What "rigorous" tests? What new species has formed/evolved in the last 100 years? Name one! Come on you guys! Bacteria (still bacteria) have become more resistant? Wow, that nails it.
If you knew the slightest thing about how evolution actually works, rather than the creationist parody of 'magical' evolution, you'd know just how ridiculous it is to say this. Evolution works over hundreds or thousands of generations, but you seem to expect it to produce instant results. Maybe you think the 'evolution' described in later Star Trek series, where an organism mutates within the span of a single show, represents the scientific reality? If so, you need to go and spend some time studying real science.
What has been observed is the argument creationists use to explain how all the "kinds" of animals fit on the arc. There was no Golden Retriever breed in the 1700s, the breed was bred from guess what? Monkeys? No. Dogs!
If a species of dog were to be bred from monkeys in a few hundred years, it would disprove evolutionary theory as it currently stands. Furthermore, evolutionary theory predicts the divergence of a species into varying types depending on environmental pressures (which naturally includes humans and our efforts to get specific breeds of various animals). The part of evolutionary theory that you think this example disproves isn't even touched upon because it's a much longer-term process.
Applied how? How are we applying evolution? I know we are genetically engineering seed crops, but, genetically engineered corn is still corn. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Breeding different varieties of animals is evolution. Breeding different varieties of plants is evolution. This is because evolutionary theory covers both of those and virtually all other biological fields as well. Contrary to what you might think, your examples are supporting evolutionary theory, not disproving it; if you had studied what evolution is really about, you would understand why.
The Theory of Evolution is now "scientific fact"? You need to learn the language of science and study more, you have fallen into the kool-aid vat.
A scientific theory is essentially a fact, not an educated guess, as laymen (and you) tend to think of it. Maybe you should go and actually look up what a scientific theory is, since it's one of the most basic definitions in science. You have no room to lecture anyone on scientific understanding if you don't even understand basic jargon that's covered in high school textbooks.
What testing experiments in the last 150 years support evolution? Name one please! In fact, all experiments to "prove" evolution have been abysmal failures. Miller experiment (abiogenesis really), fruit fly (the most experimented on animal) to name two off the top of my head.
Okay, for starters, any and all medical testing on animals which can then be used to predict how humans will react to it. If there were no genetic relationship between humans and animals - which is an essential part of evolutionary theory - then this wouldn't work. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution, and the fruit fly experiments you cite are clearly being misrepresented by creationists with an axe to grind (assuming you actually have sources and didn't just pull stuff out of thin air), as TalkOrigins
(refer to 5.3) demonstrates.
The fossil record!, come on, even your guys can't agree on how it was even formed or how much original material was present and in what form to even accurately date anything.
Leaving aside that virtually everyone that knows the field and doesn't have a creationist axe to grind agrees on the dating methods, and the fact that there are several methods by which fossils can form, and far more methods by which biological remains can be converted into food for other organisms...well, I think your points are moot.
And from this non-consensus you blather on about "early mammal fossils that are older than early reptile fossils because simple egg-layers like reptiles predate" blah, blah, blah.
Anyone who thinks "blah blah blah" is an appropriate response in a discussion about any science is someone who doesn't know enough to contribute anything meaningful in the first place. And it's not like it's that difficult to educate yourself so that you can contribute meaningfully - which doesn't mean to mindlessly agree. Science benefits from people who don't agree about things because people who have the same beliefs don't question their basic tenets.
Today's scientists are calling in kind mutations proof of evolution. "This mechanism (mutations)was present when" blah, blah blah...viola, out popped a new species.
That's because they are proof of evolution, as you would understand if you actually took the time you're wasting with these inane 'rebuttals' and studied the subject matter at hand. You have to show that you understand enough to write intelligent critiques; right now, you're just doing the equivalent of "blah blah blah, I'm not listening, and you're wrong!"
Penicillin was discovered by accident ("it just flew in the window"). It didn't evolve, it was around like everything else. And this proves evolution how? We're looking at putting a pigs heart into humans - and this proves evolution how?
Nobody, not even all creationists, would try to argue that penicillin evolved just when we found it. And as for the pig heart thing, it helps to prove evolution because it establishes a biological relationship between pigs and humans. If there were 'kinds', as some creationists try to argue, then this would be impossible. It would be useless to do medical tests on animals in order to predict how humans might react to those same tests. Etc, etc.
Come back when you've actually studied science enough to understand just how awful your arguments are.