You are correct that those are predictions we can check out. You do realize even hardcore evolutionists like Gould said the fossil record is NOT what is expected? One of the predictions is that active breeding should produce new species. Yet, breeders can zap fruit flies with radiation all day long (they have) and they don't get new species.

You focused on the word laboratory and ignored that most important part of my statement that "Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible.".....You still haven't shown that macroevolution is reproducible or testable.

Observing microevolution of mice and guppies does not prove macroevolution. No one is disputing microevolution here.

No one has ever created a new species. Everyone just assumes it will happen over millions of years but it hasn't been proven even by active breeding. One can only make variations of species.

Name calling does not an intelligent argument make. Selective breeding does not prove macroevolution. When has it created a NEW SPECIES? Maybe you need to do some reading? And no, a theory is not proof. A theory of the flying spaghetti monster is NOT proof of anything.

Actually many folks just want it acknowledged that macroevolution is not the rock solid and proven law of nature some claim it to be. Not necessary to replace with another theory but even just mentioning there are alternatives that some believe would be an improvement.

How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.

You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth.