@ tyranical - The book has had numerous editions and something like 140 reprints since 1869. A fair few things have changed in 150 years you know. I can't bothered to make an loooong list of everything, so I will just sum up just one...

GENETICS AND DNA!!!! Arguably one of the most important factors of research in the quest to better understand the theory of evolution. How on earth was Darwin supposed to know about genetics and DNA? Watson and Crick were the guys who worked on that and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the same time as Darwin... Mostly because James Watson is still alive and did most of his work was in the 50's.

You have "fact" and "law" confused.

No, I don't. Laws are physical (Or analytical, if you will) 'facts' that are universal to all areas of science.
The difference being, if a physical law is proven to be wrong, the entire structure of our current scientific knowledge would have to be dramatically replaced, which is not the case with theories. The word 'fact' isn't even used to explain anything in science; it doesn't carry the same definition that Webster provides.

For the topic on hand, there are no 'laws', nor 'facts' for that matter, in biology.
Biology abides by the analytical laws already conceived, it doesn't create its own.

Yeah, you do.

A scientific fact is something that is objective and verifiable through observation.

A hypothesis, theory, or law trys to explain why that observation occurs.

I suppose if you said (Like the Newton tale) that it is a fact that an apple has to fall from a tree due to the theory of gravity, that would make perfect sense, and you'd be right. But that isn't a classification, just an observation/evidence that, as you pointed out, is used in creating a theory/law/etc.

So in essence I can see you what you're getting at, but my original post was debating against "fact" as "ultimate truth", as it is routinely defined by those who oppose evolution. And either way, it isn't a classification. Evolution and gravity can never be "facts", and that was my original point (Along with Darwin's early inconsistencies).

EDIT: And forgive me if I am unclear or particularly long-winded; it's 3AM here and procrastination is a bitch.

No, the fact in that case would be the apple fell from the tree and landed on the ground. Not the why or how.

You still don't seem to know the difference between a scientifc fact and a scientific theory.

That is exactly what I said, granted I worded it differently (And maybe erroneously so, my clarification in that same paragraph remains the same).
It seems you are more interested in trivial definitions, as I already pointed out that "scientific fact" is not a broad classification but used in postulating theories/laws, rather than discussing the original subject at hand. Oh well, I've wasted enough time.

You two seem to be going round in circle lol

I think the problem is that you are both right, but right in different perspectives.

Probably .
And I apologize if we side-tracked the conversation, evolution is always a fun, and beneficial, discussion.

Haha no worries.