Why should the endosymbiotic theory be called a hypothesis instead of a theory? (2 points)

It does not fit the evolutionary theory well.
There is no real evidence for it.
It is not recognized as a possible theory by various scientists.
It is not supported by modern science.

Question

Why should the endosymbiotic theory be called a hypothesis instead of a theory? (2 points)
 	
	It does not fit the evolutionary theory well.
	There is no real evidence for it.
	It is not recognized as a possible theory by various scientists.
	It is not supported by modern science.

anonymous · Answer

None of those, it should be a theory and is.  There is plenty of evidence and the majority of us scientists accept it as a theory. @rebeccaxhawaii

koikkara · Answer

@rebeccaxhawaii Hmm... The endosymbiotic hypothesis might be called a theory, but experimental evidence can't be provided to test it. Only circumstantial evidence is available in support of the proposal, which is the most likely explanation for the origin of mitochondria. The evidence needed to change the model from hypothesis to theory is likely forever lost in antiquity.

anonymous · Answer

You are taking a overly limited view of "experiment". All test on mitochondria and chloroplasts result in a separate genome from the containing cell and a circular, not linear, chromosome. Additionally, experiments used to determine the type and number of membranes around these organelles also supports the theory.  Go to wikipedia if you want a list of more evidence.

Also, I would point out that evolution is a theory as well and we cannot test the full theory due to time limits and unknown conditions of certain things, like Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's emergence.