No scientific Theory can be proved - it can only be disproved. That is in the nature of science: a Theory is simply a Hypothesis that has satisfied many tests and defeated may attempts at disproof. However, a theory can be tested - and frequently is. The theory could very easily be *disproved* - by finding human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. Or any other mixture of remains from what are regarded as widely differing times. You can also see evolution in action - for example, in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The large the species you want to see evolution in, the longer it will take, because it seems to take a few hundred generations for evolution to show up clearly. In bacteria, that may be only months; in mammals that is usually the better part of a century.

The theory of evolution has been validated more than most theories. It is as close to fact as you can get in a theory. Even though it is modified as more is learned. The scientific method is the best way to evaluate evidence. Scientific advancement would stop if it weren't for the scientific method.

So I guess my next question would have to be, what kind of test (or process) would one have to run to figure out what did not happen at the beginning? And if it no such test exists, then should science be exploring that question, or leave it up to religion?

Yes, this was all the proof I needed.

No. It can't be proven. No one was there to see anyone evolve. It can't be replicated.

Sorry in advance for the lack of brevity, but there are a few issues with the question. #1 - A "theory" in science is not the same as a hypothesis (despite what Im Alec said), the word theory, in science language, a theory is generally a complex model based off of scientific laws and lemmas and observations. So, it is rather rare that science is ever concerned with supporting theories, since, by the time they are accepted as theories, they are already rather robust, at least for whatever purpose they serve. #2 Even for a hypothesis, you can very very rarely ever prove a positive. This is more a matter of logic than just specifically science. It's far more easy to try to disprove something. And, if something has withstood rigorous attempts at disproving it, it's not that it is proven true, but rather it is taken to be true if there is not a better guess that shows more simplicity and has also been rigorously defended. #3 The Scientific Method, in particular, relies on this principle of falsifiability. Anything that cannot be hypothetically falsified is necessarily outside of the scope of the Scientific Method itself. So, no. But, here's where we are at. The "Theory of Evolution" is a complex model. The fact that species can evolve into other species is simply an observation. It has been observed in the wild. It has been documented in real time. But that's specifically breeding of certain observable phenotypes to the point where one species splits into two. For something like a microorganism or even a small arthropod, I'm sure that's not very exciting for anyone who pragmatically denies "evolution," but, whatever the case, anyone truly interested in understanding this sort of thing really ought to try to learn what things mean and then that'll arm them to be able to do their own secondary research better. I have a feeling that the question is intended to pertain to something far more specific than what its language indicates, for example abiogenesis or the origin of Homo Sapiens, or something like that. Biology is far more fuzzy about one of those things than the other...