Creation of human is possible

[bahman]

Nope.
The point is in this case you are relying fundamentally on the results [R] of the top-down approach.
If you use R to go-upward from R that is not a bottom-up approach per se.
That is still fundamentally a top-down approach where one use the top-down principles to go up and down the processes.

But to stretch and extended beyond R to something intelligent without solid proof is a bottom up approach per se.

You are stopping the infinite regress to speculate a starting point at a 'bottom' with certainty.


No, it does not follow.

The evidence support the existence of genes but there is no evidence of any creator creating the genes like in a science lab.
You are merely speculating hastily as driven by an inherent existential crisis which is psychological.
What is real is your psychological state, there is no real intelligent creator.



As indicated above there is a big difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches as I had defined them.

The top-down approach do not imply any blind process but each steps down is supported by empirical evidences. How can you say that is a blind process?
What the top-down approach does not do is to conclude there is a starting point [first cause, unmoved mover and the like] with certainty.

We have empirical evidences to infer top-down to some sort of genetic 'code' but there is no evidence of any "coder" [real programmer] at all.
From the top-down approach we infer a top down principles and can use to work it up and down the processes; "up' in this case is not a bottom-up processes per se.

Your bottom-up approach is an abuse of the top-down empirical principles in speculating something -an intelligent creator - beyond the limit of the empirical principles.
Obviously you can speculate or fantasize a creator but you cannot provide supporting evidences for it.

Note the extreme of the pure bottom-up approach.
Theists will simply jump to conclusion that God exists based on blind faith and therefrom claimed God created the universe and all things in it.

In your case you are abusing the top-down approach to support your bottom up approach.
It is just like many theists [e.g. WLC] using scientific theories to support their claim that God exists, which indulges in an equivocation and conflating science [empirical] with the transcendental [divine].

Again, the top-down and the bottom-up approach must be consistent therefore you can change genes and expect an appropriate outcome that coincides with what you see in evolution.

The point is with the top-down approach, there is no need to touch the bottom.
There is no need for me to jump to the conclusion there is an intelligent creator behind all that is observable in reality.

At present scientists [top-down approach] can change genes [splicing and replacing]
http://www.premierbiosoft.com/tech_note ... icing.html
without the need to believe an intelligent creator exists as real.

Physicists and astronomers can still predict the workings of the universe without an instantaneous-one-moment-in-time-Bang of a Big Bang.

The question of your need for 'consistency' is unnecessary.
The need for your "consistency" in this case is purely for your own psychological reasons.

In your case your bottom-up conclusion itself [intelligent creator] is not realistic, i.e. it is illusory and delusional.
You have no "proofs" [re reality] there is an intelligent creator.

Darwinism is not a precise system of study like physics. There are missing pieces and gaps between them. genes too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, the top-down and the bottom-up approach must be consistent therefore you can change genes and expect an appropriate outcome that coincides with what you see in evolution.

The point is with the top-down approach, there is no need to touch the bottom.
There is no need for me to jump to the conclusion there is an intelligent creator behind all that is observable in reality.

At present scientists [top-down approach] can change genes [splicing and replacing]
http://www.premierbiosoft.com/tech_note ... icing.html
without the need to believe an intelligent creator exists as real.

Physicists and astronomers can still predict the workings of the universe without an instantaneous-one-moment-in-time-Bang of a Big Bang.

The question of your need for 'consistency' is unnecessary.
The need for your "consistency" in this case is purely for your own psychological reasons.

In your case your bottom-up conclusion itself [intelligent creator] is not realistic, i.e. it is illusory and delusional.
You have no "proofs" [re reality] there is an intelligent creator.

Darwinism is not a precise system of study like physics. There are missing pieces and gaps between them. genes too.

Reputable scientists will not claim Darwinism is perfect knowledge nor that humans evolved directly from the higher primates.

The central theory and principle with evolution is that there are incremental changes [positive and negative] in alignment with adaption to ensure survival of the "species'.

The focus of the top-down approach is not on the claims of origin from the past, but what the pattern of changes as principles can be tapped for the future well being of humanity.
This is the critical contribution of learning based on the concepts of emergent, i.e. top-down rather than bottom-up.

When we understand that living things [including humans] evolve in adaption [biological] to the existing environment, we therefore [from past positive results] need to ensure the environment and circumstances we are in now and the future are conducive to enable positive resultants to the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

What is the utility from the bottom-up approach if you believe and insist there is an intelligent creator that created everything?
The bottom-up approach is merely a psychological impulse to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances. It contribute nothing significant to advance knowledge at all.
Whilst the bottom-up approach soothes cognitive dissonances, it also invoke terrible evils upon humanity as in the case of theistic religions [intelligence creator] especially from Islam.
You deny this point re the bottom-up approach, if so what is your counter to it.