I don't see how your definition is intended to differ from mine, altough, again citing Dawkins (Greatest Show on Earth, p.9), a theory goes beyond hypothesizing in that it is "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment."

There are any number of cogs in nature's machine, but any that have contributed to life's current diversity and complexity fall under the field of evolution so far as I know.

Refer to my post above; when I stated that evolution was a fact (i.e. an observable phenomonen), I was referring to the process of evolution, not the history of the process.

The so-called "missing links" in paleontology refer to gaps in the history of the process, which was not what I was referring to as a "fact."

As for missing links, even a lack of fossils can be filled in with other data, such as imprints in the genome from past adaptations. Besides, the whole concept of "missing links" or transitional forms is based on the presumption of phyletic gradualism. If the punctuated equilibria hypothesis is correct (and much research confirms it), then there may be no transitional forms at all.

How so?

It doesn't matter whether proponents of ID say the designer is God or aliens; if you are going to make such bold claims then you must provide evidence. ID does nothing in the way of providing evidence, all it has done is try to discredit Evolution theory. As if discrediting one automatically proves the other.

I know you meant the same thing, but when defining it, it is best to nit-pick a bit to make sure you aren't going to make mistakes.

The increasing percentage of oxygen 2.6 billion years ago resulted in mass-extinction of billions of sorts of bacteria, and it made life possible as we know it today. I call it sheer luck. Evolution is just a part of it, there is much more.

Can you observe evolution?

I am aware of filling it in with other data, yet any theory to be made as a law requires evidence. If there is no evidence or good explanation it will remain what it is.

Natural selection might happen due to certain natural events in which different species had the luck to survive that particular event by chance.

That would still fall under the category of evolutionary science. Extinction due to a toxic environment still counts as natural selection.

As I said before, you can observe the process, not the history, of evolution. I can observe microevolution (bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics) and speciation (two populations becoming mutually unable to interbreed) in real time. Can I observe this happening in the past? No. That is extrapolation. Again, it really depends how we define evolution; you're still defining it in the historical sense. That's not what I meant.

I think that genome mapping qualifies as evidence, and that punctuated equilibria counts as a good explanation.

When a particular species or population survives due to sheer dumb luck instead of a particular advantageous gene, that's referred to as "bottlenecking" by evolutionary scientists. Natural selection solely refers to selection on the basis of advantageous genes.