Somehow, I didn't see a theory of evolution actually posted in the article. I'm sure you will post it for me. The author never denies the need for falsification and actually makes a claim that the theory of evolution is indeed falsifiable; he just never states what is the theory. Additionally, even if true, falsification is only one part of the SM. Claiming something to be true and proving it are, as you well know, 2 different things.
Want to try again?
W.K.
Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can't be falsified it isn't science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn't mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn't as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn't an ideal world, anyway.However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.
Please don't ask me to do your homework again.
This is silly anyway. Your silly assertion is meaningless anyway. It is unsupported by any facts or substantive logic. "'Cause I say so ('cause my mommy says so)" isn't really worth addressing. You just got me in an expansive mood. You are just a silly Cr/Ider public;y reveling in ignorance.
Good Night, Dr. Sceince.