Is evolution a fact?

[Slavister]

The slowdown is irrelevant. What matter is if the rate of decay was thousands of times higher in the past than it was now, that is thousands of times more radiation and I'm not even sure what other consequences there are. If you want to propose the decay rate was much higher, you need to explain how its possible for atomic forces to change like that, and predict the physical consquences of that, and look at old layers to see if those predictions are verified. If you can't then your theory is speculative.

Radiation has always existed, I am not sure what changes would you expect to see here?

Very very slow change in atomic forces over millions of years in our universe might be too hard to measure. I think we assume it's constant but I don't know how we'd prove it one way or another.

I am not sure which other independent methods you are referring to. Without half life measurements, what other methods are used for billion-year-scale measurements?

In other words, how would we prove it one way or another.

 

[Lursa]

You mentioned Gould and reminded me of the word he used that describes Holmes' position. Perverse.

"
“In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

Good find! Thanks.

And so very apt to this thread.

 

[Lursa]

I believe in science. I was just pointing out that OP's idea of saying other parts of science are fact but evolution is not does not make sense to me because all parts of science make various assumptions, but they all DO seem reasonable to me... until there is evidence to the contrary

How about the OP's idea that it's based on fear?

 

[distraff]

Radiation has always existed, I am not sure what changes would you expect to see here?

Ever heard of Chernobyl? Radiation kills. You are the one with the theory that decay rates change. The burden of proof is on you to do the research and look into the implications of extreme decay rates on the planet, chemistry, and life. You need to explain how this is even possible. How do you know plants weren't poisonous for humans thousands of years ago? Anyone who claims this needs to explain how this is possible, evaluate the implications, and test the predictions.

Very very slow change in atomic forces over millions of years in our universe might be too hard to measure. I think we assume it's constant but I don't know how we'd prove it one way or another.

But if the decay rate was really high in the past, then we could just look there and find evidence of that in the fossil record and geological layers. Its like if we found the temperature was really hot in the past but gradually declined. We would still find massive deserts in the oldest layers and look at the fossil record overall to see the changes. It sounds like you are trying to make your theory as untestable as possible.

I am not sure which other independent methods you are referring to. Without half life measurements, what other methods are used for billion-year-scale measurements?

Many different chemicals degrade and often with very different processes. Yet they all show the same age. Its unreasonable to believe they all degraded in just the right way so they all appear to have the same age in the past because such a thing is so unlikely. This refutes your theory outright. Plus we haven't found any environmental circumstances where the decay rate is affected much in this wildly diverse planet.

 

[Slavister]

Ever heard of Chernobyl? Radiation kills.

Was there anyone to kill 2 billion years ago? Well, we don't necessarily know.

You are the one with the theory that decay rates change. The burden of proof is on you to do the research and look into the implications of extreme decay rates on the planet, chemistry, and life...

Assuming something constant also requires proof. Else, it's just an assumption. If it were proven, fine, great.

It sounds like you are trying to make your theory as untestable as possible.

I am saying we are making some assumptions. I think they are reasonable personally. However, I pointed it out w.r.t. OPs claim that such assumptions are only made in theory of evolution.

Many different chemicals degrade and often with very different processes. Yet they all show the same age. Its unreasonable to believe they all degraded in just the right way so they all appear to have the same age in the past because such a thing is so unlikely. This refutes your theory outright. Plus we haven't found any environmental circumstances where the decay rate is affected much in this wildly diverse planet.

You are describing things on small time scales whereas assumptions I am stating would be on much larger time scales.

How about the OP's idea that it's based on fear?

Not sure what you are asking since I disagree with the OP...

 

[distraff]

Was there anyone to kill 2 billion years ago? Well, we don't necessarily know.

We find the first life in 3.5 billion year old strata. Sounds like a problem if they were living in radiation land where everything is unstable and decaying. Also, I'm sure extreme levels of radiation have other affects we would find traces of in rocks. Also, what force is powerful enough to alter the speed of atoms decaying? Such a force would certainly have other major side effects as well.

Assuming something constant also requires proof. Else, it's just an assumption. If it were proven, fine, great.

What I'm saying is when you bring up a speculation, you need to think through it very well rather than just throwing it out there. Sometimes the lack of evidence is evidence again. For example, the more I search a room for a set of keys without finding them, the less likely they are to be there. We have done a lot of crazy experiments but haven't been able to dramanatically alter the forces the rate of particle decay.

I am saying we are making some assumptions. I think they are reasonable personally. However, I pointed it out w.r.t. OPs claim that such assumptions are only made in theory of evolution.

If an assumption is reasonable, then its not an assumption anymore. Also, the decay rate has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. I don't know of any assumptions in Darwin's theory.

You are describing things on small time scales whereas assumptions I am stating would be on much larger time scales.

Time scale has nothing to do with what I said. I think you missed my point, and it is my most important point. If the decay rate of different elements were slowing down, they wouldn't slow down uniformly. This is because they are just so radically different and decay for many different reasons. Its like saying that gold will melt at the same rate as ice cream. Apples and oranges. Many different dating methods show the same dates for the oldest rocks. This could only be possible with changing decay rates if all those rates declined at the same rate. That is extremely unlikely mathematically. Therefore, we can be 99% certain that the decay rates have been constant and these dates are correct.

 

[watsup]

How about the OP's idea that it's based on fear?

Just more ad hom as usual. Demeaning atheists again.

 

[Slavister]

We find the first life in 3.5 billion year old strata.

"3.5 billion" based on our assumed measurements ;-) ... but ok

Sounds like a problem if they were living in radiation land where everything is unstable and decaying.

Who says life is not possible in presence of radiation? Apparently, that's not a given. Would such life leave any different little mark on the rocks? I don't know.

Also, I'm sure extreme levels of radiation have other affects we would find traces of in rocks.

Would we? What's "extreme"?

Also, what force is powerful enough to alter the speed of atoms decaying? Such a force would certainly have other major side effects as well.

Well, apparently being near a black whole would be one such force. I did not know this but in googling your questions, turns our there are a number of ways in which half life CAN change. Was solar system swallowed by a black hole at one point and spit out somewhere else? Who knows... We assume we weren't.

In fact, it could slow down decay IN-SYNC for all materials (since time changes / gravity of timespace would affect all materials the same way).

What I'm saying is when you bring up a speculation, you need to think through it very well rather than just throwing it out there.

Point taken. I agree all this seems extremely unlikely. Still, I believe we make (good-enough) assumptions at some point...

We have done a lot of crazy experiments but haven't been able to dramanatically alter the forces the rate of particle decay.

You mean like this experiment for example that changed half life from 42 billion years to 33 years? Is that dramatic enough for you?

If an assumption is reasonable, then its not an assumption anymore.

Well, that's my whole point. I believe we make reasonable assumptions in both Earth age dating AND Evolution theory, while OP tried to distinguish the two.

Also, the decay rate has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. I don't know of any assumptions in Darwin's theory.

One example: Darwin's theory assumed we will find missing links. Over years since we have been finding such missing links more and more. We will continue to do so I believe.

Time scale has nothing to do with what I said. I think you missed my point, and it is my most important point. If the decay rate of different elements were slowing down, they wouldn't slow down uniformly.

See the black hole example - it might...

Another example - just overall changing laws of physics in the universe. We assume they are constant but do we know for sure they are not changing ever so slightly over time. The more we learn of our world, the more we realize that the only constant is change.

People thought a lot of things were constant before they found they were wrong. Even time itself is not constant as it turns out and we only learned that a mere 100 years ago.

Many different dating methods show the same dates for the oldest rocks.

I ask again: what ARE the "many different" dating methods? List them please.

That is extremely unlikely mathematically.

Now you are starting to make the same argument that the OP has - it's "extremely unlikely mathematically" that our complex world arose from the simple elements... "extremely unlikely mathematically" is just another way of saying "I can't believe ..." or "I don't know how this would be possible ..."

I already gave you a couple possibilities above of how this COULD be possible.

In the end, I think we are making good-enough assumptions that are very reasonable until disproven for both, Earth age dating AND Darwin theory.

 

[Individual]

Where can we view the original copy of the 10 commandments, written by God and given to Moses?

 

[distraff]

"3.5 billion" based on our assumed measurements ;-) ... but ok

The vast majority of strata has life in it and they would have been affected by this gradual decline in radiation. Another problem is that 4 billion years of radioactive decay in a space of just a few thousand years would generate an immense amount of heat in addition to radiation.

The Age of the Earth - Creationism and Accelerated Decay: Matthew Rognstad

apps.usd.edu

Who says life is not possible in presence of radiation? Apparently, that's not a given. Would such life leave any different little mark on the rocks? I don't know.

