Macroevolution is most likely true

I will take this debate along a different line of thinking.ASSUMPTIONSFirst of all, I concede all of the evidence that Bodhivaka has brought thus far and will accept it as true given the following assumptions:Given reality, Life is a subset of reality,Evolution seeks to explain life.Under this framework, I will concede that PRO's points thus far are a subset of evolution. Evolution (as defined in round #1) is a given, and macroevolution is a subset of evolution, thus PRO's assertions in round #2 to the extent that they define macroevolution MUST be true. I have a feeling that his future posts will also fall under a subset of evolution by offering more defining evidence of macroevolution. If he continues down this line of evidence, I will concede such evidence to also be true, given the stipulations above.To reiterate, as agreed in round #1, Evolution is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." These are all characteristics of living creatures, and given the scope of evolutionary theory, life must also be defined:a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...I believe both PRO and I can also agree that evolution is a subset of [scientific] theory as defined in round #1, i.e. "The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world".Now onto my argument:As stated before, Given evolution as defined in round #1, Macroevolution is most likely true.I completely agree that given evolution (as defined in round #1), macroevolution is most likely true. This is the same as saying "Given the set of real numbers and the mathematical operations "+" and "=", it is most likely that 1+1=2". Of course it's true. Macroevolution is a subset of evolution, and the validity of its definition is contingent upon the validity of evolution as a [scientific] theory, i.e. "The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world". Again, evolution is true in the limited scope of evolution as defined in round #1. I do not contest this, unless I seek to lose this debate.In this sense, I take all of PRO's arguments as not meaningful to a central question - Can evolution explain life? After rereading the sourced definition of life, especially this portion: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as...[etc]," I notice that LIFE IS UNDEFINED. It is a distinguishing "property" that has "manifestations", but what exactly this property is is a total mystery, and this mystery is what we call "life".I have some more fundamental questions:Given RealityLife is a subset of Reality,Non-Life is a subset of Reality.Can science explain life? Where did life come from? Did life come from non-life, or did non-life come from life? What is life? What is non-life? Evolution does not explain any of this, and [scientific] theory ATTEMPTS to explain this by asserting that life came from non-life. Within the confines of many of the world's religions, many of these religions AUTHORITATIVELY explain this, as for example in the Bible where God (a living being) creates everything, including non-life. If it comes to relative truth, of judging which competing theory of life is "most likely true", I believe the argument can get extremely messy, so I will not argue for or against this point and gun straight for what science thinks life is.It is a given that evolution is a theory that explains one "manifestation" of life through the process of incremental change, and I do not challenge this aspect of evolution. What I do challenge is whether or not life itself can be explained through [scientific] theory. If science does not have a plausible theory on life, then all the dominoes fall:Given [scientific] theory, and Evolution seeks to explain life, andGiven Evolution is a subset of [scientific] Theory, andGiven Macroevolution is a subset of evolution,Life cannot be defined,Evolution seeks to explain something it cannot understand,Macroevolution seeks to explain something it cannot understand.My question then becomes very simple. If Macroevolution seeks to explain something it cannot understand, how can it possibly be true?Similarly, Newtonian physics seeks to explain something it cannot understand (Reality, of which life is a subset), as does Albert Einstein's theories. Here's what Einstein had to say about the pursuit of truth:"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.""The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science."[2]The theoretical models of science all work with variables and assumptions. Unlike mathematics, Newtonian physics, or other theoretical models, life is not a theoretical model. Life is undefined, and science cannot explain it. Science does not even know what the core assumption should be. This is similarly true for Newtonian physics and etc., that attempt to explain reality - Reality is also beyond our grasp to define. Evolution seeks to explain life in its limited fashion, and in its limited fashion it succeeds. However, the greater questions remain undefinable by science, and in that sense, Evolution, and thus Macroevolution, seeks to explain something it cannot understand. How can anyone possibly take such study of a complete unknown to be authoritatively true? It is categorically false, until proven otherwise. The proof will come in the form of working definitions of "life" and "reality", i.e. setting up base assumptions for these two words on which both PRO and CON can agree. The burden of proof is on PRO. (thank god)If I were to emulate Einstein above, then I will not agree to any working definitions of these two words, and will assert that PRO will never in his lifetime be able to find acceptable working definitions of "life" and "reality". Therefore, he will not be able to ascertain "truth".This, in my opinion, is the real challenge that science faces. This is why it is so important that science "makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry..." [1] Why? Because it works from an understanding that we do NOT know who we are, nor what we are doing. Given this state of affairs, it is foolhardy to assert we command "truth" to any significant degree.I move to end this debate and ask for PRO's forfeiture.P.S. - I can go even further and state that since life is undefined, evolution does not know what in the world it is studying. If life is undefined, then life could be a lump of coal for all we know, and evolution is not studying how a lump of coal adapts to its environment. If evolution is "the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations" of lumps of coal, well, I think we all will have a problem with that. Evolution then becomes false, as does macroevolution.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://rescomp.stanford.edu...