I'd also like to point out that these are *far* from being the only tests of evolution. The example of Tiktaalik is a very interesting one. Here, the scientists predicted the existence of this species and where it should be possible to find it. They went there (northern Canada) and found what they had predicted!
Not sure if anyone else already covered this bit...Evolution is falsifiable: Darwin himself described several points that would automatically rule it out. Off the top of my head: A young Earth would mean not enough time for evolution to work and, possibly the biggest one; if ever even a single fossil of a modern animal was found in ancient rock strata, it would undermine the whole idea. These things have simply never been found and, in fact, everything that ever has been found lends even more support to the original idea while refining our understanding of the whole. There is a huge difference between a theory being falsifiable and some bible banger getting frustrated because they can't figure out how to prove it wrong.
There is a line of pseudo-evidence on that one. Does anyone remember the human-footprints-in-T-rex-rocks? :D I actually had that one called on me once, and I could only reply that I didn't know anything about it and therefore couldn't possibly comment. :D
It was the Jurrassic equivalent of the Piltdown Man hoax---two incongrous epochs meticulously fitted together like jigzaw pieces to confound the orthodoxy. On the otherhand, orthodoxies ought to get tested periodically to check if they're currently worth their salt.
Yes it is? Here's what you need to do to falsify evolution.
Show where two cousin species, say humans and Chimpanzees, show no genetic similarities. If the genes on both were completely different, or organized differently. Basically your hypothesis here would be, "There are genetic markings that are the same in humans and chimpanzees." This, we can show, to be true.