“So now Berkley [sic] isn’t a reputable source? Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.”
I made it exceedingly clear why Berkeley was cited. They are considered an authority on evolution by those who subscribe to the whole idea hook, line and sinker. This would be much like an atheist citing a Bible passage to someone who accepts the authority of the Bible. You said evolution is NOT a theory. Berkeley calls it a theory.
Your statement that evolution is not a theory contradicts what Berkeley says. Simple logic dictates that either you are wrong or Berkeley is. It is you who cannot have it both ways.
I am not trying to have it both ways. I accept that Berkeley is an authority on Evolution, or the systematic nomenclature used to describe biological organisms and systems, which also includes the modern myth of universal common descent with no basis in reality. They are among the keepers of the myth and providers of the sacrament of liberal education.
This would not be a point of debate if you were saying you do not believe evolution is true. If you were saying it does not rise to the level of a theory from being merely conjecture I would not argue the point. But you are advancing it as more than a theory.
Do you regard Berkeley as an authority? Do you subscribe to all they teach there? How about left-wing diatribes against the evil of free markets?
“Descent with modification is a fact. Universal attraction of mass is a theory. Gravitation is a fact.”
There are facts / observations as well as theories and laws about gravity. Newton developed a theory of gravitation and also a law of universal gravitation. It is not unreasonable to describe gravitation as a scientific fact since there is a universal law describing gravitation based on empirical evidence. But it is like the anthropomorphism of referring to the “purpose” of an adaptation, unless you believe in a literal, divinely guided evolution. No one sees, i.e. observes “gravitation”. We observe the effects of gravitation. The law of gravitation is the generalization of the observations, i.e. the facts. If you could support the claim that all life always evolves then I suppose you could make this into some sort of law. It would have only descriptive power as opposed to the explanatory power of the law of gravitation; so even if it were possible to generalize these observations into a “law” and thus a “scientific fact”, it would really be nothing more than distinguishing between living chemical processes as opposed to non-living chemical processes. It would be another tautology: living things live. Everything changes, not just living things. Such a law, if it could be defined as such, would not be very useful. Since Evolution is not directly observable (unless you have figured out time travel), it cannot be generalized in such a way to make it a law or scientific fact. The most it can ever be is a theory. So sure, evolving is a fact. Things evolve all the time. That does not make Evolution (with universal common descent) a scientific fact. And to call it a fact without this clarification is being intentionally misleading.
So the term “scientific fact” could have multiple meanings and is less rigorous and precise as terms more specific to scientific inquiry such as law, theory, observation, etc. With the way you are using the term “fact”, I could just as reasonably describe the resurrection of Christ as a scientific fact. Calling it a historical fact would be more precise and accurate, but His being seen by many witnesses to both die and come back from the grave makes the event an observation. There is empirical evidence for Christ’s life, death and resurrection. There is no empirical evidence for universal common descent though the idea is embraced without reservation by the Berkeley types.
“I am amazed that you accept adaptation of biological organisms (presumably through natural selection of genetic variation) as a fact, but not evolution.”
As I said before, I accept the “fact of evolution” or rather facts of it. I accept that Obama has evolved his position on gay marriage, or at least he claims that he changed rather than hid his true views until a more convenient time to reveal them. I reject Evolution as a theory which is described by authorities on the subject to include universal common descent, among other errors. I reject it as a theory. I reject it as a fact.
“Adaptation implies that the change was useful, while there are entire subject fields of evolution that study non-adaptive evolution - i.e. change in the DNA of a population that confers no adaptive advantage.”
This is where Evolution with a big E gets interesting. What does “useful” mean? We know what it means in an obvious sense, but what about in the context of science. Useful for what? In general, they are useful for survival. But that is the very definition of tautology.
I accept that adaptive change happens and non-adaptive change happens. Non-adaptive change happens because God likes variety. Adaptive change happens because He likes functionality. Within the context of science it is a distinction without a difference. Surviving things survive. Others die off.
