I just noticed the all-caps "THEORY" in the post you quoted and it reminded myself of how it is amusing that these people never seem to understand what the word 'theory' means in a modern scientific context. Then using it as damning "evidence" that because that word which they don't understand has been used to describe evolution, therefor evolution must be incorrect.
From wikipedia just in case the cognition to seek out the definition is also missing:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]
I've never quite understood how evolution is testable so as to be considered a scientific theory.
If you find a fossil that does not fit into the evolutionary timeline, like if you find a dog fossil in rocks 100 million years old, that might shed doubt on the theory of evolution.
That qualifies as testing?
That method of "testing" seems more like observation.
Yes, testing hypothesis and theories is done by making observations. How else would you test a theory?
Okay, but at what level of scientific rigor? We observe constantly, but those observations don't necessarily lend themselves to the development of strong, scientific theories. This is especially true given that theories (which are ultimately mathematical constructs) often face the problem of "undecidabity," or the inability to determine whether one plausible interpretation of a set of data is more true than some other plausible interpretation. As far as I'm aware, this just sounds like 'naturalistic observation' which has never been synonymous with 'experiment.'
Edit: A theory can be complete, incomplete, right, or dead wrong. I think we can agree that we're both interested in 'good' theories which are testable, replicable, supported by multiple experiments and data sets, etc. Although I think modern evolutionary theory is supported by a large data set, I'm still having difficulty understanding how it is testable and replicable.
Edit 2: I've posited many times on this forum that, given the available evidence, there are alternative theories that are at least equally plausible (e.g. The evidence supports a theory that evolution in conscious states lead to evolved physical states rather than vice versa). How would you propose we test the theory of evolution against these other plausible theories?
, which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a way to experiment with evolution.
Every time a new fossil is described, that adds to the data set. If a fossil is found which does not fit the evolutionary theory, then the theory must be updated to account for it.
RE Edit 2: I am not sure I understand what the heck you are talking about? What do you mean conscious states vs. physical states?