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.

[Danmark]

I'm watching a PBS story on the "Coy Wolf," a hybrid between Coyotes and the Eastern Wolf and how they interbreed with the offspring and how the changing environment affects their genetic changes. Here again is evolution witnesses first hand, within our lifetime. I continue to be incredulous that the evolution deniers continue to bat their heads against the wall of reality.

[Excubis]

Well I havent read everything throughout this topic but I will put in my 2 cents. First I would like to address the word evolution as applied to biological diversity.

Evolution is a process of how biological diversity occurs. This does not mean more complex, just means in laymen terms change. Now this does according to a persons opinions and perspective, change from person to person. Most think it means more complex it does not.

First and for most evolution only means process not a way, state, or complexity.

Now the facts, fact is that yes observation of evolution are observed as per fossil record. The argument that we do not observe this in laboratory is also incorrect we do, single cell amoebas(change) right in front of our eyes. Yes macroevolution has not been verified in lab but not because it does not occur, fossil record shows it does, but macroevolution (the change of species to species) takes quite some time to occur so no as of yet we have not witnessed this first hand. I have always found it puzzling that creationist dont accept this but accept creationism and yet it cannot be observed, at least evolutionist have the fossil record.

Well what is known is derived from fact you cannot differentiate the two but many do. You cannot say you know something if it is not factual when talking about biology. Yes in other instance it is acceptable to know without fact but in the hard sciences you cannot know especially if you dont accept fact. I will also add that in the hard sciences(biology,physics) that fact is a term used for empirical data which means it has been tested and the same data(result) is shown time after time. There are instance such as in physics when dealing with the small(particles of an atom) or the very large(sun and stars) that the data changes due to the extreme non-influence or influence of mass caused gravity.

I also do not see the difference in truth and fact when dealing in the hard science there is none. Opinion and ideology do not belong in these fields, so therefore truth when applied to biology is fact testable and repetitive result. Also just because we do not have the ability to do a species switch does not mean one day we wont. To make an absolute statement as such is to disregard all that we as a species have accomplished cause of science not ideology. Asking questions without fear is what has brought about the high quality of life we experience now, not an acceptance of given answers when they cannot be tested.

I will also like to address the misinformation about our species evolution homo, there are at least 13 stages of the homo line we know about, there is no one missing link, and more than likely may more to be found and some we may never find. The idea of a missing link is old ideal all science is progressive our knowledge grows everyday by study of a theory over time.

Anyone interested in real scientific links for evolution just ask I do not use magazines nor Wikipedia but actual accredited centers of academia or research institutes. I like this one from Berkeley http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ it uses lay terms so is easier to grasp data and concepts.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 232 by Excubis]
The Berkeley site is an excellent one.

As far as "missing links" are concerned: Every individual organism is a "missing link" a genotype on its way from what it's parents were to what it's offspring will be.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 232 by Excubis]

Macroevolution is not species jump, is similar and has parts of it but is the analysis of the entirety of evolution and the patterns there in. Although often expressed as species jump(macroevolution) that isn't quite what it is. Figured I would post this before someone tears me apart. Also well aware of my poor punctuation and even using of what seems improper words. I have a tendency to type faster than my capabilities and often leave letters out of words, and spell check doesn't always catch them as in may often means maybe. I find it funny, takes me forever to revise my work, I usually get an English major to correct my papers.