That has little to do with evolutionary history; it is proposed, for example, that some dinosaurs evolved into birds in the distant past.  This proposition is unobserable, unverifiable, and cannot be falsified.  Therefore, given the definition of science, it cannot be scientific.  Assuming that the past operated in the same way the preseent does does not grant observation of the event.

My point is that if the objection that that which cannot be falsified should not be taught as science, then evolution should not be taught as science (the history of it, at least).

I must say, there is a noticeable difference between the 2 responses you have given my posting of this :P

iT WOUDL be falsified pretty quickly if they found bird fossiles that pre-date dinosaurs. There are plenty of things that would falsify that claim. Their is plenty of evidence to back the claim from physiology to genetics.  And until we can detect gravitons or whatever it is that makes gravity we can only look for evidence that objectsof mass have gravitational force. The whole humans only have 23 chromosomes compared to the 24 of our suppsoeds andcestors would have been a huge falsification forc ommon descent if they hadn't found where they fused (which by the by was exactly what they predicted they would find) on...what was it, chromosome number 2? With the centromeres and tellomers ect..sorry...drinking. Evolution could have been falsified a thousand times over but just about every prediction that the thoery makes turns out to be true. Fuck, they could even predict exactly where in the world to find a fish fossil with the nose on top of it's head and specific features in it's joints and found it. Fuck, give me some time to sober up and I'll look up the name and details on the proper fossils. Making accurate predictions is also a very large part of science and evolution gets that in spades. Large portions of science aren't repetable in a lab simply because of their nature, adn to the extent you can evolve somthing in a lab we've done so. We've speciated plants, and observed the speciation of insects. Other than being able to create new animals on demand in some srt of fast forward biosphere, evolution does everything the scientific method coudl demand of it. the kind of demand you place on it elimates prety much all science except for applied phsyics and some chemistry. But I've talked to you extensively enough to know that you can get a bit wacko, but the poitn stands that as much as we hold something like geology or cosmology to be scientific, evolution is scientific. What;s some good 90s music? feeling nostalgic.

Birds evolving from dinosaurs can be falsified and verifiable.  Keep in mind that the term dinosaur covers everything from T-Rex to tiny lizards running around the forest, from pterodactyls in the sky to giant dinosaurs swimming in the ocean.  There were even dinosaurs with feathers that looked like birds, so there isnt much of a stretch here.

Of course, it cant be observed and verified first hand, but it can be observed in the fossil record, which is precisely what paleotologists have been doing.  Besides, we assume many things to be true that we cannot obvserve first hand, such as atomic fusion in the sun or Earth's magentic core.

Finding a bird fossil the predates dinosaurs (dating methods being another unfalsifiable thing) would not disprove that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  It could simply mean that it happened to evolve from something else during that time frame, and not contradict the current belief that the fossil record shows that todays birds are descendents of dinosaurs.

As for evolution being observed today, yes, I would agree that that is science (not that I think it is actually evolution, mind you).

Sadly, I do not know of any good 90's music :(

That didn't make nay sense. It woud prove that birds evolved from something other than dinosaurs before dinosaurs existed but not contradict the idea that they evolved from dinosaurs...wat? Disprove half-lives and geology and you disprove dating methdos also. And if selectively breeding plants to have specific alleles changing the phenotype, and genotype to such an extent that they are no longer capable of breeding, AKA speciation is not evolution then what the hell is? Doing it to a cat? Plants don't coutn? Or is it the wacky idea that things can evolve but only a little bit, and sure they can change species an all, but at some point they just stop, I mean you can gradually change the alleles all you want, and change it into a thousand different species but at some point the phenotype just stops for no particular reason, and thusly speciation says nothing about evolution. At some ponti you just have to admit that nothing could possibly count in your mind as sufficient evidence of evolution. You can read Jerry Coyne's book and claim that it's just a bunch of coincedences that don't mean anything, but it's just daft.

Whoa there

Slow down

If evolution being observed today isn't evolution, then what the Hell is it?

See my response to Vagabond above.
But, this is more of a single part of evolutionary history (which, admittedly, I brought up): the more correct  thing I'm referring to is more of what would be the whole historical evolution idea that life forms past and present are descendents of radically different life forms (which would not be disproven by older bird fossils, more appropriately).

On the other hand, irreducable complexity may be a way to disprove.  Although, that is itself also untestable.

Atomic theory is testable, whereas evolutionary history is not.

I believe you have failed to understand the meaning of these words in some cases.

Observability. This does not mean that a process has to be observed as it occurs, if historical evidence of something exists observing that historical evidence is still observation. It is without a doubt that science is based purely on observed evidence - whether this evidence is observed as soon as the process has taken place or whether the evidence is observed millions of years after is inconsequential.

Testability. The ability to make and test predictions does not necessarily require the process to be actively observable. In the case of evolution the predictions include things such as that more advanced organisms will be primarily in the newer layers and less advanced organisms in the lower layers. Or as Rubang pointed out the chromosone thing.

Repeatability. The same evidence of evolution has often been found in different places at different times. That is repetition.

Falsifiability. Evolution is very falsifiable. Proving that genes do not mutate would demolish the theory of evolution.

Also science cannot come to a supernatural conclusion ever. If there are two contradicting sets of well observed observations (which interestingly enough sounds a lot like quantum and classical physics) scientists will work out to find out how and why they contradict. God is not falsifiable and as such can not ever be considered science.

Yeah, I've caught a lot of flack for this in the past :/

Basicially, by evolution, I'm not referring to the overly-broad "descent with modification" - we've know that a child will look different from its parents for a good while now.  Nor do I mean by evolution even natural selection combined with random mutation (I acknowledge both of those as true).  By evolution, I mean the idea that, given natural selection and random mutation, a bird could eventually have a fish for a descendent.