I see no problem with that. Evolution is like "gravity" - it is primarily a name for an observed phenomena in nature. Darwin noticed the phenomena exists and came up with a partial explanation for how it worked. Which is great, but still limited.In order to have a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. That means that you must be able to make specific predictions about the outcome of experimental measurements whose result will either validate or falsify a theory. This is central to the scientific method. I see no way to do that without math.
Evolution was not a scientific theory in that sense for quite some time after it was developed.
But the predictions do not have to be quantitative - they can be simple observations.
I disagree. Even a "simple observation" can usually be made quantitative, e.g. X>0. I don't know what sort of valid scientific evidence would not be mathematical/quantitative.
How do you connect observations to hypothesis without at least some math? I see lots of math/implied math in that link. Let's be specific.So in your opinion, everything in the list below is quantitative, not qualitative?
One key facet of evolution is how traits are passed along from parent to child. It's known that the same trait can be generated independently along different evolutionary paths. So just showing that two animals have the same trait doesn't prove they are related, much less make the relationship clear. But with genetics you can prove quantitatively how traits are passed down and figure out the actual links between species.
The simplest (simplistic/oversimplified) common first example is eye color: One parent has blue eyes and the other brown. What are the odds of their kids having blue/brown eyes? This may be easy math, but its math nonetheless.