Nowhere does Popper makes such a constraint. His falsification principle applies to ALL theories worthy of being called scientific.
Popper's assertion is to provide for undiscovered effects.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Einstein’s General Theory was not based upon observations but upon other scientific theories and discoveries.
The impetus for the theory was, among other things, the inability of Newton's Theory to correctly predict the OBSERVED precession of the parahelion of Mercury. The list of OBSERVED phenomona incorrectly predicted by Newton's Theory were the grist for Einstein's General Theory; not that it is relevant to the discussion at hand.
As the article you posted points out, one of the predictions in Einstein’s General Theory was eventually born out in with light be bent by heavenly bodies in a measurable way.
Which, as Popper points out, doesn't PROVE Einstein's theory is correct. But as an attempted falsification that failed, it does give us greater confidence that Einstein's Theory might well be right. But the observation DID disprove Newton's Theory, because Newton's Theory said that the light shouldn't be bent at all.
To say TOE needs to be disproved because it cannot be proved by experimentation is completely ignoring all the scientific attempts that have taken place to prove it.
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
All theories that wish to be considered scientific need, as per Popper, to make specific testable predictions which form the basis of potential falsifications for the theory. Therefore, for the TOE, or any other theory, to be deemed scientific, it needs to be falsifiable. Since it is possible to derive specific predictions from the TOE about certain things that we should, or should NOT, find in the fossil record, for example, it is potentially falsifiable e.g., finding Mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata would be a classic falsification for TOE.
Just because TOE does not enjoy the benefit of its predictions being born out, does not exclude it from it needing to be proved.
You clearly have failed to comprehend what Popper is saying. Repeat after me: No scientific theory is EVER proved, nor can it be. It is the nature of induction; one cannot be absolutely sure the conclusions reached by induction are correct, and all finite attempts to "prove" a theory result in induction. What Popper was trying to solve was the problem that looking for experiments and observations that tend to support a theory and relying on it as a basis of "proving" your theory right is doomed to failure, because it is inherently inductive, and therefore logically unreliable as a method of proof. So he instead recasts the problem in a manner that allows conclusions to be reached by deductive falsification. In doing so he gives up any pretense of ever proving a theory is "right" (because it is unattainable anyway). Science makes progress toward better and better theories by using a rigorous method to weed out defective theories. To do so, Popper says we must try to prove our theory WRONG, not try to prove it right. We thereby gain confidence that theories that resist multiple attempted falsifications might be "correct" (but we can never be sure.)
It is quite the other way around, since it has failed to provide any meaningful predictions it should be treated even more skeptically.
If this were true, then how do you explain why Popper personally stated that he thought Evolution was falsifiable, and hence, scientific?
As best as I can tell from your post, you completely misunderstand what Popper is saying.
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories."
As you know he has recanted this statement saying that evolution can be tested, but fails to provide a suitable test other than predictions. The question is why did he recant? Was it for pure scientific reasons? However he lumps TOE in with historical sciences such as literature. What he does not do is release TOE from providing predictions. As that is the only way to test historical sciences.
So again the ball is in your court. As I have asked before, what predictions has TOE provided? And as far as falsification of TOE goes, please read Henry Gees, 'Deep Time: Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution'
Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate