Am I misunderstanding something about falsifiability? In principle, evolution can be falsified by observing no incremental development of species over time.
Falsifiability just means there's some possible way for it not to be true?
He thought it was untestable because it was based on a series unique one time unrepeatable events in the distant past.
Parts of the theory like Mendelian genetics are testable but on the whole... Evolution happens so slowly that we can't observe it or test it in a lab.
To me it seems like with Popper inquiry into how species came to be can never fit into science. It's a much narrower view than what we commonly understand as science today.
Of course evolution is falsifiable, as are falsifiable the big bang theory and the iron kernel theory.
To falsify a theory does not require to reproduce it in a lab. It means that the theory predicts something that you can actually observe, or not observe and thus disprove it.
For instance, we can falsify the theory like this: let's grow bacteria and subject them to some poisonous chemical. The theory predicts that, after many generations, if the colony survive then it should become resistant to that poison.
Here is an example of a theory that is not falsifiable: after they die, people's souls go to a place that is impossible to observe when you are alive.
Falsifiability is about "impossible to observe", not about repeatability.
This is just a factually incorrect claim by someone who clearly has no background in biology.
Evolution is frequently observed in the lab, particularly in organisms the reproduce quickly and prolifically as in most microorganisms. You might want to google "antibiotic resistance", which is literal evolution creating a public health hazard.
Evolution has withstood well over a century of experiments. It's the inevitable consequence of the facts of inheritable mutations and natural selection. Biology doesn't even make sense without it.
Falsifiability just means there's some possible way for it not to be true?