"An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory suggests.

The idea, proposed by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, suggests that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060721/sc_space/fearofsnakesdroveprimateevolutionscientistsays

That makes it sound like evolution is true and snakes made primates get better eyes

That's because all of the greatest existing scientists have examined the evidence very carefully and consider evolution to be a fact.

Examining evidence very carefully ... you should try it.

Tim isn't interested in fact. He has proven that already. He is interested in being disruptive. He is incapable of learning ... only expousing.

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. There is a big difference. Here is a good quote from Stephen Hawking about what a theory is:

"a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations...any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

So by this account we could say that the Modern theory of Evolution is a good theory, but that does not make it a fact.

"Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. There is a big difference."

Evolution is a fact AND a theory. Facts are not theories - they are different things, but neither are they mutually exclusive. You cite a reasonable explanation of theory. You do not give a definition or explanation of fact. FACT, in science, does not mean irrefutable. It does not mean 100% certain. It does not mean unquestionable. It does not mean directly observed or observable.

A fact is a bit of knowledge that it would be intellectually perverse to deny. We teach the existence of hydrogen atoms as fact, not because anyone has ever seen one, but because it would be intellectually perverse to deny their existence.

As creationists have a problem with intellectual integrity, depending as they do on mental sloth, they frequently accuse evolutionists of wanting to teach evolution as an unquestionable fact. That is one of their innumerable lies. Of course students and others are allowed to question evolution. Scientsts themselves who are actively involved in the research do not. But others can question.

HOWEVER, creationists themselves don't get blasted for "asking questions." That is a bald-faced lie. They get blasted for making stupid assertions, such as the ones made by anyman regarding radiometric dating. They get blasted for passing on urban legend as if it were fact.

In the context of science I think that the definition of a fact is an observation. A theory is then a model of certain observations that will then predict new observations. So I think most scientists would say evolution is a very good theory, they would not say it is a fact.

I never learned about the fact of hydrogen atoms. I learned about the theory of Atomic structure and the very good evidence for that theory.

Now regarding your definition of fact:

It isn't intelectually perverse to deny any theory, even a good theory, sometimes thats how new even better theories are developed. I can say that some theory is a good model for making predictions, but I don't think it's entirely correct so I'm going to formulate a new theory. Therefore by your definition theories are not facts, because they can always be denied.

You are laboring under the misimpression that FACT means unquestionable and THEORY means questionable. That isn't the case.

A theory is a generalized explanation that ties together numerous observations in such a way that hypotheses can be generated which could prove the theory false, if it is indeed false.

Neither facts nor theories are 'truth.'

"It isn't intelectually perverse to deny any theory, even a good theory, "

It is intellectually perverse to deny a good theory without any evidence against, while there is a staggering amount of evidence in support of it.

In science classes, we learn about the theory of atomic structure, but students in high school are not confronted for one second with the possibility that hydrogen atoms may not exist. Nor do we put notes in the beginning of textbooks that indicate that their existence should be subject to especial scrutiny.

The Germ Theory of Disease is a theory, but it, too, is a fact. (Note that theories don't graduate from theories into facts. Even after they are accepted as facts, they are STILL theories. "Theory" hasn't got anything to do with certainty.)

So at what point can a theory be described as a fact? What theories are facts and what theories aren't facts? By your definition was Newtonian Gravitation a fact at one time? Is it a fact now?

Don't you think it's much clearer to define a fact in the context of science as an observation?

TwoSheds you are making assumptions about the meaning of words that are far from the target.

Start your education here:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

It is material you obviously do not understand.

If you have any questions about what you've read: Ask them.

Okay I've read it, and I don't see anything in there which disagrees with anything I have said. I've emailed the author to ask him his opinion on the matter. In any event I appreciate you lowering the tone of the debate by personally insulting me.

Have you responded to my post about the universe yet?

If my arguments aren't satisfying to you, ere's two interesting quotes on the subject:

via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)

"In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation. It is usually contrasted to a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. In the philosophy of science, it has often been called into question (famously by Thomas Kuhn, but by others as well) whether scientific facts are always "theory-laden" to some degree (as knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires some presupposition about the facts themselves). In the field of science studies, "scientific facts" are generally understood to be entities which exist within complex social structures of trust, accreditation, institutions, and individual practices."

another via skepdic.com (http://skepdic.com/science.html)

"Scientific facts, like scientific theories, are not infallible certainties. Facts involve not only easily testable perceptual elements; they also involve interpretation.

