Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Benevolent Design Hypothesis

This explanation entails that sinister designs that seem to bring harm and degeneration have an underlying positive benefit to the species or population or other species.

Scientific hypotheses are not mere explanations. A scientific “Benevolent Design Hypothesis” would involve a mechanism underlying design, not any explanation or justification for it.

You appear to have multiple misunderstandings about the scientific method.

@Meerkat_SK5

We can test this by studying nociceptive sensitizations in animals.

No, we really can’t, because your hypothesis is in no way mechanistic.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

By “random mutations”, evolutionary biologists mean that mutations occur regardless of their consequences.

Yes, that’s one of the definitions of “random” mutations I am going off on but what is your point by telling me this.

It’s the only biologically relevant definition.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

You don’t know what “new genetic information” means, but you claimed it wasn’t gotten in Lenski’s LTEE. You then go on to cite a paper, which doesn’t define what it meant by “new genetic information”. Aren’t you confused?

Alright, here is my definition. New genetic information would be a new transporter, a new promoter, or a new metabolic pathway.

Why aren’t the new antibody sequences generated by mutation + selection during the immune response new information?