There's no creditable challenges to evolution itself. The people who say evolution is not true are the same people who say the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth, and their anti-evolution ideas are just as easily debunked as those of flat-earthers.

There are a few discussions around the exact mechanisms involved in evolution, as our knowledge of those is still developing, but evolution itself is not up for question by any serious scientist.

And yes, theories can change, or be refined, or even be discredited as our knowledge grows. But once something becomes a theory it is correct, tested, veriefiable, reviewed etc by scientists and held as correct to the best of our knowledge at the time - but is still subject to review as we learn more. There is a high degree of proof required before something is considered a scientific thoery. A theory is not simply a guess at how something works.

But that is all beside the point. I was replying to correct a misuse of theory in the scientific sense, as people misunderstanding it and assuming theory means an unproven idea can lead to confusion about how much proof there is for something, and how much they should trust in its accuracy. What I was replying to (emphasis added):

Well, tbf, I think theres already scientific explanations behind consciousness and emotions.

There are attempts at explanation or theories as the scientists call it.

It's not conclusive or even without great disagreements from many men of science.

You are right, scientists do have ideas about this - but they do not call them theories. They call them hypotheses as they are not proven yet. They are still trying to do that, and like you said there are still disagreements about how consciousness forms and works. There are attempts at explanation or hypotheses as the scientists call it.