Noted paleoanthropologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that in science 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1983, 254). However, facts and theories are different things, notes Gould, "not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." In Popper's words: "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer." "


So according to these sources there are "Scientific Facts" that fall in line with your definition of a fact, but theory and fact still remain seperate entities.

TwoSheds all I am doing is saying what IFF said when he wrote:
"You are laboring under the misimpression that FACT means unquestionable and THEORY means questionable. That isn't the case."

The point is rather simple. You are using words you don't understand.

If you find that insulting so-be-it.

No, that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is a difference between a fact and a theory. And I think I have done so resonably well. I have given logical argument, and two other supporting opinions. Can you show me a point I've made that you disagree with? Give me an example where I don't understand the words I am using.

"It is material you obviously do not understand."

I'm not supposed to take that as an insult? Also why did you post that link? Does it contradict anything that I have said?

TwoSheds wrote:
"No, that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is a difference between a fact and a theory."

Oh I get that ... but also that you are misunderstanding the meaning of the words in the context of science.

Is gravity a fact or a theory?

What about gravity is a fact?
What about gravity is a theory?

With all due respect, you do not understand the words you are using and we are trying to tell you that.

Are you asking me those questions or claiming that I asked them? If you claim that I asked them, that isn't the case. I did ask if he thought Newtonian Gravitation was a fact. because he said that some theories are also facts. Quote something that I have said and explain to me what I do not understand. And who is this we you speak of? It seems to be only you who say that I do not understand the words I am using.

Also do you think about the issue we were debating? Do you think that theories can also be facts? What do you think of the two articles I quoted? If you think they are correct, how is that I do not understand the words I am using? Please site specific evidence.

The word separate is ambiguous in this context. You are using the word to imply the things are mutually exclusive. Another definition is that the things are orthogonal -meaning they are not related. That's the sense that Gould is using the word.

Do agree with Gould's statement that "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."? I think that implies that they are related, in that theories explain and interpret facts. If a theory could be a fact then could I also make the statement(In Gould's Definition here) that Theories are structures of ides that explain and interpret theories? If theory and fact are not mutually exclusive then that meaningless statement would be acceptable.

More often than not, evolutionists argue on two planes. The first point they leap from is that you're an idiot for not believing what I do. The second point is you're an idiot for believing what you believe. Very rarely do you find an evolutionist who can support Darwin's theory on a fact by fact basis. Without dicusssing ID in any manner, an evolutionist cannot explain the non-Darwinian progression of the entire fossil record, they do not talk about the Cambrian explosion, they provide no explanation for the peppered moth experiment, and they do no talk about the subsequent experiments that are based on premises that are no longer accepted.

They do not engage such arguments because they know that Darwin's theory requires a certain degree of faith that is difficult to explain to the progressively curious brain.

Is ID the answer? I don't know. I would prefer that it wasn't, because it would put an end to discovery. It would spell the end of our progressively curious intellect. If we curtailed our discovery on the basis that God did it all and God does it all, we would no longer search for the mechanizations of our universe, and we may lapse back to the state of the primitive man who sacrificed at the altar of a rain god to provide for a better harvest.

I think we should continue to search through discovery to find the greater answers to life in general, to the mechanizations of the universe and how we can better manipulate our surroundings. I don't think we should accept either theory on their merits, because they're both flawed.

TwoSheds wrote:
"Are you asking me those questions or claiming that I asked them?"

Apparently the concept of a rhetorical question escaped you. The questions were there for you to hopefully realize you couldn't answer them.

That water melts at zero degrees Celsius is a fact. Why and how it melts is theory.

I don't think you've properly understood the debate that we were having, or what my argument was in that debate. I don't know why you got in the middle of it and started claiming that I don't understand anything. You make that claim about me, and refuse to site any evidence, or give explanations of that evidence to support your claim. Before you argue anything else, defend that claim honestly, or retract it.

If you choose not to debate honestly and respectfully, then I will choose not to debate you.

If we get past this issue, I will explain to you why your rhetorical questions aren't rhetorical.

"The first point they leap from is that you're an idiot for not believing what I do. The second point is you're an idiot for believing what you believe. "

Absolute lie perpetuated by creationists. Very few evolutionists argue this way, if any. Most of us argue that creationists are stupid for making false assertions without bothering to check them out - simply because their preacher or parents tol d them or because they read it some place like Answers in Genesis.