Maybe bacteria could. But certainly not the fish, mammals, and reptiles which supposedly where all made together by God.

Would we? What's "extreme"?

My point is that if you, a non-expert, are going to claim the scientists got it wrong and are making big assumptions, the least you can do is look into whether your theory is even possible or makes any scientific sense first. Find research about the impacts the extreme radiation and heat release from that radiation. See if we can find any traces of these things in the fossil record if this happened.

Well, apparently being near a black whole would be one such force. I did not know this but in googling your questions, turns our there are a number of ways in which half life CAN change. Was solar system swallowed by a black hole at one point and spit out somewhere else? Who knows... We assume we weren't.

Black holes don't spit things out becaise their gravitational force is so great that even light can't escape. Any matter that enters one is compressed and anything there would have been absolutely crushed. Half lives can be changed a bit, but can they can changed by hundreds of thousands of times by a force that won't destroy life and the planet? Do you have a real-life process that can do this?

In fact, it could slow down decay IN-SYNC for all materials (since time changes / gravity of timespace would affect all materials the same way).

What evidence do you have that black holes can so uniformly slow down decay for completely different elements at exactly the same rate? And wouldn't we need a black hole around today to keep those rates down?

You mean like this experiment for example that changed half life from 42 billion years to 33 years? Is that dramatic enough for you?

The abstract didn't seem to say that at all. How did they change the decay rate? What did it take for that to happen? Is it reasonable this could have happened to earth with life on it?

Well, that's my whole point. I believe we make reasonable assumptions in both Earth age dating AND Evolution theory, while OP tried to distinguish the two.

One example: Darwin's theory assumed we will find missing links. Over years since we have been finding such missing links more and more. We will continue to do so I believe.

It doesn't assume, it predicts. A theory can have a lot of evidence and still make predictions, that are then later tested and confirmed. Predictions aren't assumes to be true, because they need to be tested to be confirmed.

Another example - just overall changing laws of physics in the universe. We assume they are constant but do we know for sure they are not changing ever so slightly over time. The more we learn of our world, the more we realize that the only constant is change.

But even if you change those constants slightly, that makes the universe as we know it impossible. This is the fine tuning argument brought up by religious people to claim God fine tuned the constants of the universe. Even if the constants were slightly off, stars fall apart, molecules break down. Its ugly.

I ask again: what ARE the "many different" dating methods? List them please.

Wiki lists them out. There are over a dozen of them.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now you are starting to make the same argument that the OP has - it's "extremely unlikely mathematically" that our complex world arose from the simple elements... "extremely unlikely mathematically" is just another way of saying "I can't believe ..." or "I don't know how this would be possible ..."

Evolution isn't random because it uses natural selection. So the probability calculation is fallacious because it assumes randomness. However, the decay rates for completely different elements happening to all slow down at exactly the same rate is really random and really really unlikely.

I already gave you a couple possibilities above of how this COULD be possible.

You brought up black holes which I addressed above. Anything else that could reduce the decay rate of over a dozen isotopes at exactly the same rate?

 

[CLAX1911]

There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

This has permeated the literature more and more over the past few decades and is now taken for granted by many people, it is now quite acceptable even in scholarly discourse to describe evolution as a fact.

Here is an article devoted to this, it strives to justify this label, here are some quotes:



and



and



Richard Dawkins is also on record in this regard:



Can a fact ever be questioned? Well it seems not, note the qualification we see in these quotes "beyond reasonable dispute" (it would be unreasonable to dispute it) and "would be perverse to [with]hold assent" (it would be perversion to dispute it) and "beyond sane doubt" and "beyond informed doubt".

Clearly in the minds of these writers only an unreasonable person, a perverse person, an uninformed, unintelligent person would dispute evolution.

The effect of this is of course to discourage dissent, if one did ever find a reason to dispute evolution then one could not express that because only a perverse, uninformed idiot would ever do that!

Welcome to Kafkaesque world that evolution has grown into, claiming to be science it is dogma. When dissent is discouraged then truth is trampled, when the edicts of those in authority ("the experts") prevent the free expression of ideas then truth is trampled.

This is the real perversion, the unwillingness to be open to question, the insistence that one must agree to be regarded as intelligent, the obsession with eliminating doubt.

