Whalstib said:
Here's some
Does evolution have predictive powers?
Yes, many. Many of these questions are things covered in formal study of biology and that is probably where it would be best to learn them. However, I'll point you to some examples you can look into. Some good examples then;
Marsupials in Antarctica, Tiktaalik, The whole field of genetics, predator prey relationships, granting eye sight to "blind" cave fish, Xanthopan morgani praedicta (moths), etc, etc. There are many as it is a pretty damn powerful theory.
Whalstib said:
Have any mechanisms been identified?
What mechanism?
For starts you should understand that there is a biological fact of evolution (that allele frequencies change across generations, or another way of saying---in a more molecular world---"descent with modification") and there is what the layman calls "evolutionary theory", which really refers to the modern synthesis. As a unifying theory of biology it incorporates many other facts, hypothesis, theories etc.
The goal of science then, is to explain a natural phenomena. Evolutionary change which gave rise to the biodiversity of life on Earth is explained with selection, mutation, drift and "migration"--Though, these are broad reaching ways that change is fueled.
Asking someone to teach you all this on a message board is a little unreasonable. Again, this a pretty general and big question that would best be learned through formal study or at the least a lengthy book written for the layman of biology. Both Jerry Coyne's
Why Evolution is True and Richard Dawkins'
The Greatest Show on Earth are books written for the laymen of biology and adequately explain the origins, evolutions, mechanisms, theories and evidences of the modern synthesis.
Whalstib said:
What is the most striking example that a layman can appreciate about evolution?
Well that's rather a subjective question unique to the individual. I'm a microbiologist by training and so am biased toward bugs. Ergo, I think one of the most interesting examples of evolutionary change is in resistance genes in bacteria. To quote Gould;
Fair enough, if we wish to honor multicellular creatures, but we are still not free of the parochialism of our scale. If we must characterize a whole by a representative part, we certainly should honor life's constant mode. We live now in the "Age of Bacteria." Our planet has always been in the "Age of Bacteria," ever since the first fossils—bacteria, of course—were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago.
On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are—and always have been—the dominant forms of life on Earth. Our failure to grasp this most evident of biological facts arises in part from the blindness of our arrogance but also, in large measure, as an effect of scale. We are so accustomed to viewing phenomena of our scale—sizes measured in feet and ages in decades—as typical of nature.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html"
Whalstib said:
And I'd like Bobze in particular to address this one:
Does homology indicate common ancestry?
and was this response warranted:
Get an education in science rather than cut and pasting from creationist factoid websites.
W
Yep, that's pretty much what happens when you pop onto a form and don't bother to read the topic you're replying too/use the search function/do your homework/etc...
Are you saying your religious baggage or lack thereof comes directly from the Vatican? Did you flip-flop your beliefs without any thought in 2002 after the Vatican flip-flopped its position on these scientific issues? 
