No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
In fact, evolution
has been duplicated. Evolution is a change in the traits of a population from one generation to the next. A way that biological systems can evolve is under selective pressures. This is what Darwin's original theory was about; people have done that to many species, and nature itself has done that to even more.
For the first case, look at domestic dogs. If you want a scientific experiment, look at how Dudley and Lambert selected for high and low oil content in maize and achieved spectacular results in both directions (couldn't find the article text online, but there's a graph of their results in
The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, and here's the reference in case you want to read the original paper:
Dudley,
J.W. and R.J. Lambert. 1992. Ninety generations of selection for oil and protein in maize.
Maydica 37:1_7.
There were similar experiments on fruit flies, I bet you can find loads of information on the internet if you care to look.
As for selection leading to change in nature, I can give you
this paper. Apparently, finch beaks got smaller when there were few large seeds to eat and the big-beaked guys and girls died off...
True, this is small-scale evolution (to expect large-scale events such as a fish-tetrapod transition to occur within a human timescale is like expecting your brother to grow up in a few seconds, in my opinion), but it
is evolution. So don't tell me it hasn't been "proved". It has been shown to occur, and probably as unambiguously as anything in science.
I agree with the others. Proof is for logic, evidence is for science.
(by the way, you're a bit confused on terminology. Yes, an
experiment has to be replicable if you want people to take you seriously. But I don't see how you can "duplicate" a theory, unless by writing it down again and again
What a theory/hypothesis* has to do is make testable predictions)
*And here's where I'm confused about terminology. Honestly, after having taken a course called Science Methods, I have not the faintest idea what a "theory" is. I like to think of them as sort of "extended", more general hypotheses, but you can argue with my definition.