I notice the word “inferences”. Doesn’t sound like solid science to me. I’m not buying. To me, one must duplicate a system starting from scratch to *prove* anything. Sorry, Bob
Your reply shows a common misconception about science.
Science cannot “prove” anything. Using the scientific method everything is an “inference”
“Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.
As an example, let’s use a science fact that is known to most adults: the existence of electrons. We know that electrons exist, but here’s the rub: Science can never prove that electrons exist. Hypotheses about the existence of electrons have been supported after countless tests using the scientific method. In other words, they have not been refuted. Knowledge of the precise nature of electrons will always be undergoing refinement, but the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the existence of electrons.
How about another example? This time we’ll use an example from plant biology and agriculture. A scientist states a hypothesis that adding nitrogen to the soil will result in increased grain production in corn (maize) plants. The scientist tests the hypothesis in a carefully controlled experiment. Her hypothesis is that nitrogen will increase grain production, and because the hypothesis must be subject to refutation, her alternative hypothesis is that nitrogen will not increase grain production. The experiment reveals that nitrogen does indeed increase grain production. Therefore, her initial hypothesis (also known as a null hypothesis) is supported. If the experiment had not resulted in increased grain production, the initial hypothesis would have been refuted and the alternative hypothesis would have been supported. The scientist can never prove that adding nitrogen to soil increases grain production, but if the hypothesis is supported time and time again, the weight-of-evidence convinces us that the relationship between nitrogen and increased grain production exists and is predictable.”
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
Also you seem to have overlooked my question to you………
Please explain in detail step by step how evolution defies scientific examination