I'm only replying because you apparently made yourself open to persuasion. Here's what I know as an amateur:
The definitions in scientific circles are different. A fact is something objectively and absolutely recreated and observed with no room for error. A theory is an explanation for multiple phenomenon, usually with weight of evidence. If a theory is recreated in a lab setting or observed in nature, it's then considered a fact.
There are two types of "evolution" called "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". Micro ev. is the proven fact that species of every sort changes over generations. We've been able to take this into our own hands and selectively manipulating evolution starting with a gray wolf and ending up with a descendant looking like a chihuahua or pit bull through breeding of many generations. This happens naturally in the wild, and we've seen this change in every kingdom of life, with no room for error.
Macro ev. Is simply the micro form on a much larger scale the explain the diversity and similarities between all life forms. It's impractical to prove because it's already happened over billions of years. We can't possibly observe microorganisms evolving into elephants, fungi, roses, dinosaurs etc. because we can't go back in time and recreating this in a lab wouldn't prove that wild elephants came from primordial microorganisms, just that they can in a lab setting.
Now we get into paleontology, the historical science. History of any sorts is viewed by science as technically mostly theoretical. Paleontology studies fossils and reconstructs a most likely form of the evolutionary tree of life based on similar characteristics of fossils. These theories are then applied to facts. An obvious example is dinosaur study. Did we see dinosaurs evolve into birds? No, so it's not a fact. Do we see anatomical similarities between them? Yes. Are they inherited through evolution by fact? No. We didn't recreate or observe the transition. Does the fossil record most support this theory of the origins of birds? Yes. Technically not a fact, but very widely accepted theory.
Keep in mind, theory doesn't mean "false" or "conjecture". A concept could only be a theory because it's not possible to prove, like gravity. We can prove that objects fall to the earth, but we can't recreate or observe the supposed magnetic attraction proposed by physics. Therefore gravity a theory.
How I understand evolution to work on a genetic scale is best explained through this scenario:
Let's say there's a lizard species called the stinkies. They live in tropical environments with black soil. Stinkies are green. For whatever reason, some radiation from somewhere ends up colliding with the embryonic dna molecules of a stinky. Usually this process causes deformities, like cancer. By happy accident however, this doesn't cause this stinky to die but simply develope darker and black scales. This is a mutation. This mutation helps her survive by camaflauge and she breeds with one of her species, passing on the gene to some of her offspring.
Green stinkies are more noticeable to predators, however one gets another mutation making its skin poisonous to birds of prey and carnivorous mammals, the majority of the predators in the stinkies' environment.
Predators like eagles get some mutations to be afraid of green lizards. The ones without eat stinkies and die. The only ones left and the only ones to be born are afraid of green lizards.
Eventually black stinkies and green stinkies undergoe such different mutations that their genes become incompatible and they can't breed, therefore they've evolved into two different species. Maybe black stinkies become larger, not needing to be as agile, and hunt in ambush, blending into the black soil. Maybe green stinkies become more vividly colored, because their well known venom allows them to be noticeable. Maybe green stinkies become more agile because a predator underwent a mutation giving it immunity to the poisonous lizards' skin, leaving the slow and weak stinkies to be eaten. The swift stinkies pass on their athletic genes and the slower ones' genes die, not to be passed to the next generation.
It's thought that humans are afraid of snakes and spiders because they used to be more commonly venomous, and the hominids who weren't afraid walked up to them and died via bite. The ones afraid survived.
The evolution of man is fascinating to me. It's said we underwent mutations to make our brains more able to understand more complicated and abstract ideas because it takes a smart brain to handle the complexity of a larger social group. Larger social group means better chance of survival. This large brain needed to better communicate with its species' own community, so calls, cries and yelps became more complex. Later language developed.
Evolution also explains similarities between life. ALL life reproduces the same way, with cellular DNA and RNA. The theory of macro evolution explains this phonomenon among others, like how all groups classified together are grouped because of shared characteristics. Primates are grouped together because of the theory that they share a recent common ancestor. This theory explains the many phenomenon of the superficial similarities (forward facing eyes, hand structure, shortened snout, bony eyebrow ridges etc.) between animals like leamures, gorillas, chimpanzees and, yes, hominids.
So to sum it all up and to conclude, micro evolution is a proven fact, period. As for macro evolution, I guess I'll conclude with the statement that science itself, due to its self criticism and desire for absolute correctness, isn't convinced MACRO evolution is a fact. Convincing you to "believe" in Macro ev. or to accept it for anything other than what it is: the most scientifically valid theory to explain the diversity and similarity of life on earth, is silly. I personally hope we all can accept scientific fact and explore the theories for our betterment while strictly leaving our religious lore in the respectable field of spirit and religion, not applying them to our understanding of the natural world.
