AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

I am transferring this discussion to a new thread for reasons which will become apparent at the end of my post.
 
Tony: Q: How do you know it was unused?
A: We don't, but we assume it wasn't used because to assume otherwise is contrary to the theory of evolution, and our perception of early humanoids as knuckle dragging howling monkey men.
David: Once again, it was assumed it was used. McCrone describes how he thinks H. habilis and H. erectus had some speech.-TONY: Yes, but it was assumed it was used as grunts and groans, not the eloquent speech we have today. That assumption is squarely based on the assumption that they were knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers, which in turn is squarely based on the theory of evolution's blueprint of common decent from apes. 
It is a form of mental gymnastics used to show that we are superior to our ancestors despite the evidence. And I say despite the evidence because, when that evolutionary view is removed, the picture that is painted by the evidence is quite different than the story we tell ourselves today. -http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0100-stone-bracelet-is-oldest-ever...-What a fascinating article. Many thanks! I am also highly sceptical as regards David's elevation of homo sapiens as the ultimate goal of evolution. Until recently, Neanderthal has actually been used as a term of abuse, whereas now we are discovering more and more evidence of their intelligence. (I have just read the equally fascinating article on Neanderthals that you posted earlier. Thank you again.) As for the idea that anatomical changes took place long before they were used, as if in preparation for later usage, it seems to me to run counter to the principles of evolution, and there cannot possibly be one shred of evidence to support the claim that the changes were not used for exactly the same purpose as today - namely to make intelligible sounds enabling communication. 
 
However, I cannot see how the intelligence of our ancestors is contrary to the theory of evolution. Yes, it is contrary to stupid, knuckle-dragging monkey men, but the theory proposes a progression from not-so-bright monkey men to intelligent human men, and as regards HOW intelligent those early humans were, our only clue is whatever relics we find. (Note to David: as you well know, we will NEVER find relics relating to how they used their vocal apparatus for language.) The article suggests that just like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans were far more advanced than homo sapiens would like to think they were. That's it. Not that this somehow invalidates evolution.-David has asked how you explain the existence of the four groups if evolution did not happen. His own insistence that humans are different in kind from all other species begs the question of how he explains their existence if evolution did happen. This could be a very interesting discussion!

16212 views


> http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0100-stone-bracelet-is-oldest-ever... 
> dhw: As for the idea that anatomical changes took place long before they were used, as if in preparation for later usage, it seems to me to run counter to the principles of evolution, and there cannot possibly be one shred of evidence to support the claim that the changes were not used for exactly the same purpose as today - namely to make intelligible sounds enabling communication.-I've stated over and over since questioned about it, McCrone describes his version of how E. erectus might have spoken, a few words at a time since control of air flow is required for modern speech. All I can say is read the book. It comes across as a scholarly tome. And How do we know how the principals of evolution really work, since there is such an upheaval in the area of epigenetics, and the newer complexities of the genome.?
> 
> dhw: However, I cannot see how the intelligence of our ancestors is contrary to the theory of evolution. ...The article suggests that just like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans were far more advanced than homo sapiens would like to think they were. That's it. Not that this somehow invalidates evolution.-It doesn't.
> 
> dhw: David has asked how you explain the existence of the four groups if evolution did not happen. His own insistence that humans are different in kind from all other species begs the question of how he explains their existence if evolution did happen. This could be a very interesting discussion!-It doesn't beg the question. I see it as several attempts, with one winning.

16118 views

I tried to post a response here yesterday, but it didn't go through and I didn't have time to repeat it. DHW asked how I would explain the 4 groups of hominids, and the truth is, do not, and don't need to, because human is human is human. -Now this would be the point where David would jump in and try to tell me how geneticially or physiologically different they are, and I would not disagree. Yet, when looked at closely, it is noted that the difference between the four groups is minor, and that the only genetic mapping they have done is on mtDNA which only trace the maternal side of the line. Physiologically, the other groups are within ranges of variance comparable to what we see in modern humans today. So, I don't explain the other groups because I do not view them as different evolutionary groups. A human is a human is a human, and a dog is a dog is a dog.-This is not to say that the groups didn't exist, but merely that do not view them any differently than I would a differing breeds of dogs. When you look at the difference between a Mastiff and a Chihuahua: morphologically different in the extreme, and they probably would have difficulty breeding due to size differences, but they are not really different species.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

16040 views

Tony: So, I don't explain the other groups because I do not view them as different evolutionary groups. A human is a human is a human, and a dog is a dog is a dog.
> 
> This is not to say that the groups didn't exist, but merely that do not view them any differently than I would a differing breeds of dogs. When you look at the difference between a Mastiff and a Chihuahua: morphologically different in the extreme, and they probably would have difficulty breeding due to size differences, but they are not really different species.-A very reasonable answer. We know that cross-breeding occurred. But only one type of Homo survived. Are there reasons of superiority or just dumb luck? The best studied group the Neanderthals seemed to have just disappeared, or did competition from H. sapiens drive them away? All of them were far in advance from apes, as your Denisovans article indicates. I would conclude, with no absolute proof, we are here because of superiority.

16147 views

David: A very reasonable answer. We know that cross-breeding occurred. But only one type of Homo survived. Are there reasons of superiority or just dumb luck? The best studied group the Neanderthals seemed to have just disappeared, or did competition from H. sapiens drive them away? All of them were far in advance from apes, as your Denisovans article indicates. I would conclude, with no absolute proof, we are here because of superiority.-Actually, I think it is probably more of a case of simple cultural assimilation. I'll give you two more recent examples. When Rome was building their empire, not only did they kill off most of the males, but they also bred most of the females of the nations they conquered. Of those that weren't spoils of war, many migrated into Roman culture because they perceived advantages over their current lifestyle. That is not to say that the lifestyle was superior, only that it was more attractive. The same happened in the U.S. with the huge influx of immigrants. Now, within only a few generations, much of the ancestory is so muddled as to be virtually indistiguishable. Today, we are seeing more interbreeding between races within the U.S., particularly between Black, White, and Hispanic. It is not inconceivable to think that if isolated, the population of these parent races would disappear in just a few generations as social and cultural barriers give way to new norms. -As for the seperation in gene diversity, see the first sentence about Rome, because this was typical of ancient warfare. Kill all men old enough to fight, breed/rape all the women. So right off the bat you would be cutting the gene dispersion potential for a group nearly in half. Within a few generations that group would be all but non-existent.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

16045 views

David: I would conclude, with no absolute proof, we are here because of superiority.
> 
> Tony: Actually, I think it is probably more of a case of simple cultural assimilation. I'll give you two more recent examples. When Rome was building their empire, not only did they kill off most of the males, but they also bred most of the females of the nations they conquered..... Today, we are seeing more interbreeding between races within the U.S., particularly between Black, White, and Hispanic. It is not inconceivable to think that if isolated, the population of these parent races would disappear in just a few generations as social and cultural barriers give way to new norms. 
> 
> As for the seperation in gene diversity, see the first sentence about Rome, because this was typical of ancient warfare. Kill all men old enough to fight, breed/rape all the women.... Within a few generations that group would be all but non-existent.-I think you are making my point. Rome was superior and desirable for many centuries. granted the Mongols took them out, but Homo sapiens were left as the only game in town with no one to take them out, unless we do it ourselves with the bomb.

15964 views

David: I would conclude, with no absolute proof, we are here because of superiority.
> > 
> 
>David: I think you are making my point. Rome was superior and desirable for many centuries. granted the Mongols took them out, but Homo sapiens were left as the only game in town with no one to take them out, unless we do it ourselves with the bomb.-The reason that I fall short of calling Rome superior is perhaps because I have differing criteria as to what makes a group superior. Sure, Rome had technology and luxury, and those, as everyone knows, are always appealing. They also had slavery, constant warfare, extreme class divides, extreme poverty, and typically decimated the earth via their methods of construction and farming. I don't view this parasitic agrarian exploitive lifestyle as being intrinsically superior to a society that lives in harmony with their environment, has little to no class distinction, and minimal levels of violence (wars). If the only thing they were lacking was technology and bloodlust, I don't really think they were that inferior. -Of course, I know you probably mean 'superior' in evolutionary terms, but I find that thinking in those terms lends itself to a peculiar form of bias. The same form of bias that led the Europeans and early Americans to nearly wipe out the Indians and to view and treat them as 'savages'.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

16103 views


> tony: The reason that I fall short of calling Rome superior is perhaps because I have differing criteria as to what makes a group superior. ... If the only thing they were lacking was technology and bloodlust, I don't really think they were that inferior.-But at the time I am sure the conquered felt the Romans were superior, which differs from your viewpoint. 
> 
> Tony: Of course, I know you probably mean 'superior' in evolutionary terms, but I find that thinking in those terms lends itself to a peculiar form of bias. The same form of bias that led the Europeans and early Americans to nearly wipe out the Indians and to view and treat them as 'savages'.-Here you are correct. I had to grow up to recognize that point of view.

16048 views

dhw: As for the idea that anatomical changes took place long before they were used, as if in preparation for later usage, it seems to me to run counter to the principles of evolution, and there cannot possibly be one shred of evidence to support the claim that the changes were not used for exactly the same purpose as today - namely to make intelligible sounds enabling communication.
DAVID: I've stated over and over since questioned about it, McCrone describes his version of how E. erectus might have spoken, a few words at a time since control of air flow is required for modern speech. All I can say is read the book. It comes across as a scholarly tome. -I'm sure it's scholarly. So are books about the multiverse, string theory, and so on. But since you keep using theoretical and might have and could have, you know as well as I do that for all the scholarly evidence of anatomical changes, the conclusions are nothing but speculation.-DAVID: And How do we know how the principals of evolution really work, since there is such an upheaval in the area of epigenetics, and the newer complexities of the genome.? -We don't. That is why we present hypotheses, like Darwin's random mutations, or like your God preprogramming the very first cells with every innovation, or dabbling, or semi-dabbling, or like my autonomous inventive mechanism.-dhw: However, I cannot see how the intelligence of our ancestors is contrary to the theory of evolution. ...The article suggests that just like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans were far more advanced than homo sapiens would like to think they were. That's it. Not that this somehow invalidates evolution.
DAVID: It doesn't.-Sorry! That comment was meant for Tony, who seems to think it does, and I don't understand why.-dhw: David has asked how you explain the existence of the four groups if evolution did not happen. His own insistence that humans are different in kind from all other species begs the question of how he explains their existence if evolution did happen. This could be a very interesting discussion!-DAVID: It doesn't beg the question. I see it as several attempts, with one winning.-You keep stressing difference in kind, which means there cannot have been a natural progression from ape to human. This does not square with evolution. Several attempts is an interesting switch from your usual line of pre-programming and/or dabbling. So do you reckon your God preprogrammed Denisovans and Neanderthals to lose?
 
TONY: DHW asked how I would explain the 4 groups of hominids, and the truth is, do not, and don't need to, because human is human is human. -This is a misunderstanding. David asked you that. I see the four groups as a perfectly natural product of evolution from apes to humans. My question to you is why you think the advanced intelligence of these different groups is contrary to evolution.

16065 views


> DAVID: It doesn't beg the question. I see it as several attempts, with one winning.
> 
> dhw: You keep stressing difference in kind, which means there cannot have been a natural progression from ape to human. This does not square with evolution. Several attempts is an interesting switch from your usual line of pre-programming and/or dabbling. So do you reckon your God preprogrammed Denisovans and Neanderthals to lose?-Or to compete, and naturally sharpen the wits of the humans in the struggle. Really I have no idea.
> 
> TONY: DHW asked how I would explain the 4 groups of hominids, and the truth is, do not, and don't need to, because human is human is human. 
> 
> This is a misunderstanding. David asked you that. I see the four groups as a perfectly natural product of evolution from apes to humans. My question to you is why you think the advanced intelligence of these different groups is contrary to evolution.

15935 views

dhw: You keep stressing difference in kind, which means there cannot have been a natural progression from ape to human.***** This does not square with evolution. Several attempts is an interesting switch from your usual line of pre-programming and/or dabbling. So do you reckon your God preprogrammed Denisovans and Neanderthals to lose? -*****This was badly phrased by me. I should have written from apelike common ancestor to human.-David: Or to compete, and naturally sharpen the wits of the humans in the struggle. Really I have no idea.-I would accept the fact that you have no idea if you were not so firm in your beliefs and so dead set against alternatives. You are always, and in my view quite rightly, ready to challenge these with rational arguments. You very effectively pick on the gaps. But when your own views are challenged, and you are questioned about the gaps - even within a theistic context - you have no idea, or you can't read God's mind. At the risk of trying your patience, let me ask the following, just for clarification:
 
1)	You have stressed over and over again that humans are different in kind from all other organisms, including apes, so do you or do you not believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor (= evolution) or that God dabbled (= separate creation)?
2)	Do you believe the other three groups were also different in kind?
3)	You see the existence of four groups as several attempts, with one winning. I'm intrigued by attempts. Please explain: by whom and in order to do what?

16027 views

dhw:But when your own views are challenged, and you are questioned about the gaps - even within a theistic context - you have no idea, or you can't read God's mind. At the risk of trying your patience, let me ask the following, just for clarification:
> 
> 1)	You have stressed over and over again that humans are different in kind from all other organisms, including apes, so do you or do you not believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor (= evolution) or that God dabbled (= separate creation)?
> 2)	Do you believe the other three groups were also different in kind?
> 3)	You see the existence of four groups as several attempts, with one winning. I'm intrigued by attempts. Please explain: by whom and in order to do what?-1) I still accept evolution guided by God. I think a common ancestor.-2) No, they didn't develop the powerful intellect we have.-3) Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. erectus. I don't know why, except sapiens were the target, and that was achieved.

16012 views

Dhw: I would accept the fact that you have no idea if you were not so firm in your beliefs and so dead set against alternatives. You are always, and in my view quite rightly, ready to challenge these with rational arguments. You very effectively pick on the gaps. But when your own views are challenged, and you are questioned about the gaps - even within a theistic context - you have no idea, or you can't read God's mind. At the risk of trying your patience, let me ask the following, just for clarification: 
1)	You have stressed over and over again that humans are different in kind from all other organisms, including apes, so do you or do you not believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor (= evolution) or that God dabbled (= separate creation)?
2)	Do you believe the other three groups were also different in kind?
3)	You see the existence of four groups as several attempts, with one winning. I'm intrigued by attempts. Please explain: by whom and in order to do what?-DAVID: 1) I still accept evolution guided by God. I think a common ancestor.-Back to the slippery concept of guided. Either he intervened (special creation), or he didn't (evolution). I don't see how you can have both.-DAVID: 2) No, they didn't develop the powerful intellect we have.-Recent research suggests that they were far more sophisticated than had previously been believed, but 3) makes this response very confusing. -DAVID: 3) Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. Erectus. I don't see why, except sapiens were the target and that was achieved. -More slippery language. If God guided evolution, then these must have been God's attempts. So you seem to be saying that God's target was homo sapiens, and he tried different types of homo but you don't know why. That is what I mean when I say you are quick to seize rationally on gaps in alternative arguments, but reason goes out of the window when your own preconceptions are challenged. Here are three theistic alternatives: 1) God knew what he wanted, but couldn't work out how to do it; 2) God didn't know what he wanted, and made it up as he went along; 3) God left the inventive mechanism to do its own thing. (This would also explain the rest of the higgledy-piggledy process, including the weaverbird's nest.) Would you accept that all three hypotheses provide a rational explanation of the four groups?

15894 views


> DAVID: 2) No, they didn't develop the powerful intellect we have.
> 
> dhw: Recent research suggests that they were far more sophisticated than had previously been believed, but 3) makes this response very confusing. - Yes more sophisticated than we had previously thought, but they did not become as advanced as we did and we won the competition.
> 
> DAVID: 3) Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. Erectus. I don't see why, except sapiens were the target and that was achieved. 
> 
> dhw: Here are three theistic alternatives: 1) God knew what he wanted, but couldn't work out how to do it; 2) God didn't know what he wanted, and made it up as he went along; 3) God left the inventive mechanism to do its own thing. (This would also explain the rest of the higgledy-piggledy process, including the weaverbird's nest.) Would you accept that all three hypotheses provide a rational explanation of the four groups?-You've left out a fourth possibility: God knew exactly what He wanted, but set up competition just to be sure He had the right formula for a human species survivorship of the type He preferred. I agree with you that your three are possible scenarios. I stick with my thesis that God worked through evolution (I don't know why) to achieve our species. Mine is a third way form of creationism, as I've said all along.

15984 views


> > DAVID: 2) No, they didn't develop the powerful intellect we have.
> > 
> > dhw: Recent research suggests that they were far more sophisticated than had previously been believed, but 3) makes this response very confusing. 
> 
> David: Yes more sophisticated than we had previously thought, but they did not become as advanced as we did and we won the competition.
> > -Would you make the same claim if discussing the Native Americans vs. Europeans? Or Africans vs. Europeans? Were they more or less sophisticated than Europeans? Were they more or less 'fit'? You are treading dangerously close to eugenics here in your mode of thinking. Worse, you seem to be confusing technological/numerical advantage with being more 'advanced' in biological terms.-By your reckoning, we should all be Mongolian, since they must have been more advanced than the Romans they conquored, right?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

15753 views


> Tony: Would you make the same claim if discussing the Native Americans vs. Europeans? Or Africans vs. Europeans? Were they more or less sophisticated than Europeans? Were they more or less 'fit'? You are treading dangerously close to eugenics here in your mode of thinking. Worse, you seem to be confusing technological/numerical advantage with being more 'advanced' in biological terms.
> 
> By your reckoning, we should all be Mongolian, since they must have been more advanced than the Romans they conquored, right?-But you are admonishing me with all groups that are Homo sapiens. All of us won; it is the other Homo groups that were not as competent. Somehow or other we were better. Or do you think we were luckier? -As for Eugenics, the current evidence points to taking Darwin's thinking too far, with horrible results.

15988 views


> > Tony: 
> > By your reckoning, we should all be Mongolian, since they must have been more advanced than the Romans they conquored, right?
> 
>David: But you are admonishing me with all groups that are Homo sapiens. All of us won; it is the other Homo groups that were not as competent. Somehow or other we were better. Or do you think we were luckier? 
> 
> As for Eugenics, the current evidence points to taking Darwin's thinking too far, with horrible results.-65 years ago we thought the "races" were genetically different, perhaps even different species with varying degrees of fitness (until the 1950's). Now we know that there are more differences between members of the same race than there are between the races. Today, we think that Neandertals and other hominids were different species, even though the are drastically closer to us genetically then our supposed closest surviving kin(chimps). How long do you think it will be until we discover we've been wrong about that, too? And to answer the question directly, I do not think that we were better OR luckier. I don't even think we are fundamentally different in kind, anymore than I think asians or africans are fundamentally different than caucasions. -As for eugenics, I concur. But we failed to learn from our earlier mistake. We failed to see what such thinking leads too in the hands of the power hungry. We based those classifications on remarkably incomplete data because it fit a then-popular ideology. (One which was political in nature more than scientific) Today, I think we are in the same trap. Making decisions on remarkably small amounts of data which we barely understand in order to fit two popular ideologies; one scientific and both political. Scientifically, there is the dedication to darwinism, a religion that tries to kill gods in favor of random chance.-Politically, there is an underlying push for control; control of the education system and control of the population via the educational system. There is also a politcal turn against religion in general that is brewing, fueled by terrorism propaganda and the stereotyping of both Christian and Muslim followers. It is turning into a three way fight that can only have one end. The government controls money, policy, and military force, which means it will be a bad time to be religious when the politicians make their move, and evolutionist/atheism will be there backing them up. -How long until we start seeing things about religious people, or people of a certain demographic/ethnicity being genetically inferior again?-http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/08/23/uk-muslims-keep-marrying-first-cousins-despite-the-horrific-genetic-consequences/
http://www.islam-watch.org/home/73-brahmachari/983-inbreeding-and-resulting-genetic-disorders-in-the-muslim-community-part-2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/world/europe/13sarrazin.html?_r=0
http://www.growtheheckup.com/2010/04/harvard-student-says-blacks-genetically.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/religion-and-science-_b_2719280.html-
Oh wait, that's right. We are already seeing these things happen again. It always starts small.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

15909 views


> >David: But you are admonishing me with all groups that are Homo sapiens. All of us won; it is the other Homo groups that were not as competent. Somehow or other we were better. Or do you think we were luckier? -> Tony: I do not think that we were better OR luckier. I don't even think we are fundamentally different in kind, anymore than I think asians or africans are fundamentally different than caucasions.-Within our species, I agree. 
> 
> Tony: How long until we start seeing things about religious people, or people of a certain demographic/ethnicity being genetically inferior again?
> 
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/08/23/uk-muslims-keep-marrying-first-cousins-despite... http://www.islam-watch.org/home/73-brahmachari/983-inbreeding-and-resulting-genetic-dis... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/world/europe/13sarrazin.html?_r=0
> http://www.growtheheckup.com/2010/04/harvard-student-says-blacks-genetically.html&#... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/religion-and-science-_b_2719280.html&#... 
> 
> Oh wait, that's right. We are already seeing these things happen again. It always starts small.-I looked through your reference sites. I never could stand Stenger and his downright hostility. I don't understand your apparent approach to Muslims and first cousin marriages. There is a danger in recessive genes popping up with too much close breeding. Don't you want them discouraged? Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his book, America's Real War, 1999, warned sharply in just the way you are of the current attacks on religion, Judaism, yes, but especially Christianity.

15895 views


> > Tony: How long until we start seeing things about religious people, or people of a certain demographic/ethnicity being genetically inferior again?
> > 
> > http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/08/23/uk-muslims-keep-marrying-first-cousins-despite... > http://www.islam-watch.org/home/73-brahmachari/983-inbreeding-and-resulting-genetic-dis... > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/world/europe/13sarrazin.html?_r=0
> > http://www.growtheheckup.com/2010/04/harvard-student-says-blacks-genetically.html&#... > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/religion-and-science-_b_2719280.html&#... > 
> > 
> > Oh wait, that's right. We are already seeing these things happen again. It always starts small.
> 
>David: I looked through your reference sites. I never could stand Stenger and his downright hostility. I don't understand your apparent approach to Muslims and first cousin marriages. There is a danger in recessive genes popping up with too much close breeding. Don't you want them discouraged? Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his book, America's Real War, 1999, warned sharply in just the way you are of the current attacks on religion, Judaism, yes, but especially Christianity.-It is not "my apparent approach". I don't have an approach to Muslims. Most of the ones I met are genuinely good people. As for their breeding habits, sure, I wouldn't encourage imbreeding, but I am not going to stereotype 23% of the earth's population based on the actions of a few. Just like I won't stereotype their religion based on the actions of a few extremist. My point was how easy and common it is becoming to use genetics to discriminate. All blacks are.... All Muslims are... All Christians are... All Jews are... its sickening, but it will only get worse.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

15900 views

tony: I wouldn't encourage imbreeding, but I am not going to stereotype 23% of the earth's population based on the actions of a few. Just like I won't stereotype their religion based on the actions of a few extremist. My point was how easy and common it is becoming to use genetics to discriminate. All blacks are.... All Muslims are... All Christians are... All Jews are... its sickening, but it will only get worse.-In the Muslim issue, it is a religious concept from ancient times that is misused, not genetics. We are all the same humans in each group, but it is some ideas that become dangerous to others. If only everyone were fully rational.

15927 views

DAVID: Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. Erectus. I don't see why, except sapiens were the target and that was achieved. 
dhw: Here are three theistic alternatives: 1) God knew what he wanted, but couldn't work out how to do it; 2) God didn't know what he wanted, and made it up as he went along; 3) God left the inventive mechanism to do its own thing. (This would also explain the rest of the higgledy-piggledy process, including the weaverbird's nest.) Would you accept that all three hypotheses provide a rational explanation of the four groups?-DAVID: You've left out a fourth possibility: God knew exactly what He wanted, but set up competition just to be sure He had the right formula for a human species survivorship of the type He preferred. I agree with you that your three are possible scenarios. I stick with my thesis that God worked through evolution (I don't know why) to achieve our species. Mine is a third way form of creationism, as I've said all along.-Your 4) is the same as my 1), except that you're substituting the uncertainty of just to be sure for the uncertainty of couldn't work out. -With my theist hat on, I can accept the possibility of God dabbling for particular purposes, but find it impossible to reconcile dabbling and/or preprogramming with the countless innovations and organisms apparently irrelevant to the production of humans if humans were his goal. Worked through evolution (I don't know why) is nice and honest, but in turn I don't know why you refuse to question a hypothesis that clearly makes no sense to either of us.

15950 views

DHW: With my theist hat on, I can accept the possibility of God dabbling for particular purposes, but find it impossible to reconcile dabbling and/or preprogramming with the countless innovations and organisms apparently irrelevant to the production of humans if humans were his goal. Worked through evolution (I don't know why) is nice and honest, but in turn I don't know why you refuse to question a hypothesis that clearly makes no sense to either of us.-Because you are thinking of only one item in a system. A system is not comprised of one entity. It is comprised of multiple entities that may work in a cooperative or antagonistic manner in order to achieve homeostasis within the system, or in order to progress a system in the desired direction. -Also, I personally have an issue with humans being the 'end goal' of the design. I think they are an integral part of the design, and I think they were designed to serve a specific purpose within the system. I do not think they were to be the end goal. -So, since you see so many innovations that are 'irrelevant', could you point some of them out?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

16014 views


> Tony:Also, I personally have an issue with humans being the 'end goal' of the design. I think they are an integral part of the design, and I think they were designed to serve a specific purpose within the system. I do not think they were to be the end goal.-Do you think there is an 'end goal' and if so, What is it?

15981 views


> > Tony:Also, I personally have an issue with humans being the 'end goal' of the design. I think they are an integral part of the design, and I think they were designed to serve a specific purpose within the system. I do not think they were to be the end goal.
> 
>David: Do you think there is an 'end goal' and if so, What is it?-This is one of those areas that I happily say, "I don't know." I do believe there is a larger purpose. Something bigger than earth, bigger than humans, but intimately connected to life in general.-One of the very interesting points about the bible is what is NOT said as much as what is said. Genesis doesn't say "And God completed his work." It says he took a day of 'rest'. Several points in the bible indicate that the creative work will pick up where he left off, as if uninterrupted, but there are no explicit details. (IT is also interesting that God wanted/needed to 'take a day of rest') Was that for his benefit, or ours?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

15996 views


> Tony: One of the very interesting points about the bible is what is NOT said as much as what is said. Genesis doesn't say "And God completed his work." It says he took a day of 'rest'. Several points in the bible indicate that the creative work will pick up where he left off, as if uninterrupted, but there are no explicit details. (IT is also interesting that God wanted/needed to 'take a day of rest') Was that for his benefit, or ours?-Good question. Perhaps our benefit, 'all work and no play' etc.

15953 views

Still trying to decide on the last common ape/human ancestor, the shoulder anatomy gives clues:-http://phys.org/news/2015-09-shouldering-burden-evolution.html-"'Humans are unique in many ways. We have features that clearly link us with African apes, but we also have features that appear more primitive, leading to uncertainty about what our common ancestor looked like," said Nathan Young, PhD, assistant professor at UC San Francisco School of Medicine and lead author of the study. "Our study suggests that the simplest explanation, that the ancestor looked a lot like a chimp or gorilla, is the right one, at least in the shoulder."-"It appears, he said, that shoulder shape tracks changes in early human behavior such as reduced climbing and increased tool use. The paper, titled 'Fossil Hominin Shoulders Support an African Ape-like Last Common Ancestor of Chimpanzees and Humans,' published online Sept. 6, in the journal PNAS.-"The shoulders of African apes consist of a trowel-shaped blade and a handle-like spine that points the joint with the arm up toward the skull, giving an advantage to the arms when climbing or swinging through the branches. In contrast, the scapular spine of monkeys is pointed more downwards. In humans this trait is even more pronounced, indicating behaviors such as stone tool making and high-speed throwing. The prevailing question was whether humans evolved this configuration from a more primitive ape, or from a modern African ape-like creature, but later reverted back to the downward angle.-***-"The results showed that australopiths were intermediate between African apes and humans: the A. afarensis shoulder was more like an African ape than a human, and A. sediba closer to human's than to an ape's. This positioning is consistent with evidence for increasingly sophisticated tool use in Australopithecus.-"'The mix of ape and human features observed in A. afarensis' shoulder support the notion that, while bipedal, the species engaged in tree climbing and wielded stone tools. This is a primate clearly on its way to becoming human," Alemseged said.-"These shifts in the shoulder also enabled the evolution of another critical behavior - human's ability to throw objects with speed and accuracy, said Neil T. Roach, PhD, a fellow of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University. A laterally facing shoulder blade allows humans to store energy in their shoulders, much like a slingshot, facilitating high-speed throwing, an important and uniquely human behavior.-"'These changes in the shoulder, which were probably initially driven by the use of tools well back into human evolution, also made us great throwers," Roach said. "Our unique throwing ability likely helped our ancestors hunt and protect themselves, turning our species into the most dominant predators on earth.'"-Comment: this represents an enormous anatomical change in one joint, allowed because humans are not knuckle draggers.

15620 views

DAVID: Still trying to decide on the last common ape/human ancestor, the shoulder anatomy gives clues:-http://phys.org/news/2015-09-shouldering-burden-evolution.html-QUOTE: "The results showed that australopiths were intermediate between African apes and humans: the A. afarensis shoulder was more like an African ape than a human, and A. sediba closer to human's than to an ape's. This positioning is consistent with evidence for increasingly sophisticated tool use in Australopithecus.
"'The mix of ape and human features observed in A. afarensis' shoulder support the notion that, while bipedal, the species engaged in tree climbing and wielded stone tools. This is a primate clearly on its way to becoming human," Alemseged said."
-I don't know if Tony is still logging on, but it was always the australopiths that I tried to draw attention to during our discussions: the creatures that are not recognizably ape or human. I think they are important evidence for evolution as opposed to separate creation.

15661 views

About 15 found in a cave in southern Africa:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fossils-found-in-african-cave-are-new-species-of-human-kin-say-scientists/2015/09/09/b9b4dbee-56f7-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines-"H. naledi is an unusual combination of the primitive and the modern, the scientists said. Its brain was no larger than a baseball; its shoulders and torso primitive; its fingers long and curved, allowing H. naledi to climb and swing from the trees. At the same time, H. naledi 's wrist bones indicated that it used tools. Its long legs and feet, nearly indistinguishable from those of modern man, allowed it not only to walk upright but also to travel for many miles at a time.-'One of the most exciting things for us is we discovered something new in biology. We had never seen a creature like this before, said John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the lead scientist in the analysis, which included experts in primitive feet, teeth, hands and skulls. H. naledi is unlike anything in our genus. .?.?. When you look at the anatomical elements across the body, it's an enormous assemblage of fossils. The task was to interpret these fossils and put them in the context of evolution and where they fit on the human tree.'-***-"The age of the fossils will be difficult to determine, Berger says, because they were not fused into rock, which can be dated, and the researchers wanted to wait to do radiocarbon dating until they knew more about what they had. What he did say, with confidence, was that H. naledi comes near or at the root of the genus Homo, in excess of 2.5 million years ago."-Comment: Radiocarbon?-Another version of the story:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43960/title/New-Homo-Species-Found/-"Hawks and his colleagues describe the shoulders, chest, and pelvis of H. naledi as primitive in morphology, similar to Australopithecus and other early hominin species that existed up to 4 million years ago. H. naledi's cranial capacity is between 465 and 560 cubic centimeters, roughly a third of the brain size of modern humans and the smallest in the genus, the researchers wrote.-"However, other features of this new species appear more modern. H. naledi is similar in overall size and weight to small-bodied H. sapiens. Study coauthor Lee Berger of University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, told The Scientist: the feet are practically indistinguishable from modern humans. This is a walker.'

15650 views

DAVID: About 15 found in a cave in southern Africa:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fossils-found-in-african-cave-ar...-There seems to be a never ending stream of sensational new discoveries that will revolutionize our thinking about the universe and evolution. This one even made it into the national news over here. The articles David has posted and press and TV features also mention the theory that these hominids buried their dead - which would revolutionize all our concepts of these early forms of human: tools and rituals being used perhaps 4 million years ago. However, there are problems with dating, and already there are murmurings that these fossils are not quite as unique as the researchers claim. William Jungers, a New York anthropologist, thinks they might be earlier versions of homo erectus, and Tim White, a paleoanthropologist from Berkeley is pretty sure that's what they are, while Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist from Zurich, thinks the few "unique" features could just be local variations. He and Jungers are very sceptical about the burial theory, and say there are plenty of other possible explanations. There is also a "reconstruction", showing a face that is a remarkable mixture of human and ape and a great tribute to someone's imagination.-However, for all the hype and sensational speculation, all these hominid fossils seem to me to lend more and more credence to Darwin's theory that humans and apes evolved from common ancestry.

15620 views


> dhw: However, for all the hype and sensational speculation, all these hominid fossils seem to me to lend more and more credence to Darwin's theory that humans and apes evolved from common ancestry.-I have to agree.

15665 views

More on H. naledi. Walking possibilities:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extinct-tree-climbing-human-walked-with-a-swagger/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151007-Scientists investigated the hands and feet of H. naledi to learn more about a key shift in human evolutionthe move from a life of climbing trees to one spent walking on the ground. Modern humans dominate the planet partly because walking upright frees their hands for tool use, scientists have found.-"The researchers analyzed more than 150 H. naledi hand bones, including a nearly complete adult right hand that was missing just one wrist bone. They found the species shared a long, robust thumb and wrist architecture with modern humans and Neanderthals, potentially giving the hand a precise, forceful grip that may have been useful for tool use.-"However, its fingers were longer and more curved than most australopithecinesindeed, more curved than those of nearly any other species of early hominin. This quality hints at a life suited for moving and climbing through trees. The scientists detailed their findings on H. naledi's hands and feet online today (Oct. 6) in two papers in the journal Nature Communications.-'The tool-using features of the H. naledi hand, in combination with its small brain size, has interesting implications for what cognitive requirements might be needed to make and use tools, and, depending on the age of these fossils, who might have made the stone tools that we find in South Africa, Tracy Kivell at the University of Kent in England, lead author of one of the two H. naledi papers, said in a statement.-"The scientists also investigated 107 H. naledi foot bones, including a nearly complete adult right foot. They found the ancient hominin's foot shared many features with the modern human foot, suggesting that it was well-suited for standing and walking on two feet."-Comment: Human evolution is from a bush of attempts.

15564 views

Apparently folks from Turkey migrated into Europe and introduced farming. There were then modifications to the existing population, perhaps epigenetic which became fixed:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151123202631.htm-"By taking advantage of better DNA extraction techniques and amassing what is to date the largest collection of genome-wide datasets from ancient human remains, the team was able to identify specific genes that changed during and after the transition from hunting and gathering to farming.-"Many of the variants occurred on or near genes that have been associated with height, the ability to digest lactose in adulthood, fatty acid metabolism, vitamin D levels, light skin pigmentation and blue eye color. Two variants appear on genes that have been linked to higher risk of celiac disease but that may have been important in adapting to an early agricultural diet.-"Other variants were located on immune-associated genes, which made sense because "the Neolithic period involved an increase in population density, with people living close to one another and to domesticated animals," said Wolfgang Haak."-Comment: Still the same species with reasonable modifications when lifestyle changed to farming from hunter-gatherer pursuits.

