On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[painted wolf]

Exactly... you can't 'prove' that god doesn't nudge the molecules in the petrol vapor to make it burn.
"proof" has no place in such a discussion. (indeed it can not, as there is no way to offer 'proof' either for or against.)

Logically it doesn't need to be god... but that doesn't preclude god from participating.

wa:do

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What caused the advent of bipedalism?

Radiation, inefficient DNA repair/replication, mutagentic chemicals, maybe even free-radicals could have caused the advent of the mutations associated with bipedalism in the individual, natural selection could have caused the advent of bipedalism within the population.

Alternative - God did it.

Alternative to the alternative - Doctor Who did it.

No one can say for sure, except perhaps God and Doctor Who but they're not very forthcoming...

[painted wolf]

well, the Doctor isn't one for giving things away.
On the other hand lots of people like to tell others what God 'really' thinks.

wa:do

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Sounds good to me. What test(s) might we run to distinguish between "just lucky" and an act of intervention?

There isn't one; science cannot detect the supernatural, nor is it appropriate to try. If you want to believe that every mutation is chosen by God, go for it. However, be aware that:
-most mutations are nuetral.
-many mutations are harmful.
-a few mutations are beneficial.
So that would be an odd way for God to proceed. Basically, the pattern that we see looks the same as if they were occurring randomly. It's just like any other test for God, He always behaves exactly as if He didn't exist. Hmmm...I'm seeing a pattern.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Or continents.

Or coins. Maybe God decides while each one is in the air whether it should come down heads or tails. It just so happens that He chooses heads about 50% of the time, exactly as though it were random chance. That kind of God begins to look an awful lot like random chance. And randomness looks to me a lot like non-existence.

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Or coins. Maybe God decides while each one is in the air whether it should come down heads or tails. It just so happens that He chooses heads about 50% of the time, exactly as though it were random chance. That kind of God begins to look an awful lot like random chance. And randomness looks to me a lot like non-existence.

But, if God used what you're calling random chance to bring about existence, would that not mean that in his absence you would just call whatever other mechanism that existed random chance?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

But, if God used what you're calling random chance to bring about existence, would that not mean that in his absence you would just call whatever other mechanism that existed random chance?

Sorry, I didn't understand you.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

However, be aware that: ...

Respectfully, I am very much aware of these things and have been for many, many years.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Sounds good to me. What test(s) might we run to distinguish between "just lucky" and an act of intervention?

Why only these two options? Why is just lucky in double quotes?

How is an act of intervention on the table as an option? Its unproven fabrication with no evidence and stated in a most un-scientific manner.

Why is it even considered lucky? What was going on that would make walking on two legs so lucky?

What would it indicate if we didn't walk on two legs?

Why do you think this one step in evolution (excuse the pun) is even all that difficult to form a plausible theory on? Why focus on walking on two legs? Ostriches walk on two legs... Whats the point of this discussion? Is this an attempt to debunk evolution by fraudently claiming the advent of bipedalism can only be adequately explained by the touch of god?