The Theory of Evolution is a Fact
Waiting for the instigator's fourth argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
BOP is shared.
Pro : The Theory of Evolution is a Fact
Con : The Theory of Evolution is not a Fact
Definitions for the context of this debate.
-Evolution - A scientific theory of biodiversity, describing how life diversifies .
-Scientific Theory - an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method .
-Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid .
-Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable 
These terms are not to be redefined during this debate.
I look forward to a fruitful discussion.
"Before getting into my argument, let me quickly address the problems with Pro’s argument. First, Pro offers no credible source or reasoning to believe any of his statements. And pointing to dictionaries or encyclopedias to show that 'biodiversity' or 'evolution' exist as concepts isn’t enough to prove that either is 'a point of data that is objectively verifiable.'"
"Second, Pro fails to specify which theory of evolution he supports. Is Pro arguing for “Lamarckism” or “Darwinism” or something else entirely? Not every theory of evolution can be a “fact,” so Pro needs to specify which theory to satisfy his BoP. A vague theory isn’t “objectively verifiable,” nor can it fairly be argued against, because it becomes a constantly moving target."
"Third, Pro’s jump from statement 3 to statement 4 doesn’t follow logically. Even if the theory of evolution is “composed of facts,” that doesn’t mean the theory itself constitutes a “fact.” Maybe the theory is composed of both facts and non-facts. Pro has to show that evolution itself is a fact, not that the theory contains some facts."
"Fourth, a brief search on Google turns up at least 10 alternative explanations for “biodiversity,” each with its own set of evidence, including intelligent design, morphic resonance (Rupert Sheldrake’s theory, which is quite compelling), ancient astronauts, and scientology. What makes evolution a “fact” rather than one of these explanations? Pro doesn’t say."
"The famous double-slit experiment showed that when you fire electrons (or any particle) through a slit onto a detector screen, the very presence of observation changes the outcome, even in the absence of any physical force operating between the system and observer. This was the first evidence that there’s no independently existing universe “out there” separable from we who observe it."
"In 2018, theoretical physicist Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna offered mathematical proof that reality is observer-dependent (i.e. subjective to observers).  And in 2019, experimental physicists at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh tested Brukner’s mathematical theory by creating irreconcilable realities, allowing two observers to experience entirely different realities.  This experiment proves conclusively that the fundamental nature of reality is observer-dependent and therefore that it’s impossible to objectively agree on "data" about any observation or experiment."
"Pro’s concept of a “fact” is therefore incoherent. The scientific method -- and any theory based on it -- relies on the discovery of regularities in nature. But the possibility that we are not merely observing but rather impacting these regularities presents an insurmountable challenge to Pro's position. How can any theory be a "fact" (i.e. objectively verifiable) when the notion of a "fact" is itself incompatible with science? incompatible with the fundamental nature of reality?"
"To be sure, quantum uncertainty usually tends to approximate classical mechanics on the scale of everyday experience. But that still doesn't deal with the ontological problem: what is the fundamental nature of reality? Because it's observer-dependent, a "point of data" cannot be "objectively verifiable." And besides, Roger Penrose, winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics, argues persuasively that quantum effects are routinely projected into macroscopic reality in living systems, and not just in the contrived conditions of a physics lab."
"The paper expressly concludes that "quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way""
"Pro asserts without basis that neo-Darwinism "is the only theory of biodiversity that has been indicated, vindicated, and independently verified thousands of times without a single exception found that violates the theory." Yet Pro's only peer reviewed source states: "neo-Darwinism is, at the least, incomplete as a theory of evolution." The paper continues: "Neo-Darwinism is capable of falsification. Indeed, in its original form as a complete theory, it has already been falsified. We now need to admit processes outside its remit." [Pro's 2 from R2]"
"In short, Pro doesn't seem to understand my argument. I'm saying there's no objective mechanism for knowing what would happen without "observation," and in the case of "observation," the data is observer-dependent (i.e. subjective)."
"Pro still doesn't offer any reason to believe that evolution or neo-Darwinism is more "objective" than theories like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, intelligent design, scientology, or even ancient astronauts."