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?
What we mean has been clarified to you over and over, but you don't like the answers given so you claim they lacked clarity. That's YOUR problem not ours.
Different nothing to expand.
No I'm not confusing theory and fact. What science is all about is developiong the theories to explain the facts. Especially early science, we knew the facts we could see the facts (these days most of the facts are subatomic and most of us can't see them), but they had no explanation. Things fell down, but nobody had figured out how they fell, what rates things fell at, or how those rates were determined. Thus the theory of gravity was born, things weren't going to stop falling down if Newton hadn't started mucking with stuff to develop a theory, the fact remained with or without explanation. But God created man as a very curious beast, we like to figure out how things work, we look at facts and want more facts and theories to explain them.
I'm suggesting almost exactly the opposite. Whether or not we can explain it has no effect on whether or not evolution is. Electricity existed for a long time before we could explain, fire existed for a long time before we could explain it and even continued to exist while our explanation for it was complete garbage. I don't believe that right now our explanation of evolution is correct, if it was it would be one of the fastest correct explanations mankind has ever come up with, and given the complexity of the thing that seems highly unlikely.
I'm not suggesting anything about falsifiablity. That's YOUR hangup. ANd also further demonstrates your lack of understanding. Science is not falsifiable, scientific proof can be but that's why science believes so strongly in reproducability (among the sciences where we can actually poke things to make stuff happen), verifiability (presenting the entire body of work for analysis, and peer review. To eliminate falsification. Unfortunately there's too much money involved so nothing can prevent it, but these steps help disprove falsified stuff rather quickly.
The effects of evolution are simple: new species. But understand that no theory of evolution has new species showing up in less than thousands of years and this science is less than 200 years old, it's gonna be a while before we get to see it in action.