No, but it's obvious you don't know the difference.
This is interpreting the data to see if it meets the prediction...
That's right, but it's not the whole story. You formulate a theory, and you make predictions based on that theory, as the theory of evolution does with respect to fossils. Then, you go out, you gather data, and you interpret it to see if it fits the prediction. This is called an "experiment" in scientific circles, and it is how theories and hypotheses are tested.
...this is not an example of a repeatable experiment (BTW: where is the repeatable aspect).
You test the hypothesis again by going out and digging again. Really, now - philosophy? I think not.
So if I put forth a theory that claims you are ugly - then by looking at you I say the data supports my thesis that you are ugly therefore I have created a repeatable experiment that supports the thesis: you are ugly.
Pretty much. If I put forth a theory that claims that you are an idiot, then by looking at your posts to see if they are consistent with those we would expect from an idiot, we have created a repeatable experiment. To repeat it, we must simply repeat our observation of your posts at some future date, in order to reinforce our hypothesis once more.
So in your mind gathering data is what is called an "experiment" in scientific circles. Really. So do you think observing the sun rising each morning is a repeatable experiment that proves the sun revolves around the earth?
So you actually believe observing the fossil record is a repeatable experiment?
I hate to embarrass you this way but you are completely wrong
experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
Observing naturally occurring data is not an experiment. Observing the fossil record is not a "test under controlled conditions"
Specifically, Darwin predicted that the intermediate forms between people and apes would be African. In fact several have been: Homo erectus; H. habilis; Australopithecus africanus; A. Afarensis. et al.
He also predicted intermediates between four-footed animals and cetaceans. Guess what? multiple confirmations of this: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, etc.
BTW, what were the predictions made by the creationists? That such things would never be found, because they never existed? EG, Behe said:
[I]f random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the Mesonychidand whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found.
Not really a prediction, but he seems to think it was unlikely. A few months later, intermediates were in fact found.