Here we go.
1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.
2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.
I maintain these two simple, elementary things cannot and have not been done. Until they are done, people have no business pretending otherwise.
You are asking a valid question. It is legitimate to ask if evolution is treated differently that the rest of science. What I'll show here is that, if you read a bit about the general history of science (such as the concepts of atoms, or gravity, or light), that concepts like evolution is treated no differently. It is every bit just as falsifiable!
Here are the examples:
1. A trilobite and a tyrranosaur in the same layer of soil. Or a rabbit skeleton next to a tiktaalik skeleton in a Devonian layer. These would falsify the entire fossil evidence for evolution.
2. Lack of any genetic pattern supporting common ancestry. (Remember, Darwin proposed his theory of evolution " before " the basics of genetics was understood.)
3. If some life forms had left-handed DNA and some right-handed, they could not have evolved from a common ancestor. (Remember, the main structure of evolutionary theory was in place before the discovery of DNA.)
4. If all life forms used different amino acids, instead of the same 20 ... or if there were a different mapping of DNA codons to amino acids ... they could not have evolved from a common ancestor. (E.g. if some organism used TGG to code Glutamine instead of Tryptophan as in " ALL " other oganisms, then that organism could not have evolved from the same ancestor.)
5. If the molecular clock (the speed at which mutational markers occur) showed a divergence between humans and apes less than a million years, or older than 20 million years, this would falsify the theory. I.e. if the split between humans and apes was bigger than that between apes and monkeys. In other words, if the molecular clock gave different results than are shown in the fossil record, or are possible given the phylogenetic classification of species, then this would falsify evolution.
6. If new evidence from astronomy were to show the sun being less than 3.5 billion years old (which would make the first signs of life " older " than the sun needed to support it). Or if evidence from geology showed the earth less than 3 billion years old, these would falsify the timescales the biologists believe were necessary for evolution.
7. If all structures were perfectly designed specifically for their function, instead of common structures being " repurposed " for different functions. (E.g. if a bat's wing and bird's wing had the same structure, because they have the same function ... instead of finding, as we have, that the bat's wing is closer in structure to the human hand, or the digging front paws of a mole ... indicating a mammalian front-limb " repurposed " for flying.)
8. If all DNA was functional this would tend to falsify evolution, as there *should* be lots of accumulated non-coding DNA since there are no significant processes for deleting unnecessary DNA. Instead we find that as much as 98% (!) of DNA has no function whatsoever.
9. A lack of pattern in the commonalities of structures. E.g. the split between the Old World (OW) primates (the African and Asian primates, including all apes and humans) and New World (NW) primates (the Central and South American monkeys) also coincides in the split between opposable thumbs (OW primates have them, NW primates don't); color vision (OW primates have it, NW primates don't); prehensile tails (OW primates don't have them, NW primates do); number of teeth (OW primates have 2 premolars, NW primates have 3); etc. All of these show that the OW primates are more closely related to each other by common ancestry than to the NW primates ... a relationship explainable by the separation of the Old World and New World " continents " ... a relationship that would NOT be apparent if these features were evenly distributed across all these 145 different species of simian primates.
10. If there was no way to classify species into a single hierarchical tree, that would falsify evolution. I.e. if we could not organize species into well-defined kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, species, and subspecies ... if every time we thought we had a grouping, we found reptiles with fur, or mammals with feathers, that could not be organized into any pattern at all, then the concept of diverging ancestry would be falsified. Or if these categories were not verified with DNA or molecular commonalities ... e.g. if the DNA for producing chimp insulin had more sequences in common with the insulin of the mice living in the same forest, than with the howler monkeys living on the opposite side of the world, then the pylogenetic tree is unraveled, and evolution is falsified.
... Do you see the point? As with evidence in all branches of science, it's about " PATTERNS ". So anything that were to " break " these patterns would start to unravel evolution as an explanation. They would indeed be considered " falsifying " data.
But in 150 years of gathering literally " millions " of items of evidence, we have not found " anything " of significance that breaks any of these patterns.
As for mitoEve being older than Y-chromAdam ... you can't accept the scientific evidence of " comparative " age as evidence of Noah's Ark ... while simultaneously ignoring the " absolute " ages that are part of the same evidence ... 60,000 years for y-chromAdam and 140,000 years for mitoEve is indeed consistent with a founder effect (which is part of evolution), but NOT Noah's Ark!
As for punctuated equilibrium, that is a perfect example of how ALL science works! The fact that the fossil pattern shows a non-constant " RATE " of evolution does NOT falsify Darwin's basic theory. Never did. Darwin thought it was constant based on the limited data he had. But there is NOTHING in basic Darwinian theory that requires a constant " RATE " of evolution (slow yes, but " constant ", no). There was a deeper pattern in the fossils we didn't see before ... but not one that "contradicts " the old pattern (fossils still correlate perfectly to the layers in which they are found). That the concept of punctuated equilibrium explains that deeper pattern, without changing the " basic " Darwinian theory, is testament to the " strength " of that theory!
That is precisely how ALL science works!
That is why Einstein can modify Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity without declaring that Newton's laws are "falsified." Instead the theory of gravity " grows " with Einstein's additions (and why we still call it the 'theory of gravity' and always will ... not because 'theory' means 'uncertain' ... but because it means " explanation ").
That is why Planck can note patterns in atomic energies, and can come up with quantum theory to explain it, but without changing the " basics " of atomic theory as proposed by people like Rutherford. Instead the theory of atoms " grows " with Planck's additions (and why we still call it the 'theory of atoms' or 'atomic theory' and always will ... not because 'theory' means 'uncertain' ... but because it means "explanation").
Yes, occasionally there are two " rival " theories like the steady-state and big bang theories that are fundamentally " contradictory " ... and then new evidence is noted that favors one and falsifies the other.
[Aside: If some old steady-state advocates want to keep it alive by proposing multiverses, there's nothing wrong with that ... as long as they call it a 'hypothesis' until there is evidence. If they do eventually find some evidence, then it will graduate to a 'theory' and this will reconcile the steady-state and big bang into one big theory. This is also common in science to find a " synthesis " of two previously incompatible theories (e.g. blending the particle and wave theories of light into a single concept ... the 'photon'). Again, this is fully compatible with how ALL science works.]
But punctuated equilibrium is not fundamentally " contradictory " to Darwinian evolution. It fits the existing data, but adds to the theory in a way that it explains more..
Conclusion: Evolution is just as falsifiable as anything else in science. It is NOT treated differently. The scientific community at large would not stand for it if the biologists were really trying to sneak something through that was not real science ... not falsifiable, not testable. To sneak even a tiny concept in the back door would be unheard of. Something as " central " to modern biology as evolution? Sorry, you would have to have a " VERY " low opinion of all scientists ... to the point of outright contempt for the entire scientific method, and the concept of peer review to believe that!
Yeah right.. secretsauce is my idol and my proctor.. I have a permission..
What is the problem with that?