"No, that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is a difference between a fact and a theory."

There is a difference between a fact and theory. They are not the same things. I have said so on numerous occasions. I have also stated (in other fora) on numerous occasions that theories do not graduate from theories into facts. What I *have* said is that facts and theories are not mutually exclusive.
The logic I am using is analgous to saying that even integers and perfect squares are not the same, BUT they are not mutually exclusive sets. There *IS* overlap.

The entire thread is somewhat moot, however, because the debate has been framed by lying creationists. While most scientists probably consider evolution a fact, and while I (who am not a scientists) consider it a fact, it is doubtful that there is any public K-12 school in the US that teaches it as a fact, much less an "unquestionable fact."

This is almost certainly a flat-out lie, perpetuated by creationists who are typically short on their scholarship.

Well I'm not lying creationist. I'm not even a creationist. When I was an undergraduate, I debated a group of evangelachals who said that God hated my university because they taught evolution there. It was a good long debate, and I think may have convinced one or two of them they were incorrect. That was because I was patient and respectful.

I do however think that theory and fact are mutually exclusive. Using the definitions I'v shown here(Fact is an observation, Theory explains a set of facts) makes that clear(If Theories can be facts that leads to a circular meaningless definition of theory) Furthermore it makes communication much more clear; there seems to me to be a lot of confusion in trying to decide which theories are facts and which aren't. Earlier you stated that the greatest existing scientists consider evolution to be a fact. I think that is incorrect and it is more clear to state that the scientists consider evolution to be a very good theory. Creationist may respond with "it is only a theory." Then you explain to him what it means to consider something a good theory. Hopefully the argument continues.

I think that observations are a type of fact, but not the only kind of fact. I'm not sure whether I should accept one source as a definitive definition.

Many people refer to the theory of gravity and also the the law of gravity, but gravity is also a fact - easily percievable by observation. Gravity is a vast body of observations (facts), but it is also a generalized mathematical description of those facts (the law), and also a very general theory that explains those facts and extrapolates new ones.

I'm not sure any there are any scientists who would say "gravity is *just* a theory" or "gravity is *merely* a theory." That's a long argument.

Now to get to first things last - the very first discussion I ever had on the internet was about 25 or 26 years ago and it was on the subject of evolution and creationism. At the time I wasn't firmly in either camp, coming as I did from being a Baptist and being, as I was at one time, a creationist myself. The topic that came up at the time was 2nd law of thermodynamics which was reported by most creationists to utterly disprove evolution. I was an undergraduate engineer at the time and was required to study thermo, so I had some background in this. This was offered as a definitive argument against evolution and yet I knew very well at the time that it was being presented very dishonestly.

Over the years I have watched and read many debates. I have read a lot of creationist literature and I have tried to clarify what evolution means in my own head by reading evolutionists' books and articles and by thinking about the subject critically myself.

I have also participated online in a large number of discussions and arguments on this subject. What I have found universally is that creationists repeat the same stupid nonsense over and over and over. They have no compunctions whatever against coming into a forum and proliferating essentially nonsensical views about science and evolution.

PICK A FORUM! ANY FORUM WHERE THE SUBJECT COMES UP! And there they are festering in the darkness, misrepresenting real science, and essentially lying. What has happened in this forum is quite representative. They come in, make idiotic assertions, accuse evolutionary scientists of the greatest incompetence, and non-scientific evolutionists of parrotting what the scientists have said. The irony is staggering. In fact, I have developed my own little theory because of this. It's not a very scientific theory, maybe more of a speculation. I think that maybe irony is maybe a type of quark or maybe something even more fundamental. It appears to be woven into the fabric of the cosmos.

Here we have a group of people who almost universally misrepresent a subject, who INSIST that they've "studied enough" and yet who seem almost universally incapable of producing a single coherent sentence that belies an even remote understanding of the subject. These people who are utterly disrespectful in general whine when they are rebutted for making utterly stupid statements.

Now, I don't believe that all the world's problems would be solved if they were to do an honest day's homework, but I do think that by and large this particular issue would evaporate, if they would at least try to get educated on this subject before reaching a conclusion on it.

