Reducing things to a single sentence isn't science, in fact it's the exact opposite of science. Science is about expanding a single sentence to understand the mechanics behind that sentence. Gravity is a fine example, everybody already knew that when you held an object above all support and let go of it the object fell, that was the single sentence everybody was happy with "unsuported things fall", Newton wasn't happy with that and expanded that into a large series of sentences explaining how it fell down how different objects fell at different rates and how falling could be manipulated. Reducing things back down to one sentence is undoing science.
Refusing to clarify what you mean isn't science.
Science is about expanding a single sentence
I thought you said there was nothing to "expand".
unsuported things fall
You're confusing theory and fact. The fact is you might be hard pressed to explain to me what causes gravity, particularly if you are reduced to reducing it to an indivisible fundamental force of nature. Gravity is not a fine example, unless you wish to suggest that evolution has no theory, and is rather a similarly irreducible force of nature. Gravity - is. A theory about the effects of gravity might be falsifiable.
Is this what you're suggesting - that evolution not only just is, but that it cannot be further explained? Are you suggesting that only theories concerning the effects of evolution can be falsifible?
What might be one such theory, even one such prediction, about the effects of evolution?