Is Evolution a fact? Do we know it's true?

[Goose]

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

[Divine Insight]

Evidence which, incidentally, can also be interpreted to support the idea of a common designer.

But there is far more crystal clear evidence that had there been a designer that designer would have necessarily been playing around trial and error since the vast majority of species that once lived are now extinct.

So to hypothesize a designer would require proposing a designer who apparently has no clue what he's doing. Sure, we can't say that such an inept designer can't possibly exist. But it's a feeble and unreasonable hypothesis.

Moreover, to hypothesize that there was a designer who designed life on Earth begs the need for a designer who had designed the designer. So that line of thinking only leads to an endless regression anyway. Somewhere down the line intelligent life would have needed to exist that had no designer, and a process of evolution is the most likely explanation for that.

So why not save an infinite number of steps and just realize that life in this world is what had evolved originally?

Proposing a designer doesn't solve anything.

[Goose]

Mr. Goose. Since you don't believe anything not observed directly what is your theory as to the diversity of life? How do you account for the overwhelming evidence supporting the current Theory of Evolution from almost every branch of modern science? Do you have any education in biology, genetics or any other branch of science which supports the Theory of Evolution? I'm not trying to get personal but when debating this particular topic I think that's a fair question. Thanks.

My beliefs and credentials are irrelevant. It has been claimed by an evolutionist that Darwinian evolution is fact of life. If you agree it as a fact, please prove it or concede it is merely an inference.

[scourge99]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

Do you believe its impossible for genetic changes to accumulate overtime such that an organism looks different than its ancestors from millions of years ago?

Impossible? No. I can't think of why this would be impossible. But please don't tell me I'm to accept as a fact that in the very distant past my ancestor was an ape-like creature by virtue of it not being impossible.

The Smithsonian museum hosts a very detailed site on human evolution and its evidence. I urge you to examine the evidence and reasons yourself.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

For evidence, they cite behaviors (tools, arts), fossils, genetics and dating methods which each independently support human evolution.

1) What is your evidence that humans have existed for millions of years unchanged?
2) How do you explain the existence of hominid fossils that predate any known human fossils?
3) How do you explain the genetic and behavioral similarities amongst hominids and ourselves?
4) Do you reject scientifically proven dating methods?

[Goose]

The change of organic life through natural selection.
(Aside from the below examples) It has been observed in labs and in the outdoors.
For instance, single->multi cellular organism evolution and domesticated species respectively.

I don't dispute this definition if that is all you mean by evolution.

Over more than half a hundred million years a lot of evolution happened. This is a problem for evolution?

Yep. Enter Punctuated Equilibrium to explain how that "lot of evolution happened" in such a relatively short period of time. Thank goodness for Eldredge and Gould, eh?

No more than by observing a trail of footprints I infer a journey. Of course I can't rule out that there was no journey, but a better explanation of the footprints is yet unavailable.

I have no issue with stating Darwinian evolution is an inductive inference. However, an inductive inference is hardly a fact.

[Goose]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

Do you believe its impossible for genetic changes to accumulate overtime such that an organism looks different than its ancestors from millions of years ago?

Impossible? No. I can't think of why this would be impossible. But please don't tell me I'm to accept as a fact that in the very distant past my ancestor was an ape-like creature by virtue of it not being impossible.

The Smithsonian museum hosts a very detailed site on human evolution and its evidence. I urge you to examine the evidence and reasons yourself.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

For evidence, they cite behaviors (tools, arts), fossils, genetics and dating methods which each independently support human evolution.

1) What is your evidence that humans have existed for millions of years unchanged?
2) How do you explain the existence of hominid fossils that predate any known human fossils?
3) How do you explain the genetic and behavioral similarities amongst hominids and ourselves?
4) Do you reject scientifically proven dating methods?

My beliefs and alternate explanations are irrelevant. Why can't you guys stay on topic?

Let's cut to the chase with the above. You are inferring human evolution from the evidence, correct?

[Divine Insight]

I have no issue with stating Darwinian evolution is an inductive inference. However, an inductive inference is hardly a fact.

This goes back to your original opening post:

In what context are you defining a "fact"?

