Of course it is, go get a cold and you can prove adaptation for yourself.

Yes however much like astronomy the time scales are so huge that it is sometimes difficult to test predictions however it does (and has) happened.

Yes. It has managed to test many of the trials it has been put to. Think DNA research. but I am not certain how far back you mean 'testable' to be...back to the Big Bang..I dunno...But to certainly earlier than Biblical times would have us believe to the possibility of existence.

Yes. Both in the laboratory (or farmyard) where we breed domesticated animals, and in the real world. We see evolution in action when diseases develop antibiotic resistance. But it has also been seen on larger scales - see "The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time" which documents evolution amongst Darwin's Finches. I don't think anyone with a reasonable mind can doubt that evolution occurs; even the proponents of Intelligent Design agree that, on the small. The question is whether evolution scales up enough to cover all the species on earth, or if at some scale evolution "stops working" in the way we can observe and test, and something special has to intervene.

Little by little with microbiology and archaeology.

Yes.

It certainly is. We can watch it happen. We can make predictions like "if the theory works how we think it works, we should find 'this' kind of fossil 'here'..." - and that has happened often. It is also falsifiable. If modern-day human and, say, dog skeletons began appearing fossilised in 80 million year old rock the current theory of evolution would be virtually out the window.

I don't think in terms of putting something in a laboratory and trying to create a new species, no. Predicting what might be found in certain rock types from certain eras is common. but as Friar Tuck writes above, it can be also ( I wouldn't say "falsified"; that, to me, means something like the Piltdown fraud)debunked if, as he writes "If modern-day human and, say, dog skeletons began appearing fossilised in 80 million year old rock the current theory of evolution would be virtually out the window." And this is always a possibility. The Laetoli footprints are a point in question. They resemble h sapiens, but come from 2 million years ago. The only hominid discovered around was h afarensis, so it has been assumed that the Laetoli footprints belong to that species (though no feet have been recovered of h afarensis). If, however, these footprints proved to be h sapiens, and h sapiens was living side by side with h afarensis 2 million years ago, this would throw the evolutionary theory into chaos.

1) " Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution Unfortunately, people have misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings; ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or from the media. Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to interfere with the understanding of evolution. Below you will find a series of common misconceptions about evolution that link to responses which correct these misconceptions. - Misconceptions about evolution and how it works: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life." "Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better." "Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.'" "Natural selection involves organisms 'trying' to adapt." "Natural selection gives organisms what they 'need.'" - Misconceptions about the evidence for evolution: "Evolution is 'just' a theory." "Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it." "Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution." "Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life." "The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it." "Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable." "Most biologists have rejected 'Darwinism' (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace)." - Misconceptions about the implications of evolution: "Evolution leads to immoral behavior. If children are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals." "Evolution supports the idea that 'might makes right' and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others." - Misconceptions about evolution and religion: "Evolution and religion are incompatible." - Misconceptions about teaching evolution: "Teachers should teach 'both sides' and let students decide for themselves." "Evolution is itself 'religious,' so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment."" 2) "Misconception: "Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable." Response: Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time. Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution. Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory. Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation. Visit the PBS Evolution Web site to learn about John Endler's research on wild guppies, a great example of direct experimentation. Learn more about lines of evidence for evolution." Source and further information: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

Chuck Darwin made it very difficult to test by theorizing that it takes place over millions of years. We have no recorded history of what happened one million years ago. Many believe, including myself, that the beginning of the world was a few thousand years ago. That's not enough time for Curious George to turn human.

It's testable in a number of way: In a lab using virus and fruit (I think I recently read fruit fly as well) populations. Also, you can develop a hypothesis about some special circumstance and go out into the field to look for it. "Ring species" and an excellent example of this type. There are others but these are my favs.

