"In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.
In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism."
===============================================================
hap...
So, as I have been arguing all day, evolution is presented to students and the rest of us as a fact -- not a theory, a fact. Regardless of the scientific linguistics involved, to the average person a fact means something that has been proven to be so. Even your own example compares the falling of the apple toward the center of the earth (a provable, repeatable fact) to evolution -- which is neither provable nor repeatable. It is amazing that you and others cannot see the logical fallacy there.
As for all the charts and diagrams, this is a hypothesis, nothing more. Until evolution can prove that one species has evolved into another species, evolutionists have no case that is any stronger than creationism. They cannot produce such an example of evolution much less repeat it in controlled circumstances. Nor can they even postulate a plausible explanation for the origen of life itself. I have said before and continue to believe that evolution is the greatest single error in the history of science.
BTW -- could not the similarity in the DNA just as easily be explained by a common creator?? The answer is yes, just in case you are not sure.
mlsoft
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
