Evolution, despite being officially considered a theory, is actually a fact.

Claiming that evolutionary theory is based off assumptions is a molehill on its own. However you are factually wrong that evolutionary is incompatible with symbiosis. And this is due to you clearly misunderstanding symbiotic relationships.

Evolutionary theory is based off of assumptions.

And I never said that evolutionary theory supports bad science, I said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with symbiosis

But in my case, my understanding is based upon factual evidence and is supported by evolutionary theory.
Your understanding is not and is therefore unsupported by evolutionary theory. That's all there is to it.

If you wish to make a honest attempt at arguing against evolutionary theory, you should actually attempt to understand what evolutionary theory states instead of forming a sock puppet of bad science from creationist literature and claiming that evolutionary theory supports this bad science.

Excuse me. That’s all your understanding of mutualistic evolution is.

Oh don't get me wrong. This isn't an argument for evolution. This is simply an explanation as to why your understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong.

From this, you can either go "Hmmm, my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. Perhaps I should seek out more accurate and different sources of knowledge if these websites which I assumed to be true have misled me" or "Well my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. But that doesn't mean evolution is right".

Because that’s all evolution is. “It’s likely that marine predatory animals didn’t eat cleaner fish because it might have been too much work.”

I don't see how

And then you’d be arguing against your own point lol

It wasn't an argument, it was an explanation. If I were interested in arguing this point with you I'd just jam "Arguments from incredulity or probability are not valid forms of argument" down your throat and call it a day.

Since when is "luck" an argument?

Same selection pressures and luck

But how did the same behavior manifest in multiple different species?

Because thousands to millions of individuals within species interact with each other everyday. Then multiply this by millions of years.

So then, how is it possible for that to happen in thousands to millions of species?

Relationships need not necessarily start with the mouth. For example, the relationship may begun as one of tolerance, where the smaller fish were too fast and too small to be worth catching by the larger fish. And hence the larger fish evolves to tolerate smaller fish, perhaps only attempting to catch them in desperate situations. At the same time, larger fish can provide meals in the form of the remnants of a hunt, so over time the smaller fish has evolved to follow the larger fish.

Note though that neither relationship is dependent on the other having specific traits in particular. It's irrelevant to the larger fish species whether or not the smaller fish species follows them. Nor is the smaller fish species dependent on the shark ignoring them as whether or not they expend energy to run away, it's still beneficial for the easy meals.

The crocodile and the plover bird relationship appears to be a myth. There has been little recorded evidence of this relationship actually existing.

The predatory nature of some of the fish, such as the shark

And my bad, I meant crocodile

Predatory nature of what? You're generalizing multiple species of fish. Not all cleaner fish eat remnants left on teeth, nor are they all of the same size or predated upon by the same species of fish. In the same vein, not all fish with teeth have the same diet or tolerate other fish in their mouths

The birds and the alligator proposed symbiotic relationship seems to be a myth

But the predatory nature of them makes it so that they would eat the cleaner fish, all they have to do is close their mouths

An even better example is certain birds and alligators, why doesn't the alligator chomp down? It's the exact same situation

The idea that the toothed fish necessarily would have to develop an evolutionary mutation at the same time is false. I gave one example below. That is, the ancestors of the toothed fish may have darted in and out of fish mouths to retrieve food in addition to regular sources of food. And this can be seen as a precursor of behaviour that allows for routinely relying on fish mouths as a main source of food. This does not depend on the toothed fish to stop its predatory behaviour. At the same time, teethed fish may not have even been interested in wasting energy chasing after small and and quick fish, and this does not depend on the cleaner fish to eat food around the mouths of teethed fish.

You say that the ancestors of cleaner fish did not always rely on the teeth of other fish for food, and that ancestors of toothed fish didn't always need to have their teeth cleaned. If that's true, then the toothed fish would have to develop an evolutionary mutation that could stop their predatory instincts when they are around cleaner fish at the SAME TIME that cleaner fish developed an evolutionary mutation that caused them to eat the food in toothed fishes mouth. How is that possible for tens, if not hundreds of species of toothed fish to all develop that mutation and for the few cleaner fish species to all develop that?