15456 views

Upright walking which only we do requires a specialized foot with the big toe properly aligned. A change in gene expression provided for them:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160107140413.htm-"It's somewhat unusual to have a research project that spans from fish all the way to humans, but it's clear that tweaking the expression levels of molecules called bone morphogenetic proteins can result in significant changes not just in the skeletal armor of the stickleback, but also in the hind-limb development of humans and primates," said David Kingsley, PhD, professor of developmental biology at Stanford. "This change is likely part of the reason why we've evolved from having a grasping hind foot like a chimp to a weight-bearing structure that allows us to walk on two legs."-***-"The researchers identified the area of the genome responsible for controlling armor plate size, and then looked for differences there in 11 pairs of marine and freshwater fish with varying armor-plate sizes. They homed in on a region that includes the gene for a bone morphogenetic protein family member called GDF6. Due to changes in the regulatory DNA sequence near this gene, freshwater sticklebacks express higher levels of GDF6, while their saltwater cousins express less. Strikingly, marine fish genetically engineered to contain the regulatory sequence of freshwater fish expressed higher levels of GDF6 and developed smaller armor plates, the researchers found.-***-"They began by working with colleagues in the laboratory of Gill Bejerano, PhD, Stanford associate professor of developmental biology, of computer science and of pediatrics, to compare differences in the genomes of chimps and humans. In previous surveys, they found over 500 places in which humans have lost regulatory regions that are conserved from chimps and many other mammals. Two of these occur near the GDF6 gene. They homed in on one in particular.-"'This regulatory information was shared through about 100 million years of evolution," said Kingsley. "And yet, surprisingly, this region is missing in humans."-***-"The fact that humans are missing the hind-limb-regulatory region probably means that we express less of the gene in our legs and feet during development, but comparable amounts in our nascent arms, hands and skulls. Loss of this particular regulatory sequence would also shorten lateral toes but not the first toe of feet. This may help explain why the big toe is aligned with other short, lateral toes in humans. Such a modification would create a more sturdy foot with which to walk upright.-"'These bone morphogenetic proteins are strong signals for bone and cartilage growth in all types of animals," said Kingsley.-"'You can evolve new skeletal structures by changing where and when the signals are expressed, and it's very satisfying to see similar regulatory principles in action whether you are changing the armor of a stickleback, or changing specific hind-limb structures during human evolution.'"-Comment: Chance or advanced planning? If God guided evolution this shows how He might have engineered it.

15285 views

DAVID: Upright walking which only we do requires a specialized foot with the big toe properly aligned. A change in gene expression provided for them:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160107140413.htm-QUOTE: 'You can evolve new skeletal structures by changing where and when the signals are expressed, and it's very satisfying to see similar regulatory principles in action whether you are changing the armor of a stickleback, or changing specific hind-limb structures during human evolution.'"-David's comment: Chance or advanced planning? If God guided evolution this shows how He might have engineered it.-It also shows how the cell communities that comprise every organism might have engineered it. Not advance planning, but improvement as they cooperate in response to environmental conditions: And they did it by studying a tiny fish called the threespine stickleback that has evolved radically different skeletal structures to match environments around the world. (My bold) Are you now telling us that God preprogrammed or personally supervised all the stickleback's variations?

15303 views


> dhw: It also shows how the cell communities that comprise every organism might have engineered it. Not advance planning, but improvement as they cooperate in response to environmental conditions: And they did it by studying a tiny fish called the threespine stickleback that has evolved radically different skeletal structures to match environments around the world. (My bold) Are you now telling us that God preprogrammed or personally supervised all the stickleback's variations?-He could have, or just the one needed for our upright posture.

15469 views

dhw: It also shows how the cell communities that comprise every organism might have engineered it. Not advance planning, but improvement as they cooperate in response to environmental conditions: And they did it by studying a tiny fish called the threespine stickleback that has evolved radically different skeletal structures to match environments around the world. (My bold) Are you now telling us that God preprogrammed or personally supervised all the stickleback's variations?

DAVID: He could have, or just the one needed for our upright posture.-Good. So you agree that it is possible for other organisms to engineer their own mutations. We are making progress!

15316 views

[/i]
> DAVID: He could have, or just the one needed for our upright posture.
> 
> dhw: Good. So you agree that it is possible for other organisms to engineer their own mutations. We are making progress!-We don't know how far epigenetic changes can/will make new species, since we don't know how new species are created. We've had this discussion before about inventive mechanisms, with no conclusion except there might exist like it.

15379 views

DAVID: He could have, or just the one needed for our upright posture.-dhw: Good. So you agree that it is possible for other organisms to engineer their own mutations. We are making progress!-DAVID: We don't know how far epigenetic changes can/will make new species, since we don't know how new species are created. We've had this discussion before about inventive mechanisms, with no conclusion except there might exist like it.-That is what I call progress. I have fought long and hard for the concession that this hypothesis is possible! Since none of the facts are known, only the faithful can draw clear conclusions.

15382 views

DAVID: We don't know how far epigenetic changes can/will make new species, since we don't know how new species are created. We've had this discussion before about inventive mechanisms, with no conclusion except there might exist like it.
> 
> dhw: That is what I call progress. I have fought long and hard for the concession that this hypothesis is possible! Since none of the facts are known, only the faithful can draw clear conclusions.-I don't view it as progress, because we had a long discussion in which both of us discussed the possibility. Certainly a possibility as we keep opening up layers of DNA control and expression, there might be a speciation layer pre-programmed to allow for giant leaps in phenotypes.

15255 views

dhw: So you agree that it is possible for other organisms to engineer their own mutations. We are making progress!
DAVID: We don't know how far epigenetic changes can/will make new species, since we don't know how new species are created. We've had this discussion before about inventive mechanisms, with no conclusion except there might exist like it.
dhw: That is what I call progress. I have fought long and hard for the concession that this hypothesis is possible! Since none of the facts are known, only the faithful can draw clear conclusions.-DAVID: I don't view it as progress, because we had a long discussion in which both of us discussed the possibility. Certainly a possibility as we keep opening up layers of DNA control and expression, there might be a speciation layer pre-programmed to allow for giant leaps in phenotypes.-Not for the first time, I am very uncertain about your use of language. A speciation layer preprogrammed for giant leaps in phenotypes does not sound quite the same as my hypothesis. The lead-in to these comments was as follows:
YOU: Chance or advanced planning? If God guided evolution this shows how He might have engineered it.
ME: It also shows how the cell communities that comprise every organism might have engineered it. Not advance planning, but improvement as they cooperate in response to environmental conditions....-So once more, let us clarify. Your hypothesis is giant leaps preprogrammed by your God; my hypothesis is giant leaps engineered by the autonomous inventive intelligence of the organisms themselves. The compromise is that this autonomous intelligence may have been invented by your God, which is far, far away from your God preprogramming a layer of DNA with the giant leaps! I remain hopeful that you are indeed prepared to accept the possibility of my hypothesis as phrased by me.

15241 views


> dhw: Not for the first time, I am very uncertain about your use of language. A speciation layer preprogrammed for giant leaps in phenotypes does not sound quite the same as my hypothesis. The lead-in to these comments was as follows:
> YOU: Chance or advanced planning? If God guided evolution this shows how He might have engineered it.
> ME: It also shows how the cell communities that comprise every organism might have engineered it. Not advance planning, but improvement as they cooperate in response to environmental conditions....
> 
> So once more, let us clarify. Your hypothesis is giant leaps preprogrammed by your God; my hypothesis is giant leaps engineered by the autonomous inventive intelligence of the organisms themselves. The compromise is that this autonomous intelligence may have been invented by your God, which is far, far away from your God preprogramming a layer of DNA with the giant leaps! I remain hopeful that you are indeed prepared to accept the possibility of my hypothesis as phrased by me.-No. It is a matter of the size of the 'leap'. I can certainly accept an inventive mechanism at the level of epigenetic variations within a species, but speciation itself with a major variation in phenotype, as I pointed out, I feel is beyond an IM unless that IM is a so-far undiscovered God-given complex layer which controls the giant leap to a new species. I view your proposal as equivalent to the current known abilities of organisms through epigenetics. That method is advancement through small modifications and trial and error stages. The fossil record is not equated with that.

15339 views

Dhw: So once more, let us clarify. Your hypothesis is giant leaps preprogrammed by your God; my hypothesis is giant leaps engineered by the autonomous inventive intelligence of the organisms themselves. The compromise is that this autonomous intelligence may have been invented by your God, which is far, far away from your God preprogramming a layer of DNA with the giant leaps! I remain hopeful that you are indeed prepared to accept the possibility of my hypothesis as phrased by me.

DAVID: No. It is a matter of the size of the 'leap'. I can certainly accept an inventive mechanism at the level of epigenetic variations within a species, but speciation itself with a major variation in phenotype, as I pointed out, I feel is beyond an IM unless that IM is a so-far undiscovered God-given complex layer which controls the giant leap to a new species. I view your proposal as equivalent to the current known abilities of organisms through epigenetics. That method is advancement through small modifications and trial and error stages. The fossil record is not equated with that.-We both know that NOBODY understands what mechanism caused the giant leaps. And we both know that small modifications are possible, and that the mechanism for those is contained within individual organisms. You claim that your God preprogrammed (or personally directed) not only the major leaps but also the lifestyles and natural wonders such as the weaverbird's nest. I understand that you feel these developments are beyond the inventive intelligence of individual organisms, because - just as with your own hypothesis - there is no evidence. I repeat: NOBODY knows the mechanism. I am therefore not asking you to believe it, but simply to acknowledge that it is a possible alternative to your own hypothesis, i.e. that the so-far undiscovered,[possibly] God-given complex layer which controls the giant leap to a new species will turn out to be the autonomous , inventive intelligence of the organisms themselves.-xxxxx-Under "Dad's epigenetic contributions" you repeat yet again that current research only shows "minor adaptations, nothing that supports a road to speciation." Of course that's what it shows! If it explained innovations, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Does current research support the hypothesis that God preprogrammed the first cells with every single large leap and weird lifestyle and natural wonder? That's why I keep emphasizing that NOBODY knows, and all we have at the moment are hypotheses. And I'm afraid you and I are unlikely to see the day when there is anything more than that!

15384 views

Another review of the same study. Our shoulder is more monkey-like, but over all we look more like apes. Chicken and egg problem if one thinks this all happened by chance. We are not monkey 'this' and ape 'that'. Problem solved if we were specially designed and split off as a special branch:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908101236.htm-"The researchers tested these competing theories by comparing 3-D measurements of fossil shoulder blades of early hominins and modern humans against African apes, orangutan, gibbons and large, tree-dwelling monkeys. They found that the modern human's shoulder shape is unique in that it shares the lateral orientation with orangutans and the scapular blade shape with African apes; a primate in the middle.-"'Human shoulder blades are odd, separated from all the apes. Primitive in some ways, derived in other ways, and different from all of them," Young said. "How did the human lineage evolve and where did the common ancestor to modern humans evolve a shoulder like ours?'"-***-"'The mix of ape and human features observed in A. afarensis' shoulder support the notion that, while bipedal, the species engaged in tree climbing and wielded stone tools. This is a primate clearly on its way to becoming human," Alemseged said."

15469 views

A long review of all the controversy in trying to interpret the fossil record leading to H. sapiens:- http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/humans-arent-so-special-after-all-the-fuzzy-evol... of the article:-"As each new discovery turns up, it becomes more abundantly clear that the history of our species has not been simple. The evolution of humans and human-like forms has been a series of experiments in how to be human running in parallel, said Stringer. Most of them failed. Only one led to Homo erectus, the likely ancestor of Neanderthals and our own species.-"The emerging picture shows the fuzziness of defining what is human, said Stringer. Are we defining them by toolmaking, small jaws and teeth, bipedalism, larger brains? The fuzzy beginnings of the genus Homo make it clear that defining the difference between us and our closest relatives is a complex problem: we share our bipedalism, our abstract thought, and possibly even our capacity for toolmaking with other species, and it's not even all that clear where the boundaries of fossil species lie.-'The calendar of events that only the fossil and archaeological records can provide presents a more complicated story than the Darwinian one, said Kimbel. It means that the pattern of acquisition of unique human characteristics was a more complicated affair. And it's all the more fascinating and important for that.'

15523 views

Guessing at hearing range with hominin fossils it seems their hearing was between human and chimp, what one would expect:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44119/title/Early-Hominin-Hearing/-"Quam and an international team of researchers studied the anatomy of the ear in three complete fossilized specimens, as well as several partial specimens, from South Africa. The team reconstructed the size and relative proportions of up to six different structuressuch as the stapes, a middle ear boneusing 3-D CT scans. The researchers then used a published model to predict how the early hominins may have heard, based on these measurements.-"Both species of early hominin evolved an anatomy that allowed them to hear sounds at slightly higher frequencies than chimpanzees, best in the 1.0 kHz to 3.5 kHz range. In comparison, chimpanzees can hear sounds best between 1.0 kHz and 3.0 kHz. Humans can typically hear sounds best between 1.0 kHz and 4.5 kHz; this range encompasses most sounds formed in spoken language.-'[The early hominins] didn't hear as well as humans, and they are more like chimps, Quam told The New York Times."

15624 views

Many of us have some Neanderthal, and many Asians some Denisovan:-http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151013-how-interbreeding-shaped-us-"If your ancestors hail from anywhere outside Africa, it's a safe bet that you are part-Neanderthal.-"After modern humans first left Africa, they came into contact with Neanderthals and things got cosy. These early frolics are now visible in our DNA. Genetic analysis indicates that Europeans and Asians obtained 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals.-"It seems everyone was at it. Neanderthals interbred with another species, the Denisovans, as did some of us. Some people from South East Asia have up to 6% Denisovan DNA.-"Even Africans whose ancestors never left the continent carry some Neanderthal DNA, because 3000 years ago people from Europe and Asia migrated to Africa. Many modern Africans have inherited some genes, including some Neanderthal ones, from these people.-***-"Brown bears and polar bears can successfully interbreed when they meet. Most of the Galápagos finches are the result of interbreeding, as are many primate species like baboons and gibbons.-"'Seven to 10% of all primate species hybridise, which is common considering a lot don't ever come into contact with each other," says Rebecca Ackermann of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.-"In July 2015 it emerged that a hybrid coral is doing better than either of its parent species. It can survive in a busy shipping channel, which its parents cannot do. -***-"Interbreeding can speed up these changes, says evolutionary geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley in the US. When modern humans left Africa, integrating with other species therefore allowed us to adapt to new environments much more quickly.-"For example, the DNA evidence hints that we inherited the ability to fight certain diseases from Neanderthals. When we first arrived in Europe our immune response may have struggled to deal with unfamiliar local diseases, but the offspring of those that interbred with Neanderthals fared better.-"The same occurred when Europeans began colonising the Americas, bringing diseases that proved catastrophic to the indigenous population. "The ones that survived were products of mating between Europeans and North Americans," says Nielsen. "Something similar happened, but maybe on a grander scale, between Neanderthal and modern humans.'"-Comment: Hobbits not mentioned. Hybrids have a wider spread of characteristics which would help in survival.

15632 views

Appearing in the last 3+ million years:-http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-mystery-of-human-only-genes-and-why-theyre-a-bit-like-oreos/410206/-"One such unique human gene is HYDIN2. It first appeared around 3.1 million years ago, as a duplicate of an existing gene called HYDIN. During the duplication process, the head got chopped off and the tail got chopped off, explains Max Dougherty from the University of Washington. It was as if someone had transcribed a book but neglected the prologue and epilogue. That should have been a fatal mistake since the prologues of genes contain sequences called promoters, which switch them on or off. The new gene should have been dead on arrivala book that couldn't be opened.-"Instead, as luck would have it, it fused with a copy of another gene, which gave it a new lease on life. The fusion, which Dougherty described at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 conference, created an entirely original gene, which looks like HYDIN but with a new prologue and a new first chapter. And while HYDIN, like most of our genes, exists in many other animals, its wayward daughterHYDIN2is a human-only innovation. (my bold)-***-"Duplicated genes make up some 5 percent of the human genome. Many of them have arisen in the last 10 to 15 million years, since humans, chimps and gorillas started going our separate evolutionary ways. In fact, wethe great African apeshave ended up with far more duplicated genes than, say, orangutans or macaque monkeys. No one fully understands why.-"What's clearer is that these genes are organized in a very unusual way. For example, in other mammals like elephants, rats, and platypuses, the copies tend to sit next to the originals in a tandem series. But in humans, chimps, and gorillas, they disperse across the genome.-"They also have a unique architecture. Imagine a gene, G1, which gets copied into a different part of the genome, producing G2. Now, another duplication event copies G2, creating yet another copy of G1 along with some of the new DNA surrounding it. This happens again and again; with each new duplication event, the core genes picks up more flanking material. It builds an inverse Oreo cookie, he says, while holding his hands out and pulling them further and further apart.-***-"So, it takes a lot of work to even discover these genes, let alone divine their function. For example, in 2010, Eichler's team identified 23 human-specific duplicated genes that aren't found in other apes. One of these, SRGAP2, has been duplicated three times, producing copies that aren't found in the reference human genome.-"The second of these, SRGAP2C, is especially interesting. It emerged around 2.4 million years ago, at the time in our evolution when the human brain was becoming distinctively bigger. And Franck Polleux from the Scripps Research Institute showed that SRGAP2C controls the growth and movement of neurons, leading to a thicker set of connections between these cells.-"Marta Florio and Wieland Huttner from the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics found a similar example earlier this year. They found that a human-specific duplicated gene called ARHGAP11b was exceptionally active in radial glia, a group of stem cells that generate many of the neurons in our developing brains. When the team activated the human gene in embryonic mice, the rodents developed a larger pool of radial glia, and the kinds of deep folds that are typical of a human brain."-Comment: Lucky or designed?

15527 views

DAVID: Appearing in the last 3+ million years:-http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-mystery-of-human-only-genes-and-...-QUOTE: "One such unique human gene is HYDIN2. It first appeared around 3.1 million years ago, as a duplicate of an existing gene called HYDIN. During the duplication process, the head got chopped off and the tail got chopped off, explains Max Dougherty from the University of Washington. It was as if someone had transcribed a book but neglected the prologue and epilogue. That should have been a fatal mistake since the prologues of genes contain sequences called promoters, which switch them on or off. The new gene should have been dead on arrivala book that couldn't be opened.-"Instead, as luck would have it, it fused with a copy of another gene, which gave it a new lease on life. The fusion, which Dougherty described at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 conference, created an entirely original gene, which looks like HYDIN but with a new prologue and a new first chapter. And while HYDIN, like most of our genes, exists in many other animals, its wayward daughterHYDIN2is a human-only innovation. (David's bold)-David's comment: Lucky or designed?-Weird! It certainly seems like a random mutation if the head and tail were chopped off during duplication, but the constructive fusion and the new human-specific genes described in the rest of the article suggest that intelligence is at work. More evidence of the autonomous ability of cells to work out ways of improving - or are you suggesting that God dabbled, or preprogrammed the chopping off process and fusion 3.8 billion years ago?

15487 views


> David's comment: Lucky or designed?
> 
> dhw: Weird! It certainly seems like a random mutation if the head and tail were chopped off during duplication, but the constructive fusion and the new human-specific genes described in the rest of the article suggest that intelligence is at work. More evidence of the autonomous ability of cells to work out ways of improving - or are you suggesting that God dabbled, or preprogrammed the chopping off process and fusion 3.8 billion years ago?-You are suggesting that cells dabble in their own DNA! All we know so far is methylation which is an addition to existing genes for adaptations, not restructuring genes to make bigger brains. We know some of the repair mechanisms but this is way beyond those issues. This is gene fusion.

15493 views

David's comment: Lucky or designed?-dhw: Weird! It certainly seems like a random mutation if the head and tail were chopped off during duplication, but the constructive fusion and the new human-specific genes described in the rest of the article suggest that intelligence is at work. More evidence of the autonomous ability of cells to work out ways of improving - or are you suggesting that God dabbled, or preprogrammed the chopping off process and fusion 3.8 billion years ago?-DAVID: You are suggesting that cells dabble in their own DNA! All we know so far is methylation which is an addition to existing genes for adaptations, not restructuring genes to make bigger brains. We know some of the repair mechanisms but this is way beyond those issues. This is gene fusion.-So are you or are you not suggesting that your God personally intervened to chop off the head and tail and bring about the fusion? Or that he preprogrammed it all 3.8 billion years ago?

15474 views


> DAVID: You are suggesting that cells dabble in their own DNA! All we know so far is methylation which is an addition to existing genes for adaptations, not restructuring genes to make bigger brains. We know some of the repair mechanisms but this is way beyond those issues. This is gene fusion.
> 
> dhw: So are you or are you not suggesting that your God personally intervened to chop off the head and tail and bring about the fusion? Or that he preprogrammed it all 3.8 billion years ago?-One or the other.

15534 views

Retrovirus DNA is functional in humans according to new research:-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12012072/Ancient-viruses-are-alive-in-humans-and-crucial-for-life-says-Stanford-University.html-"Ancient viruses were critical to the evolution of humans and infections left genetic code in our bodies which is still essential for life today, Stanford University has discovered.-"Genetic material of ancient viruses still lingers in our DNA and could explain how humans differ so greatly from other animals. -"Scientists already knew that the human genome (or blueprint) is littered with sequences left behind from long-ago viral infections but did not know if they were still having any impact. -"Now researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine have found that genetic material from a retrovirus called HERV-H is not only active, but is crucial in allowing a fertilised human egg to grow into an embryo. -"It suggests that millions of years ago the path to humanity was started by viral infections changing our DNA and could explain extraordinary evolutionary jumps which turned us into modern humans with larger brains and social skills. -"'This is the first time that these virally derived molecules have been shown to be directly involved with and necessary for vital steps of human development," Dr Vittorio Sebastiano, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynaecology.-"Now researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine have found that genetic material from a retrovirus called HERV-H is not only active, but is crucial in allowing a fertilised human egg to grow into an embryo. -"It suggests that millions of years ago the path to humanity was started by viral infections changing our DNA and could explain extraordinary evolutionary jumps which turned us into modern humans with larger brains and social skills. -"'This is the first time that these virally derived molecules have been shown to be directly involved with and necessary for vital steps of human development," Dr Vittorio Sebastiano, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynaecology.-*** -"RNA usually works as a messenger molecule, reading a gene made up of DNA code, and telling the body to make a protein. However in this case the viral RNA was found to actually alter the activity of genes. -"Until the breakthrough scientists had thought that most genetic material from viruses was inert and unable to cause any genetic changes in the body. But the new study suggests not only is it still functioning, but it is crucial to human life. When scientists removed the virus code the fertilised eggs were unable to grow. -"The virus in question is called the HERV-H retrovirus. Such viruses spread by inserting their genetic material into the genome of an infected cell. If the infected cell is a sperm or an egg, the retroviral sequence can also be passed to future generations. -Comment: No notation of when the virus came onboard during evolution of humans. Could this be part of an Inventive Mechanism, or God's way of controlling the results of evolution He wishes?

15544 views

It turns out we still don't know:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05462-w?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...

"The latest attempt to plug that gap uses data from hundreds of human tissue samples and was posted on the BioRxiv preprint server on 29 May1. It includes almost 5,000 genes that haven’t previously been spotted — among them nearly 1,200 that carry instructions for making proteins. And the overall tally of more than 21,000 protein-coding genes is a substantial jump from previous estimates, which put the figure at around 20,000.

***

"'People have been working hard at this for 20 years, and we still don’t have the answer,” says Steven Salzberg, a computational biologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, whose team produced the latest count.

***

"Salzberg’s team used data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, which sequenced RNA from more than 30 different tissues taken from several hundred cadavers. RNA is the intermediary between DNA and proteins. The researchers wanted to identify genes that encode a protein and those that don’t but still serve an important role in cells. So they assembled GTEx’s 900 billion tiny RNA snippets and aligned them with the human genome.

"Just because a stretch of DNA is expressed as RNA, however, does not necessarily mean it’s a gene. So the team attempted to filter out noise using a variety of criteria. For example, they compared their results with genomes from other species, reasoning that sequences shared by distantly related creatures have probably been preserved by evolution because they serve a useful purpose, and so are likely to be genes.

"The team was left with 21,306 protein-coding genes and 21,856 non-coding genes — many more than are included in the two most widely used human-gene databases. The GENCODE gene set, maintained by the EBI, includes 19,901 protein-coding genes and 15,779 non-coding genes. RefSeq, a database run by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), lists 20,203 protein-coding genes and 17,871 non-coding genes.

***

"And Pruitt’s team looked at about a dozen of the Salzberg group’s new protein-coding genes, but didn’t find any that would meet RefSeq’s criteria. Some overlapped with regions of the genome that seem to belong to retroviruses that invaded our ancestors’ genomes; others belong to other repetitive stretches, which are rarely translated into proteins.

"But Salzberg says that some repetitive sequences can be considered genes. One example is ERV3-1, which appears in RefSeq and encodes a protein that is overexpressed in colorectal cancer. Salzberg also acknowledges that the new genes on his team’s list will require validation by his team and others.

"Further confounding counting efforts is the imprecise and changing definition of a gene. Biologists used to see genes as sequences that code for proteins, but then it became clear that some non-coding RNA molecules have important roles in cells. Judging which are important — and should be deemed genes — is controversial, and could explain some of the discrepancies between Salzberg’s count and others.

"Still, it’s likely that at least some of the genes identified by Salzberg’s group will turn out to be valid, says Emmanouil Dermitzakis, a geneticist at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who co-chairs the GTEx project. He isn’t surprised that the team’s count for protein-coding genes is a 5% increase on previous tallies, given the gargantuan size of the GTEx data set."

Comment: By definition 'true' genes code for protein, but it appears that 80% of the genome is active in modifications of gene activity. We still understand only a little of how the genome works. Making protein is a tiny part of the story.

13223 views

Another study that suggests less so-called human genes code for protein and may be pseudogenes:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-team-reveals-human-genome-percent.html

"A new study led by the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) reveals that up to 20 percent of genes classified as coding (those that produce the proteins that are the building blocks of all living things) may not be coding after all because they have characteristics that are typical of non-coding or pseudogenes (obsolete coding genes).

***

"The researchers analyzed the genes cataloged as protein coding in the main reference human proteomes. The detailed comparison of the reference proteomes from GENCODE/Ensembl, RefSeq and UniProtKB found 22,210 coding genes, but only 19,446 of these genes were present in all 3 annotations.

"When they analyzed the 2,764 genes that were present in only one or two of these reference annotations, they were surprised to discover that experimental evidence and manual annotations suggested that almost all of these genes were more likely to be non-coding genes or pseudogenes. In fact, these genes, together with another 1,470 coding genes that are present in the three reference catalogs, were not evolving like typical protein coding genes. The conclusion of the study is that most of these 4,234 genes probably do not code for proteins.

***

"The work once again highlights doubts about the number of real genes present in human cells 15 years after the sequencing the human genome. Although the most recent data indicates that the number of genes encoding human proteins could exceed 20,000, Federico Abascal, of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in the United Kingdom and first author of the work, says, "Our evidence suggests that humans may only have 19,000 coding genes, but we still do not know which 19,000 genes are."

"For his part, David Juan, of the Pompeu Fabra University and participant in the study, reiterates the importance of these results: "Surprisingly, some of these unusual genes have been well studied and have more than 100 scientific publications based on the assumption that the gene produces a protein. "

"This study suggests that there is still a large amount of uncertainty, since the final number of coding genes could 2,000 more or 2,000 fewer than it is now. The human proteome still requires much work, especially given its importance to the medical community."

Comment: The less genes that make a complex human means the human genome has many hidden layers of complexity to explain how the low number results in such complexity. I can remember when DNA was first studied, 'experts' predicted we would have 100 genes.

12247 views

We know that several advanced human ancestors hybridized:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/animal-hybrids-may-hold-clues-neandertal-human-inte...

"Biological anthropologist Rebecca Ackermann of the University of Cape Town in South Africa co-organized the session to introduce researchers steeped in human evolution to the ins and outs of hybridization in animals and its potential for helping to identify signs of interbreeding on fossils typically regarded as either H. sapiens or Neandertals.

“'I was astonished by the number of people who came up to me after the session and said that they hadn’t even thought about this issue before,” Ackermann says.

"Interbreeding is no rare event. Genome comparisons have uncovered unexpectedly high levels of hybridization among related species of fungi, plants, rodents, birds, bears and baboons, to name a few. Species often don’t fit the traditional concept of populations that exist in a reproductive vacuum, where mating happens only between card-carrying species members.

"Evolutionary biologists increasingly view species that have diverged from a common ancestor within the last few million years as being biologically alike enough to interbreed successfully and evolve as interconnected populations. These cross-species collaborations break from the metaphor of an evolutionary tree sprouting species on separate branches. Think instead of a braided stream, with related species flowing into and out of genetic exchanges, while still retaining their own distinctive looks and behaviors.

"Research now suggests that hybridization sometimes ignites helpful evolutionary changes. An initial round of interbreeding — followed by hybrid offspring mating among themselves and with members of parent species — can result in animals with a far greater array of physical traits than observed in either original species. Physical variety in a population provides fuel for natural selection, the process by which individuals with genetic traits best suited to their environment tend to survive longer and produce more offspring.

"Working in concert with natural selection and random genetic changes over time, hybridization influences evolution in other ways as well. Depending on available resources and climate shifts, among other factors, interbreeding may stimulate the merger of previously separate species or, conversely, prompt one of those species to die out while another carries on. The birth of new species also becomes possible. In hybrid zones where the ranges of related species overlap, interbreeding regularly occurs.

***

"However genes, behaviors and beliefs got divvied up in the Stone Age, a mix of regional populations — including Neandertals and Denisovans — can be considered human ancestors, she theorizes. They all contributed to human evolution’s braided stream.

"That’s a controversial view. Neandertals and Denisovans lived in relatively isolated areas where contact with other hominid populations was probably rare, says paleoanthropologist Matthew Tocheri of Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Canada. Random DNA alterations, leading to the spread of genes that happened to promote survival in specific environments, played far more important roles in human evolution than occasional hybridization did, Tocheri predicts.

"Neandertals and Denisovans can’t yet boast of being undisputed hybrid powers behind humankind’s rise. But a gallery of interbreeding animals could well help detect hybrid hominids hiding in plain sight in the fossil record."

Comment: Hybridization contributed to the bush of life.

14907 views

We are still the same species, but we are modifying:

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-humans-evolving-ways.html

"It's often said that through our innovations in science, agriculture and medicine humans have become masters of our biological destiny.

"That we've seized control of our evolution, eliminating most of the causes of death and suffering experienced by our ancient and not too distant ancestors.
We've wiped out hunger and famine and eliminated food shortages in most parts of the world.

"Today, we have access to a wide variety of high quality foods. Items once only available to us seasonally can now be eaten all year round.

***

The upshot is that in some groups the reproductive span seems to be getting longer for both women and men.

"Yet other research has shown that women are under selection for increased height in at least one pre-industrial population and for decreased height in three post-industrial groups.

"The trend to early maturing at smaller body sizes may be the consequence of the widespread decrease in juvenile mortality resulting from improvements to hygiene, public health and medical care.

***

"Field's team investigated the signals of selection spanning the last 2,000 years and found evidence for evolution in three important sets of genes.

"First, there has been strong selection for lactase genes, or those associated with a person's ability to digest milk and other dairy foods.

"So, dairy tolerance has been on the rise over the last couple of thousand years in Britain, perhaps along with increasing levels of milk consumption.

"The second set was with the so-called HLA genes, which play a role in the human immune system.

***

"But most surprising of all was the finding that the genes for blonde hair and blue eyes have been under selection over the last two millenia.

"In this case, it seems that sexual selection rather than natural selection has been driving an increase in the number of people carrying the genes for this combination.
In the UK at least, it seems that gentlemen really do prefer blondes, well at least for the last 2,000 years anyway.

"Far from being esoteric, this kind of research shows how the decisions we make about how we live, what we eat and even who we marry can have long lasting impacts on our evolution."

Comment: Obviously we are H. sapiens with some modifications, none of which suggests a new species of human is around the corner.

14871 views

DAVID: Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. Erectus. I don't see why, except sapiens were the target and that was achieved. -> dhw: Here are three theistic alternatives: 1) God knew what he wanted, but couldn't work out how to do it; 
 
> DAVID: You've left out a fourth possibility: God knew exactly what He wanted, but set up competition just to be sure He had the right formula for a human species survivorship of the type He preferred. 
 
> dhw: Your 4) is the same as my 1), except that you're substituting the uncertainty of just to be sure for the uncertainty of couldn't work out.-My 4) is more of a hands on interpretation in guiding evolution. of course He could work out what he wanted, but perhaps not with coding in advance (pre-planning).
> 
> dhw: With my theist hat on, I can accept the possibility of God dabbling for particular purposes, but find it impossible to reconcile dabbling and/or preprogramming with the countless innovations and organisms apparently irrelevant to the production of humans if humans were his goal. Worked through evolution (I don't know why) is nice and honest, but in turn I don't know why you refuse to question a hypothesis that clearly makes no sense to either of us.-Why bother to 'make sense'? I'm convinced humans are the goal since we are so unique and very different in kind, and the need for balance in nature has been pointed out before. You are much more analytic of God than I would ever need to be. I don't think our minds are comparable to His, just partially so.

15889 views

The muscles that control proper human speech are more than 100. Human speech involves anatomic changes of an arched palate, a lower larynx with an epiglottis trap door to protect the lungs and complex breathing controls to clip the air bursts that create intelligible human speech. this requires complex brain controls:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-brain-wiring-behind-a-frustrating-speech-disorder-14779...

"New research on the intricate patterns of brain activity needed to produce speech is giving scientists fresh insights into what goes wrong in various speech disorders.

"Speaking is among the most complex human behaviors the brain controls. Normal speech depends on the precise coordination of more than 100 muscles, spread across the mouth, lungs and vocal cords. The brain issues a series of rapid-fire commands directing these muscles to move in the exact pattern needed to voice specific syllables and words.

"Dr. Chang says his work using brain electrodes reveals how neurons control a series of so-called articulators—including the larynx, lips, facial muscles and tongue—that work together to coordinate speech.

"Some articulators shape the breath. Others push air up through the vocal cords. Still others move the tongue, cheeks and lips. When one of these players falls out of line, speech can sound slurred, shaky or choppy and raspy, as in spasmodic dysphonia.

Comment:The article goes on to discuss the research in terms of spasmodic dysphonia:

"Spasmodic dysphonia, which is incurable, is characterized by uncontrollable voice breaks, strained speech and excessive breathiness. It usually strikes in midlife, when patients hit their personal and professional prime."

Comment: The main point for me is the complexity of over 100 muscles being coordinated, along with the required anatomic changes. There is nothing like this in the ape world. This is a giant evolutionary gap gap explained only by saltation. Humans are obviously different in kind.

