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