[gallo]

Quote by: harami I really doubt that evolution has been verified by scientific experiment (i.e. "proven" in the usual way of science)..

Two points. 1st, it is not the "usual way of science" to prove anything. Science explains observations. 2nd, evolution has been observed and it is the theories of evolution that explain the mechanisms that caused it.

Quote by: harami Small mutations (fatal) have been produced in the lab.

Yes. As have other mutations that aren't so "small" (whatever that means), many of them beneficial. Some mutations can be fatal, but most are not. Of course, the meaning of "fatal" is a bit doubtful in this context too. Do you mean a mutation that is lethal? Or possibly a mutation that is non-adaptive in a given environment. There are both kinds.

Quote by: harami The evidence seems to be in the fossil record or in examples of genetic drift (aka "adaptation").

Genetic drift is not adaptation. Genetic drift is a term used to refer to random change in allele frequency in small populations. Adaptive changes are usually the result of natural selection.

Quote by: harami The theory is thus speculative, since it cannot be reproduced and the fossil record is very incomplete.

Actually, the theory isn't speculative. I think that if you actually learned what you were talking about, you might see that. Evolution has been observed and it has bee predicted. But even predictions have been made about fossils that should exist that were later found.

Quote by: harami Yes, many of the life science people publish papers on evolution, but it is not the same as say, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a theory with many useful applications and predictions which can be tested.

Actually, quantum mechanics is more speculative than evolutionary biology. Further, it is intentional blindness to imply that evolutionary biology hasn't been useful.

Quote by: harami It has been a very productive tool. Evolution has no "applications".

That you know of, anyway. Perhaps it's because you haven't looked.

Quote by: harami The theory cannot be used to produce anything useful, nor can it be used to predict anything, since the time scale of evolution is in the millions of years.

No. It has been observed in periods much shorter than that. And as I mentioned, evolution has been predicted and then observed on more than one occasion.

Quote by: harami So, in my opinion, evolution is an attractive theory simply because it pleases the world view of many people, and keeps them busy in their biological labs (e.g.).

Unfortunately, your opinion isn't very educated.

Quote by: harami Modern bioengineering has no foundation in evolution, and no relation to it. It concerns itself with "making things work" in a reproducible way as do all real sciences. I suspect that nearly all important biology (relevant to producing things of benefit) can be done without the slightest reference to "natural selection" or evolution.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky. You seem to be quite uneducated in the matter.