The ancestors of cleaner fish did not rely upon the teeth of other fish to get food. Nor did the ancestors of toothed fish have teeth such that they require regular cleaning by other fish.

It just so happens that members of the toothed fish, when their teeth are clean, survive for longer, and members of the cleaner fish, when they have additional food sources, also survive for longer. However it does not mean that either species are immediately dependent on each other. It might be the case that ancestor cleaner fish darted in and out of other fish mouths to retrieve food. It might be the case that toothed fish had a set lifespan associated with the degradation of teeth that was entirely sufficiently to allow time for reproduction, with the development of teeth allowing for the fish to take advantage of a specific niche. However it just so happens when two fish of either species co-operated with each other, both lived longer. Now just multiply this over millions of interactions over millions of years

Ok then, explain the cleaner fish one

And what I've said bar the specific algae-lichen relationship holds true for all such relationships. This is why evolution is so robust. It is consistent for all organisms.

There are other symbiotic relationships

Oh, in that case your understanding is fatally flawed. Algae did not evolve such that they can only survive with lichen. In my postulated scenario on the development of the symbiotic relationship between algae-lichen, I made no mention of the algae having any specific traits that forced it to become dependant on the lichen, only the lichen benefitting slightly from having trapped algae within a porous body. It is likely the scenario that the vast majority of the same species of algae floated on by.

Also you seem to be unaware of this but the algae species that comprise the lichen are apparently found independently of lichen, so it's quite clear that algae has always been capable of living independently from lichen or other symbiotic relationships

You're missing my point. Algae can't live without lichen. If evolution is true, that means that algae, at one point, COULD live without lichen. However, it evolved so that is MUST live WITH lichen. BUT, that must also mean that at the SAME TIME, lichen evolved to have the trait that algae needed, and vice versa. And this happens thousands, maybe millions of times because there are thousands/millions of symbiotic relationships.

I'm not saying that you need reciprocal traits, but rather that the need for a certain trait in algae and the actually needed trait in lichen must have occurred at the same time in order for algae to live.

Also, that example is extremely creepy. Not a personal experience I hope

Again, your understanding is slightly off. Any trait of either species that marked the beginning of a symbiotic relationship would not have needed reciprocal trait. For example in the case of algae-lichen, it might be the case that the earliest development of the relationship was a lichen that had a slightly more porous structure such that passing algae were slightly more likely to become lodged inside. In which case the lichen has a slight advantage over its competitors. However this does not require a reciprocal trait of algae, though naturally reciprocal traits have probably since developed.

Or in the scenario of the attractive neighbour, the two years of politely ignoring one another is spent with you observing her through your window while fapping, with her ignoring the fact that you do so

My point is that both species have traits that the other depends on to live, so as soon as algae gets the trait that it needs support for, lichen gets the trait that can help algae with that, it’s like an ambulance passing by as soon as someone is hit by a car, what are the chances of that?

Your understanding of symbiotic evolution is off. The ancestors of modern species with symbiotic relationships did not depend on each other initially. The traits for such relationships were developed over thousands of years. It's likely even that the ancestors of the modern species lived in close proximity without any sort of symbiotic relationship for quite a while until the correct mutations started to become expressed.

Think of it like the relationship with an attractive neighbour. Your understanding seems to be that the neighbour moves into, you see each other and then you two immediately get married. When it's more like 2 years of politely ignoring each other, 3 years of friendship, 5 years of dating and finally marriage.

furthermore, the gospel will be foolishness to those who are wise and a stumbling block to those who seek a sign or a miracle. 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

How does scripture say to persuade people? Through the cross. Paul was an educated man but he said “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,”
and he says to timothy
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

So i suggest the gospel and testimony of Jesus to be greater power than lowering yourself to the knowledge of observation without faith.

how you persuade a person is not in your own power but through the revelation of God. If a person will not understand earthly things, they will much less understand heavenly things.

You won't convince most atheists with scripture. Use science against them.

