Second, a scientific explanation is testable and falsifiable. We test things by using statistics. So.... is your explanation testable? Falsifiable? (note, religion for example is not falsifiable and therefore is not science). How good are your statistical skills. Do you have a control for your potential experiment/test? What about sample size? Have you excluded bias in your experimental design?
If you think getting a hypothesis and an experimental design is easy, then think again. But we all started in science in some way. I hope you get someone who is a criticial thinker and guides you through the process, and I hope you are open to criticism, because peer review of all steps of the process is part of the scientific method.
Without knowing your hypothesis, I am going to guess that you stated it wrongly. What you want to work with is a null hypothesis, that there is NO difference between two things. That is something you can test. Essentially, you have to measure two groups and compare them, showing that there is less than a 5% chance of random variation causing the results you got.
Unless you have taken advanced courses in statistics, I suggest that you confer with a statistician. He can give you an idea of how many measurements you have to take in order to get results that people will believe. For example, if you toss a coin once and it comes up heads, you have provided little evidence that you have a two-headed coin. You have, however, demonstrated that you do not have a two-tailed coin.
Hypotheses need to be testable. Otherwise, they are just ideas, and ideas, believe it or not, as extremely cheap. Generally, we call them SWAGs (Scientific Wild-Arsed Guesses), because, although they MAY be accurate, they are often just conjectures.
So, if you want your SWAG to be taken seriously, you need to provide the parameters on how the result can be measured, what the main parameters are, what conditions will be required in the testing, and so on. You need to show the link (the paths) between your initial conditions and the result expected. You need to show how this all differs from other approaches in the same area, or that it is a new methodology which has not been tried before.
Then you need to get it published, along with something to show that it is all feasible and do-able.
If you're not a professional scientist, or at least a graduate student in the field, it would be a very good idea to get someone who actually knows what they're talking about and who knows the current state of the relevant field to look at it before you do anything. Even real, professional scientists who have been doing research for decades will get anyone and everyone they can think of to take a look at their ideas before sinking time and money into them in hopes of coming up with a better plan.
From University and higher = always need to develop your own methods, sometimes even ideas.
Purpose/Introduction
-State your hypothesis
-Why its you have hypothesis your theory
-Introduce your idea (details)
Method
-How are you going to conduct your experiment to determine if your hypothesis are accurate
-steps
Observation/Data
-Conduct your experiment and record any observations (data)
Analysis/Discussion
-Crunch the numbers and conclusions
Conclusion
-State if your hypothesis was correct, if not, then why.
Am I expected to create my own methods of testing and if so how would these methods be respected in scientific community? Or could I submit it somewhere to be evaluated and/or tested by ornithologists/scientific community?