14930 views

FoxP2 controls speech in humans but it is found in lesser animals and has the same effect there:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161115114333.htm

"Dr. Jarvis and colleagues report the results of their investigation into the effect of a genetic mutation in the Forkhead box protein #2 (FOXP2) on the vocalization patterns of adult male mice. FOXP2 regulates speech production in humans. Individuals with deficiencies in FOXP2 protein have difficulty forming complex syllables and complex sentence construction.

"Although mice are unable to communicate using speech in the same way as humans, they do vocalize as a means of communicating with each other. Therefore this study sought to determine whether FOXP2 deficiencies have similar consequences for communication by mice as they do for humans.

They do.

***

"In their new study, the investigators wished to determine if there was an effect of a FOXP2 deficiency on the communication patterns of mice.

"The results showed that the FOXP2 heterozygotes have difficulty producing the complex vocal communication patterns that wildtype mice can create with ease -- as measured both by syllable length and the number of unique syllables produced over time. These divergences are particularly strong when comparing the communication of FOXP2 heterozygotes and wildtype males while in the presence of active female mice. In this context, the wildtype males were 3 times as likely as heterozygotes to produce the most complex syllable types and sequences available for review. Dr. Jarvis' team performed intricate statistical analyses to validate this finding, and their conclusion held true.

"Following the conclusion of all recordings, Dr. Jarvis' team used a process known as transsynaptic tracing from vocal larynx muscles to compare the vocal brain regions of wildtype and heterozygote FOXP2 mice. This study revealed that the heterozygote's vocal motor neurons were more widely distributed across the cortex than was the case for wildtype mice. This evidence suggests that the FOXP2 mutation affects both the placement and functioning of the neurons connected to effective communication, from mice all the way to humans.

"Prior research has shown a more limited role for FOXP2 than what is now becoming apparent. As Dr. Jarvis observes, "We believe that FOXP2 already had a pre-existing role in regulating vocal communication before human language evolved.'"

Comment: Not surprising if we believe in common descent. Humans just developed much further in anatomic and brain changes.

14834 views

There is a current theory that plate tectonic alterations of East Africa in the Rift Valley pushed human evolution:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-climate-change-and-plate-tectonics-shape...

"It should not be a surprise that East Africa was a hotbed of evolution, because over the last five million years everything about the landscape has changed.

"The extraordinary forces of plate tectonics and a changing climate have transformed East Africa from a relatively flat, forested region to a mountainous fragmented landscape dominated by the rapid appearance and disappearance of huge, deep-water lakes. And from this highly variable landscape emerged an ape smart enough to question its own existence.

"Twenty million years ago the Indian and Asian continental plates clashed and pushed up the massive Tibetan plateau. In summer this plateau acts as a huge heat engine, absorbing solar energy which it transfers to the atmosphere, causing immense convection currents. With all this hot air rising, air is sucked in from all round, including moist air from the Indian Ocean that produces intense South East Asian monsoons.

"This has a knock on affect of drawing moisture away from the African continent, and it was this that began the progressive drying out of East Africa. In terms of human evolution, this distinct split between the climate of Asia and Africa coincides with the split between Asian and African apes, the latter eventually evolving into us.

***

"Presented with fragmented vegetation and greater distances between sources of food may have led to the evolution of human bipedalism – walking upright on two legs – around six million years ago. These highly successful early bipedal hominins such as Ardipithecus ramidus or Australopithecus afarensis, were nevertheless relatively small-brained, with a cranial capacity of about 450cm3 compared with modern humans with over 1,500cm3.

"The development of the East African Rift valley fragmented the landscape and formed a large number of separate lake basins. The mountainous landscape makes these basins very sensitive to small changes in rainfall. Martin Trauth of Potsdam University and colleagues found geological evidence that deep, freshwater lakes existed around 2.6 million, 1.8 million and 1 million years ago – key dates in human evolutionary history.

"During each of these periods the local climate of East Africa varied over a 20,000-year cycle, from extreme aridity to very wet conditions. So our ancestors may have had an idyllic environment, cruelly taken away as the lake dried up over a few generations. Thousands of years later the lake would return and the cycle would begin again. The 20,000-year cycle is driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of sunlight received during any particular season. In East Africa it had a significant influence on the timing and duration of the two wet seasons.

"The recent study published in the journal PloS ONE by Susanne Shultz of Manchester University and me statistically links for the first time the emergence of new hominin species, expanding brain capacity, and the movement out of Africa to the appearance and disappearance of deep freshwater lakes (confirming the original work by Martin Trauth and myself).

"The most profound period for human evolution occurs at about 1.8 million years ago, a period which records the highest diversity of hominin species, including the appearance of Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus with a substantially larger brain capacity of 900cm3, and the first major dispersal of our ancient human ancesters out of East Africa into Eurasia. During this period, the ephemeral deep-freshwater lakes appeared and disappeared along the whole length of the East Africa Rift valley, causing fundamental environmental changes that pushed these new species out of Africa.

"We have now started to put together a coherent picture of how the changing East African landscape has driven human evolution over the last ten million years. The region has altered beyond all recognition, from flat and forested to one filled with spectacular, two-mile-high mountains, savannahs and tropical forests. By priming the land to form lake basins that were sensitive to small changes in rainfall, extreme climate pulses of alternately arid and wet period occurred and had a profound effect on all the animals living in East Africa. The powerful forces of plate tectonics and climate variability ultimately led to our hominid ancestors' development and their dispersal from Africa, to the Caucasus, the Fertile Crescent, and ultimately the rest of the world.

Comment: A fascinating story. Certainly the climatic changes acted as a drive to change the existing ape species, but as I've noted before, but the changes were not required to happen, as shown by the currently existing apes and monkeys demonstrate. The Earth is a very special planet with its changing plate tectonics creating a climate that provides for evolving life.

14860 views

DAVID: There is a current theory that plate tectonic alterations of East Africa in the Rift Valley pushed human evolution:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-climate-change-and-plate-tectonics-shape...

QUOTES: "We have now started to put together a coherent picture of how the changing East African landscape has driven human evolution over the last ten million years. The region has altered beyond all recognition, from flat and forested to one filled with spectacular, two-mile-high mountains, savannahs and tropical forests. By priming the land to form lake basins that were sensitive to small changes in rainfall, extreme climate pulses of alternately arid and wet period occurred and had a profound effect on all the animals living in East Africa. The powerful forces of plate tectonics and climate variability ultimately led to our hominid ancestors' development and their dispersal from Africa, to the Caucasus, the Fertile Crescent, and ultimately the rest of the world."

David’s comment: A fascinating story. Certainly the climatic changes acted as a drive to change the existing ape species, but as I've noted before, but the changes were not required to happen, as shown by the currently existing apes and monkeys demonstrate. The Earth is a very special planet with its changing plate tectonics creating a climate that provides for evolving life.

Thank you for this brilliant article! I can’t fault the logic. As for your own logic, we have both noted repeatedly that NO changes were “required to happen” since bacteria have survived perfectly well. The article simply offers an intriguingly convincing explanation as to how it DID happen. But yes, the Earth is very special.

14754 views

Retroviruses incorporated themselves into human and ape DNA's but no other species about 35-45 million years ago. they do affect neurons:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112110840.htm

"Over millions of years retroviruses have been incorporated into our human DNA, where they today make up almost 10 per cent of the total genome. A research group at Lund University in Sweden has now discovered a mechanism through which these retroviruses may have an impact on gene expression. This means that they may have played a significant role in the development of the human brain as well as in various neurological diseases.

"Retroviruses are a special group of viruses including some which are dangerous, such as HIV, while others are believed to be harmless. The viruses studied by Johan Jakobsson and his colleagues in Lund are called endogenous retroviruses (ERV) as they have existed in the human genome for millions of years. They can be found in a part of DNA that was previously considered unimportant, so called junk-DNA -- a notion that researchers have now started to reconsider.

"The genes that control the production of various proteins in the body represent a smaller proportion of our DNA than endogenous retroviruses. They account for approximately 2 per cent, while retroviruses account for 8-10 per cent of the total genome. If it turns out that they are able to influence the production of proteins, this will provide us with a huge new source of information about the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson.

"And this is precisely what the researchers discovered. They have determined that several thousands of the retroviruses that have established themselves in our genome may serve as "docking platforms" for a protein called TRIM28. This protein has the ability to "switch off" not only viruses but also the standard genes adjacent to them in the DNA helix, allowing the presence of ERV to affect gene expression.

"This switching-off mechanism may behave differently in different people, since retroviruses are a type of genetic material that may end up in different places in the genome. This makes it a possible tool for evolution, and even a possible underlying cause of neurological diseases. In fact, there are studies that indicate a deviating regulation of ERV in several neurological diseases such as ALS, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

"Two years ago, Johan Jakobsson's team showed that ERV had a regulatory role in neurons specifically. However, this study was conducted on mice, whereas the new study -- published in the journal Cell Reports -- was made using human cells.
The differences between mice and humans are particularly important in this context. Many of the retroviruses that have been built into the human DNA do not exist in species other than humans and our closest relatives -- gorillas and chimpanzees. They seem to have incorporated themselves into the genome some 35-45 million years ago, when the evolutionary lineage of primates was divided between the Old and New World.

""Much of what we know about the overall development of the brain comes from the fruit fly, zebrafish and mouse. However, if endogenous retroviruses affect brain function, and we have our own set of these ERV, the mechanisms they affect may have contributed to the development of the human brain," says Johan Jakobsson."

Comment: There has to be some reason why the human brain grew so big compared to the apes. This may be a clue as to the mechanism. Again note the point that so-called junk DNA is shrinking rapidly, much to the discomfort of Darwinists.

14690 views

Another artic le looking at the role of viruses in the process of complexity from evolution:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170124-how-viruses-may-have-led-to-complex-life/?utm_s...

"A growing body of evidence supports the idea that viruses played a role in one of the most significant complexity jumps in evolution: The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Prokaryotic organisms, which include bacteria and archaea, were among the earliest living things on Earth. Their simple cells do not have nuclei or other organelles like mitochondria. These complex structures are a feature of eukaryotic organisms, which include all plants, animals and fungi.

'Eukaryotes also have a higher percentage of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) than prokaryotes. Unlike the highly structured proteins you may have learned about in high school biology, IDPs have stretches of amino acids that allow them to be more fluid. This fluidity in turn allows them to respond rapidly to many different kinds of cellular instructions.

"In 2012, Keith Dunker of Indiana University and his colleagues looked for these telltale stretches of amino acids in databases of eukaryotic and prokaryotic proteomes. (A proteome is the entire set of proteins expressed by an organism’s genome.) They found what they called a “well-defined gap” between the percentages of IDPs found in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The IDP content of prokaryotes never seemed to get past 28 percent; eukaryotes never seemed to stray below 32 percent. So where did the increase in IDPs come from? Dunker suggests viruses.

"In that same study, he and his colleagues also looked at the percentages of IDPs in viral proteomes and found that they ranged from 7.3 to 77.3 percent of the proteome, depending on the virus. This overlaps with the percentages of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, suggesting a possible bridge between the two cell types.

"The standard explanation for the origin of complex life is that eukaryotes arose after one prokaryote swallowed another. The engulfed prokaryote then went on to become the first organelle. But that hypothesis doesn’t explain why eukaryotes have such high IDP percentages. Dunker and his colleagues argue that their findings support a different transition. Some viruses, like the giant mimivirus, have about the same percentage of disordered proteins as some eukaryotes. A bacterium could have engulfed a large-DNA virus in a process called viral eukaryogenesis, eventually yielding a nucleus that matches the high IDP percentages of eukaryotic cells.

"Dunker said many scientists assume that when a virus and host have something in common, the virus picked it up from the host. But it could work the other way as well. When he looked for a possible explanation for the range of IDP percentages between eukaryotes, prokaryotes and viruses, Dunker drew inspiration from Patrick Forterre of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who has argued that it isn’t clear which way all traits flowed between viruses and their hosts.

“'Viruses have this huge range of disorder, from low to high,” Dunker said. “The disorder may have evolved in the viral world for viral functions and then moved from the virus to the host. We just don’t know which way it went.'”

"So the next time you’re laid low with the flu, stewing in misery, remember that without viruses we might never have evolved our way out of the primordial soup."

Comment: Just as the previous entry posited a role in brain development, this article broadens our knowledge of the possible role of viruses. My recent entry on 'limber' proteins without fixed folding also fits into this same area, as viruses have this type of protein. Did God use viruses as ways to invent progress in complexity?

14748 views

The previous article showed viruses ability to advance evolution but viruses subverted that ability to invent virus/human genome code for their lone benefit:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200618120213.htm

"...researchers have shown that a large group of viruses, including the influenza viruses and other serious pathogens, steal genetic signals from their hosts to expand their own genomes.

***

"They showed that, by stealing genetic signals from their hosts, viruses can produce a wealth of previously undetected proteins. The researchers labeled them as UFO (Upstream Frankenstein Open reading frame) proteins, as they are encoded by stitching together the host and viral sequences. There was no knowledge of the existence of these kinds of proteins prior to this study.

***

"Viruses cannot build their own proteins, so they need to feed suitable instructions to the machinery that builds proteins in their host's cells. Viruses are known to do this through a process called "cap-snatching," in which they cut the end from one of the cell's own protein-encoding messages (a messenger RNA, or mRNA) and then extend that sequence with a copy of one of their own genes. This gives a hybrid message to be read.

"'For decades we thought that by the time the body encounters the signal to start translating that message into protein (a 'start codon') it is reading a message provided to it solely by the virus. Our work shows that the host sequence is not silent," said Dr. Marazzi.

"The researchers show that, because they make hybrids of host mRNAs with their own genes, viruses (sNSVs) can produce messages with extra, host-derived start codons, a process they called "start snatching." This makes it possible to translate previously unsuspected proteins from the hybrid host-virus sequences. They further show that these novel genes are expressed by influenza viruses and potentially a vast number of other viruses. The product of these hybrid genes can be visible to the immune system, and they can modulate virulence.

***

"'Viruses take over their host at the molecular level, and this work identifies a new way in which some viruses can wring every last bit of potential out of the molecular machinery they are exploiting. While the work done here focusses on influenza viruses, it implies that a huge number of viral species can make previously unsuspected genes.'"

Comment: In view of what is known about viruses, this finding is not surprising. It also shows, as with metabolic errors, what God created in the biochemistry of viruses for evolution can also have errors or undesired results.

5962 views

This essay describes the dilemma of the big brain from a Darwinian standpoint. There are both an anatomical problem and an intelligent parent problem:

http://inference-review.com/article/the-obstetrical-dilemma

"Human newborns are helpless. Without adult care, human infants would not stand a chance. They are unable to locomote on their own, or to eat anything beyond the most limited of diets. There are species whose young exhibit adult behavioral characteristics virtually from birth. The horse is an example. If the horse is not helpless at birth, neither is he particularly smart—nor does he get very much smarter. With human infants, it is the other way around, a fact that requires an evolutionary explanation.

"The emergence of human intelligence is in part attributable to an increase in their brain volume, which is thought to have roughly tripled over the last 2.5 million years. At 1,300cc, human brains are enormous in comparison to those of chimpanzees and gorillas. Brain size relative to total body size has also increased. The human brain constitutes 2% of total adult body weight, and consumes 20–25% of basal metabolism. It is also three times larger than would otherwise be expected for a primate of human body size.

"For at least thirty years, the standard solution to the riddle of human neonate helplessness has been the obstetrical dilemma.

***

"Because our ancestors from the time of Australopithecus walked on two legs, their pelvises had to remain narrow to preserve mechanically efficient movement. But their larger brains required an increasingly wide birth canal. These competing selective pressures resulted in an evolutionary trade-off; the human pelvis became as wide as bipedalism permitted. Since intelligence was under selective pressure, the most straightforward trade-off required human beings to give birth when newborn crania were still relatively small, and their brains relatively underdeveloped.
Hence the helpless, or altricial, human newborn.

***

" the increasing helplessness of human newborns itself exerts a selective force because it requires intelligent parents.10 This requires that the adults have bigger brains, which was the reason for earlier birth in the first place.

***

"Piantadosi and Kidd’s theory relies on three assumptions: that infants do better with more intelligent parents; that intelligent parents require large brains; and that there is a connection between large brains in adults and helplessness in newborns. The third assumption is in question, if only because the second assumption is in question.

***

"Our ancestors certainly did not experience a reproductive advantage because of their ability to do algebra or play the piano.11 The Darwinian environment, in enlarging their brains, somehow granted our ancestors capacities that they would not require, and could not use, for millions of years. Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba have called such grafts exaptations.

***

"If we take science at face value, as scientists often do, we are again left with a strong evolutionary suggestion that selection should not have favored a species capable of creating such powerful theories as quantum mechanics or general relativity.

***

" Even if the theory applies to the evolutionary history of mankind, the most that can be said about our curious predicament is that it is a matter of historical accident. If these consequences of the obstetrical dilemma are ambiguous, its fundamental premises are implausible. It is by no means clear that brain size correlates with intelligence. Human brains are dwarfed by those of whales, dolphins, and elephants;

***

"The most reasonable cerebral measure seems to be the total number of neurons, which can differ between brains of the same size due to differing neuron-packing densities. Because of their relatively large cortices, small neurons, and high packing densities, primates have more neurons than expected given their absolute brain size.28 Human beings in particular have more neurons than any other species—about 15 billion cortical neurons and about 100 billion neurons overall.

"No measure of brain size quite explains the variations in primate intelligence."

Comment: The entire article struggles to explain by Darwin theories the chicken/egg problem of enlarging big brain and pelvic change coordinating in evolution and that is topped by the problem of developing intelligent parents so they can care for helpless kids! You can't have one or the other. All of it had to happen at once, by saltation, not Darwin.

14615 views

With cross breeding Neanderthal genes have had a contribution with effects:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/neanderthals-dna-makes-its-presence-felt?utm_s...

"When scientists sequenced the Neanderthal genome in 2010, it became apparent that prehistoric dalliances had taken place between Neanderthals and our European and Asian ancestors.

"A faint afterglow of these matings is still present in the genomes of modern humans. Around 2% of the genomes of non-Africans is of Neanderthal origin.

"But the mechanism behind such associations has remained a mystery.

"In this study, researchers from the University of Washington looked at the RNA read-outs of Neanderthal gene variants in modern humans

"In some cases, carrying the Neanderthal version of a gene has been linked to changes in fat metabolism, depression and lupus risk.

"Looking across 52 different body tissues, they compared the number of read-outs for the Neanderthal versus the human gene variant. This gave the researchers a picture of how ‘switched on’ Neanderthal genes are compared to their human equivalents, throughout the body.

"The team looked at more than 2000 gene pairs. In 767 of these, either the Neanderthal or the human versions was consistently more ‘switched on’ across all tissues – the split was roughly 50-50.

"Genes associated with auto-immune diseases, schizophrenia, cleft lip, depression, autism and obesity all cropped up as being regulated differently depending on their origin, and could explain why carrying Neanderthal versions of some genes changes disease risk.

"In the brain and testes, read-outs of Neanderthal gene variants were especially low. This suggests that these tissues have undergone more rapid evolution since our divergence from the Neanderthal lineage some 700,000 years ago.

"'Hybridisation wasn't just something that happened 50,000 years ago that we don't have to worry about anymore,” says geneticist Joshua Akey from the University of Washington, a co-author on the study. “Those little bits and pieces, our Neanderthal relics, are influencing gene expression in pervasive and important ways.'"

Comment: It has also been shown that Neanderthal DNA helped humans from Africa with immunity against European infections.

14627 views

A book about how Earth's changes, including plate tectonics appears to push human evolution:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331131-000-how-the-world-made-us-chance-and-cl...

"Enter Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London and his new book, The Cradle of Humanity. In it he addresses many outstanding questions, while showing what was going on in the world at the time. As a climatologist, he looks at the ecological consequences of the great dry-out that occurred not only in east Africa but also in primate-rich Europe and primate-free North America.

"In most accounts these events receive the broadest of historical brushstrokes, with just enough detail to lend a plausible inevitability to whatever process is under discussion. The Cradle of Humanity is more textured and subtle, showing not only how such changes altered any meat-giving prey, but how both climate and new mammalian fruit eaters changed the suite of plants available to our early ancestors. Only then does Maslin tackle the probable consequences of this for the social systems and mental development of proto-hominins.

***

" Maslin dedicates whole chapters to the history of Earth and its climate, as well as showing how the interaction of wobbles in the orbits of our planet and the moon create climatic cycles. Then there are the effects of plate tectonics, rain shadows and lakes of varying ephemerality and salinity.

"All this allows Maslin to buttress his central contention, that human evolution as we know it wouldn’t have occurred without the uplift of the Tibetan plateau and the formation of the Great Rift valley. These events, and the cycling between salt flats and shallow sea that mark the history of the Mediterranean, are the great drivers of human evolution – the climatic starting gun that set off the human race.

"Maslin also provides a fine overview of the evolution of evolutionary thinking over the past 150 years, to the point where we now see it less as an orderly march towards an inevitable Homo sapiens and more of a random stumble to now. He is clear that while the appearance of a smart, tool-using primate is no major surprise, the presence of this particular smart, tool-using primate, arising as a result of that exact evolutionary trajectory, owes much more to chance and contingency than previous popular perspectives allowed.

"For much of early human history, for example, there was another smart bipedal ape on the African savannah: Paranthropus, a heavy-jawed grinder of nuts, seeds and tubers. Even a tiny disaster could have wiped out the protohuman’s prey base, leaving only Paranthropus. Similarly, the cycles of aridity and plenty could have been very different, given a greater or lesser slippage of ice fields into the ocean, say, or a change in when the Strait of Gibraltar closed and the Mediterranean experienced death by evaporation. Such shifts might have had us reading this on Mars, or squatting round a cave fire.

"In synthesising the most recent research in palaeoanthropology and giving the ecology of our ancestors a climatological twist, Maslin has produced a book that is fascinating, humbling and informative."

Comment: As the Earth evolved so did we. God uses evolutionary processes

14532 views

QUOTE: "Maslin also provides a fine overview of the evolution of evolutionary thinking over the past 150 years, to the point where we now see it less as an orderly march towards an inevitable Homo sapiens and more of a random stumble to now. He is clear that while the appearance of a smart, tool-using primate is no major surprise, the presence of this particular smart, tool-using primate, arising as a result of that exact evolutionary trajectory, owes much more to chance and contingency than previous popular perspectives allowed.(My bold)

DAVID’s comment: As the Earth evolved so did we. God uses evolutionary processes.

Once again, thank you for an interesting article, and my compliments to you on your integrity in reproducing conclusions directly opposite to your own.

14577 views

QUOTE: "Maslin also provides a fine overview of the evolution of evolutionary thinking over the past 150 years, to the point where we now see it less as an orderly march towards an inevitable Homo sapiens and more of a random stumble to now. He is clear that while the appearance of a smart, tool-using primate is no major surprise, the presence of this particular smart, tool-using primate, arising as a result of that exact evolutionary trajectory, owes much more to chance and contingency than previous popular perspectives allowed.(My bold)

DAVID’s comment: As the Earth evolved so did we. God uses evolutionary processes.

dhw: Once again, thank you for an interesting article, and my compliments to you on your integrity in reproducing conclusions directly opposite to your own.

You are mistaken about my conclusions. The author refers to chance and contingency in his interpretation, which I reject, but the key point of the article is that as the Earth evolved so did human development. That is why I presented it.

14569 views

QUOTE: "Maslin also provides a fine overview of the evolution of evolutionary thinking over the past 150 years, to the point where we now see it less as an orderly march towards an inevitable Homo sapiens and more of a random stumble to now. He is clear that while the appearance of a smart, tool-using primate is no major surprise, the presence of this particular smart, tool-using primate, arising as a result of that exact evolutionary trajectory, owes much more to chance and contingency than previous popular perspectives allowed.(My bold)

DAVID’s comment: As the Earth evolved so did we. God uses evolutionary processes.

dhw: Once again, thank you for an interesting article, and my compliments to you on your integrity in reproducing conclusions directly opposite to your own.

DAVID: You are mistaken about my conclusions. The author refers to chance and contingency in his interpretation, which I reject, but the key point of the article is that as the Earth evolved so did human development. That is why I presented it.

If he concludes that chance and contingency are decisive factors and you conclude that God did it, I can't see how your conclusions are NOT opposite. The fact that the Earth evolved and humans also evolved doesn't change the argument, since both of you believe in evolution.

14539 views

DAVID: You are mistaken about my conclusions. The author refers to chance and contingency in his interpretation, which I reject, but the key point of the article is that as the Earth evolved so did human development. That is why I presented it.

dhw: If he concludes that chance and contingency are decisive factors and you conclude that God did it, I can't see how your conclusions are NOT opposite. The fact that the Earth evolved and humans also evolved doesn't change the argument, since both of you believe in evolution.

Yes he and I disagree about cause, but not the method of evolution. That was the conclusion I referred to.

14599 views

This article enumerates how complex human development was, and how intelligence was enhanced by the changes in body plan from the ape body plan:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151110-evolution-of-big-brains/?utm_source=Quanta+Maga...

"Although the mechanics of the human brain’s expansion have long been mysterious, its importance has rarely been questioned. Again and again, researchers have cited the evolutionary surge in human brain size as the key reason for our exceptionally high degree of intelligence compared to other animals. As recent research on whale and elephant brains makes clear, size is not everything, but it certainly counts for something. The reason we have so many more cortical neurons than our great-ape cousins is not that we have denser brains, but rather that we evolved ways to support brains that are large enough to accommodate all those extra cells.

"There’s a danger, though, in becoming too enamored with our own big heads. Yes, a large brain packed with neurons is essential to what we consider high intelligence. But it’s not sufficient. Consider, for a moment, what the world would be like if dolphins had hands. Dolphins are impressively brainy. They have demonstrated self-awareness, cooperation, planning and the rudiments of language and grammar. Compared to apes, though, they are severely limited in their ability to manipulate the world’s raw materials. Dolphins will never enter the Stone Age; flippers cannot finesse.

"Similarly, we know that chimps and bonobos can understand human language and even form simple sentences with touch-screen keyboards, but their vocal tracts are inadequate for producing the distinct series of sounds required for speech. Conversely, some birds have the right vocal anatomy to flawlessly mimic human speech, but their brains are not large enough or wired in the right way to master complex language.

"No matter how large the human brain grew, or how much energy we lavished upon it, it would have been useless without the right body. Three particularly crucial adaptations worked in tandem with our burgeoning brain to dramatically increase our overall intelligence: bipedalism, which freed up our hands for tool making, fire building and hunting; manual dexterity surpassing that of any other animal; and a vocal tract that allowed us to speak and sing. Human intelligence, then, cannot be traced to a single organ, no matter how large; it emerged from a serendipitous confluence of adaptations throughout the body. Despite our ongoing obsession with the size of our noggins, the fact is that our intelligence has always been so much bigger than our brain."

Comment: These are enormous changes in an eight-million-year period. Certainly looks directed. Note my entry describing genes and brain development in early humans (Friday, March 10, 2017, 01:47) :

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/evolving-a-human-brain?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos+Ma...

14580 views

A new book and essay on the role of energy development as the major pattern of the Earth's evolution as it prepared for humans, who require enormous amounts of energy to survive and prosper. The humans play a role in the evolution. It all fits my approach that God uses evolutionary processes at all levels, universe, arth, life.\:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/a-grand-unified-theory-for-life-on-...

"Humans bodies require a ridiculous and—for most of Earth’s history—improbable amount of energy to stay alive.

"Consider a human dropped into primordial soup 3.8 billions years ago, when life first began. They would have nothing to eat. Earth then had no plants, no animals, no oxygen even. Good luck scrounging up 1600 calories a day drinking pond- or sea water. So how did we get sources of concentrated energy (i.e. food) growing on trees and lumbering through grass? How did we end up with a planet that can support billions of energy-hungry, big-brained, warm-blooded, upright-walking humans?

"In “The Energy Expansions of Evolution,” an extraordinary new essay in Nature Ecology and Evolution, Olivia Judson sets out a theory of successive energy revolutions that purports to explain how our planet came to have such a diversity of environments that support such a rich array of life, from the cyanobacteria to daisies to humans.

"Judson divides the history of the life on Earth into five energetic epochs, a novel schema that you will not find in geology or biology textbooks. In order, the energetic epochs are: geochemical energy, sunlight, oxygen, flesh, and fire. Each epoch represents the unlocking of a new source of energy, coinciding with new organisms able to exploit that source and alter their planet. The previous sources of energy stay around, so environments and life on Earth become ever more diverse. Judson calls it a “step-wise construction of a life-planet system.”

"In the epoch of geochemical energy 3.7 billion years ago, the first living organisms “fed” on molecules like hydrogen and methane that formed in reaction between water and rocks. They wrung energy out of chemical bonds. It was not very efficient—the biosphere’s productivity then was an estimated a thousand to a million times less than it is today.

"Sunlight, of course, was shining on Earth all along. When microbes that can harness sunlight finally evolve, the productivity and diversity of the biosphere leveled up. One particular type of bacteria, called cyanobacteria, hits upon a way of harnessing the sun’s energy that makes oxygen (O2) as a byproduct, and with profound consequences: The planet gets an ozone (O3) layer that blocks UV radiation, new minerals through oxygen reactions, and an atmosphere full of highly reactive O2.

"Which brings us to the epoch of oxygen. Given an opportunity, oxygen will steal electrons from anything it finds. New oxygen-resistant organisms evolve with enzymes to protect them from oxygen. They have advantages too: Because oxygen is so reactive, it makes the metabolism of these organisms much more efficient. In some conditions, organisms can get 16 times as much energy out of a glucose molecule with the presence of oxygen than without.

"With more energy, you can have motion and so in the epoch of flesh, highly mobile animals become abundant. They can fly, swim, ran to catch prey. “Flesh” is source of concentrated energy, rich in fats and protein and carbon.

"Then one particular type of animal—those of the genus Homo—figure out fire. Fire lets us cook, which may have allowed us to get more nutrition out of the same food. It lets us forge labor-saving metal tools. It lets us create fertilizer through the Haber-Bosch process to grow food on industrial scales. It lets us burn fossils fuels for energy.

***

"At the very end, Judson speculates that other life-planet systems in the universe may have also evolved through a series of energy expansions. If we want to look for life, we shouldn't only look for planets look like present-day Earth—a point Rothschild has been making for years. “When people talk about looking for an Earth-like planet, they say it’s got to have oxygen and I go, ‘Are you crazy?,’” she says. “If you were looking at Earth billions of years ago you wouldn’t have seen it.'”

Comment: Fits my ideas about God's use of evolutionary processes, in this instance the Earth. And those required calories for humans must cover a brain that demands 15-20% of the caloric consumption. Further it offers strong support for my insistence on the balance of nature as a crucial source of energy as diverse life was able to develop. Read her whole essay to see my meaning:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0138 Too long to review here. What is presented above is a good taste of it.

14431 views

DAVID: A new book and essay on the role of energy development as the major pattern of the Earth's evolution as it prepared for humans, who require enormous amounts of energy to survive and prosper. The humans play a role in the evolution. It all fits my approach that God uses evolutionary processes at all levels, universe, arth, life.\:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/a-grand-unified-theory-for-life-on-...

DAVID’S comment: Fits my ideas about God's use of evolutionary processes, in this instance the Earth. And those required calories for humans must cover a brain that demands 15-20% of the caloric consumption. Further it offers strong support for my insistence on the balance of nature as a crucial source of energy as diverse life was able to develop.

Thank you for this brilliant essay. It most certainly fits the theory that the environment plays a huge role in evolution. And of course, if God exists, it means that God used evolutionary processes. However, I can’t find any mention of God in the essay, so I think the author is only concerned with describing the evolutionary processes, not with your theory of how God used them. Is the balance of nature a crucial source of energy? I’d have thought energy supply was what determined the balance of nature, not the other way round. And according to this brilliant essay it also determines the diversity of life, which suggests that environmental change is the trigger that sets in motion the drive for improvement/complexity which in turn produces new species. I can find no hint in this essay that God creates the new species before he changes the environment.

14396 views

DAVID: A new book and essay on the role of energy development as the major pattern of the Earth's evolution as it prepared for humans, who require enormous amounts of energy to survive and prosper. The humans play a role in the evolution. It all fits my approach that God uses evolutionary processes at all levels, universe, arth, life.\:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/a-grand-unified-theory-for-life-on-...

DAVID’S comment: Fits my ideas about God's use of evolutionary processes, in this instance the Earth. And those required calories for humans must cover a brain that demands 15-20% of the caloric consumption. Further it offers strong support for my insistence on the balance of nature as a crucial source of energy as diverse life was able to develop.

dhw: Thank you for this brilliant essay. It most certainly fits the theory that the environment plays a huge role in evolution. And of course, if God exists, it means that God used evolutionary processes. However, I can’t find any mention of God in the essay, so I think the author is only concerned with describing the evolutionary processes, not with your theory of how God used them. Is the balance of nature a crucial source of energy? I’d have thought energy supply was what determined the balance of nature, not the other way round. And according to this brilliant essay it also determines the diversity of life, which suggests that environmental change is the trigger that sets in motion the drive for improvement/complexity which in turn produces new species. I can find no hint in this essay that God creates the new species before he changes the environment.

You don't have to point out the author does not give me direct support. I present material for its content and my conclusions. I didn't expect the author to offer direct support for my God concepts. You know that. I find those defensive statements of yours as humorous. I always present material like this, and you alwsys respond the way you do.

As for energy, I find your view of the balance of nature supplying energy entirely backward as I think the author demonstrates. Further, note that species change the environment almost as much as the environment changes on its own.

And I do not find improvement drive as equivalent to a complexity drive. Do not conflate them.

14511 views

Changing environmental conditions from wet to dry and back again was common in East Africa in the Rift Valley, but natural springs may have mitigated the effect on early humans:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-critical-sources-early-humans-east.html

"About 1 to 2 million years ago, early humans in East Africa periodically faced very dry conditions, with little or no water in sight. But they likely had access to hundreds of springs that lingered despite long dry spells, allowing our ancestors to head north and out of Africa, according to a groundbreaking study by scientists at Rutgers University-New Brunswick and other institutions.

"The international team showed that climate may not play such a primary role in human evolution as is commonly asserted.

"This has very important implications for human evolution," said Gail M. Ashley, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers. "We're not saying anything about why early humans left Africa. We're only saying it was possible to leave Africa by going from one spring to the next and they could travel during dry periods."

"The study, which focuses on the key role of "hydro-refugia," or water refuges, in East African hominin (early human) evolution and dispersal, was published today in the online journal Nature Communications. Hydro-refugia, a new term coined by the scientists, include springs, wetlands, groundwater-fed perennial streams and groundwater-fed rivers.

"The study has global relevance since drylands cover about 45 percent of the Earth's land mass. The importance of groundwater for the survival of our hominin ancestors during dramatic climate swings could inspire and inform strategies for human resilience to future climate change, the study says.

"For several million years, the African climate has fluctuated between wet and dry in 23,000-year cycles. And since most lakes are undrinkable (saline or alkaline) and rivers dry up for large parts of the year in East Africa, where early humans arose, the study focused on the viability of groundwater-fed springs.

