Here's a theory.
Imagine a tree like form, and like a tree, it has a trunk and branches.
Some branches are bigger, thicker, longer than others.
Let's take the biggest thickest one of all and call it the 'human' branch.
There are many smaller branches coming off this main large one.
The largest and strongest by far is that of man, the perfect physical, mental, rational and emotional example of mankind.
Let's call him the 'ideal', man.
All the branches coming from this branch are of entities who 'look' like the 'ideal' man, but suffer from variations which unfortunately do not qualify him to being an 'ideal' man, by his own faults and flaws.
And so it is, that over time, the 'ideal' man begins to associate with the 'ideal' woman, and so the species begins to grow.
The other entities fall into their own categories, such as albinos, midgets, those with 'visible' differences from the 'ideal' man and woman.
And so it is that these entities also begin to grow due to their pairing off with their own kind.
This tree also explains the rest of life on Earth.
The animal kingdom developed rules and laws which were called instinct.
What we call humans today, also developed instincts, which tell us: To give one such example, instinctively queers are clearly of a different branch than the greater and 'ideal' (now we can use the word,'typical')human form.
And so it was that such people were admonished and even killed for performing acts of disgust and repulsion contrary to human instinct.
Such people, even though they were of the origin of the 'ideal man or woman', were a vastly minuscule and insignificant minority, compared to the 'ideal' human, only shared their physical form and nothing else, so it was they were flawed or mentally and emotionally deficient and therefore cast out to be with their kind or be killed.

Unfortunately for some there are indeed several examples of transitional fossils but that doesn't seem to matter.

Unlike the Theory of Gravity (which most seem to accept without argument), unless you tick all the boxes for some people then it was all obviously down to an invisible Sky Wizard who instantly zapped everything into existence in all stages of life with birds already in flight and some things already dead and decaying.

Regardless of whether you accept Margaret Courts opinion or not, the treatment of her has been abominable. People have the right to a personal opinion or belief and unless they are forcing you to follow those beliefs, then they should have the right to state them.
I don’t see anyone ostracising a person because they do believe that homosexuality is normal and natural. Those people are allowed to have their beliefs accepted, yet anyone who disagrees with them is called a bigot. Funnily enough, it’s those who won’t accept the right to personal beliefs of others that are the bigots.

Political Correctness is stupid.

Toni,

<<A theory is an explanation - or system of explanations - of natural phenomena that has been subjected to repeated testing (quite exhaustive testing, in the case of evolutionary theory) and not found wanting. >>

Things that happened in the PAST cannot be tested repeatedly.

I'd like to know your understanding of the differences between theories and facts.

You say a theory has been subjected to repeated, exhaustive testing and 'not found wanting'. Dr Michael Denton, a molecular biologist and a non-creationist, wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Burnett Books 1985) and he noted these statements:

1. Julian Huxley in 1959: 'The first point to make about Darwin's THEORY is that it is no longer a THEORY but a FACT.... Darwinianism has come of age so to speak. We are no longer having to bother about establishing the FACT of evolution....' (Denton1985:75, Denton's emphasis).
2. Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene: 'The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun' (Denton 1985:75).

Denton's comment about these 2 statements was: “Such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still much in doubt when it comes to macroevolutionary phenomena. Furthermore, being basically a theory of historical reconstruction, it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as in normal science....

“Philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper have raised doubts as to whether evolutionary claims, by their very nature incapable of falsification, can properly be classed as truly scientific hypotheses. Moreover, the theory of evolution deals with unique events, the origin of life, and the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation” (Denton 1985:75).

Now, 30 years later, Denton has written a follow-up book, Evolution: STILL a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute 2016) which provides more evidence that Darwinian evolution is unable to explain the history of life. Here Denton presents a new paradigm to support the data.

Toni,

<<You'll be waiting a mighty long time then, friend. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.>>

How do you know that? Is it based on fact or a theory?