I started as many of those in educated elite have started to answer this question, by nearly writing a text book (I was actually citing text's and many other historical publications) in response to this simple question, considering ornithology and evolutionary biology are the main subjects that I have extensive training in. The answer is yes, the evidence is out there, many people have put some of the major points and transitions on here for you to see.
The surprising and curious thing is the lack of information and malformed arguments that are being put forth in favor of the "no" side. These arguments are almost all based on emotional response, rather than scientific inquiry, the ones who seem to have a little bit of scientific knowledge continually contradict themselves by claiming that they understand evolution and understand it to be wrong. This statement is ridiculous. Since they use things such as irreducible complexity to "prove" evolution can't be, when in fact it doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't even notice whether a combination of parts, system and function chosen by an observer happens to satisfy a definition in a book. It just doesn't matter. This is in a nutshell what scientists have been saying since Michael Behe's, "Darwin's Black Box" was published. Evolution has yet to be "disproved" or "refuted" beyond and any simple response from someone educated in the sciences. I even read the claim that evolution was not science, and could be proved to be "mathematically impossible"...I'll modify that statement for you, "mathematically improbable," quite a big difference there. There was the statement made that evolution is agenda driven, that it is in fact a tool for atheists to debunk religion. Religion debunks itself without any help from atheists. To say that biology, wait sorry, evolution, is agenda driven is correct but the fact that it is soley driven by atheists is incorrect. Evolution is driven by the agenda of those seek the truth, this is what they've found and they want to push the facts onto those who don't understand them. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists that will tell you that faith and evolution can co-exist, the great E.O. Wilson for one. However, there is the other side, as Richard Dawkins puts it, those of us who "rock the boat", or the atheists that refuse to sit by as religion tries to co-exist with evolutionary thought within the scientific realm; where in the end one must win out. Either there is a god, or there isn't. There are many testable hypotheses about there not being a god and how the universe was created, and there isn't one single hypothesis about how god did indeed create the universe. It's merely an argument over something could very well have happened (the universe spontaneously appearing), and something that, based on evidence, is just not so (an intelligent being creating the universe out of it's own will).
One last item I would like to clear up, this statement was also used on the "no" side:
"Adaptation means that a species changes, within itself, to survive. Darwin was successful in showing adaptation when he recorded the changes of the finchbeaks, over successive generations, on the Galapagos Islands."
First, adaptations are features that appear "designed" to fit the organisms surroundings, not the change of features in a species due to one having a greater fitness, that is natural selection. Second, Darwin did not note the change in beak depth of Finches (Geospiza fortis) on the Galapagos over several generations thus proving natural selection; that would be the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant some 130 years later, Darwin did however notice that each species of finch seemed to have adapted to different niche's on the island since their ancestor arrived, and most likely speciated as such by means of natural selection.
This is one of the biggest problems with those who speak out against evolution and claim to know how it works. The terminology is not understood well enough by most to try and mount an argument. I've now written myself into frustration.