***

"The study area is vast - nearly 2.1 million square kilometers (some 808,000 square miles), stretching from northern Tanzania to Ethiopia and focusing on the East African Rift Valley. And the scientists performed hydrogeological modeling of the current landscape. A spring that discharges 1,000 cubic meters of water (about 264,000 gallons) a year was deemed productive enough to maintain continuous flow.

***

"Using today's distribution of lakes, rivers and springs sprinkled along the valley from northern Tanzania to Ethiopia, a computer study was performed to see if it would have been possible for humans to walk from one water source to another and survive. The study assumed that a person could walk up to 180 kilometers, or about 112 miles, in three days.

"'In some places, people could not migrate and they would have stayed at one spring for quite a long time until it got wetter again, and then more springs would open up and they could continue to move," Ashley said.

"People have always assumed that climate was the main factor in human migration and human evolution, she said.

"'Climate fluctuated, but the geology allowed the development and maintenance of springs - hydro-refugia - on the landscape, allowing humans to disperse and migrate out of Africa," she said. "The bigger question is what motivated humans to move up the East African Rift Valley. We know they did and we have shown how it was possible, but we don't really have a logical reason for them doing that.'"

Comment: Humans migrated all over the planet in the Eastern Hemisphere. They sailed all over the tropical Pacific. It seems wanderlust was built in. It is logical they looked for the best climate in which to live and take advantage of their level of mental development. Getting a land/ice route to North America required adaptations to cold climate, which is undoubtedly why it happened so late in history.

14401 views

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/a-grand-unified-theory-for-life-on-...

DAVID’S comment: Fits my ideas about God's use of evolutionary processes, in this instance the Earth. And those required calories for humans must cover a brain that demands 15-20% of the caloric consumption. Further it offers strong support for my insistence on the balance of nature as a crucial source of energy as diverse life was able to develop.

dhw: Thank you for this brilliant essay. It most certainly fits the theory that the environment plays a huge role in evolution. And of course, if God exists, it means that God used evolutionary processes. However, I can’t find any mention of God in the essay, so I think the author is only concerned with describing the evolutionary processes, not with your theory of how God used them. Is the balance of nature a crucial source of energy? I’d have thought energy supply was what determined the balance of nature, not the other way round. And according to this brilliant essay it also determines the diversity of life, which suggests that environmental change is the trigger that sets in motion the drive for improvement/complexity which in turn produces new species. I can find no hint in this essay that God creates the new species before he changes the environment.

DAVID: You don't have to point out the author does not give me direct support. I present material for its content and my conclusions. I didn't expect the author to offer direct support for my God concepts. You know that. I find those defensive statements of yours as humorous. I always present material like this, and you alwsys respond the way you do.

I always respond the way I do because you always make the same comment: any confirmation of evolutionary processes confirms your view that God uses evolutionary processes! If you stop making that comment, I will stop responding to it.

DAVID: As for energy, I find your view of the balance of nature supplying energy entirely backward as I think the author demonstrates.
That is YOUR view. You wrote that the balance of nature was the source of energy! The source means that the “balance” is the supplier! No, I suggest that energy supply is what determines the balance of nature, as I think the author demonstrates.

DAVID: Further, note that species change the environment almost as much as the environment changes on its own.

It’s pretty clear from all the current debates on climate change that species change the environment. However, that does not mean that your God creates species before he plonks them in a new environment.

DAVID: And I do not find improvement drive as equivalent to a complexity drive. Do not conflate them.

No, they are not the same, but each of them explains why speciation took place although it was not required, and so I put them together as alternatives. Perhaps I should use “or”.

14434 views

dhw: I always respond the way I do because you always make the same comment: any confirmation of evolutionary processes confirms your view that God uses evolutionary processes! If you stop making that comment, I will stop responding to it.

Since you know my view, I will stop, but I really make those statements for the lurkers who may be following us.

DAVID: As for energy, I find your view of the balance of nature supplying energy entirely backward as I think the author demonstrates.

dhw: That is YOUR view. You wrote that the balance of nature was the source of energy! The source means that the “balance” is the supplier! No, I suggest that energy supply is what determines the balance of nature, as I think the author demonstrates.

You are correct. It works in both directions. More energy means more diversity can be supported, but I view it as still bound up in a working balance of nature which must remain balanced:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0138

"First, increasing the types of energy sources available to life has led to a far more complex biosphere. Although only geochemical energy and sunlight can power the de novo transformation of inorganic carbon into living tissue, the complexity of the current biosphere rests on multiple levels of energy use.

***

"The step-wise diversification of the biosphere has, in turn, led to an expansion of possible niches, from more complex microbial mats to old shells and abandoned burrows. At the same time, the capacity of life to impact the planetary environment—and thereby the environment in which future life will evolve—has expanded dramatically with each epoch.

***

"Because the construction of the biosphere has depended on these energy expansions, the vanishing of an energy source, even temporarily, could cause a corresponding contraction in the biosphere....one factor in the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous may have been dust ejected by the Chicxulub asteroid impact, which may have blocked out the sun long enough to cause a global collapse in photosynthesis.

***

"—the Great Oxidation Event and the emergence of mobile animals—also coincide with expansions in the kinds of energy sources available to, and consumed by, living beings. The Great Oxidation shifted the prevailing chemistry of the atmosphere and upper ocean and made oxygen gas abundant. The emergence of life forms that eat one another transformed the nature of ecosystems, and introduced a powerful new set of evolutionary interactions, thus accelerating the pace of macroevolutionary change."

Comment: I would say the balance of nature making so much food available allowed the acceleration of evolution, but did not require it. Same refrain.

XXXXX

DAVID: And I do not find improvement drive as equivalent to a complexity drive. Do not conflate them.

dhw: No, they are not the same, but each of them explains why speciation took place although it was not required, and so I put them together as alternatives. Perhaps I should use “or”.

Agreed

14394 views

dhw: I always respond the way I do because you always make the same comment: any confirmation of evolutionary processes confirms your view that God uses evolutionary processes! If you stop making that comment, I will stop responding to it.
DAVID: Since you know my view, I will stop, but I really make those statements for the lurkers who may be following us.

Then the sake of the lurkers it is incumbent on me to point out that these articles do not support your views.

DAVID: As for energy, I find your view of the balance of nature supplying energy entirely backward as I think the author demonstrates.
dhw: That is YOUR view. You wrote that the balance of nature was the source of energy! The source means that the “balance” is the supplier! No, I suggest that energy supply is what determines the balance of nature, as I think the author demonstrates.
You are correct. It works in both directions. More energy means more diversity can be supported, but I view it as still bound up in a working balance of nature which must remain balanced:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0138

Thank you. I shan’t repeat the quotes, as my only disagreement is with your continued harping on “the balance of nature”. Energy supply leads to diversity, and diversity itself influences the environment. There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time. This is exemplified by:

“The emergence of life forms that eat one another transformed the nature of ecosystems, and introduced a powerful new set of evolutionary interactions, thus accelerating the pace of macroevolutionary change.”

The energy supply changed, carnivores appeared, the balance of nature changed. In the context of evolution, the balance of nature simply refers to whatever organisms and resources exist at the time. When we talk about it now, we mean the balance that exists now, and so when humans introduce foreign species which destroy the status quo, we say they are disturbing the balance of nature.

14444 views

David: You are correct. It works in both directions. More energy means more diversity can be supported, but I view it as still bound up in a working balance of nature which must remain balanced:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0138

dhw: Thank you. I shan’t repeat the quotes, as my only disagreement is with your continued harping on “the balance of nature”. Energy supply leads to diversity, and diversity itself influences the environment. There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time. This is exemplified by:

“The emergence of life forms that eat one another transformed the nature of ecosystems, and introduced a powerful new set of evolutionary interactions, thus accelerating the pace of macroevolutionary change.”

The energy supply changed, carnivores appeared, the balance of nature changed. In the context of evolution, the balance of nature simply refers to whatever organisms and resources exist at the time. When we talk about it now, we mean the balance that exists now, and so when humans introduce foreign species which destroy the status quo, we say they are disturbing the balance of nature.

But we are using word games. "There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time"." We are really saying the same thing. If balance is upset it settles back into balance. If humans destroy the balance, it usually settles into a bad balance, which should be corrected. But the balance in eco-niches provides energy as the author tells us. That is my constant point. Balance provides the energy needed.

14423 views

David: You are correct. It works in both directions. More energy means more diversity can be supported, but I view it as still bound up in a working balance of nature which must remain balanced:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0138

dhw: Thank you. I shan’t repeat the quotes, as my only disagreement is with your continued harping on “the balance of nature”. Energy supply leads to diversity, and diversity itself influences the environment. There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time. This is exemplified by:

“The emergence of life forms that eat one another transformed the nature of ecosystems, and introduced a powerful new set of evolutionary interactions, thus accelerating the pace of macroevolutionary change.”

The energy supply changed, carnivores appeared, the balance of nature changed. In the context of evolution, the balance of nature simply refers to whatever organisms and resources exist at the time. When we talk about it now, we mean the balance that exists now, and so when humans introduce foreign species which destroy the status quo, we say they are disturbing the balance of nature.

David: But we are using word games. "There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time"." We are really saying the same thing. If balance is upset it settles back into balance. If humans destroy the balance, it usually settles into a bad balance, which should be corrected. But the balance in eco-niches provides energy as the author tells us. That is my constant point. Balance provides the energy needed.

I think that balance, like so many words in the English language, has become somewhat bastardized in meaning. In common parlance, balance has come to mean equilibrium, with the childish idealization of a teeter-totter on a fulcrum sitting perfectly level. (Otherwise known as scales...just saying). This simplistic ideal uses words like 'balance', 'equality', 'similarity', and 'sameness' interchangeably, and loses much in translation. I love these definitions:

a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions

an even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady.

keep or put (something) in a steady position so that it does not fall.[/i]
(bold mine)

We always see proportionality in our complex system; between growth, death, and diversity. Yet, for all intents and purposes, life on Earth has remained largely in a state of balance for as long as we have any real knowledge. Certain elements may rise, fall, or be removed, but each action is countered, allowing the whole system to 'remain upright'. In short, it is largely impossible to completely 'destroy the balance', because the acting of 'destroying the balance' would, in and of itself, simply create a new balance point, and things would keep on keeping on....with or without us.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

14406 views

dhw: In the context of evolution, the balance of nature simply refers to whatever organisms and resources exist at the time. When we talk about it now, we mean the balance that exists now, and so when humans introduce foreign species which destroy the status quo, we say they are disturbing the balance of nature.
DAVID: But we are using word games. "There is no “must remain balanced” because the balance is constantly changing according to the energy supply and according to the nature of the organisms in existence at the time"." We are really saying the same thing. If balance is upset it settles back into balance. If humans destroy the balance, it usually settles into a bad balance, which should be corrected. But the balance in eco-niches provides energy as the author tells us. That is my constant point. Balance provides the energy needed.

If the existing balance is upset, it settles back into a different balance, and the new balance will depend on what energy is available. Whatever balance you have at a particular time does not provide energy, but is the result of the energy supply, as you agreed earlier; in turn the organisms then existing (not the "balance") will also supply energy. Please provide a quote from the article that says it is the balance of nature that provides the energy needed. (See also Tony’s comments and my reply on what “balance” actually means.)

TONY: I think that balance, like so many words in the English language, has become somewhat bastardized in meaning. In common parlance, balance has come to mean equilibrium, with the childish idealization of a teeter-totter on a fulcrum sitting perfectly level. (Otherwise known as scales...just saying). This simplistic ideal uses words like 'balance', 'equality', 'similarity', and 'sameness' interchangeably, and loses much in translation. I love these definitions:
a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions

an even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady.
keep or put (something) in a steady position so that it does not fall.

We always see proportionality in our complex system; between growth, death, and diversity. Yet, for all intents and purposes, life on Earth has remained largely in a state of balance for as long as we have any real knowledge. Certain elements may rise, fall, or be removed, but each action is countered, allowing the whole system to 'remain upright'. In short, it is largely impossible to completely 'destroy the balance', because the acting of 'destroying the balance' would, in and of itself, simply create a new balance point, and things would keep on keeping on....with or without us.

One needs to explain balance between what. Since different species have dominated at different times, with environmental change a crucial factor, the balance between species obviously keeps changing. But as long as life goes on, there is always some kind of balance. I like the finale of the last quote: “balance” simply boils down to life goes on until it stops.

14428 views

dhw: One needs to explain balance between what. Since different species have dominated at different times, with environmental change a crucial factor, the balance between species obviously keeps changing. But as long as life goes on, there is always some kind of balance. I like the finale of the last quote: “balance” simply boils down to life goes on until it stops.

My only point about balance is it provides the energy for life to continue

14328 views

Work with stickleback fish indicate being dumped into a new unfamiliar stream isn't all bad:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531133328.htm

"It's hard being a misfit: say, a Yankees fan in a room full of Red Sox fans or a vegetarian at a barbecue joint. Evolutionary biologists have long assumed that's pretty much how things work in nature too. Animals that wander into alien environments, surrounded by better-adapted locals, will struggle. But a team of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin was surprised to find that sometimes, misfits can thrive among their much more numerous native cousins.

***

"Yet when the researchers did a series of experiments placing varying numbers of fish from one habitat into the other habitat with local fish, they found the transplants fared surprisingly well. Monitoring the fish in underwater cages over time, the researchers observed that survival had less to do with where a fish was from, and more to do with whether they were the common or rare type within their cage. In either habitat, when stream fish were in the minority, they survived better than when they were in the majority, for instance.

"The scientists found that immigrants could fly under the radar in the face of some threats, which helped them beat the odds.

"You come in and you eat something nobody else around you eats, so you aren't competing for food," Bolnick says. "The local parasites don't know what to do with you because you have an unfamiliar immune system. So you're better off than the residents."

"Bolnick notes that being less adapted to the environment also has some negative effects on immigrants, just as theory predicts, but their study shows that in some instances the benefits of rarity can outweigh the drawbacks of being in an unfamiliar environment.

"'We found newcomers in the population pass on their genes more often than residents, and they contribute more to the next generation," Bolnick says.

"The team found that this effect gives migrants an outsized impact on the genetics of their adopted population. This slows the pace of evolutionary divergence -- the rate at which each of the two populations might pick up new traits that make it differ more from the other.

***

"'Just because the streams look similar to us, on the surface, doesn't mean that they are interchangeable," says Bolnick. "Every stream is ecologically unique. And so every stream population's adaptations must be similarly unique.'" (my bold)

Comment: Note my bold. Eco-niches are unique, and we are still learning about environmental effects on species. Remember Reznick's guppies. And we have no research on human genetic responses in prospective ways because that cannot be done. Translating animal studies to humans is all we have.

14481 views

The preceding article listed contributions made by Denisovans (high altitude tolerance) and Neanderthals (enhanced immunty) that benefited current humans. This article coveys the description of all the migrations and interbreeding that seems to have occurred and contributed to what makes current humans as they are:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/fossil-dna-reveals-new-twists-in-modern-human-origins-20...

"Genomic studies reveal how convoluted the emergence of modern humans was. We carry genes from our ancestors’ encounters with ancient people like the Neanderthals, but the Neanderthals already carried some modern human genes from even earlier encounters with vanished groups.
Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine

"Humans today are mosaics, our genomes rich tapestries of interwoven ancestries. With every fossil discovered, with every DNA analysis performed, the story gets more complex: We, the sole survivors of the genus Homo, harbor genetic fragments from other closely related but long-extinct lineages. Modern humans are the products of a sprawling history of shifts and dispersals, separations and reunions — a history characterized by far more diversity, movement and mixture than seemed imaginable a mere decade ago.

***

"Now the DNA evidence seems to back up this revised migration narrative as well. In retrospect, “it seems quite natural,” Scally said, “to say that human populations and evolution were just as messy 200,000 years ago, and just as subdivided and structured … as they are today.”

“It makes it hard to argue that there was ever some … special evolutionary event or genetic event that triggered the evolution of humans as we know them,” he added. Humans have been continuously evolving through the mixing of varied populations for hundreds of thousands of years. (In fact, Scally posits that our species did not originally evolve from a single population in Africa, but rather from many interconnected populations spread out across the continent.)

“'This is telling us, ‘Oh, this is not a weird one-off,’” Hawks said. “It’s a continuing interaction.'”

Comment: The rest of the article is a review of possible migrations and interbreeding. My point in presenting it is that it is a direct refutation of the dhw point that God seemed to diddling around with so many parts of a developing human bush instead of getting right to the point of making modern humans. He obviously had a plan to use different forms to offer contributions to the final result, forms that developed (evolved) different contributions.

dhw today (Thursday, August 29, 2019, 19:31) wrote "According to you, then, it was his decision to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design H. sapiens (though even then he designed lots of hominins and homos before designing the only one he wanted to design – see below). He therefore had to design the rest of the bush to cover the time he had decided to take. '"

dhw doesn't seem to be able to imagine a God that is entirely purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing. dhw's view of God has Him bumbling along.

7188 views

QUOTES: “It makes it hard to argue that there was ever some … special evolutionary event or genetic event that triggered the evolution of humans as we know them,” he added. Humans have been continuously evolving through the mixing of varied populations for hundreds of thousands of years. (In fact, Scally posits that our species did not originally evolve from a single population in Africa, but rather from many interconnected populations spread out across the continent.)
“'This is telling us, ‘Oh, this is not a weird one-off,’” Hawks said. “It’s a continuing interaction.'”

DAVID: The rest of the article is a review of possible migrations and interbreeding. My point in presenting it is that it is a direct refutation of the dhw point that God seemed to diddling around with so many parts of a developing human bush instead of getting right to the point of making modern humans. He obviously had a plan to use different forms to offer contributions to the final result, forms that developed (evolved) different contributions.

So your God, who is always in control, was apparently perfectly capable of preprogramming or directly dabbling every single feature that is now combined in H. sapiens (the only species he wanted to design), but he chose to design all these features separately and pop them into different forms of hominin and homo. And you have no idea why he chose this method instead of directly creating the only species he wanted to design. (For some reason you have denied that he only wanted to design us, but now you are telling us that he only wanted to design us and chose to do it in this roundabout manner!)

Dhw: (Thursday, August 29, 2019, 19:31):"According to you, then, it was his decision to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design H. sapiens (though even then he designed lots of hominins and homos before designing the only one he wanted to design – see below). He therefore had to design the rest of the bush to cover the time he had decided to take. '"

DAVID: dhw doesn't seem to be able to imagine a God that is entirely purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing. dhw's view of God has Him bumbling along.

Dhw finds it hard to imagine a God who is entirely purposeful and always in total control having a single purpose (H. sapiens) but fulfilling that purpose by deciding not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, then having to design lots of non-humans to cover the time, and then having to design lots of non-sapiens hominins and homos containing bits and pieces of future sapiens plus bits and pieces that would not be needed for sapiens. To me that sounds like a God bumbling along, and so a bumbling God is what you are depicting. It may be so. Your God is unknowable. But maybe he is not bumbling at all. Maybe he knows exactly what he’s doing. Maybe his purpose was not just to design H. sapiens. Maybe the great variety, the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings as new forms replaced old, and yes, even the emergence of greater degrees of consciousness in different forms of homo, and the fascinating career of H. sapiens with his highest of all degrees of consciousness were ALL part of his purpose, as he “watches with interest” (you used that expression once) the fascinating ways in which his original invention develops. Only maybe. At least it ties in with history and does not present us with the blatantly illogical picture you have drawn of your God’s single purpose and bumbling way of achieving it.

7212 views

QUOTES: “It makes it hard to argue that there was ever some … special evolutionary event or genetic event that triggered the evolution of humans as we know them,” he added. Humans have been continuously evolving through the mixing of varied populations for hundreds of thousands of years. (In fact, Scally posits that our species did not originally evolve from a single population in Africa, but rather from many interconnected populations spread out across the continent.)
“'This is telling us, ‘Oh, this is not a weird one-off,’” Hawks said. “It’s a continuing interaction.'”

DAVID: The rest of the article is a review of possible migrations and interbreeding. My point in presenting it is that it is a direct refutation of the dhw point that God seemed to diddling around with so many parts of a developing human bush instead of getting right to the point of making modern humans. He obviously had a plan to use different forms to offer contributions to the final result, forms that developed (evolved) different contributions.

dhw: So your God, who is always in control, was apparently perfectly capable of preprogramming or directly dabbling every single feature that is now combined in H. sapiens (the only species he wanted to design), but he chose to design all these features separately and pop them into different forms of hominin and homo. And you have no idea why he chose this method instead of directly creating the only species he wanted to design. (For some reason you have denied that he only wanted to design us, but now you are telling us that he only wanted to design us and chose to do it in this roundabout manner!)

It is not roundabout if it is exactly an evolutionary process which method God chose to follow. For example, God designed the immune response, but that response then learned what had to be defended against, which is something that needed to happen. God may design to a point and then allow the design to complete the job.

Dhw: (Thursday, August 29, 2019, 19:31):"According to you, then, it was his decision to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design H. sapiens (though even then he designed lots of hominins and homos before designing the only one he wanted to design – see below). He therefore had to design the rest of the bush to cover the time he had decided to take. '"

DAVID: dhw doesn't seem to be able to imagine a God that is entirely purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing. dhw's view of God has Him bumbling along.

Dhw finds it hard to imagine a God who is entirely purposeful and always in total control having a single purpose (H. sapiens) but fulfilling that purpose by deciding not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, then having to design lots of non-humans to cover the time, and then having to design lots of non-sapiens hominins and homos containing bits and pieces of future sapiens plus bits and pieces that would not be needed for sapiens. To me that sounds like a God bumbling along, and so a bumbling God is what you are depicting. It may be so. Your God is unknowable. But maybe he is not bumbling at all. Maybe he knows exactly what he’s doing. Maybe his purpose was not just to design H. sapiens. Maybe the great variety, the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings as new forms replaced old, and yes, even the emergence of greater degrees of consciousness in different forms of homo, and the fascinating career of H. sapiens with his highest of all degrees of consciousness were ALL part of his purpose, as he “watches with interest” (you used that expression once) the fascinating ways in which his original invention develops. Only maybe. At least it ties in with history and does not present us with the blatantly illogical picture you have drawn of your God’s single purpose and bumbling way of achieving it.

My picture of God is not your distorted view. My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He needs to do and does it. Humans were His goal, not a single purpose as you twist the discussion, with your same implication: why didn't He directly create humans as in the Bible?

7202 views

dhw: […] (For some reason you have denied that he only wanted to design us, but now you are telling us that he only wanted to design us and chose to do it in this roundabout manner!)

DAVID: It is not roundabout if it is exactly an evolutionary process which method God chose to follow.

If he wanted to design H. sapiens, I suggest that designing 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, followed by the design of many different hominins and homos with different features which ultimately coalesce into the only homo he wanted to design, makes for a roundabout process. The claim that this is the method your God chose to follow does not make it any less roundabout!

DAVID: For example, God designed the immune response, but that response then learned what had to be defended against, which is something that needed to happen. God may design to a point and then allow the design to complete the job.

This has nothing to do with roundabout fulfilment of a single purpose. It is merely your reiteration of your belief that your God designed every evolutionary change in advance of the need for it (e.g. pre-whales being given flippers before they entered the water, and then learning how to use them). The converse is that all systems develop as cell communities work out how to cope with new conditions. But your final sentence is interesting. Responses and designs don’t “learn” anything – it is the cells that do the learning. The theistic version of my own hypothesis is that your God designed the intelligent cell and allowed it to “complete the job” of running evolution. Same principle, but an earlier start to the process of God “allowing” the cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: My picture of God is not your distorted view. My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He needs to do and does it.

My God is purposeful and knows exactly what he WANTS to do and does it: namely, to invent a mechanism that will produce the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct that make up the history of life on Earth, including humans. Why do you insist that any purpose other than your own is not purposeful?

DAVID: Humans were His goal, not a single purpose as you twist the discussion, with your same implication: why didn't He directly create humans as in the Bible?

This is the strangest argument yet. Please explain the difference between a goal and a single purpose. And yes indeed, if an always-in-control God has a goal, and if – as you keep telling us – he directly creates every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, why would he not directly design H. sapiens? History tell us that he didn’t, and you yourself have no idea why he didn’t. So maybe your interpretation of life’s history as a fulfilment of your God’s single purpose or goal is wrong. See “Unanswered questions” on the subject of your logic and God’s.

7195 views

DAVID: It is not roundabout if it is exactly an evolutionary process which method God chose to follow.

dhw: If he wanted to design H. sapiens, I suggest that designing 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, followed by the design of many different hominins and homos with different features which ultimately coalesce into the only homo he wanted to design, makes for a roundabout process. The claim that this is the method your God chose to follow does not make it any less roundabout!

I'll admit evolution is a slow convoluted process, but it is the only process that actually happened. And I think the underlying cause is God. And your implication remains the same: why did't God directly create humans without all the byplay?

DAVID: For example, God designed the immune response, but that response then learned what had to be defended against, which is something that needed to happen. God may design to a point and then allow the design to complete the job.

dhw: This has nothing to do with roundabout fulfilment of a single purpose. It is merely your reiteration of your belief that your God designed every evolutionary change in advance of the need for it (e.g. pre-whales being given flippers before they entered the water, and then learning how to use them). The converse is that all systems develop as cell communities work out how to cope with new conditions. But your final sentence is interesting. Responses and designs don’t “learn” anything – it is the cells that do the learning. The theistic version of my own hypothesis is that your God designed the intelligent cell and allowed it to “complete the job” of running evolution. Same principle, but an earlier start to the process of God “allowing” the cells to do their own designing.

This comment flouts the design argument which states a designing mind is necessary. As the design argument keeps you an agnostic, do you really think your God would conjure up cell committees with an ability equal to brain work . That really is a roundabout theory.

DAVID: My picture of God is not your distorted view. My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He needs to do and does it.

dhw: My God is purposeful and knows exactly what he WANTS to do and does it: namely, to invent a mechanism that will produce the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct that make up the history of life on Earth, including humans. Why do you insist that any purpose other than your own is not purposeful?

Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

DAVID: Humans were His goal, not a single purpose as you twist the discussion, with your same implication: why didn't He directly create humans as in the Bible?

dhw: This is the strangest argument yet. Please explain the difference between a goal and a single purpose. And yes indeed, if an always-in-control God has a goal, and if – as you keep telling us – he directly creates every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, why would he not directly design H. sapiens? History tell us that he didn’t, and you yourself have no idea why he didn’t. So maybe your interpretation of life’s history as a fulfilment of your God’s single purpose or goal is wrong. See “Unanswered questions” on the subject of your logic and God’s.

God's method is God's method of creation. I don't question His reasons for His choices. I look at His works, the most mature way of analyzing God.

7150 views

DAVID: It is not roundabout if it is exactly an evolutionary process which method God chose to follow.

dhw: […]The claim that this is the method your God chose to follow does not make it any less roundabout!

DAVID: I'll admit evolution is a slow convoluted process, but it is the only process that actually happened. And I think the underlying cause is God. And your implication remains the same: why didn't God directly create humans without all the byplay?

That is indeed the question I am asking. You and I believe evolution is the only process, and for argument’s sake I have agreed that the underlying cause is God. But your concept of evolution is that your God directly designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life (presumably, however, manipulating the cells of existing creatures, since it is common descent that you accept). Your latest example of natural wonders is spider legs. Your comment: “This setup had to be designed by a designer.” So he was able to directly design every life form etc., but he couldn’t or wouldn’t directly design what according to you was the only thing he wanted to create: H. sapiens. Therefore he indulged in “byplay” for 3.X billion years before indulging in more byplay with lots of different hominins and homos, some of whose features got passed on to other homos until his final direct creation of the remaining features of H. sapiens (brain, pelvis etc.). And this, according to you, is not a roundabout process!

dhw: Responses and designs don’t “learn” anything – it is the cells that do the learning. The theistic version of my own hypothesis is that your God designed the intelligent cell and allowed it to “complete the job” of running evolution. Same principle, but an earlier start to the process of God “allowing” the cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: This comment flouts the design argument which states a designing mind is necessary.

Necessary for what? And how often do I have to repeat that your God may have been the designing mind that invented the designing abilities of cells/cell communities?

DAVID: As the design argument keeps you an agnostic, do you really think your God would conjure up cell committees with an ability equal to brain work. That really is a roundabout theory.

Nothing roundabout here. Humans have designed machines with an ability to do different forms of brain work. You believe your God invented the brain to do brain work, and yet you don’t believe that the components of the brain can do brain work. Or had you not realized the brain is composed of cell communities?

DAVID: Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

What work did he want done? Perhaps he wanted to create a mechanism that would autonomously provide a vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which he could, in your own words, “watch with interest”. “That makes him human!” you cry, objecting to your very own proposal. No it doesn’t. It simply gives him and us something in common. And it fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: Humans were His goal, not a single purpose as you twist the discussion, with your same implication: why didn't He directly create humans as in the Bible?

dhw: This is the strangest argument yet. Please explain the difference between a goal and a single purpose. And yes indeed, if an always-in-control God has a goal, and if – as you keep telling us – he directly creates every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, why would he not directly design H. sapiens? History tell us that he didn’t, and you yourself have no idea why he didn’t. So maybe your interpretation of life’s history as a fulfilment of your God’s single purpose or goal is wrong. See “Unanswered questions” on the subject of your logic and God’s.

DAVID: God's method is God's method of creation. I don't question His reasons for His choices. I look at His works, the most mature way of analyzing God.

You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose (now bolded). Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement. And yes of course his method is his method. You look at his works, come up with an illogical theory about his purpose and his method, and then refuse to question what is not HIS choice but is your own illogical interpretation of his choice, which you justify by pretending you know that God’s logic is not human logic. (See “Unanswered questions”)

7179 views

DAVID: I'll admit evolution is a slow convoluted process, but it is the only process that actually happened. And I think the underlying cause is God. And your implication remains the same: why didn't God directly create humans without all the byplay?

dhw: That is indeed the question I am asking. You and I believe evolution is the only process, and for argument’s sake I have agreed that the underlying cause is God. But your concept of evolution is that your God directly designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life (presumably, however, manipulating the cells of existing creatures, since it is common descent that you accept). Your latest example of natural wonders is spider legs. Your comment: “This setup had to be designed by a designer.” So he was able to directly design every life form etc., but he couldn’t or wouldn’t directly design what according to you was the only thing he wanted to create: H. sapiens. Therefore he indulged in “byplay” for 3.X billion years before indulging in more byplay with lots of different hominins and homos, some of whose features got passed on to other homos until his final direct creation of the remaining features of H. sapiens (brain, pelvis etc.). And this, according to you, is not a roundabout process!

Once again you give evidence your concept of God as making wrong decisions in achieving a purpose, creating humans. I use history as evidence. We evolved. God did it. You don't accept that. We remain apart.

DAVID: As the design argument keeps you an agnostic, do you really think your God would conjure up cell committees with an ability equal to brain work. That really is a roundabout theory.

dhw: Nothing roundabout here. Humans have designed machines with an ability to do different forms of brain work. You believe your God invented the brain to do brain work, and yet you don’t believe that the components of the brain can do brain work. Or had you not realized the brain is composed of cell communities?

All of which are designed to be wired together to work together with purpose.

DAVID: Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

dhw: What work did he want done? Perhaps he wanted to create a mechanism that would autonomously provide a vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which he could, in your own words, “watch with interest”. “That makes him human!” you cry, objecting to your very own proposal. No it doesn’t. It simply gives him and us something in common. And it fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

How do you know we have anything in common with God other than consciousness? And how does history prove that?

DAVID: God's method is God's method of creation. I don't question His reasons for His choices. I look at His works, the most mature way of analyzing God.

dhw: You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose (now bolded). Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement. And yes of course his method is his method. You look at his works, come up with an illogical theory about his purpose and his method, and then refuse to question what is not HIS choice but is your own illogical interpretation of his choice, which you justify by pretending you know that God’s logic is not human logic. (See “Unanswered questions”)

Goals and purposes are the same but the way you approach the argument is to strongly imply that my God was dominated by his desire for humans and foolishly took too much time to reach the evolution of humans. A complete distortion of my view of God, but a neat debating trick on your part.

7174 views

dhw: [..] So he was able to directly design every life form etc., but he couldn’t or wouldn’t directly design what according to you was the only thing he wanted to create: H. sapiens. Therefore he indulged in “byplay” for 3.X billion years before indulging in more byplay with lots of different hominins and homos, some of whose features got passed on to other homos until his final direct creation of the remaining features of H. sapiens (brain, pelvis etc.). And this, according to you, is not a roundabout process!

DAVID: Once again you give evidence your concept of God as making wrong decisions in achieving a purpose, creating humans. I use history as evidence. We evolved. God did it. You don't accept that. We remain apart.

Absolutely not! I am not criticizing your God, I am criticizing your INTERPRETATION of his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose! YOU say he is always in control, his only purpose was to design H. sapiens, he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and he therefore had to design all the other life forms, and then all the non-sapiens forms! None of this is “history”. History, for those of us who believe evolution happened, tells us that complex life forms developed from simple life forms, creating a huge bush of non-human life forms until eventually lots of different human life forms appeared, with H. sapiens as the latest and possibly the last. THAT is history. Even if we accept that “God did it”, there are several ways in which that history can be interpreted theistically without any of the above illogicalities.

DAVID: As the design argument keeps you an agnostic, do you really think your God would conjure up cell committees with an ability equal to brain work. That really is a roundabout theory.

dhw: Nothing roundabout here. Humans have designed machines with an ability to do different forms of brain work. You believe your God invented the brain to do brain work, and yet you don’t believe that the components of the brain can do brain work. Or had you not realized the brain is composed of cell communities?

DAVID: All of which are designed to be wired together to work together with purpose.

Yes. So what makes you think your God is incapable of “conjuring up cell communities (“committees”) with an ability equal to brain work”? Cells do brain work! But you cannot accept the possibility that your God created them to do brain work. You have to have him doing all the brain work for them.

DAVID: Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

dhw: What work did he want done? Perhaps he wanted to create a mechanism that would autonomously provide a vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which he could, in your own words, “watch with interest”. “That makes him human!” you cry, objecting to your very own proposal. No it doesn’t. It simply gives him and us something in common. And it fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: How do you know we have anything in common with God other than consciousness? And how does history prove that?

I don’t know. I simply object to your insisting that you know your God’s nature, purpose and method, and therefore you can reject alternative interpretations of his nature, purpose and method. You are the one with fixed beliefs!

dhw: You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose. Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement.

DAVID: Goals and purposes are the same but the way you approach the argument is to strongly imply that my God was dominated by his desire for humans and foolishly took too much time to reach the evolution of humans. A complete distortion of my view of God, but a neat debating trick on your part.

The debating trick is yours. If your God’s one and only purpose or goal had been to design H. sapiens, then of course he would have been dominated by his desire for humans. And therefore it makes no sense to have a purposeful God focusing on anything but his one and only purpose. I do not for one second believe that your God would be “foolish”. The foolishness lies in your insistence on a reading of his mind which you yourself cannot understand. See “Unanswered questions”.

