I think it might be helpful to note the differences in the observable and non-observable processes of evolution. We see in many short generational animals the processes of adaption which form a new species over a given timeframe. Micro to macro evolution. Such as Darwin’s finches with gradations of the beak, which in other studies is able to be observed over about a 50 year period. Or how HIV evolves to combat any sort of treatment we give it literally right in front of our eyes.

I do understand however that this is by no means an ‘end all’ nail in the coffin for regarding human evolution as a fact, but it does allow us to regard certain types of evolution as fact (does it not?), as those examples above are not just suggestive, but rather are empirical evidences that factually support the theory of evolution, leading to a more clarified understanding of our own (humans’) way forward.

If this is not the case, what would we therefore regard adaption and speciation as? I understand that it’s only suggestive of the theory on the whole, but in certain circumstances we can(?) certainly regard evolution as fact since we see variants being so far removed from their relatives which successively give birth to new species who can’t reproduce with their former variants.

Perhaps I’m mistaken here. But it seems that we can at the very least regard aspects of the theory, fact. Such as “it’s a fact that birds evolve”. Which should in turn allow us to say that evolution (at least on some level) is fact.