What physical basis? Or to put it another way, the physical basis of WHAT???
How can one speak of the physical basis of life (and consciousness) if one's theory does not and cannot even deal with such considerations, for methodological (and ideological) reasons?
Is macroevolution some kind of "physical basis?" Nobody has ever seen "macroevolution" at work. It is as much an unobservable as the "angelic choir in heaven"....
Yes, evolution has a physical basis just as erosion has a physical basis. Nobody saw the Grand Canyon form - but we have seen the process at work that would have formed it over many years. Nobody saw horses evolve from split hoofed animals - but we have seen the process at work that would explain the genetic changes that went along with the morphological changes.
Do you need to see a star form from the beginning to utilize the predictive model that gravity and nuclear fusion is how stars form?
Because it works. I've suggested before that you have a tendency towards an "if we can't know everything, we don't know anything" approach to these issues. But take, for instance, the germ theory of how we get sick. We have a theory for the physical basis of disease, involving microorganisms and antibodies and receptors and all that stuff, and it seems to mostly work for making people better. But it doesn't explain why we're alive in the first place, or why placebos work, or why there are microorganisms. Does that mean it's no good? No, it just means it's limited--but within its purview, it's a very powerful theory. Same with evolution.
Is macroevolution some kind of "physical basis?" Nobody has ever seen "macroevolution" at work.
Sure we have. We've seen lizards develop new physical structures to accommodate a new diet. How macro do things have to be?