First, stop deleting without cause. 

Johnuniq, my suggestion is to either provide a peer-reviewed journal article for the methods of falsifiability listed in the article or provide detail as to why they would be valid methods of falsifiability or deleted that portion of the article. 

24.27 - I was referencing "4.) observations of organisms being created;" from above and am saying that anything that references the necessity of a deity is not allowed into science. Thus this cannot be a method of falsifiability.  We do not allow creationism into science, so why would we allow it as a method of falsifiability.  Thanks you for being open-minded enough to not just flame me.

HRAFN  the platypus is not a transitional species because it currently exists and little is known about the Australian fossil record. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article backing your claim or are you also committing WP:SOAP WP:SYN??

Dave  I have never been called an original thinker as an insult before, so thanks. These, however, are not original thoughts

1. It is not original thought to check that a listed method of falsifiability falls under the definition of falsifiability. The definition of falsifiability is "Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability.  A static fossil record is not an assertion that can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. The fact that the record is not static is a fact that tends to support evolution, but not a method for falsifiability.

2. It is not an original thought that the idea of a deity is not allowed into science. Why would "observations of organisms being created" be listed as a method of falsifiability for a scientific theory when they require a deity?

3. The definition of falsifiability is "Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. If one of these "true chimeras" were to be found, it could still be hypothesized that they were two individual species living in symbiosis and that they evolved into what you see.  Since an observation of this kind would not prove evolution false, it is not a method for falsifiability.

4. "A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating" is not a method of falsifiability because http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg;=PA157&lpg;=%20PA157&dq;=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source;=web&ots;=%20V5yPPBPE6h&sig;=fOkUS_qLsARelWNDqpe5uhq70mI&hl;=en shows that death is a mechanism to at least temporarily stop mutations from accumulating for an entire population, yet evolution has not been deemed false.  

Dave, you may be right. These may be original thoughts, but if they are, then the science backing evolution is in a pathetic state and founded by scientists not smart enough to look at the definition of falsifiability. Or more likely I cannot find peer-reviewed journal articles making my claim because there are no peer-reviewed journal articles stating that these or valid methods of falsifiability in the first place. Thus, either provide a peer-reviewed journal article for the methods of falsifiability listed in the article or provide detail as to why they would be valid methods of falsifiability or deleted that portion of the article.