7152 views

DAVID: Once again you give evidence your concept of God as making wrong decisions in achieving a purpose, creating humans. I use history as evidence. We evolved. God did it. You don't accept that. We remain apart.

dhw: Absolutely not! I am not criticizing your God, I am criticizing your INTERPRETATION of his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose! YOU say he is always in control, his only purpose was to design H. sapiens, he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and he therefore had to design all the other life forms, and then all the non-sapiens forms! None of this is “history”. History, for those of us who believe evolution happened, tells us that complex life forms developed from simple life forms, creating a huge bush of non-human life forms until eventually lots of different human life forms appeared, with H. sapiens as the latest and possibly the last. THAT is history. Even if we accept that “God did it”, there are several ways in which that history can be interpreted theistically without any of the above illogicalities.

Once again you are complaining about a God who delayed His creation of humans. IF that isn't applying human logic to God's reasoning I don't know what is! I'll stick with accepting reality as what God does for His own reasons. Your bolded statement is exactly what I follow in my reasoning

dhw: Nothing roundabout here. Humans have designed machines with an ability to do different forms of brain work. You believe your God invented the brain to do brain work, and yet you don’t believe that the components of the brain can do brain work. Or had you not realized the brain is composed of cell communities?

DAVID: All of which are designed to be wired together to work together with purpose.

Yes. So what makes you think your God is incapable of “conjuring up cell communities (“committees”) with an ability equal to brain work”? Cells do brain work! But you cannot accept the possibility that your God created them to do brain work. You have to have him doing all the brain work for them.

DAVID: Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

dhw: What work did he want done? Perhaps he wanted to create a mechanism that would autonomously provide a vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which he could, in your own words, “watch with interest”. “That makes him human!” you cry, objecting to your very own proposal. No it doesn’t. It simply gives him and us something in common. And it fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

The designing part of our body requires neurons. Your cell communities are not. What we know is they can make epigenetic adaptations, nothing more.

DAVID: How do you know we have anything in common with God other than consciousness? And how does history prove that?

dhw: I don’t know. I simply object to your insisting that you know your God’s nature, purpose and method, and therefore you can reject alternative interpretations of his nature, purpose and method. You are the one with fixed beliefs!

I don't know either, but you don't like my theories as much as I don't like yours

dhw: You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose. Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement.

DAVID: Goals and purposes are the same but the way you approach the argument is to strongly imply that my God was dominated by his desire for humans and foolishly took too much time to reach the evolution of humans. A complete distortion of my view of God, but a neat debating trick on your part.

dhw: The debating trick is yours. If your God’s one and only purpose or goal had been to design H. sapiens, then of course he would have been dominated by his desire for humans. And therefore it makes no sense to have a purposeful God focusing on anything but his one and only purpose. I do not for one second believe that your God would be “foolish”. The foolishness lies in your insistence on a reading of his mind which you yourself cannot understand. (my bolds)

Note the bolds. Again a humanized God blinded by desire. Yes He is purposeful but He has His own rationality. I don't try to understand God's mind because we cannot, but we can have theories about why He created what He created, about which you and I disagree.

7183 views

DAVID: Once again you are complaining about a God who delayed His creation of humans. IF that isn't applying human logic to God's reasoning I don't know what is!

Once again I am not complaining about your God doing anything! I am complaining about your insistence on your own version of a purposeful, always-in-control God, who apparently had one single purpose (H. sapiens) which he deliberately did not even begin to fulfil for 3.X billion years. Yes indeed, I am applying human logic, which is the only logic I can apply. You prefer to assume that your God acts in a way which you yourself cannot understand, and you try to justify your own illogicality by telling us that your God’s logic is different from ours. Under “Panpsychism” you wrote: “For me God exists only at the quantum level […] This explains one of the reasons why I doubt our ability to reason as God does…..” So if an atheist argues that chance created life, and you insist that life is too complex not to have been designed by a designer, and therefore logically there must be a designer, he can turn round and say: “Oh, but quantum mechanics shows that human logic goes out of the window, so your silly human logic can’t be applied here.” Will you swallow that?

Dhw: […] what makes you think your God is incapable of “conjuring up cell communities (“committees”) with an ability equal to brain work”? Cells do brain work! But you cannot accept the possibility that your God created them to do brain work. You have to have him doing all the brain work for them.

DAVID: The designing part of our body requires neurons. Your cell communities are not. What we know is they can make epigenetic adaptations, nothing more.

Our cell communities are not what? Neurons are also cells! Of course cellular intelligence as the driving force of innovation is only a theory, but epigenetic adaptations also require intelligence, so the idea is an extension of something that can be observed. My theory is a logical alternative to your own, which is equally unproven.

DAVID: How do you know we have anything in common with God other than consciousness? And how does history prove that?

dhw: I don’t know anything. I simply object to your insisting that you know your God’s nature, purpose and method, and therefore you can reject alternative interpretations of his nature, purpose and method. You are the one with fixed beliefs!

DAVID: I don't know either, but you don't like my theories as much as I don't like yours.

I don’t like yours because, as you keep admitting and then denying, it defies all logic, whereas my various alternatives, by your own admission, are not only logical but also fit in with the history of life as we know it.

dhw: You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose. Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement.

DAVID: Goals and purposes are the same but the way you approach the argument is to strongly imply that my God was dominated by his desire for humans and foolishly took too much time to reach the evolution of humans. A complete distortion of my view of God, but a neat debating trick on your part.(dhw's bold)

dhw: The debating trick is yours. If your God’s one and only purpose or goal had been to design H. sapiens, then of course he would have been dominated by his desire for humans. And therefore it makes no sense to have a purposeful God focusing on anything but his one and only purpose. I do not for one second believe that your God would be “foolish”. The foolishness lies in your insistence on a reading of his mind which you yourself cannot understand. [/b] (David's bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolds. Again a humanized God blinded by desire.

The first bold is simply a repetition of the emotive words you have substituted for God’s one and only purpose. A purpose is the thing you want to do, and so you would have expected a single purpose to be the single thing you want to do. Why don’t you respond to the argument instead of setting up this silly straw man?

DAVID: Yes He is purposeful but He has His own rationality. I don't try to understand God's mind because we cannot, but we can have theories about why He created what He created, about which you and I disagree.

And your theory is that you DO understand his mind: he had one purpose, and although he is always in control, he decided not to fulfil it directly but to focus on designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You don’t know why, but you do know that God’s logic is different from yours and mine.

7210 views

Dhw: […] what makes you think your God is incapable of “conjuring up cell communities (“committees”) with an ability equal to brain work”? Cells do brain work! But you cannot accept the possibility that your God created them to do brain work. You have to have him doing all the brain work for them.

DAVID: The designing part of our body requires neurons. Your cell communities are not. What we know is they can make epigenetic adaptations, nothing more.

dhw: Our cell communities are not what? Neurons are also cells! Of course cellular intelligence as the driving force of innovation is only a theory, but epigenetic adaptations also require intelligence, so the idea is an extension of something that can be observed. My theory is a logical alternative to your own, which is equally unproven.

Your cells have no neurological abilities.

dhw: The debating trick is yours. If your God’s one and only purpose or goal had been to design H. sapiens, then of course he would have been dominated by his desire for humans. And therefore it makes no sense to have a purposeful God focusing on anything but his one and only purpose. I do not for one second believe that your God would be “foolish”. The foolishness lies in your insistence on a reading of his mind which you yourself cannot understand. [/b] (David's bolds)

DAVID: Note the bolds. Again a humanized God blinded by desire.

dhw: The first bold is simply a repetition of the emotive words you have substituted for God’s one and only purpose. A purpose is the thing you want to do, and so you would have expected a single purpose to be the single thing you want to do. Why don’t you respond to the argument instead of setting up this silly straw man?

DAVID: Yes He is purposeful but He has His own rationality. I don't try to understand God's mind because we cannot, but we can have theories about why He created what He created, about which you and I disagree.

dhw: And your theory is that you DO understand his mind: he had one purpose, and although he is always in control, he decided not to fulfil it directly but to focus on designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You don’t know why, but you do know that God’s logic is different from yours and mine.

Answered in the other panpsychism thread: "God needed to create the entire bush of life to provide food for the years He took to create humans. If He just created humans, how would they be able to live all by themselves? God understood the requirements. Your God doesn't because of His human thinking you have given Him." Entirely logical as an interpretation of God's thinking.

7202 views

Another new article makes the same points:

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/neanderthal-dna-in-modern-human-genomes-is-not-s...

"With the issue of Neanderthal/modern human mating settled, scientists could focus on a new goal, says Akey, now at Princeton University. Namely, what was the consequence of this interbreeding? “Was it just this curious feature of human history that didn’t have an impact, or did it alter the trajectory of human evolution?”

"In the past five years, a flurry of research has sought to answer that question. Genomic analyses have associated Neanderthal variants with differences in the expression levels of diverse genes and of phenotypes ranging from skin and hair color to immune function and neuropsychiatric disease. But researchers cannot yet say how these archaic sequences affect people today, much less the humans who acquired them some 50,000–55,000 years ago.

***

"In collaboration with Akey and Vernot, who helped identify Neanderthal variants in the genetic data included in the database, Capra’s group looked for links between the archaic DNA and more than 1,000 phenotypes across some 28,000 people of European ancestry. They reported in 2016 that Neanderthal DNA at various sites in the genome influences a range of immune and autoimmune traits, and there was some association with obesity and malnutrition, pointing to potential metabolic effects. The researchers also saw an association between Neanderthal ancestry and two types of noncancerous skin growths associated with dysfunctional keratinocyte biology—supporting the idea that the Neanderthal DNA was at one point selected for its effects on skin.

***

"People who carried Neanderthal DNA there tended to have pale skin that burned instead of tanned, Kelso says. And the stretch that included BNC2 was just one of many, she adds: around 50 percent of Neanderthal variants linked with phenotype in her study have something to do with skin or hair color.

***

"In their 2017 analysis, for example, Kelso and Dannemann found that Neanderthal variants were associated with chronotype—whether people identify as early birds or night owls—as well as links with susceptibility to feelings of loneliness or isolation and low enthusiasm or interest. The associations with mood-related phenotypes jibe with what Capra’s group had found the year before in its dataset of medical information, which linked Neanderthal variants to risks for depression and addiction. “These were associations that were quite strong,” says Capra.

***

"Akey has come upon another interesting twist: Africans do have Neanderthal ancestry. Unpublished work from his group points to the possibility that some of the ancient modern humans that bred with Neanderthals migrated back to Africa, where they mixed with the modern humans there, sharing bits of Neanderthal DNA. If true, that would mean that Africa is not devoid of Neanderthals’ genetic influence, Akey notes. “There’s Neanderthal basically all over the world.'”

Comment: my view is still the same. God used evolution and the development of different Homo species in different environments to provide more advantageous adaptations which would then be combined beneficently into H. sapiens by interbreeding.

6744 views

Seems equal to sapiens:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/neandertals-extensive-seafood-menu-rivals-ancient-h...

"Surf’s up, Neandertals.

"Our close evolutionary cousins obtained shellfish, crabs, fish and other marine munchies along Europe’s Atlantic coast with all the savvy and gusto of ancient humans who foraged along southern Africa’s shoreline, say archaeologist João Zilhão of the University of Barcelona and his colleagues.

"Neandertals consumed a diverse menu of sea and land foods while occupying Figueira Brava cave, on Portugal’s coast, for extended periods between around 106,000 and 86,000 years ago, Zilhão’s group says. Excavations there show for the first time that Neandertals matched Stone Age Homo sapiens in their ability to exploit seafood rich in brain-enhancing fatty acids, the scientists report in the March 27 Science.

***

"..repeated bouts of Neandertal foraging at Figueira Brava over a roughly 20,000-year span point to coastal activity as extensive as that of H. sapiens who harvested shellfish at South Africa’s Pinnacle Point between 164,000 and 120,000 years ago, Zilhão says (SN: 7/29/11).

"Intensive shellfish collecting requires tracking of the tides and the seasons, “certainly one of the hallmarks of behavioral adaptability of early Neandertals [in Europe] and modern humans in South Africa,” says archaeologist Katerina Douka of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany. She did not participate in the new study.

"Zilhão regards Neandertals as an ancient H. sapiens variant that developed in Europe and Asia, not a separate species as they are often portrayed. “The early H. sapiens of Europe, people whom we came to know as Neandertals, exploited marine resources at least as intensively as, if not more intensively than, [Stone Age] South Africans living in comparable habitats and circumstances,” he says.

***

"But archaeologist Manuel Will of the University of Tübingen in Germany disagrees. “The new study narrows the gap between H. sapiens and [Neandertals], but does not close it,” he writes in a commentary published in the same issue of Science.

"Taking into account nearly 60 coastal sites occupied either by Neandertals or H. sapiens between around 300,000 and 40,000 years ago, H. sapiens more intensively exploited coastal resources, Will says. For instance, shell beads, a demanding ornament to make, have mainly been found at H. sapiens sites."

Comment: Probably more sapiens than we previously thought.

6375 views

An other report about the same study:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238767-neanderthals-feasted-on-seafood-and-nuts-a...

"Neanderthals dined on a menu of surf and turf with a sprinkling of pine nuts, an excavation of a coastal site in Portugal reveals.

"This is the first firm evidence that our extinct cousins relied on food from the sea, and their flexible diet is yet more proof that they behaved in remarkably similar ways to modern humans.

"The new dietary analysis comes from a site occupied by Neanderthals between 106,000 and 86,000 years ago in Figueira Brava, south of Lisbon. A painstaking excavation of fossil food remains, led by João Zilhão at the University of Barcelona, Spain, showed that the Neanderthals that lived there consumed a wide range of foods, dominated by seafood. “It’s a mixed diet,” says Zilhão.

"They were fisher-hunter-gatherers, collecting large amounts limpets, mussels and clams, as well as brown and spider crabs in particular, he says. “Crabs were the most important marine resource they exploited.”

"Fossil remains from the cave showed that fish, seal, dolphin, seabirds and land animals such as deer, horse, and wild goat were also on the menu. By contrast, Neanderthals living inland mainly hunted land animals such as mammoth, bison and woolly rhino.

"The team also found evidence of a thriving economy based on pine trees. “They used the wood for fuel and collected the pine cones, stored them, then consumed them as needed by roasting the cones and cracking the nuts to eat the kernel,” says Zilhão.

***

"The seafood-eating habits of Neanderthals hadn’t been observed until now, because many of the coastal areas that existed at that time have disappeared. The Figueira Brava region of Portugal is one of the few places in Europe where such sites can be found, because almost all are now underwater due to sea level rise, or were destroyed by glaciation. “There is no chance of finding them,” says Zilhão."

Comment: Most Neanderthal areas were inland and further north so this finding is very exciting and more proof they were very like our early folks.

6372 views

Covid antibodies from Neanderthals:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2026309118

"We show that a haplotype on chromosome 12, which is associated with a ∼22% reduction in relative risk of becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by SARS-CoV-2, is inherited from Neandertals. This haplotype is present at substantial frequencies in all regions of the world outside Africa. The genomic region where this haplotype occurs encodes proteins that are important during infections with RNA viruses.

"It was recently shown that the major genetic risk factor associated with becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is inherited from Neandertals. New, larger genetic association studies now allow additional genetic risk factors to be discovered. Using data from the Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care (GenOMICC) consortium, we show that a haplotype at a region on chromosome 12 associated with requiring intensive care when infected with the virus is inherited from Neandertals. This region encodes proteins that activate enzymes that are important during infections with RNA viruses. In contrast to the previously described Neandertal haplotype that increases the risk for severe COVID-19, this Neandertal haplotype is protective against severe disease. It also differs from the risk haplotype in that it has a more moderate effect and occurs at substantial frequencies in all regions of the world outside Africa. Among ancient human genomes in western Eurasia, the frequency of the protective Neandertal haplotype may have increased between 20,000 and 10,000 y ago and again during the past 1,000 y.

***

"Some of these contributions may reflect adaptations to environments outside Africa where Neandertals lived over several hundred thousands of years. During this time, they are likely to have adapted to infectious diseases, which are known to be strong selective factors that may, at least partly, have differed between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia. Indeed, several genetic variants contributed by archaic hominins to modern humans have been shown to affect genes involved in immunity. In particular, variants at several loci containing genes involved in innate immunity come from Neandertals and Denisovans, for example, toll-like receptor gene variants which decrease the susceptibility to Helicobacter pylori infections and the risk for allergies. Furthermore, proteins interacting with RNA viruses have been shown to be encoded by DNA regions introgressed from Neandertals more often than expected, and RNA viruses might have driven many adaptive events in humans."

Comment: More evidence that interbreeding of human types aided in our overall immunities. Since different environments had different viruses the different disease experiences were combined in sapiens as as final product of evolution.

5416 views

This article is a study of Lucy and how the birth canal might have changed to allows for a larger brain and wider shoulders, and expands on the previous article I presented:

http://www.livescience.com/58844-did-human-ancestor-lucy-have-midwife.html?utm_source=l...

"Modern humans give birth in a way quite different from how their primate relatives do it, according to research described in the book "Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective" (1987, Aldine Transaction) by Wanda Trevathan. This is likely because of both the unusually large size of the modern human brain and the way a woman's pelvis is positioned for upright walking,

***

"In primate babies, skulls are longer from the faces to the backs of the bodies than compared with from the forehead to the chin or from left to right. In most primates, the birth canal is similarly longer in that direction: lengthwise from the front to the back of a female's body. There is often plenty of room for most primate newborns as they exit the birth canal, so most primate mothers do not need help when they give birth.

***

"In contrast, in modern humans, the width of the birth canal, extending from the right to the left of the body, is bigger than the length. As such, babies enter the birth canal facing sideways. As the baby's head progresses out of the canal, it rotates to face the mother's back so the shoulders can then fit through. Human babies fit very snugly in birth canals, so human mothers generally require at least some assistance during birth,

***

"DeSilva's team analyzed the fossil pelvis of Lucy and came up with a mathematical model describing how newborns might have made their way through Lucy's birth canal. "What we found with Lucy was very much in between that of chimpanzees and humans,"

***

"In addition, the researchers said they estimated the width of an A. afarensis baby's shoulders by looking at the relationship between the shoulder widths of adult and newborn primates such as humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons, and by examining the width of an adult A. afarensis' shoulders.

***

Based on their models, the researchers suggested that, as happens in humans, a baby A. afarensis would have entered the birth canal sideways. However, the researchers also suggested that an infant A. afarensis would have had to tilt only a bit to make way for its shoulders as its head slid down the birth canal, instead of its head rotating 90 degrees as happens with human babies during childbirth.

***

"These findings suggest that the evolution of rotation during birth may have occurred in two stages, the researchers said. First, after hips designed for upright walking evolved, infants started rotating a bit in the birth canal so it could accommodate the head and shoulders. Then, as brains got bigger in the human lineage, full rotation began happening during childbirth, the study said."

Comment: This article illustrates the problems for evolution according to Darwin. As the baby's head size increases so must the birth canal and because of completely upright posture the pelvis must change its shape. Therefore both the baby's head and the pelvic changes must coordinate exactly or babies die in transit. This must happen with each step in growth of human brain size. The only position in which a woman can deliver by herself is squatting, as described by Pearl Buck in her novels about China before the 20th Century.

14521 views

Our babies are born with big heads. This presents a dilemma to evolutionary theory. After all, as bigger=headed humans developed the mother's pelvic outlet had to grow larger to accommodate the new -sized skull. Also the father contributed his genetics so there is a three-way arrangement that has to be made so the whole change works. Interestingly Darwinists guessed (as they usually do) that the changes would be uniform across the globe. Actually there is marked variation:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-counte...

"The shape of a mother’s birth canal is a tug-of-war between two opposing evolutionary forces: It needs to be wide enough to allow our big-brained babies to pass through, yet narrow enough to allow women to walk efficiently. At least that’s been the common thinking. But a new study reveals birth canals come in a variety of shapes in women around the world.

"The idea that women’s pelvises have been shaped by an evolutionary compromise—also known as the “obstetrical dilemma”—has been influential in anthropology, says Jonathan Wells, an expert in human evolution at University College London who was not involved with the work. But recent studies have challenged it, and the new findings add to that research, he says. If the obstetric dilemma held true, one would expect birth canals around the world to be relatively standardized, Wells says. But that’s not what researchers found.

"Lia Betti, a biological anthropologist at the University of Roehampton in London and evolutionary ecologist Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, measured the pelvises of 348 female human skeletons from 24 different parts of the world. The birth canals were far from carbon copies of each other. Those of women from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian populations were overall narrow from side to side and deep from front to back, whereas Native American women had wider canals. Native Americans and Europeans also had the most oval-shaped upper canals, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"Betti and Manica also found that there was less variability in birth canal shape in populations farther from Africa, such as Native Americans. That pattern has been seen in other traits, and is thought to simply reflect lower variability in genes and traits among the relatively small bands of people who moved out of Africa to populate the world. Overall, the analysis suggests a population may have ended up with a particular birth canal shape simply by chance, not because of any sort of selective pressure. (my bold)

"Temperature could also be a factor. Colder climates favor wider bodies, which are better at holding in heat, and this could have an impact on birth canal shape. But the pelvic data only weakly followed that trend. Wells argues that other environmental factors may play a role and should still be explored.

"The work could improve practices surrounding childbirth, Betti says. For example, a fetus must rotate to negotiate the twisting passage of the birth canal during labor, and these movements may vary depending on the shape of the birth canal. Betti says midwives she has talked to are well aware that women from different parts of the world have marked differences in labor, though it’s not part of their formal training."

Comment: Differing sizes are not surprising. Humans range from pygmy to Watusi giants at six 1/2 feet. The article correctly points out the effects of climate, and I might add altitude and small island effects among many that are known. But still the key dilemma is how it all worked as our skulls grew to accommodate the huge brain when also dealing with three different individual DNAs.

And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

9906 views

Our babies are born with big heads. This presents a dilemma to evolutionary theory. After all, as bigger=headed humans developed the mother's pelvic outlet had to grow larger to accommodate the new -sized skull. Also the father contributed his genetics so there is a three-way arrangement that has to be made so the whole change works. Interestingly Darwinists guessed (as they usually do) that the changes would be uniform across the globe. Actually there is marked variation:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-counte...

"The shape of a mother’s birth canal is a tug-of-war between two opposing evolutionary forces: It needs to be wide enough to allow our big-brained babies to pass through, yet narrow enough to allow women to walk efficiently. At least that’s been the common thinking. But a new study reveals birth canals come in a variety of shapes in women around the world.

"The idea that women’s pelvises have been shaped by an evolutionary compromise—also known as the “obstetrical dilemma”—has been influential in anthropology, says Jonathan Wells, an expert in human evolution at University College London who was not involved with the work. But recent studies have challenged it, and the new findings add to that research, he says. If the obstetric dilemma held true, one would expect birth canals around the world to be relatively standardized, Wells says. But that’s not what researchers found.

"Lia Betti, a biological anthropologist at the University of Roehampton in London and evolutionary ecologist Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, measured the pelvises of 348 female human skeletons from 24 different parts of the world. The birth canals were far from carbon copies of each other. Those of women from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian populations were overall narrow from side to side and deep from front to back, whereas Native American women had wider canals. Native Americans and Europeans also had the most oval-shaped upper canals, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"Betti and Manica also found that there was less variability in birth canal shape in populations farther from Africa, such as Native Americans. That pattern has been seen in other traits, and is thought to simply reflect lower variability in genes and traits among the relatively small bands of people who moved out of Africa to populate the world. Overall, the analysis suggests a population may have ended up with a particular birth canal shape simply by chance, not because of any sort of selective pressure. (my bold)

"Temperature could also be a factor. Colder climates favor wider bodies, which are better at holding in heat, and this could have an impact on birth canal shape. But the pelvic data only weakly followed that trend. Wells argues that other environmental factors may play a role and should still be explored.

"The work could improve practices surrounding childbirth, Betti says. For example, a fetus must rotate to negotiate the twisting passage of the birth canal during labor, and these movements may vary depending on the shape of the birth canal. Betti says midwives she has talked to are well aware that women from different parts of the world have marked differences in labor, though it’s not part of their formal training."

David Comment: Differing sizes are not surprising. Humans range from pygmy to Watusi giants at six 1/2 feet. The article correctly points out the effects of climate, and I might add altitude and small island effects among many that are known. But still the key dilemma is how it all worked as our skulls grew to accommodate the huge brain when also dealing with three different individual DNAs.

And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

I would also like to ask how such a minuscule population sample tells us ANYTHING. I would wager that you could find similar variation if you took 324 samples from my home county from women who gave birth this year, much less of women that gave birth around the globe and across time.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

9797 views

David; Our babies are born with big heads. This presents a dilemma to evolutionary theory. After all, as bigger=headed humans developed the mother's pelvic outlet had to grow larger to accommodate the new -sized skull. Also the father contributed his genetics so there is a three-way arrangement that has to be made so the whole change works. Interestingly Darwinists guessed (as they usually do) that the changes would be uniform across the globe. Actually there is marked variation:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-counte...

"The shape of a mother’s birth canal is a tug-of-war between two opposing evolutionary forces: It needs to be wide enough to allow our big-brained babies to pass through, yet narrow enough to allow women to walk efficiently. At least that’s been the common thinking. But a new study reveals birth canals come in a variety of shapes in women around the world.

"The idea that women’s pelvises have been shaped by an evolutionary compromise—also known as the “obstetrical dilemma”—has been influential in anthropology, says Jonathan Wells, an expert in human evolution at University College London who was not involved with the work. But recent studies have challenged it, and the new findings add to that research, he says. If the obstetric dilemma held true, one would expect birth canals around the world to be relatively standardized, Wells says. But that’s not what researchers found.

"Lia Betti, a biological anthropologist at the University of Roehampton in London and evolutionary ecologist Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, measured the pelvises of 348 female human skeletons from 24 different parts of the world. The birth canals were far from carbon copies of each other. Those of women from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian populations were overall narrow from side to side and deep from front to back, whereas Native American women had wider canals. Native Americans and Europeans also had the most oval-shaped upper canals, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"Betti and Manica also found that there was less variability in birth canal shape in populations farther from Africa, such as Native Americans. That pattern has been seen in other traits, and is thought to simply reflect lower variability in genes and traits among the relatively small bands of people who moved out of Africa to populate the world. Overall, the analysis suggests a population may have ended up with a particular birth canal shape simply by chance, not because of any sort of selective pressure. (my bold)

"Temperature could also be a factor. Colder climates favor wider bodies, which are better at holding in heat, and this could have an impact on birth canal shape. But the pelvic data only weakly followed that trend. Wells argues that other environmental factors may play a role and should still be explored.

"The work could improve practices surrounding childbirth, Betti says. For example, a fetus must rotate to negotiate the twisting passage of the birth canal during labor, and these movements may vary depending on the shape of the birth canal. Betti says midwives she has talked to are well aware that women from different parts of the world have marked differences in labor, though it’s not part of their formal training."

David Comment: Differing sizes are not surprising. Humans range from pygmy to Watusi giants at six 1/2 feet. The article correctly points out the effects of climate, and I might add altitude and small island effects among many that are known. But still the key dilemma is how it all worked as our skulls grew to accommodate the huge brain when also dealing with three different individual DNAs.

And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

Tony: I would also like to ask how such a minuscule population sample tells us ANYTHING. I would wager that you could find similar variation if you took 324 samples from my home county from women who gave birth this year, much less of women that gave birth around the globe and across time.

I agree with your quibble about sample size, but my main point is still how did the birth canal grow to accommodate the bigger skulls? Obviously not by chance.

9776 views

DAVID: Differing sizes are not surprising. Humans range from pygmy to Watusi giants at six 1/2 feet. The article correctly points out the effects of climate, and I might add altitude and small island effects among many that are known. But still the key dilemma is how it all worked as our skulls grew to accommodate the huge brain when also dealing with three different individual DNAs.
And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

They didn’t. As the skull expanded to accommodate the bigger brain, the birth canal changed to accommodate the bigger skull. And yes, whether you like it or not, each of these processes would have required cooperation between the respective cell communities. But no, it would not have been Dad’s cell communities that would have cooperated in changing Mum’s birth canal. Mum's cell communities would have had to respond to the requirements of the baby's cell communities. In your scenario, your God would have organized the cooperation.

TONY: I would also like to ask how such a minuscule population sample tells us ANYTHING. I would wager that you could find similar variation if you took 324 samples from my home county from women who gave birth this year, much less of women that gave birth around the globe and across time.

David: I agree with your quibble about sample size, but my main point is still how did the birth canal grow to accommodate the bigger skulls? Obviously not by chance.

Obviously. The body purposefully adapts to all kinds of changes. What is your theory? That your God preprogrammed every variation in every birth canal 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to fiddle with each individual woman’s birth canal?

9815 views

DAVID: Differing sizes are not surprising. Humans range from pygmy to Watusi giants at six 1/2 feet. The article correctly points out the effects of climate, and I might add altitude and small island effects among many that are known. But still the key dilemma is how it all worked as our skulls grew to accommodate the huge brain when also dealing with three different individual DNAs.
And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

dhw: They didn’t. As the skull expanded to accommodate the bigger brain, the birth canal changed to accommodate the bigger skull. And yes, whether you like it or not, each of these processes would have required cooperation between the respective cell communities. But no, it would not have been Dad’s cell communities that would have cooperated in changing Mum’s birth canal. Mum's cell communities would have had to respond to the requirements of the baby's cell communities. In your scenario, your God would have organized the cooperation.

You have not explained how the cell communities cooperate, but just stated it as if it were fact. It is not an answer to how do separate individual organisms communicate and coordinate genome changes"? As for Dad, his genes dictate in part the fetal size, including the skull.

TONY: I would also like to ask how such a minuscule population sample tells us ANYTHING. I would wager that you could find similar variation if you took 324 samples from my home county from women who gave birth this year, much less of women that gave birth around the globe and across time.

David: I agree with your quibble about sample size, but my main point is still how did the birth canal grow to accommodate the bigger skulls? Obviously not by chance.

dhw: Obviously. The body purposefully adapts to all kinds of changes. What is your theory? That your God preprogrammed every variation in every birth canal 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to fiddle with each individual woman’s birth canal?

God took the pre-humans out of the trees. He also changed the codes for birth canal size for everyone.

9720 views

DAVID: And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

dhw: They didn’t. As the skull expanded to accommodate the bigger brain, the birth canal changed to accommodate the bigger skull. And yes, whether you like it or not, each of these processes would have required cooperation between the respective cell communities. But no, it would not have been Dad’s cell communities that would have cooperated in changing Mum’s birth canal. Mum's cell communities would have had to respond to the requirements of the baby's cell communities. In your scenario, your God would have organized the cooperation.

DAVID: You have not explained how the cell communities cooperate, but just stated it as if it were fact. It is not an answer to how do separate individual organisms communicate and coordinate genome changes"? As for Dad, his genes dictate in part the fetal size, including the skull.

Are you saying that your body does NOT consist of cell communities? If you agree that it does, how do you think your homeostasis works, if not by achieving a cooperative balance between all of them? In your theory, it is your God who rearranges the balance between these communities, i.e. who rearranges the way in which they cooperate. You believe this cooperation is automatic, following his computer programme or what you call below his changing of the codes. In my hypothesis, the cells change their own codes in order to cope with changing circumstances. The birth canal expanded to accommodate the expanded skull. Yes, the genes of Mummy and Daddy both played their part in making the big-headed fetus, but I doubt very much that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal.

dhw: The body purposefully adapts to all kinds of changes. What is your theory? That your God preprogrammed every variation in every birth canal 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to fiddle with each individual woman’s birth canal?

DAVID: God took the pre-humans out of the trees. He also changed the codes for birth canal size for everyone.

It’s a lovely image: one by one, your God psychokinetically forces a group of primates to climb down (leaving lots of other primates up there, wondering what’s going on – or do you now subscribe to my hypothesis of an isolated group (see “foraminifera”)? – and one by one he fiddles psychokinetically with each female’s birth canal, so that it will accommodate the larger brain in the larger skull, which he has also engineered psychokinetically. And let’s also remember that according to you his prime purpose is the brain of Homo sapiens, and this lot are just PRE-sapiens. So for some unknown reason he’ll let this lot (and a few other lots) do their own thing for hundreds of thousands of years, and then he’ll presumably do another dabble, or changing of the codes, until he gets what he’s always wanted. Truly your God works in mysterious ways his natural wonders to perform.

9704 views

DAVID: And finally what to do about dhw's intelligent cell committees in three separate folks, Mum Dad, and baby. How did they communicate and plan the changes?

dhw: They didn’t. As the skull expanded to accommodate the bigger brain, the birth canal changed to accommodate the bigger skull. And yes, whether you like it or not, each of these processes would have required cooperation between the respective cell communities. But no, it would not have been Dad’s cell communities that would have cooperated in changing Mum’s birth canal. Mum's cell communities would have had to respond to the requirements of the baby's cell communities. In your scenario, your God would have organized the cooperation.

DAVID: You have not explained how the cell communities cooperate, but just stated it as if it were fact. It is not an answer to how do separate individual organisms communicate and coordinate genome changes"? As for Dad, his genes dictate in part the fetal size, including the skull.

dhw: Are you saying that your body does NOT consist of cell communities? If you agree that it does, how do you think your homeostasis works, if not by achieving a cooperative balance between all of them? In your theory, it is your God who rearranges the balance between these communities, i.e. who rearranges the way in which they cooperate. You believe this cooperation is automatic, following his computer programme or what you call below his changing of the codes. In my hypothesis, the cells change their own codes in order to cope with changing circumstances. The birth canal expanded to accommodate the expanded skull. Yes, the genes of Mummy and Daddy both played their part in making the big-headed fetus, but I doubt very much that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal.

Neatly avoided the issue that three separate individuals had to coordinate the result. Of course body organs and their cells cooperate, totally beside the point. You don't have a natural answer, just avoidance.

dhw: The body purposefully adapts to all kinds of changes. What is your theory? That your God preprogrammed every variation in every birth canal 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to fiddle with each individual woman’s birth canal?

DAVID: God took the pre-humans out of the trees. He also changed the codes for birth canal size for everyone.

dhw: It’s a lovely image: one by one, your God psychokinetically forces a group of primates to climb down (leaving lots of other primates up there, wondering what’s going on – or do you now subscribe to my hypothesis of an isolated group (see “foraminifera”)? – and one by one he fiddles psychokinetically with each female’s birth canal, so that it will accommodate the larger brain in the larger skull, which he has also engineered psychokinetically. And let’s also remember that according to you his prime purpose is the brain of Homo sapiens, and this lot are just PRE-sapiens. So for some unknown reason he’ll let this lot (and a few other lots) do their own thing for hundreds of thousands of years, and then he’ll presumably do another dabble, or changing of the codes, until he gets what he’s always wanted. Truly your God works in mysterious ways his natural wonders to perform.

Answered in the other thread with my comments about Lucy, the transitional form, with the same tiny brain as her ape dwelling cousins. Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal. Any natural trial and error attempt would result in a series of still-borns or necessary microcephalics. And why suddenly worried about time intervals? You know full well that single-cells started life 3.5+ billion years ago. It is obvious evolution takes lots of time, and you now that. God is mysterious to your because of your overanalysis of his humanism. He is His own person, not the one you want Him to be.

