People are often confused about evolution and the question of science. We speak of science in subjects like physics, chemistry, biochemistry, but as we ascend the scale to the subject of evolution, science suddenly fails. It has long been noted by many. Empirical research thrives, but theory fails, why? As science ascends the scale in every case it has had problems: sociology, psychology, etc…A whole series of subjects at the top end become problematic. We have discussed Marx’s theories in that respect. And evolution is like that.
It is not a branch of biochemistry. In essence it has nothing to do with the physical sciences. It seems more like a branch of cosmology and that is still a developing subject. Evolution is not about the chemistry of life, as such, although that is important, but of the relation of life in a planetary context. And we simply don’t know how, or if, it is planets that cradle life. OOL theories suffer the same fallacies: random chemical events will generate life and that’s that, science, except that it is nonsense. We don’t know what generates life, and we don’t know how the evolution we see actually happens. So the question of evolution is simply far more complex than we had thought. Think about it: a group of animals in a species roams around a habitat and then sometime later we come back and see a different species. In fact, that is just what we don’t do. We never observe species in deep time, we infer them, We never observe them evolving, we infer that from changes we see indirectly. so it is no mystery the science lags here: science requires observations over time, and observations of mechanism. Evolution barely has either, so far. We project natural selection on the past, a fatal error. If physicist makes that kind of error in physics, the booing gallery enters falsification mode. In evolution noone falsifies anything, they just hallucinate.