This is why I abandoned atheism and later evolution, it is based on fear, fear of disagreeing, fear of questioning, this is not science this is exactly how Galileo was treated, human nature has not changed, just the cloak that it drapes itself in.

Well with regard to evolution there's no way to ever prove or disprove it so it remains a theory it is a very well supported theory. It is probably the closest thing we'll ever have to a fact regarding the origin of the species.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This is absurd, you are referring to simple observations (shape of the globe, age of the earth, existence of electrons) not purported processes that span billions of years.

I would no more jump off a roof than eat food contaminated with botulism, I can see gravity is real and I can see that botulism is real.

All you can see is what we can observe, yes organisms reproduce, yes sometime there are mutations, yes different organisms seem to have common gene sequences in their genome, yes I can see fossils etc - these are the facts, these are what you can claim to be facts, the conclusions drawn from those facts based upon myriad assumptions are not to be elevated to the status of facts.



This is an ad-hominem argument, which is a fallacy, my motivation - whatever it may be - is not what you should be discussing, instead you need to regard the truth or falsity of any propositions I make and the validity of any reasoning based upon them.



I have no issue with science, facts or verifiable hypotheses based upon these.

My issue is with conjecture and supposition when its elevated to the status of an unquestionable truth.

Evolution can be physically observed in a well preserved fossil record, among other things. Less complex organisms tend to be buried deeper than more complex organisms.

Publish your findings that show evolution is a hoax and collect your massive fame and fortune. Why don't you?

 

[grip]

I go with what makes sense and evolution makes sense.

 

[Slavister]

The vast majority of strata has life in it and they would have been affected by this gradual decline in radiation. Another problem is that 4 billion years of radioactive decay in a space of just a few thousand years would generate an immense amount of heat in addition to radiation.

The Age of the Earth - Creationism and Accelerated Decay: Matthew Rognstad

apps.usd.edu

Maybe bacteria could. But certainly not the fish, mammals, and reptiles which supposedly where all made together by God.

You might be confusing me with someone else. I was not arguing about Earth being few thousand years old or religious view of this. I thought we are talking about whether 4 billion age could actually be 6 billion or 2 billion. I am not talking about fish and reptiles...

Black holes don't spit things out becaise their gravitational force is so great that even light can't escape. Any matter that enters one is compressed and anything there would have been absolutely crushed. Half lives can be changed a bit, but can they can changed by hundreds of thousands of times by a force that won't destroy life and the planet? Do you have a real-life process that can do this?

Could we have been near a massive enough blackhole to be affected by its gravity for a couple billion years but without getting sucked in?

Could wormholes exist and might we have passed through one?

What evidence do you have that black holes can so uniformly slow down decay for completely different elements at exactly the same rate? And wouldn't we need a black hole around today to keep those rates down?

Time dilution would be the same for all elements. Black hole does not need to be here today if that process changed or even stopped.

The abstract didn't seem to say that at all. How did they change the decay rate? What did it take for that to happen? Is it reasonable this could have happened to earth with life on it?

They removed electrons. (You did say " We have done a lot of crazy experiments but haven't been able to ...")

Wiki lists them out. There are over a dozen of them.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of them are based on half-life of different elements. Most of them are NOT used for determining age of Earth. In fact only one or two are I think.

Evolution isn't random because it uses natural selection. So the probability calculation is fallacious because it assumes randomness. However, the decay rates for completely different elements happening to all slow down at exactly the same rate is really random and really really unlikely.

You brought up black holes which I addressed above. Anything else that could reduce the decay rate of over a dozen isotopes at exactly the same rate?

Blackholes are still in play IMO (see above).

The other one was simply laws of physics slowly changing at some point. I know - totally wild but hey, we kinda assume it did not happen...

 

[HonestJoe]

There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

There is a long established but growing tendency to play petty word games to try to discredit the idea of evolution and a response by some people (like Dawkins) to engage in the same kind of word games in it's defence. That's a socio-political game and, regardless of what the people involved on either side my claim, doesn't really have much to do with actual science (apart from offering a depressing insight in to human psychology).

This is why I abandoned atheism and later evolution, it is based on fear, fear of disagreeing, fear of questioning, this is not science this is exactly how Galileo was treated, human nature has not changed, just the cloak that it drapes itself in.

As opposed to theism? Atheism is merely a label to describe your beliefs on the existence of any god or gods. You can't "abandon" it by choice, you either believe or don't. Regardless, it is entirely irrelevant to the scientific topic of evolution.

