[Rachumlakenschlaff]

the theory of evolution is testable, and thus scientific, even though it is not reproduceable in the laboratory, because it predicts that we will find certain things and not others.

I would not agree that just because a theory makes predictions that it is testable. These are two different phases of the scientific method. And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.

Controlled experimentation is crucial. Given a set of observations, it is possible to conceive of an hypothesis to explain them. And, while it is true that the hypothesis can make both positive and negative predictions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the hypothesis if you cannot control the conditions. You are at the mercy of a data set over which you have no control. In fact, virtually every data set is actually just a sample of the true data set of all possible observations. There is no guarantee that the sample data set is representative of the whole thing.

For this reason, I consider evolution to be more anecdotal than scientific.

[PatrickHenry]

And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.

This will be big news to professionals in astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.

[Condorman]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.