Interesting. The definition of "The Theory of Evolution" starts with generalities and winds up with "the theory of evolution." The definition of "theory" under "scientific method" says nothing whatsoever about "falsifiability" being a necessary characteristic of the same. Good thing, because theories of evolution twist the evidence in such a way as to place falsifiability beyond reach.
From: The essay on falsifiability
"In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. Thus, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of objects in everyday situations, but was falsified by Galileo’s experiments, and was itself replaced by Newtonian which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. Or at least most of them; the motion of Mercury wasn't predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but was by Einstein's General Relativity..."
Again, I'll ask all of the anti-evo people? What is the evidence for greater explanatory power of your pet theory?
Also..."Popper proposed falsification as a way of determining if a theory is scientific or not. If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. Popper uses this criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between scientific and unscientific theories. Some have taken this principle to an extreme to cast doubt on the scientific validity of many disciplines (such as macroevolution and Cosmology). Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools..."
Actually it does. Your misstating of scientific terms does not increase your credibility.