Thank you Ayyantu for you response. Now for my rebuttals.
--------------------
REBUTTALS
----------
"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.'"
Perhaps my opponent failed to check my sources, or else he would know they are quite credible. My third source was a list of examples of evolution occuring. The theory describes this particular aspect of reality: that things evolve to cause biodiversity, or more accurately, that allele frequencies in reproductive populations change over time. Every example is objectively verifiable. The mechanisms described by my fourth source are the mechanisms described by the theory that we directly observe.
"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."
I'm of course referring to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [2], or as it will be referred to from here on, The Modern Synthesis.
----------
"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."
Perhaps not if the theory was merely composed of facts. But the Modern Synthesis describes four basic mechanisms of evolution: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection. All of these are occurring all the time in nature, each and every case of which, is objectively verifiable. It is a fact that these mechanisms drive biodiversity. These facts are the Modern Synthesis. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution is a factual description of reality. A theory and a fact.
----------
"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 Modern Synthesis 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. None of the other "explanations" listed by my opponent have any objective backing.
----------
"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."
This interpretation that there's no independently existing universe to be observed without an observer is fundamentally flawed. First, it doesn't clearly define what abserver is, and second, it doesn't clearly demonstrate how observation causes wave-function collapse. Thirdly, it seems to forget that subatomic particles possess a wave-particle duality. They possess both the qualities of corpuscles/particles, and the qualities of a wavelength. Both models of particles, corpuscular and wavelengths, make novel, testable predictions about future data.The existence of information about an electron's location only collapses the wave-function, it does not cause it to exist, as my opponent seems to claim.
"In 2018, theoretical physicist Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna offered mathematical proof that reality is observer-dependent (i.e. subjective to observers). [1] 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. [2] 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."
In the sources cited by my opponent, it was not proven that reality is observer dependent, but rather that, "single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent." However, we aren't discussing quantum theory, we are discussing evolution, and in the context of the verifiability of evolutionary theory, the definition of fact provided is completely applicable.
My opponent has assumed a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics: the Copenhagen Interpretation. He has demonstrated that wave-particle duality exists, but has failed to prove that macroscopic objects possess this same property until "observed."
----------
"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?"
Even if there are irregularities in the quantum realm with answers that aren't yet accessible to the current methodologies of science, that doesn't refute the fact that that there are a plethora of objectively verifiable examples of evolution occuring. My opponent has failed to prove how the mechanisms of Evolution are dependent on observation to exist. Things would evolve even if we weren't here to observe them. And that evolution would be driven by mechanisms. Those mechanisms exist even if an observer is not existent to codify them into language.
"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."
Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics actually contradicts the arguments put forth by my opponent. "It (Penrose Interpretation) is an alternative to the
Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that superposition fails when an observation is made...[1]"
The effect of quantum entanglement is the only quantum mechanical effect I'm aware of that can be experienced in the macroscopic world, but unfortunately, my opponent doesn't specify which effect Penrose was speaking of, I suspect to present the illusion that Penrose is helping their case.
----------
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Evolution is both a fact and a theory. All the mechanisms of the Modern Synthesis are points of data that are objectively verifiable, and therefore, factual. My opponent has failed to effectively refute my arguments, as his sources do not agree with his arguments, he projects his philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics with vague definitions, and has failed to demonstrate how the word fact, as defined for the context of this debate, does not describe the theory of evolution. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Damn good R1. I’ll look at this more later.
Vote bump
Patience, young grasshopper
Do you guys just want to use this as the gauntlet debate so we can quickly roll through it?
of course, i spell check the whole thing, only to miss my typo in the first line lol
Haha, it's totally cool man. Just thought I'd give you first crack
I'm sorry I didn't see this in time. But I'll be watching over your debate to see which arguments are made.
Lol Me too
Didn't see that one coming...
I look forward to you arming me with arguments and information to use against you in our other debate.
PRO might get away with proving that evolution is objectively verifiable - it obviously is, to some extent, otherwise it wouldn't even be a valid theory - but it seems folly to refer to any theory as a fact. Especially in this case, given the changes the theory of evolution has undergone since its conception. It seems likely that this will come down to semantics, but still an interesting topic.
I meant to say the "Theory of evolution" in premise 4. My bad.
IK, just messing
Yeah that's not where I was gonna take it lol. I mean that the theory is a factual descriptor of why there is biodiversity
well yes, it is a fact that it is a theory
PRO wins
Interested? I made this bc of your conversation in a forum post lol. If not I understand, no pressure