Willravel

I was being snarky.
Evolution isn't just mutation, it's also natural selection.
Of course you can. Nearly every scientific theory intentionally ignores outside variables so that a general system can be described. That doesn't make the system untrue. Evolution, as a theory, has a lot of variables involved, and many of those variables aren't taken into account, but the theory can still be applied to reality to make predictions. And has. Applying his knowledge to the theory of evolution, Dr. Ernst Mayr predicted that speciation occurs with faster genetic evolution. It turns out his prediction was correct. Entire trees of evolution have been created and then tested to demonstrate the path of a species evolution. It most certainly can be used to predict.
Then I'm arguing with your Warsaw nuclear physics professor by proxy? What is it we're doing here if you understand and accept evolution as reality? Is this just a debate about whether or not evolution is a science, because if it is we probably have other threads for it. This thread is about the problem of creationism, or religion pretending to be science.
I'm not well educated in the field of physics. My last class was to get my general electives back in college, and was really only physics 101 What I do know, however, is that science isn't something you "believe in", it's something you either understand or don't understand. I may not understand PhD level physics, but I do understand evolutionary biology. I can make a prediction right now that I wouldn't be able to without the theory of evolution: if global climate change causes a new ice age, humans with the genes that favor more fat and resilience to cold will be able to adapt better to the cold, and will be more likely to reproduce, creating more cold-friendly children. Any genetic mutation during however long the ice age is that is beneficial will be more likely to survive and give the human(s) a better chance at adapting completely or holding out until the ice age ends.

Now, how could I make such a prediction without evolution?
My point was that even if your professor is real, he doesn't demonstrate anything. It's either an appeal to authority fallacy or a red herring. Whether he exists or not, he's moot to the discussion because he can't be verified.