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.
It doesn’t make me upset. Weary maybe, but not upset. I like debating when the objective is to actually, honestly find the truth. Otherwise it is a waste of time. I am more than willing to admit when I am mistaken and have done so over the years on this and other subjects. Debating has made me research and learn more to either justify or change my positions.
In post 69 you stated that evolution is NOT a theory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2961949/posts?page=69#69
Was that a typo?
I see that your first post did call it a theory. I did overlook this. So, if post 69 was unintentional, then one of my main points of contention is moot.
Further, if you can find a definitive source that defines evolution as merely biological change and thus a fact in a pre-1960 statement from a reliable scientific source, I will concede the point regarding calling evolution a fact being disingenuous and the politicization of science. Otherwise, I still think it is playing a semantic shell game to distract from the weakness of the central tenet of the theory (universal common descent). OK. It is arbitrary for me to pick 1960, but that is before I was born and well-before I learned anything about the subject. So the further back in time this position has been put forward, the more credible I would consider it. But honestly I did not hear anyone trying to call evolution a fact until recent years.
This seems to be a relatively new tactic by the evolution lobby, but perhaps I am unread. If this has been part of the discourse for many years then I will concede that point. But I need some evidence.