Evolution is a scientific fact

“ Part of the evidence for Macro evolution, is Micro evolution, something which my opponent and I both agree occurs. ” Just because we observe micro evolution it does not automatically follow that macro evolution is a necessary outcome of it. For instance, take travelling at a certain speed, just because something can move a certain speed it does not follow that it can ravel at faster speeds indefinitely, in fact most scientists use the speed of light as a barrier to the fastest anything can possibly move. So there are barriers to things and the barriers to evolution is species. As far as the salamanders are concerned, there could be any number of reasons that they are similar yet not compatible. Drawing conclusions without actual evidence is not real science. “If I find an apple directly under an apple tree I can infer that the apple came from the tree. If I were to compare the apple to the other apples I would notice the similarities between the apples. Just because I didn't see the apple fall from the tree, doesn't mean it didn't happen. ” You could infer that but you couldn’t prove it definitively, it is possible that the apple came from another similar tree and something or someone moved the apple to this tree. Now that is a more complicated and unlikely explanation but it cannot be ruled out, therefore you cannot say that you know that it is a fact that the apple came from that particular tree. “It doesn't matter if there is a possibility that it is not true. That's the definition of "scientific fact. " You agreed to use this definition before we started this debate. ” If there is a possibility that it is not true, then you cannot claim it as a fact, a fact is something you know for sure. Online sources define fact in in several ways “A thing that is indisputably the case” Another definition relevant to our discussion is “The truth about events as opposed to interpretation “. [1] What scientists do is merely interpret. Merriam Webster defines fact as “something that is actual” or “a piece of information presented as having objective reality”. [2] None of what my opponent has said demonstrates objectivity and rather demonstrates speculation. “And it is arguable that we can't see gravity, but instead the effects it has on matter. That makes my opponent's argument invalid. ” We see something fall, sure we don’t see gravity itself but it is actually observable as opposed to macro evolution. My point was though that there are things in science that can be directly observed so your claim that science is not about direct observations is at least in part false. “I don't need to tell you a tree has been around for a thousand years because I wasn't there from the beginning. But I know the tree has been around because of the number of rings it has inside. ” That is because we have directly observed the fact that every year a tree makes a new ring and so we figured out that we can use these rings to determine the age of said tree. “Pro: The six people suspected of forging the Piltdown man, do not account for the thousands of scientists who have found legitimate discoveries of fossil remains. ” OK, my opponent has not sourced that claim, not to be difficult, but simply because my opponent has the BOP on that. It is likely that they have found fossils that they have determined are prehistoric man, however, as I have been arguing, their method for determining this may have been faulty. Also, I have shown that it was not an isolated incident. Scientists do have a tendency to come up with false fossils weather intentionally or not. I will give another example of this later in this round. “The thing is, the theory of evolution can be changed around a bit, but the process of evolution will remain as a fact. ” How could you possibly know that? Like I said, Ptolemy thought the Universe was Geocentric. Unlike gravity, for which although the theory behind it has changed but its effects remain the same, when we discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, it completely threw out the old theory rather than merely improving it as has been done with gravity. “ And the fact that Pre human skulls have been discovered is conclusive evidence to prove that Macro evolution is a scientific fact. ” How can you see that it was a transition of humans from just the skull? Scientists have been known to mix and math fossils, remember the Brontosaurus? [3] They later found out that the fossils they combined were wrong and that in fact there was no such dinosaur. These skulls my opponent described could just be a different species or in fact a human with an odd shaped skull. “And my opponent also thought that evolution took place when two animals of a different species mate to form a new species. Like 'A Chihuahua and a Great Dane'” I said nothing of the sort. What I did say is that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane were the same species and were an example of micro evolution. “The fact that Micro evolution is true, leads scientists to believe that these changes can make a certain species evolve into another. Scientists accept this as fact. ” That is a logical jump and assuming that just because micro evolution is true then macro evolution must therefore be true is just that, an assumption and therefore not logically sound. “You don't have to be a scientists to see the similarities between humans and pre human ancestors like, Australopithecus. ” OK but similarity does not equal correlation. This is a variation on the cum hoc fallacy. That’s all evolution is, an elaborate form of the cum hoc fallacy. [4] I thank my opponent for initiating this debate. In closing my opponent has failed to show how macro evolution is firmly grounded in science rather than speculation and assumption. I also wish this debate had more rounds as I don’t think there was enough to fully debate this topic. That being said vote con. 1 . http://www.google.com... 2 . http://mw1.merriam-webster.com... 3 . http://www.unmuseum.org... 4 . http://en.wikipedia.org...