Is a theory of evolution in humans a fact or just a theory?

Interesting..... I propose that you test the Theory of Gravity.  Get to the roof of a 10 story building, walk to the edge and step off.  You will know instantly if that 'theory' is BS or not.

Yes, evolution is just a theory means that there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the claim after repeated testing. 

Obviously genetic damage and inbreeding occur.  That's why we have the different races -- and no, I'm making no assumptions about what the original skin color was.  But atheistic evolution?  It's a pathetic attempt at a theory.  It ignores thermodynamics and entropy.

Only one mutation in 100 is even weakly beneficial.  Half are fatal.  The rest are debilitating.  The trends of atheistic evolution are to weakness, disease, and death, not to life and diversity.

Every single imperfect system that is not maintained degrades and fails with time.  Life is no exception, so let's hear no special pleading for it.  Life could not have persisted for billions of years, much less increased in order and complexity, without somebody maintaining and improving it.  If you insist on evolution, you have to admit God.

In science, "theory" doesn't have the same meaning as in everyday speech. We say "I have a theory why John is late for dinner", meaning a guess, a possible explanation. In science, a possible explanation for something is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't get elevated to the status of a scientific theory until it has been thoroughly investigated by many scientists over a long period of time, and has accumulated such a tremendous amount of supporting evidence that it is clearly a fact. So yes, biological evolution is now a scientific theory, supported by literally millions of pieces of evidence - a scientific fact.

It's called a THEORY of evolution for a reason 

Evolution as stated by science that everything started off as a single cell and became everything that has ever lived and died to our day is a crock. God created KINDS that were able to adapt, change, and diversify while staying true to their KIND. That means butterflies can adapt by changing color over time, or a bird's beak can change over time or a bird might become a flightless one, etc. But, they will always be butterflies and the birds remain birds. That means a fish never crawled out of the water to eventually become a man type of thing. What we don't really know is the extent of what God calls a kind and just how much it can change, but it's not the way science describes it.

Here is what particle physicist Dr Simon Singh said in his book 'Fermat's Last Theorem': "In science a hypothesis is put forward to explain a physical phenomenon. If observations of the phenomenon compare well with the hypothesis, this becomes evidence in favor of it. Furthermore, the hypothesis should not merely describe a known phenomenon, but predict the results of other phenomena. Experiments may be performed to test the predictive power of the hypothesis, and if it continues to be successful then this is even more evidence to back the hypothesis. Eventually the amount of evidence may be overwhelming and the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory.

"Scientific theory... is merely considered highly likely based on evidence available. So-called scientific proof relies on observation and perception, both of which are fallible and provide only approximations to the truth... Even the most widely accepted scientific 'proofs' always have a small element of doubt in them."

That strikes the right balance, does it not? Massive amounts of evidence turn a hypothesis into a scientific theory. Of course, with the theory of evolution, certain points remain uncertain. I'm not aware of it producing any calculations that predicts other phenomena that have later been observed. I have doubts about claims that experiments have proven the truth of all of it, and we all know that ancient artifacts are sometimes shown to be far younger than originally stated, and interpretations about a metatarsal here and a jaw-bone there have often been laughable in the desperation attached to claims about them proving evolution.

Dr Brian Cox, Royal Society University Research Fellow and professor at the University of Manchester, said on a BBC programe (28/12/2011) that "There are no absolute truths in science." If evolutionists bear that in mind, they might be less touchy at Christians challenging evolution as “total fact”. And if Christians bear in mind Dr. Singh's explanations, they might be less silly with their claims that a scientific theory is unproven. If we could all get beyond arguments over the word 'theory' and just stick to the evidences offered and the gaps that remain, we would all benefit.

It is a nonsense, a device to deny God and sin, nothing more.

Genetic research is showing what the evolution of species looks like. A dog will never become a cat. Creatures adapt and evolve within the specie's genetics.

Science continues to provide answers that can be reproduced by others. It's never a matter of saying that I believe it because so and so told me it was true. Science is backed up by research.

Humanity is presently experiencing its next evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6jpQLnbmU8&ab_cha...

It is an unproven theory.  I consider it wild imagination.