Actually freediver, I have offered different definitions on what constitutes prediction and experiment. However, I do not pretend that they are my own! I am not arguing Argumentum ad consequentium either, I am merely pointing out that if you relax your definitions even slightly, the point of contention disappears. It only hinges on the strictness of your definitions, you contend that 'observation' is not experiment, and yet it is under particular circumstances. Also, you think that predictions have to be about the future, they do not. They can be about observable phenomena deduced from hypotheses, without prior knowledge of their existence.

That you have "have had a look around and no-one has come up with exactly the same thing" does not mean that you don't have to attribute or address similar arguments in the literature. Your feeling that it is all your original work (but that someone else may have thought of it) and thus you don't have to acknowledge others is incorrect. In the music industry you would be sued for copyright infringement. In the scientific field, you would be accused of plagiarism, a mortal sin.

And to answer your question, yes, Karl Popper did conclude that the evolutionary theory is science.
To quote:
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346)

Also, 'Natural selection' is the basis of evolution to try and separate them is [comment probably should be deleted by moderator].

I guess you have never heard about breaking it down?

Yes you were arguing Argumentum ad consequentium. You argued that my definition must be wrong because you couldn't accept the consequences.

"if you relax your definitions even slightly, the point of contention disappears.

And a million other points of contention creep in.

"you contend that 'observation' is not experiment, and yet it is under particular circumstances

My argument does not exclude natural experiment from science, however this does not apply to evolution.

"Also, you think that predictions have to be about the future, they do not.

Yes they do.

"They can be about observable phenomena ....

'Without prior knowledge' is what brings the future bit in - you are predicting that you will discover something. However much of evolution is about predicting you will find something after you have found it, then pretending it is a genuine prediction.

"That you have "have had a look ... does not mean that you don't have to attribute ....

Yes it does. I am not submitting the article to s scientific jounral. I am putting it up on my website.

"you would be accused of plagiarism, a mortal sin.

Wrong. In the scientific field, you do not have to acknowledge what is already common knowledge, beyond that, I would only be accused of laziness.

"And to answer your question, yes, Karl Popper did conclude...

This does not contradict my position, rather it supports it, hence my question about whether he distinguished antural selection and evolution.

"Also, 'Natural selection' is the basis of evolution....

Aha, this is where you go wrong. Just because a theory is based on scientific theories does not make it scientific. Perhaps a bit of set theory might clarify this for you. If a theory has scientific and unscientific parts, the scientific parts do not magically make the unscientific parts scientific. I am not 'separating' the two theories. If it helps you understand it, I am pointing out that natural selection is the scientific part of evolution, while the historical conjectures (what is usually associated with evolution) is the non-scientific part. You are committing the association fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

Also, it is not a matter of 'relaxing my definitions' slightly. It involves no sliding scale that can be pushed one way or the other. You would have to come up with an entirely new definition for science, which would destroy all meaning to the term. This is why I am encouraging you to try to provide alternative definitions.

Thats why, its a never ending story.

freediver,
Popper made no distinction between evolution and natural selection, with good reason. Natural selection is not 'just a part' of evolution, it is central to evolution. It's the core, not just a subset.

That evolution does not logically follow from natural selection, but is actually somehow different or distinct appears to be a part of the basis of your argument and is incorrect.

Also what you appear to be arguing is that certain (limited) aspects of evolutionary historicism do not appear to be scientific. I would have no argument in this, it's not groundbreaking stuff. But it does not follow that the theory of evolution as whole is uncientific.

I think that you make a logical fallacy of your own when you argue that what appear to you to be (or may actually be) nonscientific periperhal inferences made using evolutionary theory actually affect the theory and make it unscientific.

Your 'common knowledge' and what you think is the theory of evolution and what it is in reality may be the source of your error.

Finally, if you wanted to put this argument on the table of any editors desk and call it your own, you would not merely be accused of laziness. Trust me on this.