Could a God be the product of evolution?

[RuleBritannia]

Well, is it possible? If it is possible Dawkins' argument about God being too complex to have come about by chance fails.

Where does Dawkins say that?

[TheGreatGatsby]

"The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity." - Dawkins

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The universe was created by the Big Bang.

How do you know the Big Bang was a result of the creation of the Universe?

Let's say there are many "Gods". One of them evolved immortality through a genetic mutation and created the earth. He is not ubiquitous but can go anywhere he pleases, has the ability to manipulate matter and monitor the movement of matter (therefore hearing our thoughts). He then created mankind and lied about having always been there and having created the universe.

"Let's say" we stop skipping steps.

[Trolldor]

"The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity." - Dawkins

What? What has his refutation of the 'argument from complexity' got to do with a magic rat?

[MissingNo.]

short answer: no
long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

It's already been said but individuals don't evolve, populations do. Even if we were considering a population of gods, under any definition of god that is useful (an entity which transcends natural law and controls at least one aspect of it*), it cannot arise by natural means. If you're defining a god as something else, I would ask why you are choosing to use that label, as it likely doesn't fit any widely understood definition of god.

*I would argue that a deistic god isn't really a god under any useful definition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What we have here is a poor grasp of the concept coupled with wishful thinking.

I know, what a surprise.

[RuleBritannia]

"The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity." - Dawkins

Did you even read this before posting it?

If you had read it you'd see that Dawkins is saying that gods could only exist if it had evolved from simple beginnings.

"only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity"

[TheGreatGatsby]

I acknowledge my defeat. Thank you