Facts relating to evolution

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Scientific facts are dependent upon available information. As in the OP, all available information indicates that they are scientific facts.

So they are facts until supposed (by well supported information) to be otherwise?

[tumbleweed41]

Back to the Yellow Snow/Dog analogy...

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Yes.
As has been stated before, yellow snow and dog prints in otherwise pristine snow may be considered "circumstantial".
But we can deduce the fact that a dog peed in the snow. Although the evidence is indirect and no one saw a dog do it.

If further evidence were to come to light that there was a balcony overlooking the 'yellow snow', and further testing showed the 'yellow snow' to be of human origin, then we can deduce the fact that a human is responsible for the yellow snow, by way of the balcony.

It is for this reason that all 'facts' are constantly tested for validity, and evidence is constantly sought to either verify the current fact, or introduce a revision to the fact as new evidence is gathered.

This is why a dogmatic approach to science hinders rather than advances knowledge. For thousands of years our knowledge about our world and our universe has grown in leaps and bounds. Old theories and 'facts' replaced as new information is sought and verified.

The scientific facts in the OP have been verified and tested multiple times. And will continue to be tested. And if any fault is found, or new information gathered, they will eventually be revised to conform to the new evidence as that new evidence is verified.

As of now, biological evolution is a confirmed fact. And to insist otherwise without verifiable and testable evidence to the contrary is dogmatic pseudoscience and a huge step back in our understanding of our natural world.