9780 views

DAVID: You have not explained how the cell communities cooperate, but just stated it as if it were fact. It is not an answer to how do separate individual organisms communicate and coordinate genome changes"? As for Dad, his genes dictate in part the fetal size, including the skull.

dhw: Are you saying that your body does NOT consist of cell communities? If you agree that it does, how do you think your homeostasis works, if not by achieving a cooperative balance between all of them? […] Yes, the genes of Mummy and Daddy both played their part in making the big-headed fetus, but I doubt very much that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal.

DAVID: Neatly avoided the issue that three separate individuals had to coordinate the result. Of course body organs and their cells cooperate, totally beside the point. You don't have a natural answer, just avoidance.

I don’t see how Daddy’s genes would have dictated the expansion of the birth canal, but of course the fetus and Mummy must cooperate, and the cooperation between cells is entirely to the point. I’m glad you now acknowledge that it is a fact. Neither of us is in a position to explain the details or the timing of the process through which the cell communities cooperated to expand brain, skull and birth canal, but however it happened, you say your God preprogrammed/dabbled the cooperation, and I propose (theistic version) that he gave the cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves – as we assume they do for minor adaptations. Same process: different hypotheses concerning how your God may have done it.

DAVID: God took the pre-humans out of the trees. He also changed the codes for birth canal size for everyone.

dhw: It’s a lovely image: one by one, your God psychokinetically forces a group of primates to climb down (leaving lots of other primates up there, wondering what’s going on – or do you now subscribe to my hypothesis of an isolated group (see “foraminifera”)? – and one by one he fiddles psychokinetically with each female’s birth canal, so that it will accommodate the larger brain in the larger skull, which he has also engineered psychokinetically. And let’s also remember that according to you his prime purpose is the brain of Homo sapiens, and this lot are just PRE-sapiens. So for some unknown reason he’ll let this lot (and a few other lots) do their own thing for hundreds of thousands of years, and then he’ll presumably do another dabble, or changing of the codes, until he gets what he’s always wanted. Truly your God works in mysterious ways his natural wonders to perform.

DAVID: Answered in the other thread with my comments about Lucy, the transitional form, with the same tiny brain as her ape dwelling cousins. Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal.

I would have expected it to be the other way round: that the big-brained human fetus required the enlargement of the birth canal, but if you think your God enlarged the birth canal and this caused the expansion of the brain, so be it. I don't know why you think the transitional form proves that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the anatomical changes in advance.

DAVID: Any natural trial and error attempt would result in a series of still-borns or necessary microcephalics.

I can’t imagine that the skull and the birth canal expanded overnight, but as above, neither of us can possibly know the details or the timing.

DAVID: And why suddenly worried about time intervals? You know full well that single-cells started life 3.5+ billion years ago. It is obvious evolution takes lots of time, and you now that. God is mysterious to your because of your overanalysis of his humanism. He is His own person, not the one you want Him to be.

The mystery is why your God would have personally preprogrammed or dabbled all these different hominins (not to mention whales and elephants and the duckbilled platypus) if his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I am not in the least worried about time intervals. I am worried about the illogicality of your suppositions, and I do not accept that we must abandon all sense of logic just because you would rather believe your God doesn’t think like us. Maybe he doesn’t think like you, and your suppositions are inaccurate, and his purpose and method are perfectly in keeping with human logic.

9755 views

DAVID: Neatly avoided the issue that three separate individuals had to coordinate the result. Of course body organs and their cells cooperate, totally beside the point. You don't have a natural answer, just avoidance.

dhw: I don’t see how Daddy’s genes would have dictated the expansion of the birth canal, but of course the fetus and Mummy must cooperate, and the cooperation between cells is entirely to the point.

You have forgotten that baby and Mum are totally different individuals. Their DNA's cannot cooperate, but it known that the placenta does communicate with the forming fetus. Nothing to do with skull size.

DAVID: God took the pre-humans out of the trees. He also changed the codes for birth canal size for everyone.

dhw: It’s a lovely image: one by one, your God psychokinetically forces a group of primates to climb down (leaving lots of other primates up there, wondering what’s going on – or do you now subscribe to my hypothesis of an isolated group (see “foraminifera”)? – and one by one he fiddles psychokinetically with each female’s birth canal, so that it will accommodate the larger brain in the larger skull, which he has also engineered psychokinetically. And let’s also remember that according to you his prime purpose is the brain of Homo sapiens, and this lot are just PRE-sapiens. So for some unknown reason he’ll let this lot (and a few other lots) do their own thing for hundreds of thousands of years, and then he’ll presumably do another dabble, or changing of the codes, until he gets what he’s always wanted. Truly your God works in mysterious ways his natural wonders to perform.

DAVID: Answered in the other thread with my comments about Lucy, the transitional form, with the same tiny brain as her ape dwelling cousins. Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal.

dhw: I would have expected it to be the other way round: that the big-brained human fetus required the enlargement of the birth canal, but if you think your God enlarged the birth canal and this caused the expansion of the brain, so be it. I don't know why you think the transitional form proves that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the anatomical changes in advance.

I said nothing of the sort. The larger brain required the larger skull and larger birth canal. It all had to be designed and coordinated so everything fit as enlargement progresses.

DAVID: Any natural trial and error attempt would result in a series of still-borns or necessary microcephalics.

dhw: I can’t imagine that the skull and the birth canal expanded overnight, but as above, neither of us can possibly know the details or the timing.

Species appear after gaps in the fossil record indicate a passage of time. Each new species has all the newly enlarged part designed to work together. It can only work through coordination in design for both Mum and baby..

DAVID: And why suddenly worried about time intervals? You know full well that single-cells started life 3.5+ billion years ago. It is obvious evolution takes lots of time, and you now that. God is mysterious to your because of your overanalysis of his humanism. He is His own person, not the one you want Him to be.

dhw: The mystery is why your God would have personally preprogrammed or dabbled all these different hominins (not to mention whales and elephants and the duckbilled platypus) if his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I am not in the least worried about time intervals. I am worried about the illogicality of your suppositions, and I do not accept that we must abandon all sense of logic just because you would rather believe your God doesn’t think like us. Maybe he doesn’t think like you, and your suppositions are inaccurate, and his purpose and method are perfectly in keeping with human logic.

It is obvious from the record that evolution took quite awhile. You are upset that your version of God wouldn't act like you ( a human) would. That is why it is silly to analyze Him like a human personality. He isn't human. His mystery is not the mysteries you concoct from your human reasoning

9638 views

dhw: I don’t see how Daddy’s genes would have dictated the expansion of the birth canal, but of course the fetus and Mummy must cooperate, and the cooperation between cells is entirely to the point.

DAVID: You have forgotten that baby and Mum are totally different individuals. Their DNA's cannot cooperate, but it known that the placenta does communicate with the forming fetus. Nothing to do with skull size.

How does this prove that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal? I am suggesting that if the fetus had a larger skull, the birth canal would have had to adapt to the size of the skull. But you are right, the cell communities of the fetus would not cooperate to change Mummy’s birth canal– it is her cell communities that would have to adapt to the new challenge.

DAVID: Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal.

dhw: I would have expected it to be the other way round: that the big-brained human fetus required the enlargement of the birth canal, but if you think your God enlarged the birth canal and this caused the expansion of the brain, so be it. I don't know why you think the transitional form proves that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the anatomical changes in advance.

DAVID: I said nothing of the sort. The larger brain required the larger skull and larger birth canal.

So God did not “get his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal”. The larger birth canal was required to accommodate the larger brain.

DAVID: It all had to be designed and coordinated so everything fit as enlargement progresses.

As I wrote, “neither of us is in a position to explain the details of the timing or the process through which the cell communities cooperated to expand brain, skull and birth canal”, but you believe it was all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled, and I suggest (theistic version) that your God may have given the cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves. “Same process: different hypotheses concerning how your God may have done it.”

dhw: The mystery is why your God would have personally preprogrammed or dabbled all these different hominins (not to mention whales and elephants and the duckbilled platypus) if his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I am not in the least worried about time intervals. I am worried about the illogicality of your suppositions, and I do not accept that we must abandon all sense of logic just because you would rather believe your God doesn’t think like us. Maybe he doesn’t think like you, and your suppositions are inaccurate, and his purpose and method are perfectly in keeping with human logic.

DAVID: It is obvious from the record that evolution took quite awhile. You are upset that your version of God wouldn't act like you ( a human) would. That is why it is silly to analyze Him like a human personality. He isn't human. His mystery is not the mysteries you concoct from your human reasoning.

Evolution has taken approx. 3.8 billion years so far, and I have no doubt that it will continue for millions/billions of years to come! I am not in the least upset. I simply challenge your claim to know that your God’s prime purpose all along was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I have proposed a different interpretation of his purpose, which even you have admitted fits in perfectly well with the history of life as we know it, but which upsets you because it does not correspond to your own illogical interpretation. And so you would rather not talk about the purpose you constantly refer to, on the grounds that you know you are right, and therefore God thinks with the same illogicality as you. Maybe he doesn’t, and your interpretation is wrong.

9702 views

dhw: I don’t see how Daddy’s genes would have dictated the expansion of the birth canal, but of course the fetus and Mummy must cooperate, and the cooperation between cells is entirely to the point.

DAVID: You have forgotten that baby and Mum are totally different individuals. Their DNA's cannot cooperate, but it known that the placenta does communicate with the forming fetus. Nothing to do with skull size.

dhw: How does this prove that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal? I am suggesting that if the fetus had a larger skull, the birth canal would have had to adapt to the size of the skull. But you are right, the cell communities of the fetus would not cooperate to change Mummy’s birth canal– it is her cell communities that would have to adapt to the new challenge.

Dad's genes couldn't have any control over the canal. THAT is my point about his part of the triumvirate involved. And how do Mum's genes know the baby was killed by too much squeeze? You have no answer to the obstetrical dilemma. I offer:

DAVID: Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal.

dhw: I would have expected it to be the other way round: that the big-brained human fetus required the enlargement of the birth canal, but if you think your God enlarged the birth canal and this caused the expansion of the brain, so be it. I don't know why you think the transitional form proves that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the anatomical changes in advance.

DAVID: I said nothing of the sort. The larger brain required the larger skull and larger birth canal.

dhw: So God did not “get his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal”. The larger birth canal was required to accommodate the larger brain.

Above is a misinterpretation, see below:

DAVID: It all had to be designed and coordinated so everything fit as enlargement progresses.

dhw: I suggest (theistic version) that your God may have given the cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves. “Same process: different hypotheses concerning how your God may have done it.”

Baby, Dad and Mum do not communicate their DNA inputs! Baby and placenta communicate but they are both from the egg, Mum is separate, as shown by Rh blue-baby problems.

dhw: The mystery is why your God would have personally preprogrammed or dabbled all these different hominins (not to mention whales and elephants and the duckbilled platypus) if his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I am not in the least worried about time intervals. I am worried about the illogicality of your suppositions, and I do not accept that we must abandon all sense of logic just because you would rather believe your God doesn’t think like us. Maybe he doesn’t think like you, and your suppositions are inaccurate, and his purpose and method are perfectly in keeping with human logic.

DAVID: It is obvious from the record that evolution took quite awhile. You are upset that your version of God wouldn't act like you ( a human) would. That is why it is silly to analyze Him like a human personality. He isn't human. His mystery is not the mysteries you concoct from your human reasoning.

dhw: Evolution has taken approx. 3.8 billion years so far, and I have no doubt that it will continue for millions/billions of years to come! I am not in the least upset. I simply challenge your claim to know that your God’s prime purpose all along was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I have proposed a different interpretation of his purpose, which even you have admitted fits in perfectly well with the history of life as we know it, but which upsets you because it does not correspond to your own illogical interpretation. And so you would rather not talk about the purpose you constantly refer to, on the grounds that you know you are right, and therefore God thinks with the same illogicality as you. Maybe he doesn’t, and your interpretation is wrong.

Stop looking for a human side to God and I'll quit complaining.

9662 views

DAVID: You have forgotten that baby and Mum are totally different individuals. Their DNA's cannot cooperate, but it known that the placenta does communicate with the forming fetus. Nothing to do with skull size.

dhw: How does this prove that Daddy’s genes dictated the expansion of the birth canal? I am suggesting that if the fetus had a larger skull, the birth canal would have had to adapt to the size of the skull. But you are right, the cell communities of the fetus would not cooperate to change Mummy’s birth canal– it is her cell communities that would have to adapt to the new challenge.

DAVID: Dad's genes couldn't have any control over the canal. THAT is my point about his part of the triumvirate involved. And how do Mum's genes know the baby was killed by too much squeeze? You have no answer to the obstetrical dilemma. I offer:

You offer what? You wrote that “three separate individuals had to coordinate the result” – the result being the expanded birth canal. I have pointed out that Daddy’s genes did not coordinate the expanded birth canal, and I have agreed with you that baby’s genes didn’t either, so the three separate individuals did not coordinate the result, and we are left with Mummy’s cell communities doing it all by themselves (using their possibly God-given intelligence). I’d call it adaptation to new circumstances. But I know you prefer the hypothesis of your God fiddling around with a collection of pre-human birth canals to prepare them for when he fiddles around with a group of pre-human brains and skulls.

DAVID: Certainly God got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal.
But then you say:
DAVID: The larger brain required the larger skull and larger birth canal.

dhw: So God did not “get his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal”. The larger birth canal was required to accommodate the larger brain.

DAVID: Above is a misinterpretation, see below:

Not explained below.

DAVID: It all had to be designed and coordinated so everything fit as enlargement progresses.

dhw: I suggest (theistic version) that your God may have given the cell communities the ability to work it out for themselves. “Same process: different hypotheses concerning how your God may have done it.”

DAVID: Baby, Dad and Mum do not communicate their DNA inputs! Baby and placenta communicate but they are both from the egg, Mum is separate, as shown by Rh blue-baby problems.

Agreed. So when you said “three separate individuals had to coordinate the result”, i.e. the expansion of the birth canal, you meant that three separate individuals did not have to coordinate the result, because Mum is separate.

DAVID: It is obvious from the record that evolution took quite awhile. You are upset that your version of God wouldn't act like you ( a human) would. That is why it is silly to analyze Him like a human personality. He isn't human. His mystery is not the mysteries you concoct from your human reasoning.

dhw: Evolution has taken approx. 3.8 billion years so far, and I have no doubt that it will continue for millions/billions of years to come! I am not in the least upset. I simply challenge your claim to know that your God’s prime purpose all along was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. I have proposed a different interpretation of his purpose, which even you have admitted fits in perfectly well with the history of life as we know it, but which upsets you because it does not correspond to your own illogical interpretation. And so you would rather not talk about the purpose you constantly refer to, on the grounds that you know you are right, and therefore God thinks with the same illogicality as you. Maybe he doesn’t, and your interpretation is wrong.

DAVID: Stop looking for a human side to God and I'll quit complaining.

Stop insisting that your illogical interpretation of God’s purpose and method is correct and that we mustn’t even consider the possibility that God’s logic might be the same as ours, and I’ll quit complaining.

9568 views

DAVID: Dad's genes couldn't have any control over the canal. THAT is my point about his part of the triumvirate involved. And how do Mum's genes know the baby was killed by too much squeeze? You have no answer to the obstetrical dilemma. I offer:

dhw: You offer what? You wrote that “three separate individuals had to coordinate the result” – the result being the expanded birth canal. I have pointed out that Daddy’s genes did not coordinate the expanded birth canal, and I have agreed with you that baby’s genes didn’t either, so the three separate individuals did not coordinate the result, and we are left with Mummy’s cell communities doing it all by themselves (using their possibly God-given intelligence). I’d call it adaptation to new circumstances. But I know you prefer the hypothesis of your God fiddling around with a collection of pre-human birth canals to prepare them for when he fiddles around with a group of pre-human brains and skulls.

You have succeeded in talking all around the problem. Yes there are three individuals involved, but the DNA of none of them can can solve the problem since they are not directly connected in any way.This cannot be solved by hit and miss attempts at enlarging the pelvic outlet if the skull has enlarged. Both have to be simultaneously changed! Only design fits and tiny evolving alterations of one or the other will simply end up in brain-dead babies.

9519 views

DAVID: Dad's genes couldn't have any control over the canal. THAT is my point about his part of the triumvirate involved. And how do Mum's genes know the baby was killed by too much squeeze? You have no answer to the obstetrical dilemma.

dhw: You wrote that “three separate individuals had to coordinate the result” – the result being the expanded birth canal. I have pointed out that Daddy’s genes did not coordinate the expanded birth canal, and I have agreed with you that baby’s genes didn’t either, so the three separate individuals did not coordinate the result, and we are left with Mummy’s cell communities doing it all by themselves (using their possibly God-given intelligence). I’d call it adaptation to new circumstances. But I know you prefer the hypothesis of your God fiddling around with a collection of pre-human birth canals to prepare them for when he fiddles around with a group of pre-human brains and skulls.

DAVID: You have succeeded in talking all around the problem. Yes there are three individuals
involved, but the DNA of none of them can can solve the problem since they are not directly connected in any way.This cannot be solved by hit and miss attempts at enlarging the pelvic outlet if the skull has enlarged. Both have to be simultaneously changed! Only design fits and tiny evolving alterations of one or the other will simply end up in brain-dead babies.

You have succeeded in a complete reversal of your argument: first, "three separate individuals had to coordinate the result" (the expanded birth canal), and now only the mother can do it. Then your God mysteriously "got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal". We are not talking about hit and miss. If the fetus is larger, the birth canal must obviously expand. Nobody knows how these changes took place, but you expect me to give you the details. Common sense suggests to me that the skull had to expand in order to accommodate the expanded brain, and the birth canal had to expand in order to accommodate the enlarged skull of the fetus, but if you believe your God popped in and fiddled with a group of prehumans’ birth canals in order to get his bigger-brained humans, or fiddled simultaneously with all their brains, skulls and birth canals, then so be it.

--

9538 views

DAVID: Dad's genes couldn't have any control over the canal. THAT is my point about his part of the triumvirate involved. And how do Mum's genes know the baby was killed by too much squeeze? You have no answer to the obstetrical dilemma.

dhw: You wrote that “three separate individuals had to coordinate the result” – the result being the expanded birth canal. I have pointed out that Daddy’s genes did not coordinate the expanded birth canal, and I have agreed with you that baby’s genes didn’t either, so the three separate individuals did not coordinate the result, and we are left with Mummy’s cell communities doing it all by themselves (using their possibly God-given intelligence). I’d call it adaptation to new circumstances. But I know you prefer the hypothesis of your God fiddling around with a collection of pre-human birth canals to prepare them for when he fiddles around with a group of pre-human brains and skulls.

DAVID: You have succeeded in talking all around the problem. Yes there are three individuals > involved, but the DNA of none of them can can solve the problem since they are not directly connected in any way.This cannot be solved by hit and miss attempts at enlarging the pelvic outlet if the skull has enlarged. Both have to be simultaneously changed! Only design fits and tiny evolving alterations of one or the other will simply end up in brain-dead babies.

dhw: You have succeeded in a complete reversal of your argument: first, "three separate individuals had to coordinate the result" (the expanded birth canal), and now only the mother can do it. Then your God mysteriously "got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal". We are not talking about hit and miss. If the fetus is larger, the birth canal must obviously expand. Nobody knows how these changes took place, but you expect me to give you the details. Common sense suggests to me that the skull had to expand in order to accommodate the expanded brain, and the birth canal had to expand in order to accommodate the enlarged skull of the fetus, but if you believe your God popped in and fiddled with a group of prehumans’ birth canals in order to get his bigger-brained humans, or fiddled simultaneously with all their brains, skulls and birth canals, then so be it.

I've not reversed anything. Three individuals were involved in the changes, but none are in control as I've clearly stated above now bolded. Of course you can not explain how it happened But agreed it had to happen. Only an outside designer fits the issue of how. This illustrates your constantly illogical approach to the question of a designer. This is one of hundreds, if not thousands of required designer examples. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You weak response is cell committees have the intelligence to do it, implying they know how to visualize the future and design for its requirements. Extrapolated from cells intelligent responses to immediate stimuli that are a requirement for life's homeostasis to continue. The belief in God comes from looking at the whole of the evidence at the same time.

9568 views

DAVID: You have succeeded in talking all around the problem. Yes there are three individuals > involved, but the DNA of none of them can solve the problem since they are not directly connected in any way.This cannot be solved by hit and miss attempts at enlarging the pelvic outlet if the skull has enlarged. Both have to be simultaneously changed! Only design fits and tiny evolving alterations of one or the other will simply end up in brain-dead babies.

dhw: You have succeeded in a complete reversal of your argument: first, "three separate individuals had to coordinate the result" (the expanded birth canal), and now only the mother can do it. Then your God mysteriously "got his desired big-brained human by enlarging the birth canal". We are not talking about hit and miss. If the fetus is larger, the birth canal must obviously expand. Nobody knows how these changes took place, but you expect me to give you the details. Common sense suggests to me that the skull had to expand in order to accommodate the expanded brain, and the birth canal had to expand in order to accommodate the enlarged skull of the fetus, but if you believe your God popped in and fiddled with a group of prehumans’ birth canals in order to get his bigger-brained humans, or fiddled simultaneously with all their brains, skulls and birth canals, then so be it.

DAVID: I've not reversed anything. Three individuals were involved in the changes, but none are in control as I've clearly stated above now bolded.

What changes are you now talking about? The subject of this discussion was the change in the birth canal, and you said all three individuals had to coordinate it. No they didn’t. The mother’s cells were the ones in control – whether they organized themselves or your God stepped in to organize them.

DAVID: Of course you can not explain how it happened But agreed it had to happen. Only an outside designer fits the issue of how. This illustrates your constantly illogical approach to the question of a designer. This is one of hundreds, if not thousands of required designer examples.

And over and over again I have accepted the argument for design as opposed to random chance, but I disagree that “only an outside designer” can do it. Hence the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which = an inside designer (possibly invented by your God).

DAVID: The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You weak response is cell committees have the intelligence to do it, implying they know how to visualize the future and design for its requirements.

And over and over again I have rejected your interpretation of evolution as the result of planning for the future. (Not to mention the illogicality of every design, including the caterpillar’s viper-like head, being geared to the production of the human brain.) Once more: I see evolution as the result of organisms RESPONDING to - not prophesying - the needs and/or opportunities presented by environmental change.

DAVID: Extrapolated from cells intelligent responses to immediate stimuli that are a requirement for life's homeostasis to continue. The belief in God comes from looking at the whole of the evidence at the same time.

And over and over again I have agreed that my hypothesis is a hypothesis, because we do not know if cells/cell communities have the intelligence to innovate. And over and over again, what you call “balance of nature” - now cloaked in the more scientific-sounding “homeostasis” – has proved to be nothing more than the fact that balance is necessary for life, and nature’s balance is constantly changing as organisms either fail to maintain the current balance, or adapt to/exploit prevailing conditions. I accept that your belief in God is based on your interpretation of the evidence you see, and I respect your belief. I also accept that atheists’ disbelief is based on their interpretation of the evidence they see, and I respect their disbelief. And my agnosticism, or non-belief, stems from the fact that my interpretation of the evidence I see leaves me stuck between two equally unlikely conclusions. You know all of this. You just prefer to forget that you know it.

9540 views

DAVID: Of course you can not explain how it happened But agreed it had to happen. Only an outside designer fits the issue of how. This illustrates your constantly illogical approach to the question of a designer. This is one of hundreds, if not thousands of required designer examples.

dhw: And over and over again I have accepted the argument for design as opposed to random chance, but I disagree that “only an outside designer” can do it. Hence the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which = an inside designer (possibly invented by your God).

Your approach is so illogical you constantly have to run back to possibly God inserting a inventive mechanism. Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

DAVID: The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You weak response is cell committees have the intelligence to do it, implying they know how to visualize the future and design for its requirements.

dhw: And over and over again I have rejected your interpretation of evolution as the result of planning for the future. (Not to mention the illogicality of every design, including the caterpillar’s viper-like head, being geared to the production of the human brain.)

The caterpillar produces a look-alike of a snake it has never seen and cannot visualize,coming from egg to larva to insect. The only logic of that video is 'someone' had to help the caterpillar develop that ability.

dhw: Once more: I see evolution as the result of organisms RESPONDING to - not prophesying - the needs and/or opportunities presented by environmental change.

"Responding" to create the gaps we see in the fossil record requires design, which you accept. You insistence that it can naturally happen by the organisms themselves is totally illogical. Responses to 'environmental changes', from the evidence are huge gaps in form and function requiring design. You approach is obviously wishful thinking that somehow it happens.

DAVID: Extrapolated from cells intelligent responses to immediate stimuli that are a requirement for life's homeostasis to continue. The belief in God comes from looking at the whole of the evidence at the same time.

dhw: And over and over again I have agreed that my hypothesis is a hypothesis, because we do not know if cells/cell communities have the intelligence to innovate. And over and over again, what you call “balance of nature” - now cloaked in the more scientific-sounding “homeostasis” – has proved to be nothing more than the fact that balance is necessary for life, and nature’s balance is constantly changing as organisms either fail to maintain the current balance, or adapt to/exploit prevailing conditions. I accept that your belief in God is based on your interpretation of the evidence you see, and I respect your belief. I also accept that atheists’ disbelief is based on their interpretation of the evidence they see, and I respect their disbelief. And my agnosticism, or non-belief, stems from the fact that my interpretation of the evidence I see leaves me stuck between two equally unlikely conclusions. You know all of this. You just prefer to forget that you know it.

You forget I was invited to your website to attack your lack of beliefs. I will continue to use that license until you tell me to quit, and continue to present evidence I find on an almost daily basis. The caterpillar/snake is one of the best I've ever seen. And I've been partially successful in that you are much less a Darwinist than you were in the beginning (2008).

9494 views

dhw: And over and over again I have accepted the argument for design as opposed to random chance, but I disagree that “only an outside designer” can do it. Hence the hypothesis of cellular intelligence, which = an inside designer (possibly invented by your God).

DAVID: Your approach is so illogical you constantly have to run back to possibly God inserting a inventive mechanism. Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical? Even if I believed in your God, I would still see this as more logical than having him fiddle with or preprogramme millions of individual anatomies in order to prepare them for conditions that don’t yet exist.

DAVID: The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You weak response is cell committees have the intelligence to do it, implying they know how to visualize the future and design for its requirements.

dhw: And over and over again I have rejected your interpretation of evolution as the result of planning for the future. (Not to mention the illogicality of every design, including the caterpillar’s viper-like head, being geared to the production of the human brain.)

DAVID: The caterpillar produces a look-alike of a snake it has never seen and cannot visualize,coming from egg to larva to insect. The only logic of that video is 'someone' had to help the caterpillar develop that ability.

I’m not going to pretend, as you do, to know how every natural wonder in life’s history originated, but once it had – maybe by sheer chance – it would have been passed on. (Yes indeed, I accept Darwin’s logical proposal that what is useful is likely to survive). This would be true even if your God had dabbled the first viper look-alike in his effort to balance life so that it would continue until he was able to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. Or do you think he pops in and dabbles with every egg?

dhw: Once more: I see evolution as the result of organisms RESPONDING to - not prophesying - the needs and/or opportunities presented by environmental change.

DAVID: "Responding" to create the gaps we see in the fossil record requires design, which you accept. You insistence that it can naturally happen by the organisms themselves is totally illogical. Responses to 'environmental changes', from the evidence are huge gaps in form and function requiring design. You approach is obviously wishful thinking that somehow it happens.

I’m having difficulty following your train of thought here, but I think I’ve answered you with my first comment in this post. I suppose, though, that I’d better repeat that my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a belief. I find it at least as logical as the hypotheses of random mutations and of divine preprogramming and dabbling in anticipation of conditions that don’t yet exist.

DAVID: You forget I was invited to your website to attack your lack of beliefs. I will continue to use that license until you tell me to quit, and continue to present evidence I find on an almost daily basis. The caterpillar/snake is one of the best I've ever seen. And I've been partially successful in that you are much less a Darwinist than you were in the beginning.

It was a red-letter day when you joined in, and it is you who have really kept the website going with all the marvellous articles you keep presenting. So please don’t quit! I was merely drawing attention to the fact that I keep having to repeat points which you already know: e.g. that my cellular intelligence is only a hypothesis, and your “balance of nature” arguments amount to nothing more than the fact that living organisms require balance, and without it they die, while econiches keep changing to a different balance.

9484 views

DAVID: Your approach is so illogical you constantly have to run back to possibly God inserting a inventive mechanism. Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

dhw: And over and over again I have rejected your interpretation of evolution as the result of planning for the future. (Not to mention the illogicality of every design, including the caterpillar’s viper-like head, being geared to the production of the human brain.)

DAVID: The caterpillar produces a look-alike of a snake it has never seen and cannot visualize,coming from egg to larva to insect. The only logic of that video is 'someone' had to help the caterpillar develop that ability.

dhw: I’m not going to pretend, as you do, to know how every natural wonder in life’s history originated, but once it had – maybe by sheer chance – it would have been passed on. (Yes indeed, I accept Darwin’s logical proposal that what is useful is likely to survive). This would be true even if your God had dabbled the first viper look-alike in his effort to balance life so that it would continue until he was able to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. Or do you think he pops in and dabbles with every egg?

All I can see from the video is someone had to help the larva with the transformation. Its survivability is obvious as is Darwin's tautology.

dhw: Once more: I see evolution as the result of organisms RESPONDING to - not prophesying - the needs and/or opportunities presented by environmental change.

DAVID: "Responding" to create the gaps we see in the fossil record requires design, which you accept. You insistence that it can naturally happen by the organisms themselves is totally illogical. Responses to 'environmental changes', from the evidence are huge gaps in form and function requiring design. You approach is obviously wishful thinking that somehow it happens.

dhw: I’m having difficulty following your train of thought here, but I think I’ve answered you with my first comment in this post. I suppose, though, that I’d better repeat that my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a belief. I find it at least as logical as the hypotheses of random mutations and of divine preprogramming and dabbling in anticipation of conditions that don’t yet exist.

Your problem in not following my thought is you have difficulty in recognizing the need for design. The gaps imply enormous amounts of design required.

DAVID: You forget I was invited to your website to attack your lack of beliefs. I will continue to use that license until you tell me to quit, and continue to present evidence I find on an almost daily basis. The caterpillar/snake is one of the best I've ever seen. And I've been partially successful in that you are much less a Darwinist than you were in the beginning.

dhw: It was a red-letter day when you joined in, and it is you who have really kept the website going with all the marvellous articles you keep presenting. So please don’t quit! I was merely drawing attention to the fact that I keep having to repeat points which you already know: e.g. that my cellular intelligence is only a hypothesis, and your “balance of nature” arguments amount to nothing more than the fact that living organisms require balance, and without it they die, while econiches keep changing to a different balance.

I'm having too much fun to quit. There is too much to present that supports God. Cellular intelligence is a very weak hypothesis, because its first point re' the possible scope of cell intelligence is a hypothesis to begin with, Hypotheses should have a proven basis at the start of the construction. Econiches are a required construction of nature.

9504 views

DAVID: Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

DAVID: I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

DAVID: The only logic of that video is 'someone' had to help the caterpillar develop that ability.

dhw: I’m not going to pretend, as you do, to know how every natural wonder in life’s history originated, but once it had – maybe by sheer chance – it would have been passed on. (Yes indeed, I accept Darwin’s logical proposal that what is useful is likely to survive). This would be true even if your God had dabbled the first viper look-alike in his effort to balance life so that it would continue until he was able to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. Or do you think he pops in and dabbles with every egg?

DAVID: All I can see from the video is someone had to help the larva with the transformation. Its survivability is obvious as is Darwin's tautology.

I really can’t add anything to my response above. If you think your God dabbles with every egg to insert a viper face, or created a computer programme 3.8 billion years ago for viper faces on caterpillar tails, because otherwise life could not have gone on and enabled him to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, so be it.

DAVID: Your problem in not following my thought is you have difficulty in recognizing the need for design. The gaps imply enormous amounts of design required.

I keep accepting the argument for design. And I keep agreeing that we do not have the evidence for cellular intelligence being able to produce the necessary innovations, just as we do not have the evidence for a sourceless supermind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. How many more times do you want me to repeat this?

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is a very weak hypothesis, because its first point re' the possible scope of cell intelligence is a hypothesis to begin with. Hypotheses should have a proven basis at the start of the construction. […]

So what is the proven basis for your hypothesis that there is an unknown sourceless conscious mind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? Stop making up rules as you go along.

9394 views

DAVID: Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

DAVID: I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

dhw: You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

I've not ignored what you constantly ignore. The changes of form in the fossil gaps of evolution are huge. Even Darwin recognized his theory depended upon finding the little steps. They don't exist. Obviously the 'changing conditions' require huge changes, therefore design.

DAVID: Your problem in not following my thought is you have difficulty in recognizing the need for design. The gaps imply enormous amounts of design required.

dhw: I keep accepting the argument for design. And I keep agreeing that we do not have the evidence for cellular intelligence being able to produce the necessary innovations, just as we do not have the evidence for a sourceless supermind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. How many more times do you want me to repeat this?

But I think we do have obvious edvidence in the need for complex design, which can be achieved only by a mind in action.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is a very weak hypothesis, because its first point re' the possible scope of cell intelligence is a hypothesis to begin with. Hypotheses should have a proven basis at the start of the construction. […]

dhw: So what is the proven basis for your hypothesis that there is an unknown sourceless conscious mind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? Stop making up rules as you go along.

The proof is the need for complex design does not come from thin air or baby steps by cells. Only a mind can do it.

9374 views

DAVID: Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

DAVID: I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

dhw: You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

DAVID: I've not ignored what you constantly ignore. The changes of form in the fossil gaps of evolution are huge. Even Darwin recognized his theory depended upon finding the little steps. They don't exist. Obviously the 'changing conditions' require huge changes, therefore design.

You tell me cells cannot plan for the future, and I tell you that my hypothesis is that they respond to the present, so you change the subject to gaps! And yes, there are huge gaps, and yes there is no evidence that cells/cell communities can use their possibly God-given intelligence to design the innovations that require huge changes, and that is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no evidence for a divine 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, and that is why your hypothesis is a hypothesis.

The rest of your post repeats your belief that only “a mind”, i.e. your God can do all the designing. Let me know when you have found the 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the above (or when you find a reliable witness to divine dabbling), and I’ll let you know if I hear of any evidence that cells/cell communities are capable of greater feats than those that ”my” experts already regard as evidence of autonomous intelligence.

9387 views

DAVID: Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

DAVID: I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

dhw: You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

DAVID: I've not ignored what you constantly ignore. The changes of form in the fossil gaps of evolution are huge. Even Darwin recognized his theory depended upon finding the little steps. They don't exist. Obviously the 'changing conditions' require huge changes, therefore design.

dhw:You tell me cells cannot plan for the future, and I tell you that my hypothesis is that they respond to the present, so you change the subject to gaps! And yes, there are huge gaps, and yes there is no evidence that cells/cell communities can use their possibly God-given intelligence to design the innovations that require huge changes, and that is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis. There is no evidence for a divine 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, and that is why your hypothesis is a hypothesis.

