Susuto

@ GodzGurl59
You’re using the layman’s hierarchy of certainty, not the scientist hierarchy. In science, a Scientific Theory is a model describing a whole set of related phenomena, using many facts (individual data points) and a great deal of peer review and other evidence. A “Law” is a description of a single phenomena in a single set of circumstances. For example, Newton’s Laws of Gravity work as good estimations for two-body, macro-scale systems, which is why we keep them around. However, they don’t work at all when applied to 3-body (or more) systems or systems on different scales. For anything more complex than what Newton’s Laws describe, we must instead turn to the Theory of Special Relativity, as we have since found that gravitation is actually a case of applied relativity. As such, a Scientific Theory is as high on the certainty-scale as it gets in science.

And actually, several things described in the Theory of Evolution have been shown to happen. Evolution is described as the adaptation of a population to better fit and compete in an environment due to selection pressures acting upon heritable traits. To this end, we have observed evolution occurring in both the wild and in labs. Every year you likely experience this first hand with a new variation on the cold or flu, as the organisms responsible for it adapted to the environment which had become hostile to it (ie. our bodies, their environment, developed antibodies to fight them, so they evolved to get around the antibody defenses). This same system has become an issue with respect to antibiotic resistant bacteria - again, the organisms’ environment became saturated with a substance that is toxic to them, but certain individuals in those populations had evolved resistances to those toxins (the antibiotics) and as such, created a new strain. We can even replicate evolution in labs and the wild, as seen with nylon-eating bacteria (nylon being a substance that doesn’t exist in nature).