Evolution is far from "an interesting theory."  It is the foundation of all modern biological science, including a great deal of pharmacology.  It is true with as much certainty as gravity.  You do know that gravity is a theory, right?

In science, the word "theory" doesn't mean the same as when we use it in everyday speech.  A theory is a set of principles which try to explain a phenomenon.  In other words, gravity exists as a fact, and the theory of gravity tries to explain how and why it happens.  In the same way, evolution absolutely exists, with certainty, and the theory of evolution tries to explain how and why evolution happens.

I cannot stress this emphatically enough.  There is no doubt whatsoever within the legitimate biology community that evolution occurs.  There is some debate about elements of our explanations of it, but rest assured, it is the process by which life has become what it is today.

As has just been established, the words hypothesis and theory mean totally different things.

Where did I say evolution was "as simple" as cell or atomic theory? I didn't. I said from an epistemological standpoint it is on no worse ground. This means a completely different thing to simplicity. I shall repeat myself yet again: Evolution fulfills all of our testable predictions and is a well-founded scientific theory.

I did not "throw a pile of words" at you. I gave a highly precise and technical description of what evolution actually entails to counter your confused strawman.

Need to track how bacteria become resistant to drugs and modify accordingly. It was a total disaster when plasmodium falciparum (malarial parasite) became resistant to chloroquine, by evolving a new type of transport pump to remove the drug from its interior, and when cancer cells pump chemo toxins out of their cells by evolving new types of transport pumps.

Biology is made up of different disciplines. They are listed as such:

Microbiology: The study of microorganisms

Molecular and Cellular Biology (that's mine): The study of cellular mechanisms and biological molecules and their interactions with each other

Developmental Biology: The study of development of organisms in embryonic development and the germination of seeds into plants

Anatomy: The study of the interior of animals and their internal organs and structures

Zoology: The study of animals, their behaivour and interactions

Botany: The study of plants, their internal mechanism

Genetics: The study of genes, how they interact, make up the organism, move through populations and

Ecology: the study of populations, how they interact with their environment, how they grow, decline, the mechanisms of expansion, etc.

Evolutionary Biology: The study of how lineages change over time and how natural selection applies to different populations, and the mechanisms behind variation

This all seems somewhat disjointed, but it is possible to draw a diagram which represents the relationship between the fields in biology. For example, studying developmental biology, one might study the genes responsible for building organisms and controlling embroynic development, and the resulting developmental plans. Hence there would be a link between genetics and developmental biology, and this would be a subdiscipline called "developmental genetics". It is possible to draw relationships between the fields in biology in a similar manner to generate all the subdisciplines. Not all subdisciplines would be meaningful, or exist. For example, there is no such thing as "microbiological anatomy" since anatomy is the study of internal organs. But in the center of all the disciplines is evolutionary biology. Evolution unifies all of the disciplines into a cohenerent picture of biological life. Via evolution, anatomical changes can be studied in terms of genetics. Via evolution, the movement of genes can be studied in terms of ecology, and zoology can be studied in terms of genetics, etc. etc. Evolution links all the disciplines in biology together. Without it, biology would be disjointed nonsense.

DG answered this.

Read this essay:

What's So Great About Sex?

There's a lot of information about how evolution works through sexual reproduction to "auto-correct" harmful mutations and combat microbial invaders.  This is one example of how biology is dependent on evolution.  For every topic you can think of that deals with complete organisms, you can get down to a cellular level, and you'll need evolution to explain how most things happen.

It's a crucial distinction.  No apology necessary.  If you are going to talk about evolution, you're talking about science, and you need to use the scientific meaning, or we'll just talk past each other.

Think all you want, but until you have a post graduate degree in a biological discipline, you're not going to have the necessary understanding to even consider questioning evolution.

Your last sentence especially is throwing me. You're making it sound as though “theory” is the opposite of “rational”. So I'm wondering who you are defining both words.

It also bears pointing out the difference concerning the theory of evolution versus the fact of evolution. It is a well established fact that, if you look in older fossil bearing rocks, the tendency is to find fossils of less complex life. Whatever the cause might be that life on earth became progressively more complex through the ages (which can only be dismissed by denying an enormous amount of evidence), the fact that it did is empirically established beyond a doubt. So the question then becomes: “why did this happen”. That is the theory portion of things. On this there is some debate as to exactly why and how though natural selection still is a basic concept. A discussion on that point is beyond what I know a great deal about, so I'll leave it to more capable hands, but I see no reason that answers provided entirely on the basis of naturalism cannot suffice to explain it all.

I probably am mistaken but is that not an example of biology being dependant on sex? I'm sorry I didn't read the essay - call me whatever but I just don't have the time to spend.

Actually, you are incorrect on that one - If you are talking scientifically about evolution, you would need to be precise. If you are talking about a science (in this case evolution) there is no requirement to have that level or precision. Whether you took me as talking scientifically or not is your viewpoint but that will not mean that there is any requirement for me to have conformed to those expectations. As the conversation becomes scientific of course there is more of a requirement to be precise but the fact stands that my usage, is correct.

And my point was that its easy enough for you to dismiss anything by saying there "isn't any doubt" but what are we supposed to do then? Just not talk about it because you said that? If I wanted to just read scientific journals I could but I find it better to discuss things with people, ask my own questions and hear their own ideas and explanations.

What engines are there for evolution? 

Engine?

I think I can follow that part ok - but I didn't think that was an example that, without extrapolation, could apply to something along the lines of developing a new organ system. I mean - that IS an example of, I guess you could call it "microevolution". But am I being to typical in questioning whether we can use microevolution as evidence of macro evolution?

I seem to be quite talented at misunderstanding! But sincerely thanks for your patience.

So unifying is the same as foundational? Or is that just a small part of it?

Just to me an ... hypothesis?... that unifies other theories, surely is not neccessarily made any more true through the unification itself. (I think that makes sense..). But where you refering to it as such to demonstrate a different point?

It appears that creationists are not the only ones with a talent for abuse of these terms. They were first coined by the geneticist Theodius Dobzhansky. They are used to refer to, in a very broad context, "evolution above the species level" and "within the species level". There is some confusion about this among non-scientists. These do not refer to process difference. Macroevolution can largely be regarded as a branch, or arm of evolutionary biology, one which studies general, or large-scale trends and patterns in evolutionary history that are indicated at the level of taxa. Some topics within this arm include the question "Are there any major trends in the history of life"? or "is there are characteristic rate of evolution, and does it in turn peg a limit on variational distribution?" The central component of evolutionary theory is that natural selection and changes in lineage account for both macroevolution and microevolution. This has been widely accepted since approximately 1930. There is no "chasm" that bridges the two concepts. The development of a new organ system, for example, can be explained in terms of developmental genetics, and the processes of homologous duplication and divergence and the recombination of modular developmental and genetic circuits and the selective pressuress applied to mutations of these modules. Exactly the same understanding can be applied to smaller scale phenotypic changes, those which occur in a shorter time frame within a lineage. To state that there is any process difference between the two is a continuum fallacy.

Well, there's no real point in me responding to any of this, is there?  You didn't read what I wrote, and so you have no idea what my last rebuttal was.  Do you think I just linked that essay for a good time?  Obviously, I wouldn't have linked it if the answer I gave you was complete without it, right?  So not only do you not know what my last answer was, but you're trying to rebut it.  Good thinking, Sherlock.

Why don't you actually read the essay, and then if you want to talk more, we can because you'll have a clue what I'm talking about.