Evolution is a scientific fact.

Despite his scoffs at my arguments, which is mutual since I feel the same way about his, this debate has been interesting in at least taking a first into the issue of speciation. However, ultimately I'm dismayed at his efforts - the least he can do is read my sources correctly. It seems my initial sentiments were dead on. ===================== Revision of the definition of evolution ===================== Come what may, it seems that we both agree that my definition is adequate since mine encompasses his (whether or not the evidence fits the definition is for the next sections). However, I want to point out that the reason why I decided to go with this definition BECAUSE it was much more comprehensive. I don't want to leave anything out of a definition of evolution for my opponent to exploit, or for a discourse to potentially be pushed off it's original trajectory simply because of a faulty or inadequate definition. Regardless, let's examine his dispute of evolution's evidence: ===================== Defense of evolution -- Speciation -- Definition of speciation contentious, too broad and ambiguous. ===================== My opponent's argument here is so comical that I'm almost at a loss of words - is he really saying that adequate evidence of evolution will only be suitable when confirmed events of speciation occurs between, for example, A PLANT TO A CAT? He states that " there are no observations of plants turning into cats, no observations of bacteria turning into humans, no observations of animals changing kingdom", with the obvious hint that these are to be real evidence for evolution whilst "worms turning into more worms" is not. "Mr. Skeptic has described for us what an observation of speciation SHOULD look like, and provided us with a standard by which we can judge the validity of an observation, unfortunately NONE of the evidence comes remotely close to meeting this standard. " ----> You are incredibly adept at strawmen. I never stated that an observation of speciation should look like a plant turning into a cat, I said the difference between these two would intuitively call for a distinction, of which we can call "species". My opponent's accusation betrays such a cardinal misapprehension of evolution that I can see why he'd scoff at evolution - he doesn't even know how it works properly! Simply put, for one to observe a speciation event of such a big jump as to go from one animal kingdom (a plant) to another (a cat) would probably happen under only two conditions: either reproduction and effectively artificial evolution would be sped up to a monstrous magnitude or a really long experiment would be held under controlled environments. Obviously, either of these are incredibly impractical as of now. So how do we prove speciation? By looking at SMALL events, smaller jumps. Is my opponent foolish enough to say there aren't different species of flowers? Because there certainly are, and there are experiments to demonstrate such a speciation event (refer to sources). The difference between a speciation event between two different species of flowers is fundamentally the same as the long gap between a flower and a cat - the only difference is TIME. This is such a common methodology in science that it's disheartening to see my opponent doesn't even realize this; scientists often conduct experiments on magnitudes much smaller than what they are seeking to prove/demonstrate/etc. Take physics in which the particle accelerators are used- they obviously can't match with the energy of the cosmos, but they represent the same conditions in a smaller scale. For my opponent to demand such an experiment demonstrates that he is at fault here, not me. ===================== Defense of evolution -- Speciation -- Snippets from my sources that my opponent mentions ===================== So not only does my opponent make a critical error in adjudicating what constitutes a proper scientific experiment, he still refuses to admit or recognize that he has misrepresented my sources. For the purpose of organization, I will cite the original quote from my opponent and reply to his response: "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation. " ----> My opponent is willing to say that all of Part 5 is dedicated to experiments that "turned out a complete bust". Oh really? Then I'll recommend my audience to do the same. .. READ IT. The best way to disprove my opponent is to have the audience demonstrate it to themselves, so I encourage the reader to just do a brief scan over section 5. Furthermore, if I one were to apply common sense to this issue then he must wonder: why would TalkOrigins, a prominent pro-evolution website, feature an article which ARGUES AGAINST THEM? Why would their FAQ page on Observed Instances of Speciation conclude there aren't observed instances? This is self-defeating, and obviously not the case. "In fact, then, both biologists and paleontologists must infer what happens, and it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins. " ----> Seriously, you REALLY love to quote mine. If you read the sentence before the one you have quoted, you'll notice that I explained this by saying "this [quote] simply lamented at the difficulty of determining speciation due to the entanglement of results and interpretation. " Did I or the speaker ever said it was IMPOSSIBLE? No, just difficult. This problem of fact vs. interpretation is present in so many fields (historians, archaeologists, sociologists/psychologists, etc. ). "Notice that since biologists have not seen a speciation event that everyone would believe, biologists are driven to theory-heavy models of speciation, rather than a rich store of observational evidence. " ----> I'm starting to think that every argument you are making is born from a misconstruction. If you read it carefully, it obviously states that "biologists have no seen a speciation event that EVERYONE WOULD BELIEVE (emphasis added). " This just demonstrates that there are debates about what species mean, NOT that there are no observed instances of speciation. You argue that since there's a debate about speciation, evolution is incorrect? This is incredibly naive. ===================== Brief defense of evolution -- Speciation -- Assumption that one must believe everything in their source ===================== "You may not 'believe' your own sources (seriously? ). But you clearly thought they were reliable enough to be considered in the debate. I am sorry that they don't agree with you, but it is too late to un-post them now. " ----> This is such a common academic issue that I'm aghast at how my opponent could be confounded on this is issue. If you cite a source for the purpose of giving a list of examples, then only THAT would apply. If parts of the source say something about it, it's not necessarily my responsibility to hold the same view. This is so common sense, just take this concept to other forms of academia. When I cite an idea from Kant's book that I agree with, am I committed to everything else he believes? If I agree with a part of Locke, do I have to defend everything else? The obvious answer is NO. ==================== Conclusion and a few remarks ==================== My opponent's argument has been one of the most intellectually undignified ones I've ever seen. Except for his ludicrous claim that speciation can only be proven with large gaps such as a plant to a cat, everything else is born from a seemingly purposeful strawman, quote-mining, etc.