You can see various things which can be reliably interpreted as indicators of the DNA structure, but you can't see DNA.
As far as seeing it with my OWN eyes, I don't own the equipment (I wish I did) but others can produce differing images for me if I requested the results of a DNA test from this hypothetical piece of bone.
These are not images of DNA. They are a record of the sizes of various segments of the helix, and the meaning of this record is entirely dependent on a previously established understanding of the existence, structure, and significance of the DNA itself.
The DNA is entirely proveable based upon images, facts and tests (which should be repeated so results can be replicated). Replication of results is important in any study, test, theory or hypothesis.
Okay, I think this is where the engineering background comes in... back in the ancient days, before autoCAD, one would use mathematical points written in equations to produce an "image". My father could actually manipulate these equations so he could make the "image" appear in his head. He was a marvel, and it helped immensely. So when we talk about the representation of points of reference of DNA as an "image" this is how I interpret those points of reference. They produce an "image" that can be deduced from those points.
However, here is the gold: it should be proven by some of those points. The theory must be tested. In reality, all previous thought should be proven periodically to find out if we are truly basing our "facts" on information obtained, and not just on some elaborate scientific dogma created around a pet theory.
Wolf: you might be surprised at my views; I have had an incredible opportunity to experience science in my life, and I have had the hand of God move in my life in ways beyond explanation. Science and God have never been mutually exclusive for me - in fact, I find scientific fact supports my theory of God. I think this is because the more I find out, the deeper I go, the more I discover how little I know...
Once we get beyond linear time limitation and into string theory, things really start to become weird.
The DNA is entirely proveable based upon images, facts and tests (which should be repeated so results can be replicated). Replication of results is important in any study, test, theory or hypothesis.
The theory of evolution is based on exactly the same types of facts and tests, including of course DNA studies. You need to consider what you mean by "entirely provable". To you, the prevalance and acceptance of DNA testing is proof of the whole kit and caboodle of DNA structure and function, but how do you know that all this testing and the results are not simply some kind of gigantic fraud? Or maybe it's not really testing what it purports to be testing.
Does this seem ridiculous? The objections of creationists to the evidence supporting evolution are no less so.