We Finally Get to Talk About the Royals! (Subtitled: Inbreeding *Usually* Bad.)

     If I had to put it personally I would define evolution as "genetic change within a population over generations in reaction to external stimuli" with the assumption that 1) the change is something being passed down from parent to offspring through the form of genetics and 2) there has to be a minimum of at least one generation passed, it cannot be within the same generation. There is also the matter that a single individual cannot, in a scientific sense, "evolve". In a more generic, colloquial sense, things are evolving, i.e. changing, every day. However, when an individual "evolves" there is a connotation that the "evolution" is positive. While evolution in a scientific sense does tend to appear positive, there is always the possibility that a species or population have evolved to a point of becoming so niche that the most minor disturbance can cause them to go extinct. Therefore, scientific evolution could not always be considered "positive". There has to be a distinction between "evolving", used as a simile for change, and evolution, as related to heritable traits passed down through generations.

    Going purely off of the evidence at hand, I believe specifically Darwin's evolution can still considered a theory. Just like everything should, science and the evidence available is everchanging. There are rooted, core principles within the theory that need to have concrete evidence in order to move it to the point of "fact". There is evidence to show the earth is very old, but dating techniques are advancing and changing every day, so is it old enough to move from point A to point B? There is evidence to show that species change through time, this can be proven through documentation from most of our own lifetimes in fact. There is evidence to support the fact the lineages have split, but without finding and creating proper documentation of the exact time of split areas are still left in the dark for anything to happen. There is evidence to suppose that novel forms derived from earlier forms, but the evidence, while compelling, will always have pieces in time that are missing and could open the doors for other things. Finally, the idea that all life derived from one has merits in and of itself, but without having every piece of the entire puzzle the idea of common ancestry remains merely a very compelling argument and not factual evidence. There is nothing to properly debunk evolutionary theory, but there is also not enough to smoothly transition it from the realm of theory to the realm of fact.