It sure is! In fact, I tested it; and found it 'wanting'!!!!! SEE BELOW: PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE, YET ASTOUNDING, BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU. EVOLUTION?? For myself, I do not just Believe ‘Biological Evolution of the Species’ NOT to be true, I have literally and uniquely PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. ‘HOW??’ you may ask … or ‘WHY THEM??’ They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, firstly discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon. ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature and life itself, in order to, simply, ‘differentiate species’. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are, necessarily, Both vertebrate, and require some similarity for survival – alimentary system, and other basics viscerals, etc. – to live efficiently and satisfy the very requirements of effective survival, according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival itself and of an effective and satisfactory existence, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point – is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana, as well – at 80% similarity. Despite the ‘DNA similarity’, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to satisfactorily survive, alive in nature – so that it exists and operates efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Is He not?? Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, having accomplished necessary efficiency and life survival apparati, similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among those similar survival organs and features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – a close study shows there is great opposition between the two. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory – in defining the types of life that exist. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them for His own specific purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible – Genesis, Chapter 3] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … all the more so when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. [Genesis, Chapter 1] This recognition and acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. Now, may I acknowledge, immediately, that God, only, can be thanked for this Masterful Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … it came about totally, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and direction are Masterly – hence, His Great name: “The Master”. SO IN HIS GRACE TO US, LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY JUST A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest/reclination: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate, straight ahead Ears? Has none (possible internal mechanism) vs Ears & external reception Nose? Has none – excellent internal mechanism vs external reception, but weak Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food gathering & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary blink, direct contact with external environment, strong vision… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs external entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured ‘skin’ vs great uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? No chewing all in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. Any meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable, (supposed) less active pelvises. Again, in typical opposition between Man and snake, a man’s (woman’s, in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, again, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is considered ‘vestigial’ and ‘buried’ to outside nature. This notice inadvertently, recently came by way of another objector, “MvL”: Thanks to his observation, I learned, or realized, more particularly, yet this further opposite between the two. (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp[!], ‘poor fellow’): re the “Vestigial structures” he pointed out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So that was, as all else, very useful to our cause. Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad MvL highlighted these structures vestigially. Now we can report that Man’s ‘tail’, being internal, is not visible externally, whereas the snake’s, of course, is external throughout. Conversely, Man’s pelvis, etc. is externally ‘present’, whereas, in typical opposition, the snake’s is buried. You'll note, accordingly, that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, this was, inadvertently, a good further point for our cause! NOW, further [Behavioural considerations re this new anatomical observation]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature of life, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re our hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variance with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless, if you examine them closely feature by feature! 3 THINGS ... three things virtually decide the issue quite firmly [well, 4 really] but one always holds his Trump card for more opportune situations: 1. Diametric opposites over so many countless characteristics and sub-characteristics such as are involved within the enormous Complexities of Man & the snake = mathematical impossibility via Random (chance) mutation to achieve, especially given that even evolutionists declare that mutations, meaning "’successful’ mutation” as in successful transfer of increased information via some kind of “mutant” are rare to the point of being almost impossible – in other words, they virtually, Never happen! 2. THEN, if one has managed to pretend to that mathematical impossibility, he THEN has to have BOTH of these creatures "select" for all those exact Opposites of characteristic in ALL of their ultimate life-environment choices!!!!!!!!!!!! Having ‘achieved’ mathematical denial already twice, why not go for the ‘hat-trick’ – 3 in a row!! 3. So, having previously denied the mathematics involved against the first two ever occurring, why should he not simply deny the substance of mathematics in his 3rd inescapable dilemma?! He then carries the burden of yet another enormous task: Explaining How on earth these 2 opposite creatures happen to live on earth at the very same miniscule period in the overall evolutionary experience of the two[??!!!!] – seeing that the claim of evolution is that Species CONTINUOUSLY change – forever! So surely, rather than both being here at this very same miniscule time-period, either, one should have moved on millions/100,000's years ago, or, if that be not the case, BOTH should still be coming, but almost certainly at different rates, to some point where they may have been opposite had they both existed simultaneously! So, how is it that they are both here at the very same time!! BASICALLY, WHY ARE THEY BOTH HERE AT THE VERY SAME POINT IN “EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY” – THAT IS, AMONG THESE (SUPPOSED) MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF YEARS OF RELENTLESS CHANGE????!! Now, the Final point [not the 4th card, for that is ‘trade secret’] is that ONLY an act of deliberation could possibly account for such diametric oppositeness between 2 creatures like that. Now, fortunately, practically everyone I speak to about this discovery draws that final conclusion for themselves. Only the religiously anti-religious BLINDS HIS MIND TO GOD TO THE POINT THAT ‘GOD JUST DOES NOT EXIST’ [FULL STOP]! From my experience of such an one, it is merely his ‘determination to close on the recognition or acknowledgment of a God’ that prevents him drawing the only natural conclusion that can be drawn from the results of this entire study. For further clarification, you might try the Book, as mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of ‘mind over matter’, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in total opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Deserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mere mini-list of the all-encompassing complete oppositeness: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU.

yes it is.. just a small example, so i wont bore the hell out of u, is the HIV virus they multiply soo fast that they literally evolve to not respond to the medicines that doctors give them!!

The claim made is that Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and confirmed. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not scientific because it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified, and therefore should not be viewed as science. Just how testable and falsifiable is the theory of organic evolution ? Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals. This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is a testable idea. Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. According, then, to every piece of experimental data that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals. Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verifies this fact. And yet, the general population is being led to believe that evolution is scientific because it is experimentally testable and falsifiable? If, by scientific, it is meant that, regardless of the outcome of the experiments, the theory will be maintained, then by all means evolution is scientific. In reality, the origin of life according to organic evolution has been tested and disproved. Therefore, if the foremost precept of organic evolution is untestable (at the least) and has been satisfactorily disproved (at the most), how can its advocates maintain that it alone belongs in the science classroom? Even Darwin saw the need of a Creator for his theory to work. There has to be a beginning some place.

Ever heard of swine flu?

Unfortunely not, if it were, it would be fact, not theory. Evolution happens over such a long period and so slowly that you almost need as much faith to believe in it, as you need to believe in creation. I wish it was testable, as it would stop this distructive debate between science and religion. Evolution is a principle that describe history. All the things that happen over time. I don't know why the religious community attack it. It does not affect their creation ideas, because evolution could also fit into what has happened since creation.