loy" is merely a rubric,beneathwhich are several sub-disciplines such as paleoecology, paleoanatomy, stratigraphy, evo/devo peoaatomy, c)
Each of the supportive sub-disciplines are easily falsifiable or, in wich experimentation is routinely done.
For example, a very big find of paleo/evolutionary significance has happnd within the last 10 years. Two pleontologists, looking for earlier transitional fossils that would show the "shift" between fish and amphibians, reasoned (using a Popperian analyses), that, IF a transitional fossil was sought, it ought to occur in sediments of a particular sequence of the Devonian. Earlier than 400 million years (by standard dating ) we see nothing but lobe finned fish and bony fish and armored fish. AFTER (about) 380 million years , we see some examples of early amphibians. SO, using a an argument that earliest fssils of amphibians should be somewhere in between, these two started mapping the Emsin through the Frsnian rocks and tried to state that "We want some rocks of around390 to 385 million yers. They then looked at geo maps of the earth and picked a couple of spots where these aged rocks appear. They then spent 4 years in the field (to a paleoecologist, a field expedition based on a learned "hunch" is anexperiment0. 4 years later they discovered a fossil of a neat transitional "fishopod" that startled the world and, till today, showed transitional fossil between fish and amphibians forms.
No credible evidence counter to thse finds has been forwarded (one or two "tracks" in shallow water sediments had been forwarded as earlier transitionls but these were dismissed in the last few years.
This is but one example of some field efforts based on "falsifiability' and working in the field as an "experiment based on evidence