This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained. Well bread pudding does not explain why roses are red. I don't think that requires proof, except maybe to you.
P.S. I'll bet you confuse all and any
"There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection".
To which you responded:
This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained.
The Negative proposition that:
There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection
is unprovable BY DEFINITION.
The fact that something cannot be explained by something else does NOT demonstrate the existence of anything. In this case:
There exists at least one biological structure or process
The fact that this statement isn't negated doesn't make prove the existence of anything else. There is no proof for this statement: there exists. The Burden of Proof is incumbent upon the person making the Assertion. The Existence of such a biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection is a matter of opinion, not science.
Logically it is an invalid proposition. One cannot prove what doesn't exist - only what does exist. That is what makes science science and faith faith. One is dependent upon evidence and the other needs none.
And you never seem to understand the difference.
It is fun playing in the sandbox with you from time to time though.