Even this observation depends on the acceptance of various assumptions about dating the fossil finds. But it seems a valid observation, given a certain set of assumptions. These measurements also depend on a set of initial assumptions. This theory generates certain predictions, or at least expectations, for example, the prediction that we should find transitional sequences between species in the fossil record. One should not call any theoretical explanation a FACT, for reasons I mentioned above.
G is the proportionality constant.
This force makes the mathematical prediction of elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, and provides a very accurate fit to the observed planetary orbits. Nevertheless, this theory has limitations which are well-known, and is not regarded as the final word, even in planetary motion. I would say that within certain limits this theoretical explanation is strongly confirmed by the observational data, but would still resist calling it a FACT as explained above. I do not wish to discuss the motives of those who employ this redefinition of the term, but at the very least I would say it is not conducive to clear communication, as the recent exchanges have shown. For my benefit, please let me know if what I have written seems correct.