The rest of your post repeats your belief that only “a mind”, i.e. your God can do all the designing. Let me know when you have found the 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the above (or when you find a reliable witness to divine dabbling), and I’ll let you know if I hear of any evidence that cells/cell communities are capable of greater feats than those that ”my” experts already regard as evidence of autonomous intelligence.

Of course the subject is gaps. No tiny pelvic changes are seen in the fossil record, which it what one would expect from immediate adaptation in a 'present' time of local changes. Of course a 'mind' is required. That is all logic dictates. As for cells, all that has been demonstrated is that they can make logical responses to immediate local stimuli, no evidence of future design capacity. There is n o proof, only logic based on our experiences.

9398 views

DHW: The rest of your post repeats your belief that only “a mind”, i.e. your God can do all the designing. Let me know when you have found the 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the above (or when you find a reliable witness to divine dabbling), and I’ll let you know if I hear of any evidence that cells/cell communities are capable of greater feats than those that ”my” experts already regard as evidence of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: Of course the subject is gaps. No tiny pelvic changes are seen in the fossil record, which it what one would expect from immediate adaptation in a 'present' time of local changes. Of course a 'mind' is required. That is all logic dictates. As for cells, all that has been demonstrated is that they can make logical responses to immediate local stimuli, no evidence of future design capacity. There is n o proof, only logic based on our experiences.

Logic tells us that if the foetus became larger, the birth canal would also have had to become larger. Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life (let alone that it was all for the purpose of producing the brain and body of Homo sapiens). As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

9383 views

DHW: The rest of your post repeats your belief that only “a mind”, i.e. your God can do all the designing. Let me know when you have found the 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the above (or when you find a reliable witness to divine dabbling), and I’ll let you know if I hear of any evidence that cells/cell communities are capable of greater feats than those that ”my” experts already regard as evidence of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: Of course the subject is gaps. No tiny pelvic changes are seen in the fossil record, which it what one would expect from immediate adaptation in a 'present' time of local changes. Of course a 'mind' is required. That is all logic dictates. As for cells, all that has been demonstrated is that they can make logical responses to immediate local stimuli, no evidence of future design capacity. There is n o proof, only logic based on our experiences.

dhw: Logic tells us that if the foetus became larger, the birth canal would also have had to become larger.

Agreed

dhw: Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life

Yet you admit design is required.

dhw: (let alone that it was all for the purpose of producing the brain and body of Homo sapiens). As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

Yes, back to design is required, and the onlyh evidence we currently have is simply that only minds design.

9354 views

dhw: Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life

DAVID: Yet you admit design is required.

Yes. Must I repeat that my hypothesis is that the design is done by the cell communities using their possibly God-given intelligence to respond to new needs?

dhw: [...] As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

DAVID: Yes, back to design is required, and the only evidence we currently have is simply that only minds design.

Which does not mean that there is a single, sourceless, unknown, unknowable mind that did the designing. Maybe cells have the equivalent of what we call “mind”. (See also under “Genome complexity”)

9314 views

dhw: Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life

DAVID: Yet you admit design is required.

dhw: Yes. Must I repeat that my hypothesis is that the design is done by the cell communities using their possibly God-given intelligence to respond to new needs?

Yes, back to using God, who cannot be avoided in the discussion

dhw: [...] As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

DAVID: Yes, back to design is required, and the only evidence we currently have is simply that only minds design.

dhw: Which does not mean that there is a single, sourceless, unknown, unknowable mind that did the designing. Maybe cells have the equivalent of what we call “mind”. (See also under “Genome complexity”)

Only neurons can be organized into a mind that can design. Are your 'cells' somehow magically neurons?

9307 views

dhw: Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life

DAVID: Yet you admit design is required.

dhw: Yes. Must I repeat that my hypothesis is that the design is done by the cell communities using their possibly God-given intelligence to respond to new needs?

DAVID: Yes, back to using God, who cannot be avoided in the discussion

Of course God can’t be avoided. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. My hypothesis leaves open the question of origin - it is POSSIBLY God, possibly chance, possibly some form of panpsychism.

dhw: [...] As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

DAVID: Yes, back to design is required, and the only evidence we currently have is simply that only minds design.

dhw: Which does not mean that there is a single, sourceless, unknown, unknowable mind that did the designing. Maybe cells have the equivalent of what we call “mind”. (See also under “Genome complexity”)

DAVID: Only neurons can be organized into a mind that can design. Are your 'cells' somehow magically neurons?

An astonishing statement from someone who claims to be a dualist, and an astonishing assumption which runs counter to your admission that cellular problem-solving can “just as well” be interpreted as automatic – which puts automaticity on a par with the hypothesis that non-neurons can be autonomously intelligent, as advocated by some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying them.

9367 views

dhw: Unfortunately, we have no record of precisely how big individual foetuses and canals were year by year, but I do not see how logic dictates that a sourceless, unknown and unknowable mind either dabbled or preprogrammed sudden expansions of foetuses and canals plus the billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders throughout the history of life

DAVID: Yet you admit design is required.

dhw: Yes. Must I repeat that my hypothesis is that the design is done by the cell communities using their possibly God-given intelligence to respond to new needs?

DAVID: Yes, back to using God, who cannot be avoided in the discussion

dhw: Of course God can’t be avoided. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. My hypothesis leaves open the question of origin - it is POSSIBLY God, possibly chance, possibly some form of panpsychism.

dhw: [...] As for cells, must I really keep repeating that (a) my proposal is that evolution does NOT advance through fortune-telling but through RESPONSES to present conditions, and (b) that there is no proof for any of the hypotheses, but I regard my own hypothesis as considerably more logical than yours (bearing in mind that I do not reject the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanism).

DAVID: Yes, back to design is required, and the only evidence we currently have is simply that only minds design.

dhw: Which does not mean that there is a single, sourceless, unknown, unknowable mind that did the designing. Maybe cells have the equivalent of what we call “mind”. (See also under “Genome complexity”)

DAVID: Only neurons can be organized into a mind that can design. Are your 'cells' somehow magically neurons?

dhw: An astonishing statement from someone who claims to be a dualist, and an astonishing assumption which runs counter to your admission that cellular problem-solving can “just as well” be interpreted as automatic – which puts automaticity on a par with the hypothesis that non-neurons can be autonomously intelligent, as advocated by some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying them.

The automaticity discussion involves intracellular reactions, not inventing a new pelvis, which is the subject under discussion. Your lifetime group studied cells not major evolutionary changes. Your hypothesis is a huge extrapolation from the single cell reactions to whole body alterations.

9319 views

Studying our ancestors shows what was obviously known before. Birth was easy compared to human birth:

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-simulations-human-ancestors-easier-birth.html

"For many women, childbirth is a long, painful and difficult process. Prior research has suggested the reason childbirth is so much more difficult in humans compared to apes or other animals is because we evolved to walk upright, and because our babies have very large heads. As humans developed an upright gait, our pelvises changed in ways that made the birth canal narrower. During birth, a modern human baby must turn in the womb several times as it is pushed through the birth canal by the pelvic muscles.

"In sharp contrast, chimpanzees give birth in short order and appear to experience very little pain. In this new effort, the researchers wondered about the birth experience for one of our ancestors, Australopithecus sediba—a hominin that lived approximately 1.95 million years ago. To find out, they created a 3-D representation of an A. sediba pelvis using imagery from several fossils. While they were at it, they also created 3-D representations of Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus. And for additional comparison, they also created 3-D images of a modern human and a chimpanzee pelvis. To study the degree of difficulty of giving birth, the researchers also added baby human skull-sized objects to the 3-D images as they would normally sit in the birth canal.

'The researchers report that the size of the A. sediba birth canal was quite large compared to the size of the skull of the baby that would need to pass through it. They suggest this indicates that compared to modern women, A. sediba would have had a much easier time giving birth. "

Abstract:

"Hominin birth mechanics have been examined and debated from limited and often fragmentary fossil pelvic material. Some have proposed that birth in the early hominin genus Australopithecus was relatively easy and ape-like, while others have argued for a more complex, human-like birth mechanism in australopiths. Still others have hypothesized a unique birth mechanism, with no known modern equivalent. Preliminary work on the pelvis of the recently discovered 1.98 million-year-old hominin Australopithecus sediba found it to possess a unique combination of Homo and Australopithecus-like features. Here, we create a composite pelvis of Australopithecus sediba to reconstruct the birth process in this early hominin. Consistent with other hominin species, including modern humans, the fetus would enter the pelvic inlet in a transverse direction. However, unlike in modern humans, the fetus would not need additional rotations to traverse the birth canal. Further fetal rotation is unnecessary even with a Homo-like pelvic midplane expansion, not seen in earlier hominin species. With a birth canal shape more closely associated with specimens from the genus Homo and a lack of cephalopelvic or shoulder constraints, we therefore find evidence to support the hypothesis that the pelvic morphology of Australopithecus sediba is a result of locomotor, rather than strictly obstetric constraints."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221871#abstract0

Comment: All of this still raises the usual problem. How did the human pelvis and the large baby head evolve to allow a safe birth? The DNA of the mother and the father have to work with the DNA of The newborn. Only a planned design fits.

7108 views

Canal not the same it seems:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-do-we-know-about-the-lives-of-neanderthal-women?utm_source=...

"If Neanderthal women stroked and cradled their bumps, they certainly experienced the kicks and weird undulations of squirming infants within.

"What might giving birth have been like? While experiences today vary dramatically, birthing can be life-defining: physically draining and emotionally tumultuous. Anatomically however, reconstructing this for Neanderthal women has been tricky. One of the very few mostly complete female skeletons emerged from Mount Carmel in then-Palestine in 1932, at the opposite end of the Mediterranean from Gibraltar. Known as Tabūn 1, her hip bones are partially preserved, and 21st-century modelling suggests that her and her contemporaries’ birth canals were shaped differently. Babies didn’t need to twist, and heads emerged sideways instead of facing backwards. On the other hand, while this potentially meant that births could have been somewhat faster, with less risk of infants getting stuck, the babies’ longer skulls meant it was still a tight squeeze.

Comment: if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

5445 views

An essay that describes the complex interplay of organs and brain controls that produce voice, singing controls, language nuances, etc.:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/explainer-why-the-human-voice-is-so-versatile?utm_so...

"Macaques and baboons – two distantly related primates – are able to produce a similar range of voice-like sounds to humans.

"In fact, many animals convey basic information using their voice but they don’t display the full range of vocal abilities available to humans that enables our voice to be used for such a wide range of communication and entertainment.

"This suggests that the uniqueness of the human voice is less in the anatomical ability to produce the sounds and more in our ability to precisely coordinate the physical movements, and to process the sounds into meaningful language.

***

"Voice production can be thought of as a source-filter model. The voice is a combination of a vibrating source that controls its amplitude and pitch (the five tones in the example above), and an acoustic filter that controls how it sounds, much like how you can shape the sound with a graphic equaliser on a sound system.

"The source is the vibrating vocal folds situated in the larynx. The filter is the airway that runs from the vocal folds to the lips or nostrils, which we call the vocal tract... the larynx (voice box) comprises the epiglottis to the cricoid cartilage. The thyroid cartilage tends to protrude from the neck in men and is called the Adam’s apple.

"The vocal folds are two flaps of flesh that vibrate around 100-300 times per second (Hz) in speech.

"The widely used name “vocal cords” came about from French anatomist Antoine Ferrein’s analogy that the air acted like a bow playing the strings (cordes in French) of the viola da gamba, or even a feather plucking the strings of a harpsicord.

"While these analogies aren’t very accurate, understanding the physics of vocal fold motion is still an active area of research, since experiments are so difficult.
Observing the vocal folds is possible but not always practical. We can look at them but only from above – and even that isn’t very comfortable.

"The vocal fold vibration isn’t an on-off twitching of muscles, instead it is caused by the air that is passed over the vocal folds from the lungs. The frequency of vibration and its amplitude are controlled by a combination of pressure supplied by the lungs, the shape of the gap between the folds (the glottis), and the tension supplied by muscles in the larynx.

"Learning to use all of these voice controls doesn’t come easily – ask any teenage boy. Even singers take years to master the independent control of pitch and volume, which is put to the test by a practice a technique called messa di voce.

"Speech sounds, such as vowels and consonants, are determined by the vocal tract, which changes shape by moving the articulators (tongue, lips, soft palate, etc.) to filter the sound produced by the vocal folds.

***

"Although it is obviously more complicated, for a physicist, the vocal tract is something like a cylinder. It is a resonant system that is closed (or almost closed) at the vocal folds and open at the mouth.

"A resonant system allows standing waves to form. In the vocal tract the standing waves, or resonances, occur when the pressure is high at the vocal folds and low at the mouth.

"The sound produced by the vocal folds at frequencies close to these resonances will be more noticeable. These more noticeable frequencies are called formants and they distinguish different vowel sounds.

***

"So if all humans (and some primates) can produce such a wide range of sounds, why do we have accents when we learn foreign languages?

"Surely, if I want to learn Mandarin, I just need to train myself to produce those 2,000 sounds mentioned earlier. It would be almost like a form of physical exercise. The problem is our brains tend to categorise similar sounds. This hinders us in producing and perceiving sounds that do not fit into these categories.

"For example, the French words for “above” and “below” (“dessus” and “dessous”) tend to sound the same to untrained English speakers. When we learn French, our brain must be taught to separate “u” and “ou” into two new categories, where previously there was only one.

"So if our brains can’t distinguish finely enough between the different sounds, could we use our understanding of voice production to improve language learning? Seeing the articulators inside our vocal tract in action is one idea that could help."

Comment: Production of voice and language is highly complex. Why did evolution bother? Combined with the big, big brain, I see purposeful direction. Look at he illustrations. They help.

14691 views

This study looks at the epigenetic changes that enhanced the development of current human speech abilities:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/complex-speech-in-humans-is-a-recent-development?utm...

"The remarkable range of human speech is a more recent evolutionary development than previously thought, a new study claims.

"In a paper that awaits peer-review on pre-print repository bioRxiv, an international team of researchers reveals that the structure of the human vocal tract and related parts of the face, which together deliver optimum conditions for speech production, is unique to modern humans.

***

"They contend that older human species such as Neanderthal and Denisovans would not have enjoyed the full capacity for speech that we do. In fact, the authors state “the evolution of vocalisation apparatus of modern humans is unique among hominins and great apes.”

"Interestingly, the team make this claim not based on genetics, but on ‘epigenetics’ – the study of the way that factors outside of genes can control and effect heredity.

***

"Patterns of methylation can be mapped. Comparing the maps of modern and archaic humans, as well as great apes, led Gokhman and colleagues to conclude that complex speech is a recent development. The scientists state “the molecular mechanisms that underlie the modern human face and voice … arose after the split from Neanderthals and Denisovans”.

"The epigenetic nature of the mechanisms might well demonstrate that significant evolutionary change can happen without corresponding change in genes.

"Many are still inclined to agree with the sentiment Darwin expressed in The Descent of Man that “language owes its origin to the imitation and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries.” This is because it seems sensible that some capacity for speech would arise first, and the full complexity of symbolic logic and language would follow.

"But Darwin’s suggestion is long out of date. Modern research has given rise to multiple competing theories based on more recent aspects of evolutionary theory. Widely accepted, however, is the notion that words are cheap. Literally.

"Words don’t require substantial energy investment from an organism, so there is little at stake in using them. This means that it’s just as cheap to lie as to tell the truth, and scientists think this might have been a barrier to the evolution of spoken language.

"Researchers now believe that for spoken language to become a successful and stable evolutionary strategy, humans must first have developed both full symbolic culture and extremely high levels of interpersonal trust.

"While the last condition may strike us as unlikely in the current era, the paper’s claim that the physical architecture needed for speech is a relatively recent adaptation seems to support this theory."

Comment: the recognition of the complex physical adaptations for speech noted early in this article fit the findings in the book I cite, The Ape That Spoke, by John Mc Crone. The proposed interplay that followed with brain development tied to cultural development is a logical conclusion. I don't know why the authors got so involved in trust issues. Hunter-gatherers lived in small trusting groups for survival at a time when complex language developed.

14555 views

I am convinced biologic evolution is at an endpoint with humans in charge. We can take care of ourselves and solve many disease and hunger problems. Other than asteroids and earthquakes and severe weather we face few environmental challenges. We can nudge asteroids off course and warn about the dangers that we can not stop, but as this article shows we are making a mess of he Earth:

https://aeon.co/ideas/deep-time-s-uncanny-future-is-full-of-ghostly-human-traces?utm_so...

"The Anthropocene, or era of the human, denotes how industrial civilisation has changed the Earth in ways that are comparable with deep-time processes. The planet’s carbon and nitrogen cycles, ocean chemistry and biodiversity – each one the product of millions of years of slow evolution – have been radically and permanently disrupted by human activity.

***

"Deep time represents a certain displacement of the human and the divine from the story of creation. Yet in the Anthropocene, ironically we humans have become that sublime force, the agents of a fearful something that is greater than ourselves. A single mine in Canada’s tar sands region moves 30 billion tonnes of sediment annually, double the quantity moved by all the worlds’ rivers combined. The weight of the fresh water we have redistributed has slowed the Earth’s rotation. The mass extinction of plant and animal species is unlikely to recover for 10 million years.

***

"One of the most chilling traces of the Anthropocene is the global dispersal of radioactive isotopes since mass thermonuclear weapons-testing began in the middle of the 20th century, which means that everyone born after 1963 has radioactive matter in their teeth. The half-life of depleted uranium (U-238) is around 4.5 billion years, roughly the same as the age of the Earth, while that of the plutonium in Chernobyl’s nuclear reactor is 240,000 years. Such timescales resist the imagination, but exist as a haunting presence in our daily lives.

***

"Some 60 billion chickens are killed for human consumption each year; in the future, fossilised chicken bones will be present on every continent as a testimony to the intrusion of human desires in the geological record. Plastics, which began being mass-produced in the middle of the 20th century, give us back the world as the West has been taught to see it – pliable, immediately available, and smoothed to our advantage. Yet almost every piece of plastic ever made remains in existence in some form, and their chemical traces are increasingly present in our bodies. It is ironic that the characteristic ‘new’ smell of PVC is the result of the unstable elements in the material decaying. Although ostensibly inert, like Chernobyl’s ‘undead’ isotopes, plastics are in fact intensely lively, leaching endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Single-use plastic might seem to disappear when I dispose of it, but it (and therefore I) will nonetheless continue to act on the environments in which it persists for millennia.

***

"Humans created 5 billion gigabytes of digital information in 2003; in 2013 it took only 10 minutes to produce the same amount of data. Despite the appealing connotations of ‘the cloud’, this data has to go somewhere. Greenpeace estimates that the power consumption of just one of Apple’s immense data centres is equivalent to the annual supply for 250,000 European homes.

***

"Whereas Hawkes described a land shaped by a combination of geological process, organic life and human activity, we have decisively shifted the balance. But the need to imagine deep time in light of our present-day concerns is more vital than ever. Deep time is not an abstract, distant prospect, but a spectral presence in the everyday. The irony of the Anthropocene is that we are conjuring ourselves as ghosts that will haunt the very deep future."

Comment: We are obviously altering the Earth. Will that alter us?

14520 views

The debate is whether the brain grew big first and developed function or did the need for function drive the enlargement:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-brain-evolution-size-mattersmost.html

"Which came first, overall bigger brains or larger brain regions that control specialized behaviors? Neuroscientists have debated this question for decades, but a new Cornell University study settles the score.

"The study reports that though vertebrate brains differ in size, composition and abilities, evolution of overall brain size accounts for most of these differences, with larger brains leading to greater capabilities.

"The study of 58 species of songbirds also found that once a species evolved a larger brain, brain regions that control the beak and mouth, and the area for song, developed additional complex neural networks.

***

"The study is the first to compare—and resolve—two competing theories of brain evolution. One theory holds that natural selection drove progressive changes in particular areas of the brain, which then led to larger overall brains in species that needed them to survive.

"The other theory contends that some species acquired a bigger brain in general, and its larger basic parts could then be recruited for specific complex behaviors.

"To test these theories, Moore and DeVoogd measured the sizes of overall brains and 30 discrete areas that control behaviors in 58 songbirds spanning 20 families.

"Most of the variation in brain regions was accounted for by differences in the brain's overall size. But in two specific systems there was a significant amount of variation beyond what could be explained by brain size. Areas that controlled song were much larger in species that produce more varied and complex songs. Also, brain areas controlling the face and mouth were especially large in species with short, fat beaks that eat seeds, and they were small in species with long, thin beaks that eat insects.

"'If you've ever watched a bird deal with a sunflower seed, it pushes the seed around with its tongue and grasps it with different points in its beak. And then it is able to break it open and get the inside out," DeVoogd explained.

"When it comes to humans, "it's always been controversial how we got to be who we are," DeVoogd said. Since supporting a big brain requires great demands on energy and oxygen, some researchers speculate that changes in the diets of early humans, including the ability to find and cook high-quality food, helped facilitate overall human brain growth by supplying the needed calories and protein.

"Others speculate that living socially protected early humans and created evolutionary pressures for developing language, DeVoogd said. "

Comment: Size first seems to be correct, with increased specialized function later. It has always been thought that the control of fire and cooking helped with the necessary energy supply to support a calorie-eating brain like ours. Now the big question. What drove the enlargement of the human brain from 400 cc. to 1,200 cc.? Nothing from natural challenges we can see.

14550 views

DAVID: The debate is whether the brain grew big first and developed function or did the need for function drive the enlargement:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-brain-evolution-size-mattersmost.html

QUOTE: "Which came first, overall bigger brains or larger brain regions that control specialized behaviors? Neuroscientists have debated this question for decades, but a new Cornell University study settles the score.
"The study reports that though vertebrate brains differ in size, composition and abilities, evolution of overall brain size accounts for most of these differences, with larger brains leading to greater capabilities.
"The study of 58 species of songbirds also found that once a species evolved a larger brain, brain regions that control the beak and mouth, and the area for song, developed additional complex neural networks.”

Clearly, then, the regions controlling the beak and mouth complexified in response to a functional need. How does this support the theory that the brain grew larger before there was a functional need instead of the need driving the enlargement?

DAVID's comment: Size first seems to be correct, with increased specialized function later. It has always been thought that the control of fire and cooking helped with the necessary energy supply to support a calorie-eating brain like ours. Now the big question. What drove the enlargement of the human brain from 400 cc. to 1,200 cc.? Nothing from natural challenges we can see.

I suggest the drive for improvement. Here is another big question for you: if you believe the enlarged brain preceded function, i.e. was the cause of the enhanced consciousness that has led to the great gulf between us and our fellow animals, how can you support dualism, the essence of which is that the immaterial mind uses the material brain, as opposed to being the product of the brain?

14567 views

DAVID: The debate is whether the brain grew big first and developed function or did the need for function drive the enlargement:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-brain-evolution-size-mattersmost.html

QUOTE: "Which came first, overall bigger brains or larger brain regions that control specialized behaviors? Neuroscientists have debated this question for decades, but a new Cornell University study settles the score.
"The study reports that though vertebrate brains differ in size, composition and abilities, evolution of overall brain size accounts for most of these differences, with larger brains leading to greater capabilities.
"The study of 58 species of songbirds also found that once a species evolved a larger brain, brain regions that control the beak and mouth, and the area for song, developed additional complex neural networks.”

dhw: Clearly, then, the regions controlling the beak and mouth complexified in response to a functional need. How does this support the theory that the brain grew larger before there was a functional need instead of the need driving the enlargement?

You are challenging the conclusion of the study authors?

DAVID's comment: Size first seems to be correct, with increased specialized function later. It has always been thought that the control of fire and cooking helped with the necessary energy supply to support a calorie-eating brain like ours. Now the big question. What drove the enlargement of the human brain from 400 cc. to 1,200 cc.? Nothing from natural challenges we can see.

dhw: I suggest the drive for improvement. Here is another big question for you: if you believe the enlarged brain preceded function, i.e. was the cause of the enhanced consciousness that has led to the great gulf between us and our fellow animals, how can you support dualism, the essence of which is that the immaterial mind uses the material brain, as opposed to being the product of the brain?

You are forgetting that I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness. The brain must be of a certain size and complexity before it experiences full consciousness.

14683 views

dhw: Clearly, then, the regions controlling the beak and mouth complexified in response to a functional need. How does this support the theory that the brain grew larger before there was a functional need instead of the need driving the enlargement?
DAVID: You are challenging the conclusion of the study authors?

The article itself is very disjointed, but there is nothing in it to prove that functional need did not drive enlargement. It is the editor who says the “score” has been settled. Here is the authors’ conclusion (which also jumps around):

QUOTE: When it comes to humans, "it's always been controversial how we got to be who we are," DeVoogd said. Since supporting a big brain requires great demands on energy and oxygen, some researchers speculate that changes in the diets of early humans, including the ability to find and cook high-quality food, helped facilitate overall human brain growth by supplying the needed calories and protein.
Others speculate that living socially protected early humans and created evolutionary pressures for developing language, DeVoogd said.

Some say this and some say that. If these statements are connected, I take them to mean that a new diet enlarged the brain which then produced language, or the need for language enlarged the brain, which then required a change in diet. The score is far from settled.

DAVID's comment: Size first seems to be correct, with increased specialized function later. It has always been thought that the control of fire and cooking helped with the necessary energy supply to support a calorie-eating brain like ours. Now the big question. What drove the enlargement of the human brain from 400 cc. to 1,200 cc.? Nothing from natural challenges we can see.
dhw: I suggest the drive for improvement. Here is another big question for you: if you believe the enlarged brain preceded function, i.e. was the cause of the enhanced consciousness that has led to the great gulf between us and our fellow animals, how can you support dualism, the essence of which is that the immaterial mind uses the material brain, as opposed to being the product of the brain?

DAVID: You are forgetting that I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness. The brain must be of a certain size and complexity before it experiences full consciousness.

Of course I am not forgetting your view. That is my point. A receiver does not produce. Dualism argues that consciousness is not the product of the brain, which is why you are able to believe that your consciousness can survive the death of your brain (as seems to be confirmed by NDE experiences). This can only mean that the brain develops in response to consciousness, not the other way round. I am not taking sides here. I am pointing out what seems to me an inconsistency in your beliefs.

14461 views

DAVID: You are forgetting that I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness. The brain must be of a certain size and complexity before it experiences full consciousness.

dhw: Of course I am not forgetting your view. That is my point. A receiver does not produce. Dualism argues that consciousness is not the product of the brain, which is why you are able to believe that your consciousness can survive the death of your brain (as seems to be confirmed by NDE experiences). This can only mean that the brain develops in response to consciousness, not the other way round. I am not taking sides here. I am pointing out what seems to me an inconsistency in your beliefs.

Is a newborn fully conscious. Not in an adult sense. Full consciousness develops due to the plasticity of the brain to enlarge and develop the complexity it needs for a full reception of consciousness. I view H. habilis to have a crystal radio set, H. erectus to have an AM radio, Neanderthal to have an FM set, and we've got television, as an example of the receiver concept.

14411 views

DAVID: You are forgetting that I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness. The brain must be of a certain size and complexity before it experiences full consciousness.

dhw: Of course I am not forgetting your view. That is my point. A receiver does not produce. Dualism argues that consciousness is not the product of the brain, which is why you are able to believe that your consciousness can survive the death of your brain (as seems to be confirmed by NDE experiences). This can only mean that the brain develops in response to consciousness, not the other way round. I am not taking sides here. I am pointing out what seems to me an inconsistency in your beliefs.

DAVID: Is a newborn fully conscious. Not in an adult sense. Full consciousness develops due to the plasticity of the brain to enlarge and develop the complexity it needs for a full reception of consciousness. I view H. habilis to have a crystal radio set, H. erectus to have an AM radio, Neanderthal to have an FM set, and we've got television, as an example of the receiver concept.

How can consciousness develop because the brain becomes big enough to receive it? That is like saying that if you buy a bigger bucket, it will cause more rain to fall so that the rain can fill the bucket. I just cannot see the logic in your argument that while the receiver does not produce consciousness, and consciousness can exist independently of the receiver, the receiver has to develop before consciousness can develop. At least the materialist view is consistent: consciousness is the product of the brain and ceases when the brain dies. I repeat, I am not taking sides (and indeed some time ago, I offered a possible reconciliation between the two schools of thought), but you appear to be taking both sides at once.

14543 views

DAVID: Is a newborn fully conscious. Not in an adult sense. Full consciousness develops due to the plasticity of the brain to enlarge and develop the complexity it needs for a full reception of consciousness. I view H. habilis to have a crystal radio set, H. erectus to have an AM radio, Neanderthal to have an FM set, and we've got television, as an example of the receiver concept.

dhw: How can consciousness develop because the brain becomes big enough to receive it? That is like saying that if you buy a bigger bucket, it will cause more rain to fall so that the rain can fill the bucket. I just cannot see the logic in your argument that while the receiver does not produce consciousness, and consciousness can exist independently of the receiver, the receiver has to develop before consciousness can develop. At least the materialist view is consistent: consciousness is the product of the brain and ceases when the brain dies. I repeat, I am not taking sides (and indeed some time ago, I offered a possible reconciliation between the two schools of thought), but you appear to be taking both sides at once.

You miss the point entirely. The radio receiver concept assumes consciousness is an independent entity pervading the universe. The brain does not develop consciousness. It RECEIVES consciousness and as through plasticity the brain develops, it learns how to use it. Personality development is part of the process; intellectual capacity, I.Q., depth of thought all part of development of its use as a tool.

14448 views

DAVID: Is a newborn fully conscious. Not in an adult sense. Full consciousness develops due to the plasticity of the brain to enlarge and develop the complexity it needs for a full reception of consciousness. […]
dhw: How can consciousness develop because the brain becomes big enough to receive it? That is like saying that if you buy a bigger bucket, it will cause more rain to fall so that the rain can fill the bucket. I just cannot see the logic in your argument that while the receiver does not produce consciousness, and consciousness can exist independently of the receiver, the receiver has to develop before consciousness can develop. At least the materialist view is consistent: consciousness is the product of the brain and ceases when the brain dies. […]

DAVID: You miss the point entirely. The radio receiver concept assumes consciousness is an independent entity pervading the universe. The brain does not develop consciousness. It RECEIVES consciousness and as through plasticity the brain develops, it learns how to use it. Personality development is part of the process; intellectual capacity, I.Q., depth of thought all part of development of its use as a tool.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the above, you seem to be suggesting some form of consciousness that has nothing to be conscious of: a blank that somehow enters each individual organism from outside. And then you say the plastic, developing brain learns how to use it, whereas your belief in free will suggests that consciousness uses the brain. Please clarify: do you think the brain uses consciousness, or consciousness uses the brain?
I’m not sure where this discussion will lead us, but at least we can do a bit more delving.

My starting point is that each individual organism has his/her/its personal consciousness. You asked if a newborn baby is “fully conscious”, and I think that’s an important question in relation to all the above. When a baby cries for food, its consciousness is operating at the lowest animal level: the body tells it what it needs and the brain triggers the appropriate actions to express its needs. As individual brains and bodies mature and subjectively experience the outer as well as the inner world, they complexify their needs and modes of expression, as there is more and more for them to be conscious of. The “independent entity” you have described above is a blanket external awareness of nothing – and incidentally as such can hardly be identified with your God, since he could not have created the universe if he wasn’t conscious of something. The only such nebulous concept I can think of that might “pervade the universe” is some form of panpsychism in which materials possess an innate degree of awareness. But in that case, consciousness is not an “independent entity”; it is confined to individual materials, and so the individual material brain has and develops its own consciousness, as opposed to receiving it as a blank blob of nothingness from outside itself. I’ll leave it at that for the time being, to get your angle on what I’ve said so far.

14452 views

DAVID: You miss the point entirely. The radio receiver concept assumes consciousness is an independent entity pervading the universe. The brain does not develop consciousness. It RECEIVES consciousness and as through plasticity the brain develops, it learns how to use it. Personality development is part of the process; intellectual capacity, I.Q., depth of thought all part of development of its use as a tool.

dhw: Unless I have completely misunderstood the above, you seem to be suggesting some form of consciousness that has nothing to be conscious of: a blank that somehow enters each individual organism from outside. And then you say the plastic, developing brain learns how to use it, whereas your belief in free will suggests that consciousness uses the brain. Please clarify: do you think the brain uses consciousness, or consciousness uses the brain?

I'll try an other attempt at the analogy. The electromagnetic waves that arrive at the radio set are structured, contain information and the radio turns them into intelligible sound, or pictures and sound in the TV. There is a structured consciousness that runs the universe. We receive a bit of it with our brains and learn to use it. The brain uses to consciousness it receives. Granted the radio simply receives a working signal. Perhaps the best analogy is downloading an app to an I phone for special use by that phone. Our brains are much more versatile in that they can learn to use the consciousness signal, take control of it with free will decision making.

dhw: My starting point is that each individual organism has his/her/its personal consciousness. You asked if a newborn baby is “fully conscious”, and I think that’s an important question in relation to all the above. When a baby cries for food, its consciousness is operating at the lowest animal level: the body tells it what it needs and the brain triggers the appropriate actions to express its needs. As individual brains and bodies mature and subjectively experience the outer as well as the inner world, they complexify their needs and modes of expression, as there is more and more for them to be conscious of. The “independent entity” you have described above is a blanket external awareness of nothing – and incidentally as such can hardly be identified with your God, since he could not have created the universe if he wasn’t conscious of something. The only such nebulous concept I can think of that might “pervade the universe” is some form of panpsychism in which materials possess an innate degree of awareness. But in that case, consciousness is not an “independent entity”; it is confined to individual materials, and so the individual material brain has and develops its own consciousness, as opposed to receiving it as a blank blob of nothingness from outside itself. I’ll leave it at that for the time being, to get your angle on what I’ve said so far.

The consciousness of the universe is at the quantum level of reality. Everything is based on it. Remember, Penrose thinks consciousness is quantum activity in the brain.

http://nautil.us//issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-co...

"The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics. Others—often branded “mysterians”—claim that subjective experience is simply beyond the capacity of science to explain.

"Penrose’s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,” Penrose told me in a recent interview. “The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown—namely, making sense of quantum mechanics.”

"He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state.

"It was Hameroff’s idea that quantum coherence happens in microtubules, protein structures inside the brain’s neurons.

***

"When they met in Oxford, Penrose realized that microtubules had the best chance of anything he’d seen that could mediate large-scale quantum coherence within the brain. And ever since, Penrose and Hameroff have been peddling their theory."

Comment: Quantum consciousness is very possible.

14473 views

DAVID: The radio receiver concept assumes consciousness is an independent entity pervading the universe. The brain does not develop consciousness. It RECEIVES consciousness and as through plasticity the brain develops, it learns how to use it. […]
dhw: Unless I have completely misunderstood the above, you seem to be suggesting some form of consciousness that has nothing to be conscious of: a blank that somehow enters each individual organism from outside. And then you say the plastic, developing brain learns how to use it, whereas your belief in free will suggests that consciousness uses the brain. Please clarify: do you think the brain uses consciousness, or consciousness uses the brain?
DAVID: I'll try an other attempt at the analogy. The electromagnetic waves that arrive at the radio set are structured, contain information and the radio turns them into intelligible sound, or pictures and sound in the TV. There is a structured consciousness that runs the universe. We receive a bit of it with our brains and learn to use it. The brain uses to consciousness it receives.

