But it sounds like you're concerned by the idea of something like terrestrial animals evolving into whales.
Animals from animals? Not so much. Man from animals? Much.
All living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. No.
Science isn’t in the business of proposing explanations where there’s no evidence.
What are the limits of scientific knowledge? Normally science comes to its propositions only indirectly, ie., observing effects and speculating (inferring) causes. Their propositions are validated by, and grounded in, experience and, therefore, can only be contingent, ie., dependent on the next improved observation of more cogent reasoning. The phrase "science facts" is an oxymoron.
Relying on the principle of verification, scientists will not admit any non-analytic or non-empirical claim as they think those claims are meaningless. Perhaps the most devastatingly illogicality in their position is that the verification principle itself seemed to fail its own test—it could not be verified either logically or empirically, suggesting that by its own standards, it was meaningless.
So, science is quite limited in its claim to knowledge. We have other means to come to the truth of things. I am more certain of things I know by faith than by science. Posters in this thread; indeed, in this forum, suggests they are as well.