The evidence tells us that evolution, the common ancestry of species, occurred. The details of how and when etc. will be argued until the day we invent a Wayback machine, but the fact that it occurs can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt. These threads are normally about whether this is a true fact or not, instead of discussing the fine points about it.
Funny that you mention one science (plate tectonics) that's never managed to predict anything with any degree of accuracy ever, that's how it goes with young sciences.
Plate tectonics predicts matching geological strata on continents that have separated. Those things are found, and no doubt other predictions as well that I'm not familiar with. PT should predict that we will find certain evidence, and that we will not find other evidence. If we find these things true, then PT has successfully predicted evidence in advance which is how it comes to be accepted as true.
Actually the details will be argued until we manage to see it happen. Until then we have theories, theories that given the amount of data available are probably wrong. What the threads are normally about is of no concern to me, I was talking about a specific way the questions could be phrased that would make someone who actually does believe evolution occured to answer the question with a "no", for me that would involve phrasing the question so it pins on a specific mechanical explanation.
PT should be predicting earthquakes one of these days, that's the useful stuff. They're still far off from that but that should be the eventual goal.