In my last post I clearly gave the definitions for both I accept. It’s not jargon. These definitions are literally codified by the experts whose work you’re critiquing. And I quote from my post “A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. A theory is intended to explain or interpret facts. That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory”. Also in my next post I further clarify the difference between theory and fact “theory explains the body of facts”. I wonder if it makes a difference if I say “the supporting evidence for evolution is composed of facts and the theory of evolution is built on those facts”? .

You lost me on this statement... That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory
I don't understand why you said it. Can you explain... elaborate on that - the "Thats why" part?

I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the lexical semantics of theory and fact. They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both. Some extrapolation and conjecture, amongst many other tools, are used. I imagine you’re not making a blanket term and applying it to the broad range of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. We would use specific examples of conjecture and extrapolation in context if we were to understand how they apply. Right? They are small parts of a whole system used to evaluate data. I would say they are part of what is used to establish what the facts are. Or something like that. It just sounded like you were saying conjecture and extrapolation are the only things used to “assume what is believed”

Can you explain... "They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both."
What do you mean by "evolution is comprised of both"?
Do you mean evolution is a theory, or ...?

Is there a contrast between a scientific theory and scientific fact? Can you explain please.

 

[infrabenji]

You lost me on this statement... That’s why I said evolution is both a fact and a theory
I don't understand why you said it. Can you explain... elaborate on that - the "Thats why" part?


Can you explain... "They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both."
What do you mean by "evolution is comprised of both"?
Do you mean evolution is a theory, or ...?

Is there a contrast between a scientific theory and scientific fact? Can you explain please.

They are just parts of a whole. Fact and theory both have a roll. I think it’s a misunderstanding of form follows function. Where a buildings design reflects its interior functions. “Theory” being the building and it’s interior (what informs the theory) “facts”. The outside of a building is different from the inside but they are not mutually exclusive but rather inform the other. As to why I was probably clarifying for someone who was making a distinction between the two as mutually exclusive from each other.

 

[nPeace]

They are just parts of a whole. Fact and theory both have a roll. I think it’s a misunderstanding of form follows function. Where a buildings design reflects its interior functions. “Theory” being the building and it’s interior (what informs the theory) “facts”. The outside of a building is different from the inside but they are not mutually exclusive but rather inform the other. As to why I was probably clarifying for someone who was making a distinction between the two as mutually exclusive from each other.

I'm sorry, but that's not a clear explanation.
I don't think we can understand each other if we are not clear.
I think if you are going to explain the concept, you can use the same evolution to do so.
I think too, we are again on different pages, as evolution is defined various ways, and I think your version is different to the one I have in mind.
Perhaps when you have time to write part of a novel you can get back to me, but these few sentences you put together do not explain anything I asked, nor answer my questions. Did you actually answer the last question? I don't see how.

 

[infrabenji]

I'm sorry, but that's not a clear explanation.
I don't think we can understand each other if we are not clear.
I think if you are going to explain the concept, you can use the same evolution to do so.
I think too, we are again on different pages, as evolution is defined various ways, and I think your version is different to the one I have in mind.
Perhaps when you have time to write part of a novel you can get back to me, but these few sentences you put together do not explain anything I asked, nor answer my questions. Did you actually answer the last question? I don't see how.

Can you explain... "They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both."
Draw a circle write theory draw another circle so they’re not touching and write evolution. That is mutually exclusive. Evolutions facts and theory walk hand in hand.

What do you mean by "evolution is comprised of both" They don’t exist apart from each other in science. You’d only be employing part of the scientific method.

Do you mean evolution is a theory, or ...? It’s a theory supported by facts.

Is there a contrast between a scientific theory and scientific fact? Can you explain please.
Both are just parts of an extensive process. They don’t contrast in the same way a vehicle doesn’t contrast with its destination.

 

[nPeace]

Can you explain... "They are not mutually exclusive since evolution is comprised of both."
Draw a circle write theory draw another circle so they’re not touching and write evolution. That is mutually exclusive. Evolutions facts and theory walk hand in hand.

What do you mean by "evolution is comprised of both" They don’t exist apart from each other in science. You’d only be employing part of the scientific method.

Do you mean evolution is a theory, or ...? It’s a theory supported by facts.