You can't really "abandon" evolution either. Clearly that will be true or not regardless of what any of us say and while you can (rightly) object to the way some people treat the topic, that shouldn't impact your personal position on the topic. After all, if it did, how would you be behaving any more rationally than the people you're complaining about?

 

[rickc]

Is there really a debate on this issue?

This was settled long ago

Religious fanatics just don't like the answer because it contradicts the literal interpretation of their Bible.

Personally I don't think religion has any place in science or government

These people are already suspect because they worship an unproven supernatural being and except a book written thousands of years ago as fact.

 

[Dragonfly]

There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

Let's just suppose for the sake of argument you're correct.
We'll accept that evolution is indeed not a fact, and that its entire foundation is built upon a lie. A grand conspiracy of scientists then bought into the lie and spread it until now.

What's the actual truth/fact about how all things "morphed" into what they are now?

Surely you're not going to simply say "god did it" are you?

Or are you?

 

[watsup]

Let's just suppose for the sake of argument you're correct.
We'll accept that evolution is indeed not a fact, and that its entire foundation is built upon a lie. A grand conspiracy of scientists then bought into the lie and spread it until now.

What's the actual truth/fact about how all things "morphed" into what they are now?

Surely you're not going to simply say "god did it" are you?

Or are you?

He clearly believes that "God" intervened at various intervals in evolution, but for whatever reason he refuses to admit it.

 

[iguanaman]

It is a fact, every bit as much of a fact that the earth is round, it revolves around the sun, it's billions of years old, and that germs, gravity and electrons exist. There are literal mountains of evidence that prove evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt. It would be unreasonable for you to throw yourself off of a building because you don't believe gravity exists and this is no different.

You argue otherwise not based on some kind of evidence you have, but because you desperately and psychologically need your personal philosophy to be true and you feel threatened. The science is real, it's directly verifiable, and if you feel you have evidence that's it's all a scam, publish your findings, have them peer reviewed then collect your fame, fortune and Nobel prize. What's stopping you?

Yes some seem to realize that if God didn't actually create humans than there is no basis to think we are "special" and that means no eternal life. If we are "just" a complex Ape relative then why would we get special treatment from God? It's called overthinking and will always get you in trouble when it is about religion.

 

[iguanaman]

There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

This has permeated the literature more and more over the past few decades and is now taken for granted by many people, it is now quite acceptable even in scholarly discourse to describe evolution as a fact.

Here is an article devoted to this, it strives to justify this label, here are some quotes:



and



and



Richard Dawkins is also on record in this regard:



Can a fact ever be questioned? Well it seems not, note the qualification we see in these quotes "beyond reasonable dispute" (it would be unreasonable to dispute it) and "would be perverse to [with]hold assent" (it would be perversion to dispute it) and "beyond sane doubt" and "beyond informed doubt".

Clearly in the minds of these writers only an unreasonable person, a perverse person, an uninformed, unintelligent person would dispute evolution.

The effect of this is of course to discourage dissent, if one did ever find a reason to dispute evolution then one could not express that because only a perverse, uninformed idiot would ever do that!

Welcome to Kafkaesque world that evolution has grown into, claiming to be science it is dogma. When dissent is discouraged then truth is trampled, when the edicts of those in authority ("the experts") prevent the free expression of ideas then truth is trampled.

This is the real perversion, the unwillingness to be open to question, the insistence that one must agree to be regarded as intelligent, the obsession with eliminating doubt.

This is why I abandoned atheism and later evolution, it is based on fear, fear of disagreeing, fear of questioning, this is not science this is exactly how Galileo was treated, human nature has not changed, just the cloak that it drapes itself in.

How do you think scientists know we are distantly related to a dog or a potato? Guesswork? No that is not how science works. The info comes from our DNA which is the common thread for all life on Earth. Unlike the "soul" DNA is real and can be studied and give repeatable results.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is as much a theory as gravity is a theory.

The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.

The existence of life is likewise a fact,

Something can be both a theory and a fact. For example atomic theory is a theory but the existence of atoms is a fact. The theory of gravity is a theory but gravity is also a fact.

I know, they are in fact different things. An atom is not a theory, a falling object is not a theory, a mutated gene is not a theory - I never argue with facts nor do I conflate them with theories.

The theory of evolution is a theory but it is a fact it happened. We can literally so detailed fossil records of it happening step by step.

