veracity of evolution

Isn't terminology like this just a matter of inclusion and exclusion criteria? Based on things we recognize as life, we can list certain absolute criteria. By similar measures, we can discriminate solids from gases, and we can discriminate stars from planets.

We know that the main unit of life is the single cell. Why? Because the simplest life forms are single cells, and multicellular organisms develop out of a single cell. The two main divisions of cell are prokaryotic and eukaryotic, and these are similar in their use of DNA as genetic material, the relationship between DNA / RNA / proteins, the derivation of energy from simple carbon-based substrates, and the delimitation of a cell by phospholipid bilayers.

Sure, there is more to it than that, but we can start with a collection of features that all life has, that no life lacks, and that no non-life has. Viruses are a special case that is difficult to categorize into "life" vs "non-life", but can be illustrative in their own right.

A biologist is interested in the same question. But I think the biological mindset is to look as life as a structural thing, rather than an ethereal thing. Don't get me wrong, I think life is mystifying and is of basic metaphysical interest -- but I recognize this interpretation to be a derivative of my interest in it and not necessarily a feature of life per se.

but you used "proof" and "science" together which makes me think the Dunning-Kruger effect is at work here

my advice would be to stop flattering yourself and lrn2biology

except that evolution isn't random, just the mutation. mutation makes lots of recommendations, some of them are harmful, most of them are benign, and a select few are better. these are approved by the environment. not random

A biologist is interested in the same question. But I think the biological mindset is to look as life as a structural thing, rather than an ethereal thing. Don't get me wrong, I think life is mystifying and is of basic metaphysical interest -- but I recognize this interpretation to be a derivative of my interest in it and not necessarily a feature of life per se.

i never knew that about viruses-awesome!

God you are arrogant; not even in grad school yet and already you've got it all figured out

. . . I at least worked through a few decades worth of education before deciding nothing is so certain as you seem to imagine (and you accuse ME of the Dunning-Kruger effect!)

However, I am clear as a bell about the difference between a logic proof (tautologies)

and a scientific "proof" (basically, the ability for all to observe). It is common to use the term "proof" as it applies to a specific setting (such as, how the standard of proof is unique in a courtroom). You are merely slipping and sliding away from directly providing evidence we can all observe of what caused organism-building genetic change

If you are like every other E-theory believer I've debated who won't give an inch, all I will ever get from you is one "logical" possibility after another, and absolutely nothing observable that makes mechanics/randomness the winner

All theory! How do you know organism-building mutation was random???

Furthermore, you also don't know that selection for fitness would get so creative as to build complex organ systems. It is another assumption, never confirmed by observation

Why not admit it, since no one can possibly know what caused organism-building genetic changes, it could very well be, for example, that the universe is conscious overall somehow, and that had an evolutive influence on genetic change during life's development

Forget that mechanics has never showed itself to have the kind of creativity found behind life

believers want a mechanistic God so badly they are willing to overlook every flaw and gap in their theories, and bash anybody who dares to look for "something more."

I understand why the thinking person gets tired of religious ignorance, especially when fanatics try to push their beliefs on others (or into the education system)

But I feel just as angry at science "believers" who go around judging everything by scientific standards as if that's the only epistemology that reveals knowledge. The issue of what created the universe is not settled, even though dogmatists on all sides like to act like it is.

in the case of Bohm, presented a metaphysical interpretation which he called the Implicate Order, which rolls consciousness and matter into and out of an Order as might waves that form a hologram. It is fascinating reading

evolution isn't random, just the mutation

there's a reason the Bohm interpretation isn't popular

no faster way to lose a job than to challenge accepted beliefs

I would be interested in the reason

Oh I doubt that -- every scientist wants to lead a revolution. But science happens piecemeal. You can't just take on evolution any more than you can take on gravity. A scientist who blares contradictory trumpets is being careless, though, if he hasn't done the legwork to make his case.

the metaphysical part isn't falsifiable

It absolutely is. One just has to think of an experiment that would falsify the de Broglie wave/particle interpretation. So far, no one can. It actually does a magnificent job of explain delayed-choice as well as double-slit. However, it does mean that the are non-local effects, which is no matter since the Bell Inequality and subsequent experiments have already confirmed this

On the other hand, anything about what happened millions of years ago, is not falsifiable, unless you can figure out how to re-create the conditions

recreating the conditions

there's even a video for chrissake

And you want me to take this kind of stuff seriously

What does it mean for something to be dead, and has evolution caused any change to that dynamic over the last ten million years?