Evolution is a scientific fact

Pro: "The change occurs NOT when one generation of two animals make a hybrid, but when over a long period of time, animals who have certain traits that allow them to survive in a given environment, are passed down to offspring, slowly changing one species to another." Con: "Where is the evidence for this? When has a change of species actually been observed? I know the idea is not that it jumps from one species to another without a transition, but why don't we even see transitions, something that can breed with both species perhaps?" Pro: Again, you don't need to directly observe something to know that it exists. It has not been observed because the change happens over the course of a million years or so. Part of the evidence for Macro evolution, is Micro evolution, something which my opponent and I both agree occurs. On the outside parts of the Californian mountains, lives a variety of salamanders of the same species. The mountains form a large circle around a portion of southern California. The salamander is able to mate with nearby groups of salamanders, but we see that on the opposite side, salamanders are not able to mate with one another. The farther away one type of salamander is to another, the more diverse they are. They act as a completely different species. This is one of many pieces of evidence to support the idea of macro evolution. It shows how a species over time can adapt to have traits that are so different it takes the appearance of a different species. (youtube.com/speciation) Another way Macro Evolution is considered a scientific fact, is the evidence of pre historic fossils found by man. We know animals evolve into different species because of these fossils. Archaeologists have found up to 20 different types of human like ancestors. Like Australopithecus We are able to know how they walked, what they looked like, what they ate, what age they were when they died, all of this from looking at an ancient pre human skull. And we know from this, that we are directly related to most of these species. You don't need to be a scientist to see the direct correlation between homo sapiens and the pre human fossils. Even though I didn't see the change happen, I know it happened. Let me use an analogy, 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. I know that man came from these fossils because of the similarities between them and the fact the species change over time. Pro: "In other words, this is scientific fact. 'any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted '" Con: "When has it been proved true? Also, just because something cannot be refuted does not make it true either." Pro: Not proved true, accepted as true. 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. Pro: "The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly." Con: "There is plenty in science we can observe, for instance gravity is directly observable.(that statement is false.) Lets take atoms for example, it was hypothesized that matter was composed of smaller parts but we didn't understand what those parts were. We still don't fully understand as more details are being discovers. However, with a powerful enough microscope we can observe some of the effects of atoms. Most of the other things you mentioned, we can see the effect from them even if we cannot see the phenomena directly. Therefore, since evolution has never been directly observed, it is not on the same level of scientific fact as gravity. The scientific method involves repetitive observable occurrences. [1]" Pro: That is not the point I was trying to make. I know "there is plenty in science we can observe." 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 have seen evolution directly, just not "on the macro level." But, going with the apple analogy, you don't need to see something happen to know it happened. 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. Con: "Also, when searching for the missing link there have been a number of fabrications, such as the Piltdown man [2] or Nebraska man, which was created solely from a single tooth. [3] It shows that they were so desperate to prove their theory true that they lied about the evidence." 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. Pro: "Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." Con: "True, because facts are facts, even if the theory is completely wrong, there are still facts that are correct that we just haven't figured out yet. Therefore there is no reason to believe the theory of evolution as it is currently understood is correct. Darwin's original theory has changed over time, evolved if you will. How do we know what we think we know now is correct? In 100 years the theory of evolution will likely be completely different than it is now. At one time the Ptolemaic idea that the Earth was the center of the universe was considered a scientific fact, but it is not really a fact since we now know it to be false." Pro: If Darwin's theory of evolution changes, it does not change the fact of evolution. How do we know that gravity is true? There were many theories explaining it, that changed over time. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's but apples didn't suspend themselves in air. The thing is, the theory of evolution can be changed around a bit, but the process of evolution will remain as a fact. It Is a fact that humans and animals change over time in order to adapt to their environment. And the fact that Pre human skulls have been discovered is conclusive evidence to prove that Macro evolution is a scientific fact. My opponent argued with the definition of scientific fact, which he agreed to use in the debate. Some of his sentences were very confusing, like, "I know the idea is not that it jumps from one species to another without a transition, but why don't we even see transitions, something that can breed with both species perhaps?" And "My opponent has failed to show how the theory of evolution, satisfactorily explains the variety of species and yet the lack of a smooth transition" My opponent's argument about evolution not being on the same level as gravity, is an invalid one. And my opponent also thought that evolution took place when two animals of a different species mate to form a new. Like "A Chihuahua and a Great Dane" Evolution is a scientific fact. The theories on how evolution happens may change over time, but the facts remain the same. 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. We also know evolution is a fact because of fossil remains. You don't have to be a scientists to see the similarities between humans and pre human ancestors like, Australopithecus. I thank my opponent for the debate. He had some good points but they are not good enough to disprove a fact.