If it was a fact it happened why would you call it a theory? you are confused.

The fossil record reveals no "step by step" - what is a "step" here anyway? a single gene mutation? a single retrodictive generation?

The fossil record is hugely discontinuous, the antithesis of gradualism, of "step by step" change.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

An entire thread wasting time due to either the misunderstanding or the deliberate disregard of what it means to be a scientific theory.

From the man who said that it's true there's no such thing as truth.

 

[iguanaman]

The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.

The existence of life is likewise a fact,


I know, they are in fact different things. An atom is not a theory, a falling object is not a theory, a mutated gene is not a theory - I never argue with facts nor do I conflate them with theories.



If it was a fact it happened why would you call it a theory? you are confused.

The fossil record reveals no "step by step" - what is a "step" here anyway? a single gene mutation? a single retrodictive generation?

The fossil record is hugely discontinuous, the antithesis of gradualism, of "step by step" change.

Fossils are by their very nature rare and inconsistent that is why DNA has become the primary method of studying evolution. It would be suspicious if the fossil record actually included every single step of millions of years of human evolution but we have found an impressive array of human relatives anyway now by using their DNA.

Gokhman, then a Ph.D. student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was attempting to piece together the skeleton of an enigmatic ancient human known as a Denisovan. But while the Denisovans likely lived in Asia for tens of thousands of years, researchers have only found meager fossil traces—a pinky bone, a skull fragment, a fractured jaw, and a few teeth.
To give these specters form, Gokhman instead turned to the most compelling trace of their existence: their ancient DNA.
Now, in an impressive feat, Gokhman and his colleagues have mapped out a proposed Denisovan skeleton using information for 32 skeletal features encoded in DNA that was extracted from a pinky bone. The research, published today in the journal Cell, doesn’t give exact values for Denisovan proportions, but it does offer a comparative look at how this mysterious kind of hominin measured up against Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ls-first-look-enigmatic-human-relative/#close

 

[distraff]

The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.

The existence of life is likewise a fact,

I know, they are in fact different things. An atom is not a theory, a falling object is not a theory, a mutated gene is not a theory - I never argue with facts nor do I conflate them with theories.

But we have a theory

If it was a fact it happened why would you call it a theory? you are confused.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

A scientific theory is different than the layman use of a theory. A layman theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation or an unproved assumption.

The theory of gravity is an explanation of the motion of objects on the earth and in the heavens by theorizing that all matter has an attractive force proportional to their size and distance from each other. This has been repeatedly tested and verified in accorance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. We have never directly observed this attractive force itself, but we know its there because the predictions the theory generates keeps getting confirmed.

Atomic theory is an explanation of the makup and nature of observed physical objects by theorizing that all matter is composed of atoms that are composed of electons, protons, and neutron, which are themselves made of quarks. This has been repeatedly tested and verified in accorance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. We have never directly observed atoms with all their components, but we know they are there because the predictions the theory generates keeps getting confirmed.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of diversity and complexity in life by theorizing that all life evolved from a common ancestor by natural selection and mutations. This has been repeatedly tested and verified in accorance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. We have never directly observed the evolution from a common ancestor, but we know it happened because the predictions the theory generates keeps getting confirmed.

Gravity itself is a fact, atoms themselves are a fact, and evolution itself is a fact. But you can have a theory that explains things we see by proposing this fact that is verified through a lot of testing. If you don't believe me, then give me an example of a real scientific theory and I will show you it is also a fact because all true scientific theories are also facts.

The fossil record reveals no "step by step" - what is a "step" here anyway? a single gene mutation? a single retrodictive generation?

The fossil record is hugely discontinuous, the antithesis of gradualism, of "step by step" change.

The fossil record isn't perfect because its just so extremely difficult to be buried in the right way so your skeleton manages not to erode quickly much less survive for hundreds of millions of years. DNA degrades quickly so unfortunately we just have bones, and maybe traces of feathers if we are lucky. But we do see layer after layer with different but similar species on top of each other. And we see an ordering of the fossil record from simple to complex that couldn't happen with everything created at the same time. In many places we have a very good fossil record that shows evolution from one form to the next in more detail. The best fossil record we have is human evolution with over a dozen discovered transitional species and hundreds of fossils.

 

[Casper]

Is evolution a fact?
Yes, it is, and every earth science supports it. Get over it and stop under-estimating Gods ability to do things His way and in His time. Any other questions?