Why don't people realize that Evolution IS a theory?

There is both a fact of evolution and a theory of evolution. Fact of evolution: we know that things evolve. We've observed it, and we call things that have been observed 'facts.' Theory of evolution: an explanation of HOW things evolve. We call explanations of facts 'theories.' They attempt to describe what causes facts to occur, not whether it occurs or not. The there's also the theory of common descent, which is what most people think of when you say 'evolution.' This is an explanation (remember, theories are explanations of how things work, not whether they are true or not) of why we observe the fact that all life shares common traits and appears related. The theory of common descent applies the theory of evolution. You say you've had a 'proper biology course' but then what does that mean? College intro to biology or principles of biology? Or an upper division evolutionary biology course? People build careers on this stuff, and they know far more about it then you or I do. A single biology course can barely hope to skim the fundamentals, especially if it's a broad ranging course like an intro class. check out www.talkorigins.org

Hahahahaha, and you obviously didn't pay attention in biology class. A theory, when used scientifically, differs in meaning completely from the word theory used in daily life to describe a thought that you don't have sufficient evidence for. Fortunately, for all of us, there is plenty of evidence supporting the THEORY of Evolution.

This is a fool's argument. Gravitation is only a theory. There is a huge amount of evidence that SUPPORTS gravitation, but WE ARE NOT OMNIPRESENT TO SEE GRAVITATION FULLY HAPPENING. Therefore we can't TRULY prove that gravitation exists; therefore gravitation is a theory. You could also substitute atomic theory, electromagnetism (your computer works by magic), or any other theory to sound just as stupid. Evolution can be observed. Learn what theory means.

DOGS prove Evolution to be true.. DOGS - evolved from wolves.. its true it has been proven HORSES and CATS and pretty much every animal also proves it.. even chickens and birds.. we know they evolved from dinosaurs but in our time we have seen the Evolution of DOGS

You've made an unintelligent arguement. Evolution is both fact and theory. That evolution happened is fact. The hows, whens, and why is currently scientific theory, which is different to hypothesis.

Everyone (almost)does know it's a theory.But a scientific theory is not the same as the common usage of the word.At this point,only the finer details are debatable.There is the fact of evolution and the theory.when such a preponderance of evidence is in favor of a robust theory like evolution,it's considered proven to those who accept the facts.Science doesn't always deal with proof in the philosophical sense of the word.But it still conforms to logic.Evidence rules.Here's a great new study showing a long term evolutionary lab experiment http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php I'm not sure of the point of your question but i'll leave this if you want more information Speciation events observed in the laboratory Drosophila paulistorum: A Cluster of Species in Statu Nascendi by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Boris Spassky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 45(3): 419-428 (1959) Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 (Speciation event in Drosophila melanogaster) Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity byM.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa by Tom Cavalier-Smith, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology vol 52, pp 297-354, 2002 Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus by Gregory J. Velicer and Yuen-tsu N. Yu, Nature vol 425, pp 75-78, 2003. [2] Speciation events in the wild, including supporting evidence from molecular phylogeny (and this is just in Cichlid fishes, by the way): Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004) Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005 Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003 And i always leave this for those interested:is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ It's a really good site that's easy for even beginners to follow.If you want to have a little more fun,check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ or http://www.pandasthumb.org/ This is a good sight if you want to see actual scientists,teachers,etc,debate with creationists and Intelligent design proponents.If you are serious and curious,sign up and ask some questions. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php... A good book to start off with is The Selfish Gene :http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniv... Also you can read ,in no particular order.Climbing Mount Improbable,Genome An Autobiography Of A Species in 23 chapters,The Blind Watchmaker,The Ancestors Tale,The Mating Mind,The Red Queen, From D.N.A. To Diversity, http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pil... A few more i thought of Deep Time : Paleobiology's Perspective ,Genetics in the Wild , Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: Speciation--The Evolution of New Species,The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ult... , Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science Of Evo Devo And The Making Of The Animal Kingdom by Sean B. Carroll http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-...

You may have had a proper biology course, but it seems they failed at teaching you the scientific method. I observe a phenomenon; I deduct a general theory from my observations; I make a list of things I expect to be found/happen and things I expect never to be found/happen. When after 200 years all subsequent observations from indipendent fields and groups fall within the first cathegory, the theory is pretty much solid. You're right in that we "cannot be everywhere", but if that was a prerequisite for every scientific theory then the range of subjects would be limited indeed. The composition of Jupiter's atmosphere, the reaction intermediates in a chemical process, the metabolic pathways in a mitochondrion are all phenomena lying beyond the scope of direct observation: if the foundations of evolution is invalidated, then they also must be.

Well says who...the Christians?The Jewish? Muslims? None of which can even agree on what happened, because hey we just aren't sure! A mighty touchy subject but ill say in my opinion evolution has been proven far more than all that other mumbo jumbo. The bible dates back what 6000 years or so and was a story.written by a man..how long have dinosaurs been extinct..say over a billion years?? Think about it

I don't think anyone would deny that it's a theory. However, evidence is piling up and up in support of the theory and very little evidence (if any) exists to refute the theory. Therefore, there is no reason to currently doubt the theory (because there is no evidence). Refuting the theory of evolution by means of natural selection would be a major paradigm shift in scientific thinking and would require years, perhaps decades worth of research and evidence to change scientific thinking, which is currently based on centuries of evidence. Remember, science advances by disproving hypotheses/theories, not proving them. Science that attempts to prove anything to be 100% true is flawed because, if something is 100% true, it cannot be tested or refuted (with the exception of scientific laws).