That's a big clue to me. I realized some time ago that they're not trying to search for truth. They're not trying to find out. Contrary to what many evolutionists believe, they're not even trying to win the argument. What they're trying to do is to complicate and confuse the issue so much that people just throw up their hands in disgust and say, "well, we really have to be fair here - there's not enough evidence either way." That IS their victory condition - confusion.

You may right about the creationist. The many times I debate them, they don't debate honestly, but resort to quoting the bible.

But I also think its a good thing that they attempt to debate people. The first time an Evangelichal approached me on campus, I had no idea what to say, I was confused, and thinking to myself "ummmmmm" as he smiled and walked away. If confusion was his victory it was only temporary, because being confused about an issue made me truly examine it and come to a reasoned conclusion about it. The next time I was approached on campus, I was ready for the debate, and the evangelachal was the one who was confused. They realized that they had not thought out properly what they were arguing. I think that's a healthy process. Being confused isn't neccasarily a bad thing, it makes you realize points you may not understand, and that gives the oppurtunity to emerge with a better understanding of things.

OK, Primate eyesight could improve as more blurry-eyed, tree-climbing primates got bit to death. But, how would snakes improve due to primate action (apart from being eaten by blurry-eyed, tree-climbing, soon-to-die-out primates)??

Two sheds asks:
"I don't know why you got in the middle of it and started claiming that I don't understand anything."

Review the thread. I am not the only one giving you this advice.

You then wrote:
"Fact is an observation, Theory explains a set of facts"

This is not correct. I know you sincerely believe it but it is not correct. A theory does not explain a set of facts. A theory may well predict the results of observations yet to be made. It may also go to demonstrating that a series of observations are incorrect (not facts).

Try this link:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory"

The first paragraph starts:
"The word "theory" has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge ...."

You are not applying the correct definition. If you would stop being defensive and you might discover I am not being as obnoxious as you perceive.

this thread is about how the snakes caused the primates to evolve better eyesight. Its not about how the snakes evolved. I do imagine that the snakes had to evolve different tactics and different tastes as one of their food sourses dried up

dehammer wrote:
"this thread is about how the snakes caused the primates to evolve better eyesight. Its not about how the snakes evolved."

And the difference between these two statement is?

Oh and please provide a link that can be used to verify that what you write is not just personal opinion. Thanks.

Confusion can be a very good state. It can cause an inquisitive person to investigate, to experiment, to find out.

Most K-12 students are not going to go find out. They're going to get a bunch of nonsense their parents or their preachers told them. They're going to get another bunch of nonsense from their peers. The only counter to this is a knowledgeable biology teacher.

The creationists know this. They know that most people are going to be just like them - accept what the preacher says, or throw up their hands and say, "well, it's really all the same." These uninformed people will then go off to vote.

There was a time when I had a deep respect for them - first I believed them, then I doubted their opinion - and very gradually I came to doubt their integrity.

There is the occasional exception - but he is very rare.

That's why I'm not a huge fan of organized religion. People meet every week an are told what to believe, if you don't believe this prepare for hell. That's also why I enjoy science and philosophy. Here's a theory, here's how it works, if you don't like it go do an experiment and convince yourself, or come up with a better theory!

You mentioned that the creationists with whom you have debated the subject have "not debated honestly," but resorted instead to using bible quotes. While that is a poor debate and it might be dishonest after a fashion, when I refer to their lying, I'm refering to 1) manufacture of "facts", 2) calculated deception, and 3) outright lying.

I can give details of each.

Thank you TwoSheds. Nice to be able to view you in a different light.

I agree with IFF. I don't consider quoting the bible dishonesty. I consider torturing it into such nonsense as I posted a day or two ago for IFF, such as proposing that Genesis refers to the microwave background radiation ... now that is dishonest. And I do hope my explanation to IFF was such that he understood I was intentionally using the argument of the opposition against itself.

I think the theorem is correct, and primates developed further, and invented planes to keep us away from the snakes, as they could not fly.

Then they famously achieved flight, as documented in the 2006 documentary "Snakes on a Plane". What can the human race come up with next in order to avoid a slithery death?!

how about this one.

perhaps you should open your eyes and do a little reading before you jump on people that have their eyes open and do read.

To quote Shakespeare's Macbeth

"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

dehammer ... take your own advice.

well when you do read the links and the post for content then you will not have to worry about me jumping on you for not reading.

I read the links. They do not support your statement.

Which part of THEY DON'T SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT requires clarification?