Evolution is a fact

It was fun and I have no more information to use for my other debates on evolution. I would encourage the voters, who really can't vote because of the high "elo" rating, to vote via the comment section on who they thought won. Thanks again everyone for this, and [nonprophet, don't be offended. If you get offended, just pretend I didn't say it this isn't specifically for you only] may the LORD GOD bless you all. "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. [2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied". Remember it says reliably applied. This will be important later in my conclusion. Resources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... So what you are saying just proves that evolution is not a fact. Yes, so it is not a fact. You cannot call evolution a fact if we are coming as close as possible to an answer. I think you don"t realize something about the theory of Heliocentrism. It made perfect sense, it had all these things making it seem right. Then it turns out it was wrong by a long shot. Not only was the sun not the center of the universe, but it was just a tiny aspect of the entire universe. Moreover, the whole theory of the universe is still just a theory. We don't know for certain at all. 1) Who? Who is this ancestor? What is their skeletal structure? What do they look like? Is there any fossils to prove they exist? No. I already cited earlier the most popular fossil and it still itself is not a perfect match. We have tons of dinosaur fossils but there is none of this ancestor? Just because DNA is similar, does not mean we have the same ancestor. You have yet to cite a case where someone"s DNA has even changed. If DNA can be cited to naturally change, then you might have a case. However, you did not. Also, once again, it is a theory. You have not shown any undeniable facts. 2) Before I begin, I never found your case on the fruit flies. It is due to the fact that there is no direct link from what you posted to information about the fruit flies. However, I did find this resource that claims fruit flies have not evolved in over 600 years. To quote from the article, "If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genesR13;mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creatureR13;merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve. " If anything, that was modification of the insect"s cells. That wouldn"t of been evolution anyways because it wasn"t natural. Moreover, it still didn"t work. One more quote for you "In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5 The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences. One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations. The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. " As for your last quote, that is different. That is like me saying I know a football will travel a distance if I throw it, yet I haven"t thrown it yet. The reason we can calculate that is because we have observed Pluto"s orbiting pattern and therefore calculated where it would go. We still observed it. It"s equivalent for me watching cars driving down the street and predicting they will pass through the street light. Resources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.icr.org... 3) Gravity is a theory. The reason why we fall towards the ground is not a fact yet. It doesn"t mean we don"t fall towards the ground when we jump, it just means we aren"t 100% sure why. Moreover, you cited that same website which doesn"t provide evidence. It links to other sources, but you aren"t even quoting from it or anything. Please, when you cite a source that has tons and tons of information, I am not going to read through all of it. Your best bet is to just cite something, quote it, and then prove your point. I don"t have time to read through an entire database. Moreover, you have yet to prove it is a fact. Moreover, you have yet to prove how the theory of evolution is a fact. To quote from wikipedia itself," Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. " Resources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, you did not prove how evolution was a fact. I argued against all your claims, and showed you evidence to prove those claims. I cited 2 studies of scientists trying to force evolution, as well as the most notable fossil for evolution which still does not prove evolution is a fact. Remember what I said at the beginning of this argument, it has to be reliably applied. Evolution has yet to be reliably applied. It is not a fact, it is just a theory.