Is there a contrast between a scientific theory and scientific fact? Can you explain please.
Both are just parts of an extensive process. They don’t contrast in the same way a vehicle doesn’t contrast with its destination.

Thank you for trying, but I don't think you explained what you understand, and what it is I am asking. It was more like repeating your statements.
Perhaps the fault is not yours, but mine, and I am very lousy at asking questions.

However, I understand, from doing my own research, something I should have done two years ago - that is look closely at the "evolution is a fact and theory" proposal.

Are you ready for my essay?
It will only be an essay as I explain what I understand.
I really wish more people woul take the time to listen to others, but the world has changed and is continuing to, as prophesied (2 Timothy 3:1-5, so, I'm not complaining.

Basically, evolution is defined many ways, and perhaps to different scientists (something I haven't looked into, but will).

Spoiler

The word evolution in a broad sense refers to processes of change, from stellar evolution to changes in language. In biology, the meaning is more specific: heritable changes which accumulate over generations of a population. Individual organisms do not evolve in their lifetimes, but variations in the genes they inherit can become more or less common in the population of organisms. Any changes during the lifetime of organisms which are not inherited by their offspring are not part of biological evolution.

To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:

1. The general sense of change over time.
2. All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
3. The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

In all the ways it is defined, it is a fact to the scientific community (not all scientists, for sure)... despite the fact that "evolution" based on how it is defined, is debated, untested, unverifiable, and unobserved.
Some don't believe it (as defined by some) actually is compatible with the scientific method.
.
One scientist says, "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact."

The part I was having difficulty understanding and reconciling was, how evolution is a theory, since it is the process that is observerved, but now I understand how scientists define evolution making it a theory.

It shows the clear distinction between a true fact, and a scientific fact. Why they call it scientific, is another topic. Right now I am just explaining what I now understand.

1. They say natural selection provides the outline of an explanatory theory, supporting #3 above.
2. There have several theories about the mechanisms of evolution.
3. They are still debating some of these mechanisms.
4. They continue to argue about particular explanations or mechanisms assume to be at work in the evolution process.
5. "Fact" in science, is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory where they believe there is overwhelming evidence.
6. According to one Douglas Futuyma, "A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true"

What I found interesting, is that they say 'fact' is commonly used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations. While 'theory' is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes:

Yet, that includes evolution being a theory since it is defined as the mechanisms... as least to some scientists.

I'm not sure if this applies to all, but considering that scientists rarely agree on things, including their "scientific" jargon", it may apply only to some. I don't know for sure, but one says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' that is - the fact of descent with modification. Or they refer to 'evolutionary theory' - the explanations.

So from this, even when they refer to evolution, it can have two meanings... 1) the process, and 2) the mechanisms. Hmph.
However, they refer to both the 'observable facts' and the mechanisms as one - a theory - your hand in glove.

That helps me to see though, why there was a problem between my use of the term "theory of evolution" and you simply saying "evolution". To me they are different. While to you, they is no difference.
So I understand fully... I think.

In conclusion...
To use a famous quote... I have no need of that hypothesis.
There is no evidence for the many hypotheses (ideas) that are called theory and fact. They are hypotheses - some untestable, and none observable.
Reason and logic are implimented, but we all use those.
My opinion don't matter in this world, but that's fine.

Facts don't change, and I go by the facts that are observable, and matter to the one who knows the facts - the absolute facts.
So now that I understand how "evolutionist" use the term evolution. With the understanding of that context, I no longer will say "evolution is a fact", because one's reasoning and logic, does not make something a fact. An engine works, regardless of if one knows the mechanisms that drive it, or not.
It's a fact the engine is running. We observe that.
Maybe we don't understand why it run, or how, but maybe one day we will find out. Until we do, our ideas are not facts.
That's my bit on that. Thank you.

P.S.
I did read further down in the article where some scientists at least agree with my understanding, where theory is concerned (only I am sure they have ideas that differ from what I accept).
Some see evolution as fact and not theory
I picture Richard turning red as he says, "It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."


Then there are those who see evolution as a collection of theories not fact.
I suppose that highlights the end of the matter. We all get to choose what we accept, or believe.

 

[metis]

Simply put, "evolution" means "change", and that's all one has to know as far as definition is concerned. Next is its application, and one major item that's obvious is that there's change all around us that we witness every day and minute of each day.

