Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine.

 

No difference between micro and macro evolution.
Macro evolution is simply micro evolution spread out over great lengths of time.
By definition, you cannot have "common ancestry" without macro evolution..
Tiktaalik was the half fish / half 4 limbed tetrpod that was discovered in 2006 in arctic canada in 375 million year old geologic strata.
It's existence helps establish the timeline as to when the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibians took place.
The transition from fish to amphibian would be a textbook case of macro evolution.

 

This comment above is crazy to say the least.
NO SCIENCE anywhere invokes deities as explanations for observed phenomena.
If "ignoring the existence of God" makes something "bad science" then EVERY SCIENCE THERE IS is "bad science".
You creationists trust your lives every day to "bad science" when you get on an airplane (which flies using aerodynamic theory which ignores Gods existence)
You take antibiotics when you get an infection (which is based on germ theory which ignores Gods existence)
You're using your computer here in this chat forum to slag science, all while the energy being used to power your computer is based on electromagnetic theory (which ignores Gods existence).
Now, you have no issues at all using any of these "Godless sciences" when it suits you, yet all of a sudden when it comes to evolution, you want to change your tune and add a deity into the mix..
Which makes creationists a very hypocritical bunch.

 

I have no need to rethink it.. I've already done the research.
Common ancestry is considered "fact" by every life science organization we have.
Francis Collins is a renowned geneticist & the man who mapped the human genome..
he is also a DEVOUT Evangelical Christian..
He puts this issue as succinctly as you can possibly make this issue.

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Now, that's as straightforward and honest as you're gonna get..

 

No, it also creates new species.
We have actually witnessed the formation of new species created by evolution.
So to make the claim that evolution cannot create new species is a bit silly.

 

The reason i'm quoting Collins ( a bible believer) is because many Christians (like yourself) view this issue as an either/or proposition.
That its a competition between one or the other.. Its not..
Collins is an example of someone who believes strongly in God, but also accepts what the scientific evidence shows.
To Collins, knowing how these things occurred gives him a window into the mind of God.
He feels that knowledge of how we got here brings him closer to his deity..
Modern day creationist organizations attempt to pit the religious against the scientist.
Collins shows that such conflict is completely unnecessary.

 

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.


Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur, Scientific American

 

So your rebuttal to the genome evidence is "it has to be false because your religious beliefs refuse to allow it to be true"..
That about sum it up..?