The point is that debunking evolution and the big bang theory is the first step to showing the Word of God to secularists. It's more than just about truth; yes, we know the truth, but they don't. If we can show them the errors in their own beliefs, then they may start to consider ours. However, we can't do that if we have an improper understanding of their beliefs.

Here is the issue, you seem to think that unless we know what science is talking about that we cannot refute or argue it. However this is not true at all. I don't need to know what people say, i need to know what God says. Because people think multitudes of things that are completely wrong, if we are to believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Its not biased to believe the truth and debunk a lie. now if you wish to learn what scientists say in order to reason with them on the same knowledge? by all means, go ahead and do so, but if you are a christian then you know the ultimate truth isn't in what we think, but in what God decrees and decreed.

then you also believe the sin nature of man is what caused the first animal death and later on the animals to eat other animals?

Yes.

I am not supporting evolution in the slightest. I'm just correcting misinformation and telling you the evolutionist standpoint.
I think we're both making contention where there doesn't need to be (mostly me, since here I am again), but if you don't at least look at it in the right way, you'll never be able to refute them properly.

Lets say that you do believe the bible. Do you believe that at one point no animal ate another animal and that they were all vegetarians?

i could care less what you say you are. as to wether God created or God made them to adapt over the years is of no consequence to me. To God is the glory, and for you to assume i don't know scientific views is a bold assertion, I asked some questions and gave some examples and you say "Know science better" I disagreed with your assertion regarding owls, not through the process of how, but by the means it is done. I know God does all things, that is not disputable with me. I will allow science to speak regarding owls in this comment. https://www.owlresearchinstitute.org/adaptations

However, if you are asserting that owls took an untold number of years to develop these things (not regarding the adapatation of the enviroment) then you clearly misunderstood the genesis account of creation.

Once again, bats can see just fine. There is no evidence of any bat species with poor vision. There are two species of diurnal owl, which I'm sure some evolutionist has explained, but once again, I am a Christian and don't actually agree with evolution. But you need to familiarize yourself with scientific views in order to debunk them and be taken seriously.

adaption vs evolution. Created vs adapted. There are bats that can see fine while others don't. there are owls that do hunt at night while others don't.

The difference is that the fish live in complete darkness. No moon, no stars, no day.
Owls merely evolved to hunt at night as to avoid competition with other predators.
Bats, despite popular belief, can see just fine. However, they evolved echolocation instead.
I AM a Christian, but it's important that you see things from a slightly less biased view.

I disagree with your assertion regarding owls. Fish for example live in underwater caves in complete darkness and are blind. Bats live in darkness and cannot see well. Therefore there must be a form of guiding or intelligence in the design of animals in order for one to see in darkness and the other to not see in darkness.

this can go on forever lets agree to disagree

Their eyes got large to the point that they couldn't move, so they had to have greater neck flexibility? I'm not an expert, and I'm a Christian too. I'm just saying that evolution does make more sense than you seem to think.
My personal example for when evolution doesn't make sense is the acacia tree's defense system. If you're interested at all, I'll lay down the basics and give you a few links.

Same process. Owl-like birds with the most rods and largest eyes were able to find more prey, were less likely to die, and propagated their genes. Evolution is highly plausible.

alright. but what about the owl having night vision so that they can see better during the night.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/night-vision-an-almost-complete-head-turn-what-else-you-didnt-know-about-owls.html

god designed the owl with night vision so that it can see better during the night.

evolutionist say that the owl gained night vision by adapting to the night so that it can see better.

are they saying that the owl gained night vision just by living at night.

so if humans when down to live in a cave and lived there for millions of years we would gain night vision so that we can see better at night????

The way evolution explains it is that the bears with paler fur survived to have babies with each other, of which the palest of those survived to have babies, etc.
So, no, a polar bear "cannot just suddenly turn white just because it lives in the snow," but, yes, evolution does provide a plausible explanation.

god designed the polar bear white so that it can hide better in the snow.

the polar bear can not just suddenly turn white just because it lives in snow, like evolution describes

polar bear has always been white.