A theory is just some airy ideation. It is - as you noted - an explanation of fact. Observable facts that cannot be explained are called anomalies. From A-Noma: not standard; not namable; not managed, etc..

Yes, and my point agrees with the wording in that definition.
It is only a partial definition though. To be given this high status (of "Theory") the principle must also specify the observations that would disprove it. If that happens, the principle is knocked off its Theory pedestal, and is just referred to in ways like... "in the past we once thought such-and-such"

We've investigated (you and I) cycles of many things including history itself. There does seem to be times in history of mass distinctions but what is really surprising is the sudden emergence of new species.
I have looked into the books of Enoch, still not satisfied or onboard, it's interesting he describes in some detail the emergence of the animal and human kingdom.
Again, not swayed but still curious.
Wouldn't it be a kick in the butt if there was some validity to all that .

As far as evolution within specific species, we do see several changes in Humans. 1 the 4 bloodtypes, brought about through epigenetic challenges. A, first, then a disappearance replaced by O then a reemergence; later, B (nomadic) and then 2500 years ago the emergence of AB. All validated through anthropological investigations...Not to mention, at least the observation of, the emergence of conscience, consciousness, self introspection and the emergence of unicameral thought or what we would now call the mind.
The latter still a theory but with some reasoned observations whereas, the blood types and skin colors having a physical historical record to follow.

Perhaps looking up the word will help
": a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

Unsettled. An general assumption, not proven..

Scientific Theory does not mean "not settled", it means not yet disproved. They remain until disproved.
Over time a well established theory might be referred to as a "Law" (eg. gravity) but there is no formal promotion involved. Newton's gravity theory is still a theory, which has been refined further by the Theory of Relativity, which, in turn, has been been confirmed by testing (so far), and so remains a theory.

The story from Newstarget is garbage. It is junk science, mysticism or ignorance presented in the language of science.

Journalism teaches that the last paragraph is called a "moral tag." For a high school newspaper, a news story about the basketball team ends, "So, let's all go to the game tonight!" That is a moral tag. This is also a moral tag: "This means that the possibility of intelligent design is still very much on the table, despite what Darwinian adherents would have you believe. (Related: Huge contradictions in “scientific” thinking revealed … Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life.)"

As Alan said about his original post about the Mitochondrial DNA study: "... people shouldn't rule things in or rule out, promote or condemn something, until there is concrete evidence." That was all, nothing more or less than an appeal to reality.

On my own blog, I have articles questioning the Darwinian theory of evolution. The reason that religionists attack Darwin is that they live of by and for a Book and its Authority. So, they pick one target -Darwin, Einstein - and attack that person and their ideas (often misrepresented), in order to push their mystical arguments. As noted earlier and as known to everyone, really, Darwin did not know about DNA. So, he did not have a mechanism to explain his observations. But the observations were valid: species exist; speciation occurs. The origin (and demise) of species is a natural process. It does not require a Mystical Entity to Create Life.

Moreover, to strike to the core here, even if it were demonstrated by way of "ancient astronauts" that intelligent beings engineered some or all of Earth or life on it, that would not validate the Qu'ran or other holy books and their moral demands for self-sacrifice, based on a belief that "heaven" is only just above the clouds over which Nimrod could not shoot an arrow and that good people go there to play harps or chase virgin girls forever and ever...

It is a theory which by defination means it is not settled.
I wasn't pushing any type of answer in my post, religious or otherwise. I just take the position, as I said before here many times, that until you know definitively people shouldn't rule things in or rule out, promote or condemn something, until there is concrete evidence. Reality is pretty fascinating using that perspective..options are limitless, fully of possibilities.

Yes as a concept.
Some details and mechanisms are still uncertain.
The Newstarget article is pure fundamentalist religious muck.
For a fair summary of the same research see-
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...