saying that evolution is a theory and it hasn’t really been proven yet is sort of like saying gravity is a theory and it hasn’t really been proven yet
Objects fall because they refuse to raise themselves up to the power of Christ
It’s not quite the same because Evolution has never actually been observed. Since it was theorized, we’ve never actually had a documented case of a new species coming into existence after evolving from another.
I mean that takes a super long time and is super hard (read: impossible) to observe.
Whereas gravity is obviously very observable.
Not that I don’t believe in Evolution. Just a fun fact.
I’m going to “well actually…” on you here… Evolution is very observable. Change can be witnessed in organisms introduced to isolated island communities which have different ecological niches or different environmental factors that they must rapidly adapt to or face extinction.
A very subtle example that I got to experience myself was measuring field mice that had inadvertently been introduced to an island in Scotland - the mice on the island were significantly bigger than mice on the mainland; the mice that had larger body masses are more likely to survive and therefore breed in the harsh conditions on a cold Scottish island, meaning that after a few generations of the “fittest” animals breeding the overall average body mass of mice on the island had increased. The mice were evolving, subtly, towards a form that would help their survival in that environment.
More dramatic examples like this one I found from a quick Google of “island evolution” can be observed. Of course, a tiger will never evolve into a bird after a few generations after being dumped somewhere outside of its preferred habitat, that sort of leap is completely impossible, the changes are subtle. The argument of what constitutes a “new” species however is of great debate… we’ve veered away from classifying animals based entirely on their morphological features and are now looking into genetic differences between species. But how we define a new species is integral to observing evolution - In that link I gave, the island lizards may very well turn out to be genetically identical to mainland lizards, but morphologically they have developed a whole new digestive strategy to cope with a new environment. Are they still the same species? Do we categorise them according to their genetic make up or their distinct physical differences and environmental adaptations? You must remember that “species” is a somewhat arbitrary concept that we created to help us make sense of the world. The differences between species happened due to nature, but the “species” themselves are named and defined by man. Some species are only differentiated from one another due to exceptionally small differences that man has defined as significant.
You also can’t forget “man made” evolution due to selective breeding of favourable characteristics in domestic animals. Many of the species we’re most familiar with today would not exist had they not been bred specifically by man. In these cases WE are acting as the new environment; we allow only certain animals to breed not based on their ability to survive (as would happen in nature), but on certain features we find favourable.
The evolution of organisms in the past is classified as theoretical because it’s based upon evidence rather than direct observation. We can, however, directly observe evolution happening right now in certain communities (and by our own hands). So it’s kinda fair to say yeah, evolution has been proven directly in the here and now but not in the past… but certain assumptions of past events can be derived from evidence obtained in the present day.