“All of that is revealed in DNA analysis, where we see how closely, or distantly, individual humans are related — and to other species, families & orders of creatures.”
This is not science, this is historical speculation. You cannot make a scientific conclusions about how the similarities in the genomes arose, because you cannot replicate the conditions which gave rise to those similarities. Therefore, you are stuck with speculations which cannot be confirmed by experimental analysis, and that is not science.
“Of course, you can chose to believe this has nothing to do with evolution — your choice — but then no other scientific explanation (aka hypothesis) has ever been proposed which explains the data so well.”
That is fine. Lack of a testable hypothesis does not mean we have to pretend that the untestable hypothesis we have is correct. We can instead, give a truthful appraisal of the situation, and admit that we have no confirmed hypothesis at the moment.
“Of course it’s science, just science you don’t like & disagree with.”
No, it’s not science. Science must follow the scientific method, and this does not.
“Evolution is more than a scientific hypothesis, it’s a confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable tests and predictions.”
No, bits and pieces of the theory may have been confirmed, but the larger and most controversial predictions of the theory remain completely untested and in fact untestable.
“But your point about long-term evolution not being repeatable in a laboratory is worth noting, because that is what makes long-term evolution a theory instead of a confirmed observation = “fact”.”
Now you’re mixing up terms like some of the less knowledgeable anti-evolution folks. A theory must be confirmed by experimental data and replication in order to be a theory. If it is not, it is merely a hypothesis. There is no such thing as scientific “fact”.
“On the other hand, as I said, the effects of long term evolution can be seen, directly, in DNA.”
Correction: what you hypothesize are the effects of long term evolution can be seen, but that does not mean that those properties are actually the effect of long term evolution, because you cannot establish that by the scientific method.
By law, only scientists can define what is, or is not, "science", and scientists have defined what you call "historical speculation" as a legitimate confirmed scientific theory.
So, in scientific terms, there are three possible categories here:
Likewise, while short-term evolution is a confirmed fact, long-term evolution is today a strongly confirmed scientific theory.
Boogieman: "Lack of a testable hypothesis does not mean we have to pretend that the untestable hypothesis we have is correct.
We can instead, give a truthful appraisal of the situation, and admit that we have no confirmed hypothesis at the moment."
Long term evolution is not a "fact", but it is a confirmed theory -- confirmed by innumerable predictions & tests.
Here is a partial listing.
Of course, in some ontological sense, that doesn't make evolution "true", indeed nothing in science is necessarily true -- it's all a model of reality, much of it based on mathematics, which is itself a model.
So, anybody who wishes to assert a philosophical distinction between absolute "truth" and, for example, "scientific confirmed hypothesis" is legitimately free to do so.
But science is still the best method we have for recognizing reality as we can perceive it.
Boogieman: "No, it’s not science. Science must follow the scientific method, and this does not."
Of course it does, all your claims and hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.
Evolution is a recognized, confirmed scientific theory.
Boogieman: "No, bits and pieces of the theory may have been confirmed, but the larger and most controversial predictions of the theory remain completely untested and in fact untestable."
Basic evolution theory is nothing more than two facts combined: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
The theory says that over long time spans (millions of years) these can result in separated populations becoming so different from each other they can no longer interbreed, and are therefore separate species, genera, families, etc.
The theory is supported by innumerable facts and predictions, but it has also resulted in many unconfirmed hypotheses, notably the abiogenesis of life on earth.
The important point here is that we should not fail to distinguish between an observed fact, versus confirmed theory and an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Science is chock full of all.
Boogieman: "Now you’re mixing up terms like some of the less knowledgeable anti-evolution folks.
A theory must be confirmed by experimental data and replication in order to be a theory.
If it is not, it is merely a hypothesis.
There is no such thing as scientific “fact”."
Sure, I "get" that as an anti-scientist you wish to redefine "science" to suit your own opinions.
But I'll repeat, you are forbidden by law from doing so.
You don't get to define what is, or is not, "science".
You have to take science's definitions as they are given by scientists.
Scientists define a "fact" as a confirmed observation.
Scientists define a "theory" as a confirmed hypothesis, confirmed by tests and predictions.
Evolution theory is confirmed by innumerable tests and predictions.
The fact that it cannot be confirmed by some test you might fantasize does not make it less a theory.
Boogieman: "...what you hypothesize are the effects of long term evolution can be seen, but that does not mean that those properties are actually the effect of long term evolution, because you cannot establish that by the scientific method."
Your definition of "scientific method" has been ruled invalid.