It's both a fact and a theory.

Of course it is a fact, and totally demonstrated, but not totally understood as everything in Science.

Fact.

Fact.

Fact. (Plus support: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

change is a true constant, evolution is just change over a long time. fact.

Evolution in a micro sense is apparent and documented over the past 140 years. Species have adapted and altered their appearance to better survive. True gene separation creating another creature which cannot breed with the original has not been observed, but has a lot of evidence to support it. It is the best theory of diversity science can offer at this time.

The Theory of Evolution provides a very solid description of the fact of evolution.

Soon to be a Michael Moore film! ;-)

Theory...made up and believed by those who refuse to believe in the factual Bible.

Theory, and no more or less factual than the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, chaos theory, Newton's three law's of motion, or the theory of general relativity. People don't seem to realize that the theory of evolution doesn't care about theology, or what people think of it, it just IS. It has been the one and only theory that draws so much angst and anger from the religious community, I say if you're going to question this one, then why not question all of them, try starting with the theory of gravity..... Jump from the top of a building and see if you float, unless your God intervenes and stops your fall then you are going to be street pizza, and I'd be willing to bet Gravity, not God will be proved in this case. If you'll take a little time and study any of the life sciences you'll find that evolution is at the foundation of them all.

Evolution: Fact or Fantasy? Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true. . If "evolution" merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing enviromental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in labratory experiments. . For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be compromised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistent mosquitos are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the enviroment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before. . A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistent to antibitotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were. . Almost all illustrations of "evolution in action" in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearence of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversable population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although "adaptive variation" would be a better term. . It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as "evolution," because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God's participation being needed at any step along the way. . Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and televisionprograms still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolutionare used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process. . The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information-the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processesenabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin's theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony. . The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a labratory nor observed in nature. . It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but wether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable exampls of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits. . One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important deffect of theory evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. This Darwinian mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechinism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis. . The Bible teaches, "In the beginning God created" and "In the beginning was the Word." A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started, because all evolution can do is to furthure minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, "In the beginning God created" (Gn 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live. . The Bible also says that God created me and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence, including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God. . "In the beginning was the Word." The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact.

There is proof, God has no proof. I am convinced evolution is true while God is a delusion.

Fact if we deeply and scientifically understand it.

Evolution is the change in a species to better adapt to changes in climate and habitat. Something that happens all the time in the world, from the smallest virus to the largest of animals. Some animals do die out when they cannot adapt fast enough to changes such as climate or predators. But there will always be another that will come in and fill the available niche left behind by the newly extinct. Fossil evidence for evolution on the otherhand is mostly a series of well-educated guesses to link species together over millions of years. To be truthful, even the paleontologists get things mixed around. Either it be learning that the giant spider is merely a crab or that they have the wrong head on a sauropod. My opinion, even with fossil ancestors of humans, we might not even know if the fossils we have are indeed our direct ancestors. They could be that of species that went nowhere and couldn't adapt fast enough to survive, thus not being our direct descendants at all. We will likely never know where everything fits into place, all that we can do is to make a well-educated guess and try our best.

Fantasy

Evolution is in fact fantasy, but lets clarify one thing. Evolution with in a species is fact we all evolve in someway in order to live and to cope with the ever changin factors of life, i.e. climate, habitat etc however this is often mistconstrude asevolution but it is actually adaptation not evolution. Evolution is describe as being the change or growth from one species to another but evolution from species to species is impossible. The fact being that when something evolves the predecessing devolvee must then die out because if evoution was necessary then it would have to be because the devolvee can no longer cope therefore must evlovle to keep up. So if something evolves then the predecessing species must die out. Now think about it if we were in fact decendents from monkeys then why do many different species of monkey still exist?? If the evolution of monkeys or other specias were necessary then they themselves would become a null and void species, consequently ceasing to exist. Next point. If evolution between species was so essential then why the sudden stop?? we no longer see any evidence of species progressing to anywhere near the capacity of the supposed successing species. Interspecial Evolution is an impossiblity, a myth. Case Closed.

1) "Fact and fantasy The zoology created by our imagination is far outstripped by that of reality. "I have come to these conclusions by personally leading my pupils on wanderings through the tangled web of nature, in order that I can spur others on to an examination and explanation of nature rather than the reiteration of perceived ideas ... I shall take exception to the tales of actors and the barkings of dogs with equal measure." With this dismissive final paragraph, Carolus Linnaeus notified the readers of the sixth edition (1748) of Systema naturae, his compendium of life on Earth, that he would no longer be including imaginary beings in his system." Source and further information: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415479a.html 2) "The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other. Readers should take care to determine an author's meaning." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact 3) "This week I'm looking at a couple of items on the irrational beliefs front, concerning first creationism (again) and then the Mayan 2012 confection. The good news is that the Texas State Board of Education has voted to get rid of wording which invites teachers and students to debate the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. This wording had allowed evolution to be attacked in Texan science lessons for the last twenty years. The bad news is that a recent British poll (reported here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism appears to show that half of the British population doesn't believe in evolution. Only around 25% believe that evolution is "definitely true" and another 25% believe it's "probably true", with 22% preferring creationism or "intelligent design" and rest confused. I say "appears" because the exact wording of the question asked isn't given, and that is of course critical in affecting the responses. By comparison, it's only three or four years since a poll putting the question "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?" resulted in 75% of Britons saying, "true", with 18% "false" and 7% "not sure". It will be interesting to see the results of any polls taken later this year, after the deluge of publicity and TV programmes about the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species. While on this subject, there was an amusing item by Amanda Gefter in New Scientist magazine (28/2/09) concerning how to spot attempts to disguise religiously-inspired (or other unscientific) work as science. Samples of some key phrases to look for: "Darwinism": scientists rarely use the term – they use "evolution" instead "irreducibly complex": implying that it couldn't have evolved from something simpler "academic freedom": when appealed to, usually means the freedom to teach creationism "common sense": when appealed to; science works on theories based on evidence and may reach conclusions entirely opposed to common sense. "scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists "quantum physics" in an article which is clearly not about physics ("quantum" being the latest mystical buzz-word to give apparent respectability to bonkers notions) There's more, but this gives the general idea!" Source and further information: http://www.bsfa.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=61&g=posts&m=3989

More of a fact than anything else even though it's a theory.

Fact

well unless you think all our carbon dating of the earth is wrong, all the dinosaur skeletons and cavemen writings on walls is a conspiracy, and are planning to ignore the fact that humans can get organ transplants from monkeys or even pigs, and the similarities between us and every other living organism on eath even single celled ones, then its obviously a fact. if you want to see something educational yet breathtakingly awesome watch walking with dinosaurs, the entire thing is on youtube, it shows step by step the development of the earth and its inhabitants from the meteor that hit earth and started life to the journey onto land, to the transfer from dinos to monkeys to humans and why each step happened including the geography and weather at the time. walking with cavemen is the best part.

Facts can be proven. It's just a theory like any other.