Thus, do life forms change over time? Of course. Is there anything that stops change [evolution]? Not that we can see as even a dead body still keep changing.

 

[infrabenji]

Thank you for trying, but I don't think you explained what you understand, and what it is I am asking. It was more like repeating your statements.
Perhaps the fault is not yours, but mine, and I am very lousy at asking questions.

However, I understand, from doing my own research, something I should have done two years ago - that is look closely at the "evolution is a fact and theory" proposal.

Are you ready for my essay?
It will only be an essay as I explain what I understand.
I really wish more people woul take the time to listen to others, but the world has changed and is continuing to, as prophesied (2 Timothy 3:1-5, so, I'm not complaining.

Basically, evolution is defined many ways, and perhaps to different scientists (something I haven't looked into, but will).

Spoiler

The word evolution in a broad sense refers to processes of change, from stellar evolution to changes in language. In biology, the meaning is more specific: heritable changes which accumulate over generations of a population. Individual organisms do not evolve in their lifetimes, but variations in the genes they inherit can become more or less common in the population of organisms. Any changes during the lifetime of organisms which are not inherited by their offspring are not part of biological evolution.

To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:

1. The general sense of change over time.
2. All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
3. The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

In all the ways it is defined, it is a fact to the scientific community (not all scientists, for sure)... despite the fact that "evolution" based on how it is defined, is debated, untested, unverifiable, and unobserved.
Some don't believe it (as defined by some) actually is compatible with the scientific method.
.
One scientist says, "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact."

The part I was having difficulty understanding and reconciling was, how evolution is a theory, since it is the process that is observerved, but now I understand how scientists define evolution making it a theory.

It shows the clear distinction between a true fact, and a scientific fact. Why they call it scientific, is another topic. Right now I am just explaining what I now understand.

1. They say natural selection provides the outline of an explanatory theory, supporting #3 above.
2. There have several theories about the mechanisms of evolution.
3. They are still debating some of these mechanisms.
4. They continue to argue about particular explanations or mechanisms assume to be at work in the evolution process.
5. "Fact" in science, is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory where they believe there is overwhelming evidence.
6. According to one Douglas Futuyma, "A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true"

What I found interesting, is that they say 'fact' is commonly used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations. While 'theory' is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes:

Yet, that includes evolution being a theory since it is defined as the mechanisms... as least to some scientists.

I'm not sure if this applies to all, but considering that scientists rarely agree on things, including their "scientific" jargon", it may apply only to some. I don't know for sure, but one says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' that is - the fact of descent with modification. Or they refer to 'evolutionary theory' - the explanations.

So from this, even when they refer to evolution, it can have two meanings... 1) the process, and 2) the mechanisms. Hmph.
However, they refer to both the 'observable facts' and the mechanisms as one - a theory - your hand in glove.

That helps me to see though, why there was a problem between my use of the term "theory of evolution" and you simply saying "evolution". To me they are different. While to you, they is no difference.
So I understand fully... I think.

In conclusion...
To use a famous quote... I have no need of that hypothesis.
There is no evidence for the many hypotheses (ideas) that are called theory and fact. They are hypotheses - some untestable, and none observable.
Reason and logic are implimented, but we all use those.
My opinion don't matter in this world, but that's fine.

Facts don't change, and I go by the facts that are observable, and matter to the one who knows the facts - the absolute facts.
So now that I understand how "evolutionist" use the term evolution. With the understanding of that context, I no longer will say "evolution is a fact", because one's reasoning and logic, does not make something a fact. An engine works, regardless of if one knows the mechanisms that drive it, or not.
It's a fact the engine is running. We observe that.
Maybe we don't understand why it run, or how, but maybe one day we will find out. Until we do, our ideas are not facts.
That's my bit on that. Thank you.

P.S.
I did read further down in the article where some scientists at least agree with my understanding, where theory is concerned (only I am sure they have ideas that differ from what I accept).
Some see evolution as fact and not theory
I picture Richard turning red as he says, "It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."


Then there are those who see evolution as a collection of theories not fact.
I suppose that highlights the end of the matter. We all get to choose what we accept, or believe.

Well said. I hope today is a good day for both of us. We deserve it and probably a biology degree after all the work we’ve put into our discourse lol. Take care my friend. I’ll see you on the threads.