If you're an absolutist then that explains everything. There are no absolutes. All that exists is evidence and reason.

So if you ask me, "It Darwinian evolution a reasonable fact?"

Then the answer is a resounding yes.

If you are going to demand some unrealistic hypothetical "absolute proof", then you're just being silly. No such thing exists in any walk of life.

A solipsist will even tell you that you can't know as an "absolute fact" that anything at all exists beyond your own personal subjective imagination. Everything that you think is "real" could be nothing more than a figment of your own imagination.

And that is basically how far you need to go to reject evolution in favor of an imaginary creator and creationism. You need to just scrap all reasonable evidence and embrace absurd imagination.

So if that's where you coming from, then obviously no one can argue with you anymore than you can argue with a solipsist.

But for most of us that is simply not reasonable.

[scourge99]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

Do you believe its impossible for genetic changes to accumulate overtime such that an organism looks different than its ancestors from millions of years ago?

Impossible? No. I can't think of why this would be impossible. But please don't tell me I'm to accept as a fact that in the very distant past my ancestor was an ape-like creature by virtue of it not being impossible.

The Smithsonian museum hosts a very detailed site on human evolution and its evidence. I urge you to examine the evidence and reasons yourself.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

For evidence, they cite behaviors (tools, arts), fossils, genetics and dating methods which each independently support human evolution.

1) What is your evidence that humans have existed for millions of years unchanged?
2) How do you explain the existence of hominid fossils that predate any known human fossils?
3) How do you explain the genetic and behavioral similarities amongst hominids and ourselves?
4) Do you reject scientifically proven dating methods?

My beliefs and alternate explanations are irrelevant. Why can't you guys stay on topic?

Let's cut to the chase with the above. You are inferring human evolution from the evidence, correct?

Human evolution is inferred from the evidence just as gravitation from the sun or earth is inferred from the evidence. Among many other things.

If you doubt the ability to infer conclusions from the evidence then to be consistent you must doubt that the sun and earth are the cause of gravitation. And you must also doubt that the earth travels around the sun as opposed to the sun around the earth. Or did you come to these conclusions without inferring it from the evidence? Or perhaps you've never looked at the evidence and simply trusted authorities and experts on these matters?

[Divine Insight]

My beliefs and alternate explanations are irrelevant. Why can't you guys stay on topic?

Let's cut to the chase with the above. You are inferring human evolution from the evidence, correct?

Yes, it's correct that we infer evolution based upon the evidence which is a very reasonable thing to do.

I have already addressed that context way back in the beginning of this thread.

You are demanding "unreasonable proof" and therefore you are not within the context of reason. So why should anyone care about your "unreasonable demands"?

You can remain in denial of reason until the cows come home. How is that a "debate"? You're not even willing to take an alternative side.

You can't lose. All you need to do is remain in unreasonable denial till the cows come home. Flatly refusing to be educated.

That's not a debate. That's just a waste of everyone's time.

Besides, if you personally don't want to accept evolution I'm sure that no one cares. Your refusal to accept what is reasonable isn't going to change the reality on the ground.

[Goose]

Human evolution is inferred from the evidence just as gravitation from the sun or earth is inferred from the evidence. Among many other things.

If you doubt the ability to infer conclusions from the evidence then to be consistent you must doubt that the sun and earth are the cause of gravitation. And you must also doubt that the earth travels around the sun as opposed to the sun around the earth. Or did you come to these conclusions without inferring it from the evidence? Or perhaps you've never looked at the evidence and simply trusted authorities and experts on these matters?

But you see the inference of gravity can be verified through current observation. Where can I similarly verify human evolution through current observation?

Let's turn this around. When we see something complex, such as a computer, we infer a designer correct?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 34 by Goose]

IF you want observable evidence the evolution occurs a few years ago NASA was studying the bone densities of astronauts. They took a DNA sample before they went to the space station and after the returned.

To much surprise the genes responsible for maintaining bone density and other related genes specifically turned off. The culprit was the change in gravity. Now this was just over a 6 month period but this demonstrates evolution in many ways

1. Change over time

2. Change in response to environmental pressures.

There you have irrevocable proof that evolution occurs.