Let's just talk about the premise here, shall we? The author seems to claim that because so many predictions in evolution have been falsified, it means we should abandon the theory, rather than adjusting it to fit the new information. This is not how science works. Science is about building functional models of reality. We do not abandon a working model simply because individual parts do not work. Regardless of certain parts of the model being false, it is still useful and workable, and even more importantly, there is no alternative functional model. This isn't like in physics, where Newton's theories were retired in favor of general relativity and quantum mechanics. In biology, there is no other functional model, and that a theory which predates so much of its own evidence could still be so right is astounding in its own right.
Many of the claims are minutia; things the scientists in question could not have reasonably known about (criticizing someone who lived before DNA for not knowing about DNA is just silly), minor details that were resolved once more evidence came to light, or the like. None of them overturn the theory of evolution. None of them provide a functional predictive model to work from. FWIW, I'm not seeing too many errors in my brief skim, beyond the big, obvious one in the introduction which I explained above, so kudos for that.