Again, the fact that a "solving mechanism" exists does not mean that it 'evolved'. The bacteria could just as easily have been created with that ability.
"Saying the change we currently see isn’t responsible for change in the past is akin to saying the erosion we currently see in the Grand Canyon isn’t responsible for making the canyon."
Actually it would be scientifically accurate to say that since current erosion was not observed to create the Grand Canyon. You need to learn the difference between what science can say and what is a philosophical statement.
"Well sure, a big guy named Paul Bunyan COULD have dug it all out in a day; but such is NOT a scientific hypothesis."
And assuming that current erosion did it is NOT scientific either.
"A hypothesis that the state we currently see the canyon in is a result of the changes we currently see underway is a scientific model that explains facts and allows predictions."
Nothing scientific about it since the 'hypothesis' cannot ever be observed. It is philosophical.
"And one can easily assess that the amount of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the existence of the canyon."
No, one must believe that current erosion explains the existence of the canyon. It is impossible to state scientifically. You don't seem to understand the definition of science.
"Similarly, the best scientific model to explain the differences between species is that the currently observed rate of change is responsible for the observed differences between species.
Speciation from canines into felines has never been observed. That too is a belief and is not scientific.
"And one can easily assess that the amount of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain the observed differences."
Not scientifically you can't. Philosophically yes, but not scientifically. Please educate yourself on the difference between what science can say and what philosophy must say.
This from the idiot who said...
“Science is based on the assumption that there is no god and that everything that is observed occurred without supernatural intervention.”
????
No, my idiotic FRiend, it is YOU who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what science actually is, but you are sure that you hate it because the strawman version you invented is against everything you believe!
Nobody yet has observed a valence electron shell, yet they are hypothesized to exist, and they make for a useful model that allows prediction and explanation.
Nobody was there to see the Grand Canyon form via erosion, yet the hypothesis that it DID form via erosion makes for a useful model that allows prediction and explanation.
The proposition that it was formed instantaneously using miraculous means is not scientific, and it is an absolutely useless model in terms of prediction.
When Galileo dropped weights off the tower of Pisa, he was not merely observing and measuring how those weights fell at that location at that time - he was extrapolating into the principle behind how ALL weights fall at ALL locations at ALL times.