If you have studied evolution, as you have claimed, you would know that perhaps half of all sciences do not use experimentation. These sciences are often called forensic sciences, and they work quite well within the scientific method. Within this method, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is overwhelming.
As for "proved" -- see my prior post and the definitions on my FR homepage.
I'm not sure you should associate biology with "science" that has this measure of success.
Evidence From Bite Marks, It Turns Out, Is Not So Elementary
In spite of the evolution of other forensic sciences, bite-mark analysis remains an inexact tool. A 1999 study by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, a professional trade organization, found a 63 percent rate of false identifications.
Why is it, then, that bite-mark analysis remains part of the forensic arsenal? There is, experts say, a mix of ignorance on the part of jurors and defense lawyers about the evidence’s scientific shortcomings and the overzealousness of prosecutors and their expert witnesses, who are seen as too quick to validate an unproven technique.
There's that pesky word "proof"(proven) again.