Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

This means that I will be showing how we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution,

Can you apply your test to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 M, which are responsible for two current pandemic? Let’s know if this divine intelligence is currently guiding the evolution of both deadly viruses.

@Meerkat_SK5

The comparison between the genome and computers that have been shown to be more than just metaphorical but literal. For instance, researchers created a biotech version of an e-reader, with one of the highest storage capacity to date. Church_Science_12.pdf (harvard.edu)

Computers have a wide array of functions, unlike genomes which just sit inside cells waiting to be transcribed or replicated. Stop getting it twisted.

@Meerkat_SK5

The required assistance of the biochemist to obtain meaningful results within prebiotic experiments:

Every experiment requires experimenter interference as I have pointed out before. By your logic, a divine intelligence is responsible for all cancers because investigators can interfere more or less with in vitro or in vivo carcinogenesis experiments.

@Meerkat_SK5

“…After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.)" [emphasis added]

Modifying this quote:

@Meerkat_SK5

“…After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during [tumorigenesis studies], let alone the hands of the [medical oncologist] who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.)" [emphasis added]

See how it sounds?

@Meerkat_SK5

The best example of a successful experiment demonstrating, in a legitimate way, how lifelike molecules can emerge from prebiotic chemistry evolution is the Miller-Urey experiments.

There have been other successful experiments. Keep up with the field.

@Meerkat_SK5

The best example of a successful experiment demonstrating, in a legitimate way, how random mutations can potentially produce new traits more often is Lenski’s world-famous long-term experiment on E. coli. In order to successfully disprove the hypothesis, the Lenski experiment needs to produce results similar to what we see from a protein engineer, such as this study:

@Meerkat_SK5

In order to successfully disprove the hypothesis, the Lenski experiment needs to produce results similar to what we see from a protein engineer, such as this study:

The intelligent design of evolution | Molecular Systems Biology (embopress.org)

The press article you linked discussed the findings from this study:

Designed divergent evolution of enzyme function - PubMed

After going through the study abstract:

Abstract

It is generally believed that proteins with promiscuous functions divergently evolved to acquire higher specificity and activity, and that this process was highly dependent on the ability of proteins to alter their functions with a small number of amino acid substitutions (plasticity). The application of this theory of divergent molecular evolution to promiscuous enzymes may allow us to design enzymes with more specificity and higher activity. Many structural and biochemical analyses have identified the active or binding site residues important for functional plasticity (plasticity residues). To understand how these residues contribute to molecular evolution, and thereby formulate a design methodology, plasticity residues were probed in the active site of the promiscuous sesquiterpene synthase gamma-humulene synthase. Identified plasticity residues were systematically recombined based on a mathematical model in order to construct novel terpene synthases, each catalysing the synthesis of one or a few very different sesquiterpenes. Here we present the construction of seven specific and active synthases that use different reaction pathways to produce the specific and very different products. Creation of these enzymes demonstrates the feasibility of exploiting the underlying evolvability of this scaffold, and provides evidence that rational approaches based on these ideas are useful for enzyme design.

it became obvious you either didn’t read it or failed to understand what you read. Those protein engineers simply copied a natural strategy for protein evolution, called divergent molecular evolution, where a promiscuous enzyme evolves into a more highly specific and active form. This in no way resembles what Lenski hoped to achieve with the LTEE.

@Meerkat_SK5

Verification

When the observer chooses a particular set of natural conditions to work on, the observer has to first test and determine whether or not life can be developed within that condition without interference. Then, the observer must perform the same experiment with the same set of natural conditions following the previous one but impose unrealistic interference in the second round of experiments.

Lets modify this as well:

When the observer chooses a particular set of natural conditions to work on, the observer has to first test and determine whether or not [tumors can develop] within that condition without interference. Then, the observer must perform the same experiment with the same set of natural conditions following the previous one but impose unrealistic interference in the second round of experiments.
[/quote]

Whether we sparingly or heavily interfere with tumorigenesis experiments, it says nothing about whether an intelligent mind was involved in the process. That applies as well to OoL experiments.

@Meerkat_SK5

The combined outcomes of these experiments would produce evidence for the hypothesis. This is because even though the experimenter who guides evolution within each natural condition is finite and contingent, there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged, hence why we have to include the first experiment to support the “necessary” attribute of this common designer .

By this logic God is the cause of all cancers because finite investigators guide the induction of tumors in their experiments.

@Meerkat_SK5

Furthermore, since we are dealing with a flawless designer, the discovery of optimality within so-called design flaws would also potentially confirm the hypothesis.

For instance, we should find many more examples of designs that are optimized to fit a particular environment better than another organism from alleged suboptimal design flaws.

We should find more trade-offs between conflicting design goals from allegedly bad designs that are considered to be poorly constructed for its perceived function.

We should find a positive function for sinister designs that seem to only bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. [Just ask for examples]

GULOP stares hard at you.

@Meerkat_SK5

One more thing , feel free to just copy your previous objections from other topics and paste them here, if you feel they still have not been addressed under this topic. This will save everybody time and effort.

Obviously you did not learn much from your previous exchanges. This might turn out to be another waste of time.