Atheists: got a double standard for proof of evolution, or do you simply not comprehend the word predict??
Ordinarily, predictions are an important part of any successful scientific theory. They are supposed to give you some kind of concrete comprehending of how the world works. For instance, electromagnetic theory can be applied to tell you how a circuit or other arrangement of charges will behave. That's will behave, not has behaved - it does not create an elaborate post-diction explanation for why last night's lightning strikes landed where they did, it allows you to harness the comprehending to create technology that operates exactly how it predicts it will.
Apparently, in evolutionary theory, the pre in prediction is mostly decorative. Because the 'last night's lightning strikes' thing is exactly what they do: they look at things that have already happened, like the fossil record or antibiotic resistance, and they retroactively conjure an explanation for it. Man, I need to get into science - it looks like it's really easy! ...as long as you get into a field like evolutionary biology that does not actually adhere to the scientific method, that is.
According to evolutionists, if I record the weather for a year and then recite it back to you, I'm the world's most successful meteorologist! Problem is, meteorologists seem to have much higher scientific standards than evolutionists - the evolutionists would herald me as a genius, but the meteorologists would tell me to go back to science class.
So tell me, what other sciences only require that you write stories about how what we already know came to be, rather than actually telling us something verifiable about how the world WILL behave?