Thanks for the constructive discussion, @everittdmickey,
I get it, but would disagree that it's scientifically advanced to a theory. Like history, it seems to be one area of science where the criteria for what makes a theory are set aside. Perhaps because the study is necessarily historical in nature? Theoretical appears to be synonymous with hypthetical, in such cases. Unfortunately, both are prone to present the unproven (unprovable?) as fact.
If it was a theory, what is the testing and observation? Nobody has ever witnessed a species turn into a different species. Can it fulfill both of these? I consider these to be rhetorical questions, but perhaps you have information I'm unaware of.

-Scientific theories are well-established and highly-reliable explanations that have been verified multiple times by repeated testing and have a great deal of empirical evidence that confirm them as valid. -Scientific theories are capable of being tested by many different scientists working independently of each other.

Yeah, there are often several working theories on a given topic. Until testing is conclusive, it's not. :)