It is an attempt to ascribe meaning where it does not exist. It has no explanatory power, merely descriptive. Sure, it has a use for organizing information. But to try to draw a conclusion of universal common descent is ridiculous. Adaptive change means adaptive for that population. An adaptation of one population could result in the extinction of another population. Where is the mechanism to explain why this possibility does not lead to the extinction of all life generally over time or at least the reduction of all life to simpler, less complex, less sophisticated life forms. Adaptation does not explain that. The fact that life on this planet is very complex and sophisticated in spite of supposedly billions of years which should work against this at least as much as work for it (unless some new mechanism is proposed or has been discovered), makes what we see today just as miraculous as life arising from nonliving things in the first place.
“Theories help to explain and predict facts. When you understand this you may gain a basic understanding of the scientific subjects under discussion...”
What is Evolution then, part of some esoteric mystery religion where the secret that it is not REALLY a theory is not revealed to the un-initiated?
I do get the explanatory and predictive power of a well-supported theory. Because correlation does not imply causation, predicted facts are not superior to the facts used to form a hypothesis. A theory organizes both types of observations to explain why things behave a certain way. Just like evolutionists conflate facts with theories, they also tend to conflate predictive and explanatory powers of a theory (such as Evolution). The so-called “predictions” of Evolution are almost universally of things that have happened in the past. So the theory of Evolution “predicts” the past. Unimpressive. This goes completely against the idea of controlled experimentation. For every accurate “prediction” of Evolution there are 10,000 unexpected, surprising and falsifying discoveries. Where else can you go with 99.99% of your predictions being wrong and still claim your theory is well-supported? I know: the Democrat party.
But until you admit that evolution is a theory by the standard of authoritative proponents of the idea, we really are at an impasse.
Descent with modification is a fact.
This fact is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
There is no such thing as “more than a theory” in science. A theory is better than a mere fact - as it helps to explain and predict facts.
Just another very BASIC thing about science that you are ignorant of. No wonder you want to rely upon, while decrying, a very BASIC treatment of the subject. Ignoring what you find inconvenient while taking as iron clad any clumsy statement (such as ‘seeing’ natural selection by observing the result of natural selection on bird beaks) made for those who need an a very BASIC introduction to the subject.
The theory of natural selection of genetic variation is a theory OF evolution. There were other theories that attempted to explain the FACT of evolution, but they were not successful.
The theory itself is not called evolution (except as useful shorthand - as one might call the theory of universal gravitation attraction - the theory of gravity - when it is a theory OF gravity, to explain the FACT of gravity). The theory explains the OBSERVATION of evolution, it is not the theory OF evolution, it is the theory of evolution through natural selection. Similarly, Newtons theory explains the OBSERVATION of gravity, it is not the theory OF gravity, it is the theory of universal gravitational attraction of mass.
I know that this time will not be the magic time that you follow this line of reasoning, apparently you have far too much invested in your own bias against science and the meaning you have falsely ascribed to words.
I suppose if Newton or Einstein’s theories of gravity were routinely described as a theory (or “the theory of gravity”) whereby the universe self assembled over billions of years without God - you would deny that gravity were a fact and be utterly confused over the difference between “the theory of gravity” and the observation of gravity.
My first post on this thread****************
A theory explains facts and predicts facts.
The fact is that DNA is mutable and is absolutely incapable of staying the same generation to generation - thus evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution through natural selection explains the fact of evolution, in that there is variation within populations (because of the fact that DNA cannot stay the same), and that some variations lead to greater reproductive success than other variations based upon the environment the population is currently experiencing.
Lamark had a theory that attempted to explain the facts of evolution as well, it wasn't a successful explanation.
Darwin's theory of evolution; i.e. natural selection IS very successful at explaining the facts of biological evolution.
************
I said nothing about universal common descent. And I think I clarified by meaning quite well. Although perhaps above your level of understanding. So what then is your complaint? Nothing I posted about evolution being a fact was intentionally misleading.
It is you who is conflating the theory (natural selection of genetic variation) with the fact that it helps to explain and predict (descent with modification - i.e. evolution). Sorry that pointing out your basic and fundamental mistake made you so upset.