You do realize evolution theory is repeatable in labs with simple organisms right? I don't want to spend a ton of time in one of these idiotic threads, but you really need to just accept that God and science coexist. Evolution is how God creates and/or a simply by product of genetic mutation and variation.

*yawn*
We have a lot of examples of differentiation and development in species. We can add the fossil record to show how each species developed over time. So what is your question really? That you can't see an example of development if you watch your cat for 10 minutes, that this proves that evolution cannot happen over a billion of years?

Yeah, it's pretty scientific. I think it's partially flawed - as in I don't think we fully understand how species evolve, what is truly passed from parent to child, etc - but it's based on real world observation and seems like a pretty solid theory.

Seriously though, based on this post and your Cross-bearing avatar, I'm assuming your trying to thought-provoke and question evolution theory in favor of Christian belief. This sort of thing gives religious people a bad (or stupid) image in the eyes of many. Rather than question science in favor of religion, accept both. There is nothing to say that life didn't become what it is today through genetics while at the same time believe that there is a purpose, a living God, a reason for it all that is beyond our understanding.

First of all, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis, a distinct concept from that of evolution.

Second, actual observation of population evolution has most certainly occurred. Usually in very-short-lived species, like Fruit Flies, for which many generations can pass in a relatively short time, or in species that have something new to adapt to relatively recently (like Apples in America).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

More generally, though, evolution isn't just scientific, it's practically tautological. That is, it's true by definition. We have observed every part of the process - we just haven't observed the whole process entirely, because it takes longer than a few years to happen. One example of evolution's processes work like this:

1. Species A moves into a new region. This new region has issues that weren't found in the previous region (such as less dark dirt and more light snow).

2. Those of Species A in the new region now have a problem - their current properties do not suit the new region (such as having dark skin or fur), and thus the species has more trouble there.

3. A few within the species find it easier due to small mutations within their DNA (mutations in DNA are very common, and well-known - Down Syndrome is a good example of one). This might, for instance, produce a version of Species A with lighter skin or fur.

4. Those with the mutation survive and prosper more easily, and thus pass their mutated DNA on to their offspring, who also benefit from the change.

5. Over a long period of time, those without the mutation reproduce much more slowly, and eventually die out entirely (or almost entirely). Species A has now become, say, Species A'.

6. A further issue arises for some within Species A', which causes a further mutation to improve reproductive ability. Steps 1-5 occur again, resulting in Species A''. By this point, Species A'' will find it more difficult to breed with Species A, because of increasing differences in DNA.

7. Repeated instances of steps 1-6 produce Species A''', A'''', and A''''', and so on. Eventually, one of the resulting species is incapable of breeding with the original Species A at all, because any resulting offspring will be non-viable. Further evolution then pushes the differences further, eventually making breeding impossible at all.

An example of species that are most of the way along this process are Horses and Donkeys. Horses and Donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes, but are capable of breeding. The resulting offspring is called a "Mule". Mules are viable as animals, but are nearly completely infertile - they're practically unable to then have offspring themselves. To give you a sense of how uncommon it is, there has been no observed instance of a fertile mule stallion, and just 60 documented cases of mule mares giving birth, with records going back to 1527.

Mathematical and statistical modelling combined with various empirical evidence suggests that the Horse and the Donkey share a common ancestor, roughly 4.5 million years ago. Also within this "Group" is the zebra, which can also breed with a horse or a donkey (producing a "Zebroid"), and the offspring is similarly sterile. Zebras have between 32 and 46 chromosomes (donkeys have 62, and horses have 64).

Many dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. But did you know that there are dog breeds that are incapable of breeding with each other? For instance, the beagle and the irish setter cannot breed with each other. Yet they can each breed with the same other types of dog - their DNA is just a little too distant from each other to produce viable offspring.

So yes, the evolution "story" is "really" scientific.

^ What he said.

Some have brought up the Lenski experiment. It is emperical, empirical evidence for evolution, right? Not at all.

Interesting example however recent research shows it is just another example of degeneration or "deevolution":

"The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks." http://www.icr.org/article/4089/

Some have brought up the fossil record as empirical evidence for evolution. Maybe the op wasn't clear about asking for empirical evidence of evolution while it is occurring.

Even still evolution proponents who study the fossil record have admitted it doesn't support the evolution story.

+Philip Turnbull​ Well, I'll just go ahead and warm you with some quotes:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
David Kitts - Paleontologist

"The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" –
Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard

"The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion."
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." -
Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types."
Robert L Carroll - Paleontologist

Evolution basically explains a lot of how we came into being what we and many organisms are today.

Ever so often someone can throw up "holes" in the theory and discoveries like the fossils found in Siberia or very recently in Spain can throw up more questions than answers and gave scientists grounds for a rethink of the theory in humans.

This doesn't necessarily mean evolution is a flawed theory in humans, it just means it didn't quite work as they thought a couple months back.

But that is the beauty of science.

@Superchunk

I have scoured the scientific literature and I have not found one documentation of empirical evidence of any organisms evolving radical features and abilities, inside the lab or not.

One such experiment would have shut me up but the fruitflies said no to evolution:

" Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies"

OooSnap: You obviously have an agenda.