What is a “structured” consciousness as opposed to consciousness? What does “uses to consciousness” mean? In your scenario either the brain uses consciousness, or consciousness uses the brain. It’s a straightforward question, and I’m afraid I find your analogy confusing. You now have the universal consciousness (which you call God) running the universe and sending “a bit” of consciousness into our brain. In your analogy, the signals contain information to be deciphered. What sort of information is God sending? If there is no information, but simply a blank consciousness, there is nothing for the receiver to “turn into” intelligibility. So all you seem to be saying is that your God makes the brain conscious, and you can forget all about signals and receivers. However, if your analogy with its repeated use of “structured” means that your God actually sends meaningful signals for the brain to translate into meaningful information, then is he telling us what to think?

DAVID: Granted the radio simply receives a working signal. Perhaps the best analogy is downloading an app to an I phone for special use by that phone. Our brains are much more versatile in that they can learn to use the consciousness signal, take control of it with free will decision making.

What is a “consciousness signal”? If the signals are not simply blank consciousness but are meaningful (i.e. containing information), the receiver (the brain) can now apparently change the structured information God sends us, and so the brain is not just a receiver but it can think for itself. If the brain can think for itself, then it must itself be conscious before receiving the information it can change.

DAVID: The consciousness of the universe is at the quantum level of reality. Everything is based on it. Remember, Penrose thinks consciousness is quantum activity in the brain.
http://nautil.us//issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-co...
"The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics. Others—often branded “mysterians”—claim that subjective experience is simply beyond the capacity of science to explain.

Chalmers’ speculation is a form of panpsychism. Nobody understands the “quantum level of reality”, so that doesn’t help us. And yes indeed, it will be beyond the capacity of science to explain if the materialistic hypothesis is incorrect.

I appreciate that you have gone to a great deal of trouble with the rest of your post, for which I am grateful, but it does not take us anywhere beyond this point. So let us focus on YOUR explanation to try and clarify what YOU mean by an “independent entity pervading the universe” and sending information to our brain. Please tell us, preferably without analogies and references to other people’s ideas, exactly what YOU think your God (I presume he is the “independent entity”) sends for the receiver to receive and decipher.

14426 views

dhw: What is a “structured” consciousness as opposed to consciousness? What does “uses to consciousness” mean?

dhw: I appreciate that you have gone to a great deal of trouble with the rest of your post, for which I am grateful, but it does not take us anywhere beyond this point. So let us focus on YOUR explanation to try and clarify what YOU mean by an “independent entity pervading the universe” and sending information to our brain. Please tell us, preferably without analogies and references to other people’s ideas, exactly what YOU think your God (I presume he is the “independent entity”) sends for the receiver to receive and decipher.

I view the consciousness we receive as a structured mechanism (information structure) that the brain can learn to employ. And because there is a universal consciousness from which it comes, it survives transient death in NDE's. No one tells us how to think. We are free to use consciousness as we wish. And I do think quantum mechanics are involved in the structure, both at the brain level and the consciousness level, as shown by the late choice quantum experiments.

14380 views

DAVID: I view the consciousness we receive as a structured mechanism (information structure) that the brain can learn to employ. And because there is a universal consciousness from which it comes, it survives transient death in NDE's. No one tells us how to think. We are free to use consciousness as we wish. And I do think quantum mechanics are involved in the structure, both at the brain level and the consciousness level, as shown by the late choice quantum experiments.

We are both wrestling with something that everybody else has equal difficulty with, and I appreciate this latest effort to clarify your ideas. I’ll try in turn to explain why I find them confusing, and perhaps you can correct any misinterpretations, but I must stress again that I am not taking sides in the materialism versus dualism debate. I am only trying to understand your own approach. NDE patients tell us that our consciousness survives the death of the brain, but during these experiences they are themselves – they retain all the information that makes them individual. And so consciousness cannot simply be a mechanism: it is the seat of all the attributes that make us ourselves - our memories, emotions, ideas etc. – and if you believe in free will, it must also be the decision-maker. So when you say “we are free etc.” what is this “we”? It can’t be the brain, if “we” survive the death of the brain. The implication of this whole scenario is that the brain provides information to consciousness, and then obeys the instructions of consciousness, and “we” are our consciousness with all the above information contained in it. In other words, the exact opposite of your opening statement: consciousness “employs” the brain and not the other way round.

This has implications for the problem of which came first: brain enlargement allowing function, or function enlarging the brain, but let’s go one step at a time.

14405 views

dhw: And so consciousness cannot simply be a mechanism: it is the seat of all the attributes that make us ourselves - our memories, emotions, ideas etc. – and if you believe in free will, it must also be the decision-maker. So when you say “we are free etc.” what is this “we”? It can’t be the brain, if “we” survive the death of the brain. The implication of this whole scenario is that the brain provides information to consciousness, and then obeys the instructions of consciousness, and “we” are our consciousness with all the above information contained in it. In other words, the exact opposite of your opening statement: consciousness “employs” the brain and not the other way round.

Consciousness allows us to form a sense of self. That is obvious. We use consciousness. It doesn't dictate to us. We dictate to ourselves. The brain stores memories which consciousness allows us to create. A brain in a jar is not conscious. You are missing the back and forth between the human and his brain. They are a team. The baby experiences and is able to learn from them as he lives infancy and form opinions, ideas, personality. Consciousness allows all of this activity and its coalescence as self.

dhw: This has implications for the problem of which came first: brain enlargement allowing function, or function enlarging the brain, but let’s go one step at a time.

All of the evidence from studies of our ancestor fossils is brain enlargement allows certain levels of anthropologic activity. Each enlargement allowed more complex activity. 200,000 years ago sapiens activity was not what it is today , but the brain had arrived!

14385 views

dhw: And so consciousness cannot simply be a mechanism: it is the seat of all the attributes that make us ourselves - our memories, emotions, ideas etc. – and if you believe in free will, it must also be the decision-maker. So when you say “we are free etc.” what is this “we”? It can’t be the brain, if “we” survive the death of the brain. The implication of this whole scenario is that the brain provides information to consciousness, and then obeys the instructions of consciousness, and “we” are our consciousness with all the above information contained in it. In other words, the exact opposite of your opening statement: consciousness “employs” the brain and not the other way round.

DAVID: Consciousness allows us to form a sense of self. That is obvious. We use consciousness. It doesn't dictate to us. We dictate to ourselves. The brain stores memories which consciousness allows us to create. A brain in a jar is not conscious. You are missing the back and forth between the human and his brain. They are a team. The baby experiences and is able to learn from them as he lives infancy and form opinions, ideas, personality. Consciousness allows all of this activity and its coalescence as self.

You have left out the crucial introduction to what I wrote above: “I must stress again that I am not taking sides in the materialism versus dualism debate. I am only trying to understand your own approach. NDE patients tell us that our consciousness survives the death of the brain, but during these experiences they are themselves – they retain all the information that makes them individual.” In YOUR scenario (not mine, as I remain neutral) based on NDEs, “we” (the self) ARE our consciousness. There is no brain or body, no more "back and forth". And so if consciousness (the self) can exist independently of the brain, the “back and forth” in our lifetime can only consist in the brain providing consciousness with information, and consciousness then instructing the brain to control the rest of the body. Only if you reject the NDE scenario in which “we” (the self) exist as pure consciousness can you claim that the brain uses “us”/consciousness.

dhw: This has implications for the problem of which came first: brain enlargement allowing function, or function enlarging the brain, but let’s go one step at a time.
DAVID: All of the evidence from studies of our ancestor fossils is brain enlargement allows certain levels of anthropologic activity. Each enlargement allowed more complex activity. 200,000 years ago sapiens activity was not what it is today, but the brain had arrived!

The evidence shows that enlargement accompanied certain levels of activity. It cannot possibly tell us which came first: the enlargement allowing the activity or the need for the activity causing the enlargement. That is the big debate.

14440 views

dhw: And so if consciousness (the self) can exist independently of the brain, the “back and forth” in our lifetime can only consist in the brain providing consciousness with information, and consciousness then instructing the brain to control the rest of the body. Only if you reject the NDE scenario in which “we” (the self) exist as pure consciousness can you claim that the brain uses “us”/consciousness.

I don't reject the NDE scenario. I consider consciousness as an entity which is received by our brain and is used by our brain. We don't know what consciousness is. It is not material. We experience it and work back and forth with it. All animals have the conscious activity and controls you mention above, but not the deeper self-awareness we enjoy. This has always implied to me a universal consciousness in which we all partake are varying levels.

dhw: This has implications for the problem of which came first: brain enlargement allowing function, or function enlarging the brain, but let’s go one step at a time.
DAVID: All of the evidence from studies of our ancestor fossils is brain enlargement allows certain levels of anthropologic activity. Each enlargement allowed more complex activity. 200,000 years ago sapiens activity was not what it is today, but the brain had arrived!

dhw: The evidence shows that enlargement accompanied certain levels of activity. It cannot possibly tell us which came first: the enlargement allowing the activity or the need for the activity causing the enlargement. That is the big debate.

I'm still insisting that speciation of a larger brain precedes any new extensive activity which is what the enlargement allows. This thought follows from the fact that the gaps from Lucy to habilis to erectus to us are huge with gaps from 400cc to 1,200cc with no itty bitty changes. Please remember 200,000 years ago we had 1,200cc, but how much did we use it back then? Obvious.

14422 views

dhw: And so if consciousness (the self) can exist independently of the brain, the “back and forth” in our lifetime can only consist in the brain providing consciousness with information, and consciousness then instructing the brain to control the rest of the body. Only if you reject the NDE scenario in which “we” (the self) exist as pure consciousness can you claim that the brain uses “us”/consciousness.
DAVID: I don't reject the NDE scenario. I consider consciousness as an entity which is received by our brain and is used by our brain. We don't know what consciousness is. It is not material. We experience it and work back and forth with it. All animals have the conscious activity and controls you mention above, but not the deeper self-awareness we enjoy. This has always implied to me a universal consciousness in which we all partake are varying levels.

You are jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof in order to avoid the point I am making, which concerns the implications of your belief in the NDE scenario. In a nutshell: if you believe that our identity/”we”/the self, in the form of consciousness without body and brain, continues after death (as apparently experienced by NDE patients), then it can only be consciousness/”we”/the self that uses the brain, and not the other way round.(See below)

dhw: This has implications for the problem of which came first: brain enlargement allowing function, or function enlarging the brain…
DAVID: All of the evidence from studies of our ancestor fossils is brain enlargement allows certain levels of anthropologic activity. Each enlargement allowed more complex activity. 200,000 years ago sapiens activity was not what it is today, but the brain had arrived!
dhw: The evidence shows that enlargement accompanied certain levels of activity. It cannot possibly tell us which came first: the enlargement allowing the activity or the need for the activity causing the enlargement. That is the big debate.

DAVID: I'm still insisting that speciation of a larger brain precedes any new extensive activity which is what the enlargement allows.

You always insist that your beliefs are correct, even when they are contradictory. If “we” are our consciousness (as per NDE experiences), which contains all our memories, feelings, thoughts and ideas, then how can the brain precede the IDEA of a particular new activity? Does the spade invent the idea of digging, or does the idea of digging invent the spade? With your NDE-based, immaterial identity, does the brain come up with new ideas, or does your consciousness (= you) come up with new ideas and use (and if necessary change) the brain as its tool to implement them? (Even now, though on a very minor scale, we/our consciousness can make changes to brain and body through exercises that activate the neurons or enlarge the muscles.)

DAVID: This thought follows from the fact that the gaps from Lucy to habilis to erectus to us are huge with gaps from 400cc to 1,200cc with no itty bitty changes. Please remember 200,000 years ago we had 1,200cc, but how much did we use it back then? Obvious.

I’m not sure how your question supports your claim that the brain uses us/our consciousness. As regards itty bitty changes, like you, I can only rely on what the experts tell us about the evolution of the human brain. Wikipedia disagrees with you:

Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain

The evolutionary history of the human brain shows primarily a gradually bigger brain relative to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens. Human brain size has been trending upwards since 2 million years ago, with a 3 factor increase. Early australopithecine brains were little larger than chimpanzee brains. The increase has been seen as larger human brain volume as we progressed along the human timeline of evolution (see Homininae), starting from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis up to 1736 cm3 in Homo neanderthalensis which is the hominid with the biggest brain size. The increase in brain size topped with neanderthals; since then the average brain size has been shrinking over the past 28,000 years. The male brain has decreased from 1,500 cm3 to 1,350 cm3 while the female brain has shrunk by the same relative proportion.[1] (My bold)

Apparently this shrinkage may be accounted for by more efficient arrangement and wiring, which I would suggest offers an answer to your last question. Clearly the brain cannot go on growing indefinitely, and so in order to accommodate the increasing demands of consciousness (I’m still following your dualist NDE line of thinking) it has to complexify its inner workings.

14429 views

dhw: You are jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof in order to avoid the point I am making, which concerns the implications of your belief in the NDE scenario. In a nutshell: if you believe that our identity/”we”/the self, in the form of consciousness without body and brain, continues after death (as apparently experienced by NDE patients), then it can only be consciousness/”we”/the self that uses the brain, and not the other way round.

In NDE our consciousness which is our 'self' continues as an entity and returns to the brain when the brain returns to a physical living state to receive it. I am in control of my consciousness. I have free will. You are arguing that I don't. I use my consciousness. It does not use me as I am free to form my conscious self any way I want. The newborn with its partially formed brain is barely conscious, and has to learn to be self-aware. The relationship between brain and consciousness has to evolve over time. The attributes of consciousness are there for the taking and dev eloping and we do it as we mature.

DAVID: This thought follows from the fact that the gaps from Lucy to habilis to erectus to us are huge with gaps from 400cc to 1,200cc with no itty bitty changes. Please remember 200,000 years ago we had 1,200cc, but how much did we use it back then? Obvious.

dhw: I’m not sure how your question supports your claim that the brain uses us/our consciousness. As regards itty bitty changes, like you, I can only rely on what the experts tell us about the evolution of the human brain. Wikipedia disagrees with you:

Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain

The evolutionary history of the human brain shows primarily a gradually bigger brain relative to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens. Human brain size has been trending upwards since 2 million years ago, with a 3 factor increase. Early australopithecine brains were little larger than chimpanzee brains. The increase has been seen as larger human brain volume as we progressed along the human timeline of evolution (see Homininae), starting from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis up to 1736 cm3 in Homo neanderthalensis which is the hominid with the biggest brain size. The increase in brain size topped with neanderthals; since then the average brain size has been shrinking over the past 28,000 years. The male brain has decreased from 1,500 cm3 to 1,350 cm3 while the female brain has shrunk by the same relative proportion.[1] (My bold)

Apparently this shrinkage may be accounted for by more efficient arrangement and wiring, which I would suggest offers an answer to your last question. Clearly the brain cannot go on growing indefinitely, and so in order to accommodate the increasing demands of consciousness (I’m still following your dualist NDE line of thinking) it has to complexify its inner workings.

I don't see that Wiki disagrees with me. The size of brain statements are correct and your final statement is quite correct. I'm saying size first, use second, and your paragraph above supports that concept.

14497 views

dhw: In a nutshell: if you believe that our identity/”we”/the self, in the form of consciousness without body and brain, continues after death (as apparently experienced by NDE patients), then it can only be consciousness/”we”/the self that uses the brain, and not the other way round.
DAVID: In NDE our consciousness which is our 'self' continues as an entity and returns to the brain when the brain returns to a physical living state to receive it.

The return is irrelevant. You have always used NDEs to support your belief in dualism and in an afterlife in which you will retain your identity. Without brain and body that identity can only be your consciousness.

DAVID: I am in control of my consciousness. I have free will. You are arguing that I don't. I use my consciousness. It does not use me as I am free to form my conscious self any way I want.

I did not say your consciousness used you! You keep telling us that your brain uses your consciousness instead of the other way round. You are ignoring the point I keep making over and over again: if you believe there is an afterlife in which your identity survives (as reported by NDE patients), the “I” you keep talking about IS your consciousness. And if consciousness is not produced by the brain (= materialism), then it is your consciousness (you) that uses the brain (which provides information to and obeys instructions from your consciousness).

DAVID: This thought follows from the fact that the gaps from Lucy to habilis to erectus to us are huge with gaps from 400cc to 1,200cc with no itty bitty changes. Please remember 200,000 years ago we had 1,200cc, but how much did we use it back then? Obvious.
dhw: I’m not sure how your question supports your claim that the brain uses us/our consciousness. As regards itty bitty changes, like you, I can only rely on what the experts tell us about the evolution of the human brain. Wikipedia disagrees with you:
Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain

"The evolutionary history of the human brain shows primarily a gradually bigger brain relative to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens. […] The male brain has decreased from 1,500 cm3 to 1,350 cm3 while the female brain has shrunk by the same relative proportion." (My bold)
dhw: Apparently this shrinkage may be accounted for by more efficient arrangement and wiring, which I would suggest offers an answer to your last question. Clearly the brain cannot go on growing indefinitely, and so in order to accommodate the increasing demands of consciousness (I’m still following your dualist NDE line of thinking) it has to complexify its inner workings.

DAVID: I don't see that Wiki disagrees with me. The size of brain statements are correct and your final statement is quite correct. I'm saying size first, use second, and your paragraph above supports that concept.

Firstly, it contradicts your claim that development of brain size was NOT gradual (no “itty bitty changes”). Secondly, my statement could hardly be clearer: the brain grows in order to accommodate the increasing demands of consciousness, i.e. the demands come first, and then the brain grows in order to fulfil them. But you are perhaps missing one stage in the process I am proposing as a logical outcome of your dualism: 1) consciousness/you/your “self” makes the demands; 2) the brain expands to meet the demands; 3) the demands are met. Demands are the cause, and expansion is the effect. Your proposal, if I have understood it correctly, is that the brain expands first (God doing a dabble?) and then…what? It tells consciousness/you/your “self” that you can do something you never did before? Expansion is then the cause and new ideas are the effect. As above, that would work with the materialist view that consciousness is engendered by the brain, which would mean (part of) the brain tells (part of) the brain what do to. But I don’t see how it can possibly work with your dualist view as epitomized by your belief in an afterlife without brain and body.

14333 views

dhw: You keep telling us that your brain uses your consciousness instead of the other way round. You are ignoring the point I keep making over and over again: if you believe there is an afterlife in which your identity survives (as reported by NDE patients), the “I” you keep talking about IS your consciousness. And if consciousness is not produced by the brain (= materialism), then it is your consciousness (you) that uses the brain (which provides information to and obeys instructions from your consciousness).

I don't know why you don't understand the concept of the brain as a receiver. When the brain cannot function, as in an NDE, it stops receiving consciousness, which returns when it can receive it. The brain uses consciousness as a function to work with.

DAVID: I don't see that Wiki disagrees with me. The size of brain statements are correct and your final statement is quite correct. I'm saying size first, use second, and your paragraph above supports that concept.

dhw: Firstly, it contradicts your claim that development of brain size was NOT gradual (no “itty bitty changes”).

Where is it mentioned that each hominin brain vault size doesn't show significant enlargement in each stage?

dhw: Secondly, my statement could hardly be clearer: the brain grows in order to accommodate the increasing demands of consciousness, i.e. the demands come first, and then the brain grows in order to fulfil them. But you are perhaps missing one stage in the process I am proposing as a logical outcome of your dualism: 1) consciousness/you/your “self” makes the demands; 2) the brain expands to meet the demands; 3) the demands are met. Demands are the cause, and expansion is the effect. Your proposal, if I have understood it correctly, is that the brain expands first (God doing a dabble?) and then…what? It tells consciousness/you/your “self” that you can do something you never did before? Expansion is then the cause and new ideas are the effect. As above, that would work with the materialist view that consciousness is engendered by the brain, which would mean (part of) the brain tells (part of) the brain what do to. But I don’t see how it can possibly work with your dualist view as epitomized by your belief in an afterlife without brain and body.

In my dualist view the enlarged brain allows for further exploration and development of use of functions allowed by consciousness. My 'self' forms within my consciousness as I use it. In the infant it starts as a tabla rasa, totally blank except for muscular controls and automatic instincts, suckling, breathing pooping, etc. Size of brain allows expanded use of consciousness. Size of consciousness cannot be considered. It is not material. Each new size in the human evolution allowed much larger conceptualizations to be achieved. Human brain size is 200,000 years old, but use of consciousness now is much larger than at that time. Just consider the appearance of language, only 50,000 years ago, as one supreme example.

14401 views

DAVID: I don't know why you don't understand the concept of the brain as a receiver. When the brain cannot function, as in an NDE, it stops receiving consciousness, which returns when it can receive it. The brain uses consciousness as a function to work with.

Of course I understand it, and if the brain is a receiver, it does not generate concepts (see below) – it receives them! You keep ignoring your own belief in an afterlife in which you survive as your conscious self without your brain. If you are YOU without a brain, it makes no sense to argue that the brain USES your consciousness (= YOU). It has to be the other way round.

DAVID: I don't see that Wiki disagrees with me.
dhw: …it contradicts your claim that development of brain size was NOT gradual (no “itty bitty changes”).
DAVID: Where is it mentioned that each hominin brain vault size doesn't show significant enlargement in each stage?

When it says that the history shows “a gradually bigger brain…during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens”, I presume it means an enlargement at each stage.

DAVID: In my dualist view the enlarged brain allows for further exploration and development of use of functions allowed by consciousness.

What do you mean by “functions allowed” by consciousness? In my view, whether dualist or materialist, it is consciousness that invents (not allows) the functions and instructs (not allows) the brain to perform them.

DAVID: My 'self' forms within my consciousness as I use it. In the infant it starts as a tabla rasa, totally blank except for muscular controls and automatic instincts, suckling, breathing pooping, etc. Size of brain allows expanded use of consciousness. Size of consciousness cannot be considered. It is not material. Each new size in the human evolution allowed much larger conceptualizations to be achieved. Human brain size is 200,000 years old, but use of consciousness now is much larger than at that time. Just consider the appearance of language, only 50,000 years ago, as one supreme example.

I agree with most of this.Obviously the expanded brain is necessary to perform the tasks invented by consciousness, and language is indeed a prime example. Did the need for better communication engender the changes in the anatomy, or did the changed anatomy engender the need for better communication? You have summed up the relationship between brain and consciousness yourself: “Each new size in the human evolution allowed much larger conceptualizations to be achieved.” (My bold) Did larger conceptualizations cause the new size in order to attain achievement, or did the new size cause the conceptualizations? If you believe that the brain is the RECEIVER of concepts, which are the PRODUCT of a consciousness that can exist independently of the brain (as per NDEs), I don’t see how at the same time you can believe that consciousness depends on a larger brain to enlarge its concepts. Enlarged concepts therefore give birth to the enlargement of the tool that implements them (the brain), just as the concept of digging leads to the spade. And so in your dualist scenario, consciousness uses the brain, and not the other way round.

14321 views

dhw: Of course I understand it, and if the brain is a receiver, it does not generate concepts (see below) – it receives them! You keep ignoring your own belief in an afterlife in which you survive as your conscious self without your brain. If you are YOU without a brain, it makes no sense to argue that the brain USES your consciousness (= YOU). It has to be the other way round.

My concept of me=self comes from consciousness, which I view as a dualist as a separate mechanism from my meaty wet brain. I form ME as my brain uses my consciousness. That Me=consciousness separates during NDE's intact and returns when the brain can receive it again. It is probably a quantum construct as shown by late choice experimentation in which consciousness dictates the results of the test.

DAVID: Where is it mentioned that each hominin brain vault size doesn't show significant enlargement in each stage?

dhw: When it says that the history shows “a gradually bigger brain…during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens”, I presume it means an enlargement at each stage.

Each change in brain size is 200cc or more. The word gradual to me refers to the time of evolution over 2+ billion years from Lucy onward.

DAVID: In my dualist view the enlarged brain allows for further exploration and development of use of functions allowed by consciousness.

dhw: What do you mean by “functions allowed” by consciousness? In my view, whether dualist or materialist, it is consciousness that invents (not allows) the functions and instructs (not allows) the brain to perform them.

I view consciousness as an instrument the brain plays. I am discussing areas of thought in this approach. No advanced math 200,000 years ago. As humans generally advanced, language appeared and advanced thought appeared. The boundaries of our inner self enlarged with time. That is my concept of 'functions allowed'. The hunter-gatherer did only that.

DAVID: My 'self' forms within my consciousness as I use it. In the infant it starts as a tabla rasa, totally blank except for muscular controls and automatic instincts, suckling, breathing pooping, etc. Size of brain allows expanded use of consciousness. Size of consciousness cannot be considered. It is not material. Each new size in the human evolution allowed much larger conceptualizations to be achieved. Human brain size is 200,000 years old, but use of consciousness now is much larger than at that time. Just consider the appearance of language, only 50,000 years ago, as one supreme example.

dhw: I agree with most of this.Obviously the expanded brain is necessary to perform the tasks invented by consciousness, and language is indeed a prime example. Did the need for better communication engender the changes in the anatomy, or did the changed anatomy engender the need for better communication? You have summed up the relationship between brain and consciousness yourself: “Each new size in the human evolution allowed much larger conceptualizations to be achieved.” (My bold) Did larger conceptualizations cause the new size in order to attain achievement, or did the new size cause the conceptualizations? If you believe that the brain is the RECEIVER of concepts, which are the PRODUCT of a consciousness that can exist independently of the brain (as per NDEs), I don’t see how at the same time you can believe that consciousness depends on a larger brain to enlarge its concepts. Enlarged concepts therefore give birth to the enlargement of the tool that implements them (the brain), just as the concept of digging leads to the spade. And so in your dualist scenario, consciousness uses the brain, and not the other way round.

Your discussion is entirely backward from my concept. Size first then the ability to conceptualize. Consciousness only delivers the ability to develop concepts through thought. Consciousness has no concepts of its own, I do. There are two sides: consciousness as a mechanism and consciousness=my self image which I develop from childhood.

14353 views

DAVID: Where is it mentioned that each hominin brain vault size doesn't show significant enlargement in each stage?
dhw: When it says that the history shows “a gradually bigger brain…during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens”, I presume it means an enlargement at each stage.
DAVID: Each change in brain size is 200cc or more. The word gradual to me refers to the time of evolution over 2+ billion years from Lucy onward.

Yes, “gradual” involves changes that cover a long period of time. Shall we get on with the main issue of your materialistic interpretation of dualism?

DAVID: My concept of me=self comes from consciousness, which I view as a dualist as a separate mechanism from my meaty wet brain. I form ME as my brain uses my consciousness. That Me=consciousness separates during NDE's intact and returns when the brain can receive it again. It is probably a quantum construct as shown by late choice experimentation in which consciousness dictates the results of the test.

You keep harping on about the return. Do you or do you not believe that after your actual physical death, you/your consciousness will survive with identity intact as David Turell? See below for the implications of your reply.

DAVID: I view consciousness as an instrument the brain plays. I am discussing areas of thought in this approach. No advanced math 200,000 years ago. As humans generally advanced, language appeared and advanced thought appeared. The boundaries of our inner self enlarged with time. That is my concept of 'functions allowed'. The hunter-gatherer did only that.

There is no disagreement over the advancement of thought. But if you believe that consciousness survives the death of the brain, and you do not believe that the brain is the source of thought (= materialism), then it can only be that consciousness uses the brain to acquire information and to translate thought into action.

DAVID: Your discussion is entirely backward from my concept. Size first then the ability to conceptualize. Consciousness only delivers the ability to develop concepts through thought. Consciousness has no concepts of its own, I do.

According to your dualism and what I presume is your belief in an afterlife, “you” ARE your consciousness, as you acknowledge in a moment. Thought is the product of your consciousness, not of your brain. If brainless consciousness cannot think, then you will have to abandon your belief in an afterlife as yourself.

DAVID: There are two sides: consciousness as a mechanism and consciousness=my self image which I develop from childhood.

Precisely. According to you (I remain neutral), consciousness is both the (immaterial) mechanism that generates thought (including concepts) and the “self” (containing all the thoughts and concepts it has generated) which develops and ultimately survives. It is consciousness as mechanism and self that uses the brain, which RECEIVES concepts and instructions. According to you, then, does the receiver brain say to you/consciousness, “Here are the tools, so now talk a new language”, or do you/your consciousness say to the receiver brain, “I want to talk a new language, so give me the tools”? In other words, which comes first – the tools or the concept?

14307 views

dhw: You keep harping on about the return. Do you or do you not believe that after your actual physical death, you/your consciousness will survive with identity intact as David Turell? See below for the implications of your reply.

In the afterlife, yes.

DAVID: I view consciousness as an instrument the brain plays. I am discussing areas of thought in this approach. No advanced math 200,000 years ago. As humans generally advanced, language appeared and advanced thought appeared. The boundaries of our inner self enlarged with time. That is my concept of 'functions allowed'. The hunter-gatherer did only that.

dhw: There is no disagreement over the advancement of thought. But if you believe that consciousness survives the death of the brain, and you do not believe that the brain is the source of thought (= materialism), then it can only be that consciousness uses the brain to acquire information and to translate thought into action.

I am the source of thought using my brain through my consciousness. Why do you separate everything?

DAVID: Your discussion is entirely backward from my concept. Size first then the ability to conceptualize. Consciousness only delivers the ability to develop concepts through thought. Consciousness has no concepts of its own, I do.

dhw: According to your dualism and what I presume is your belief in an afterlife, “you” ARE your consciousness, as you acknowledge in a moment. Thought is the product of your consciousness, not of your brain. If brainless consciousness cannot think, then you will have to abandon your belief in an afterlife as yourself.

Once again you separate everything as if they don't interlock. Brainless consciousness does think in NDE's and the memories are brought back.

DAVID: There are two sides: consciousness as a mechanism and consciousness=my self image which I develop from childhood.

dhw: Precisely. According to you (I remain neutral), consciousness is both the (immaterial) mechanism that generates thought (including concepts) and the “self” (containing all the thoughts and concepts it has generated) which develops and ultimately survives. It is consciousness as mechanism and self that uses the brain, which RECEIVES concepts and instructions. According to you, then, does the receiver brain say to you/consciousness, “Here are the tools, so now talk a new language”, or do you/your consciousness say to the receiver brain, “I want to talk a new language, so give me the tools”? In other words, which comes first – the tools or the concept?

As a newborn I'm given the tools as my brain develops and accepts the receipt of consciousness which it then uses, creating my personality, my concept of self.

14321 views

dhw: You keep harping on about the return. Do you or do you not believe that after your actual physical death, you/your consciousness will survive with identity intact as David Turell? See below for the implications of your reply.
DAVID: In the afterlife, yes.
dhw: …if you believe that consciousness survives the death of the brain, and you do not believe that the brain is the source of thought (= materialism), then it can only be that consciousness uses the brain to acquire information and to translate thought into action.
DAVID: I am the source of thought using my brain through my consciousness. Why do you separate everything? [dhw's bold]

It is you who are separating your “self” from your consciousness, although you believe that there is an afterlife in which your “self” is nothing but your consciousness. The whole point of dualism is the separation of mind and body: mind goes with consciousness and brain goes with body. According to you, the mind survives the death of the body, so “you” are your mind/consciousness and yes, yes, yes, you/your mind/your consciousness are “the source of thought, using your brain”. The brain does not use you/your mind/ your consciousness.

dhw: If brainless consciousness cannot think, then you will have to abandon your belief in an afterlife as yourself.
DAVID: Once again you separate everything as if they don't interlock. Brainless consciousness does think in NDE's and the memories are brought back.

As above. If you believe that the brain and consciousness are interlocked, i.e. consciousness cannot exist without the brain, out goes your afterlife, and in comes materialism.

DAVID: There are two sides: consciousness as a mechanism and consciousness=my self image which I develop from childhood.
dhw: Precisely. According to you (I remain neutral), consciousness is both the (immaterial) mechanism that generates thought (including concepts) and the “self” (containing all the thoughts and concepts it has generated) which develops and ultimately survives. It is consciousness as mechanism and self that uses the brain, which RECEIVES concepts and instructions. According to you, then, does the receiver brain say to you/consciousness, “Here are the tools, so now talk a new language”, or do you/your consciousness say to the receiver brain, “I want to talk a new language, so give me the tools”? In other words, which comes first – the tools or the concept?
DAVID: As a newborn I'm given the tools as my brain develops and accepts the receipt of consciousness which it then uses, creating my personality, my concept of self.

The discussion concerns the enlargement of the brain. You say the brain got bigger, which gave rise to new concepts. I say that if you believe in dualism, it has to be the new concepts that triggered the enlargement of the brain. By the time you arrived on Planet Earth, the brain had already been enlarged. However, if you are convinced that your identity or self depends on how your mortal brain uses your consciousness then, alas, goodbye to mortal brain = goodbye to David.

14343 views

dhw: If brainless consciousness cannot think, then you will have to abandon your belief in an afterlife as yourself.
DAVID: Once again you separate everything as if they don't interlock. Brainless consciousness does think in NDE's and the memories are brought back.

dhw: As above. If you believe that the brain and consciousness are interlocked, i.e. consciousness cannot exist without the brain, out goes your afterlife, and in comes materialism.

No. I believe, as I've stated, that there is a universal consciousness, a part of which can be used by the brain for use by the brain. My portion of that consciousness returns to universal consciousness after death and now is in the afterlife.

dhw: In other words, which comes first – the tools or the concept?[/i]

DAVID: As a newborn I'm given the tools as my brain develops and accepts the receipt of consciousness which it then uses, creating my personality, my concept of self.

dhw: The discussion concerns the enlargement of the brain. You say the brain got bigger, which gave rise to new concepts. I say that if you believe in dualism, it has to be the new concepts that triggered the enlargement of the brain. By the time you arrived on Planet Earth, the brain had already been enlarged.

The enlarged brain gave the ability to develop concepts through a more advanced form of thinking, that the more complex brain allowed using the receipt of consciousness ability. We had the ability 200,000 years ago to do advanced theoretical math, but only developed it in the past 300 years. Brain size first, concepts afterward.

14300 views

DAVID: Once again you separate everything as if they don't interlock. Brainless consciousness does think in NDE's and the memories are brought back.
dhw: As above. If you believe that the brain and consciousness are interlocked, i.e. consciousness cannot exist without the brain, out goes your afterlife, and in comes materialism.
DAVID: No. I believe, as I've stated, that there is a universal consciousness, a part of which can be used by the brain for use by the brain. My portion of that consciousness returns to universal consciousness after death and now is in the afterlife.

I am trying hard to make sense of this, and I’ll take in stages. Presumably, then, your consciousness is a part of God. Your brain can use it so that it can use it. Difficult to follow. I keep pointing out that it is consciousness that uses the brain, but perhaps this double use of “use” is meant somehow to prove your contention that it is the other way round. When your brain dies, your bit of God returns to God, but – the factor you’ve left out – you believe you will still be the conscious you. And if you are still you, obviously consciousness/ you/your “self” and the brain are NOT interlocked.

dhw: The discussion concerns the enlargement of the brain. You say the brain got bigger, which gave rise to new concepts. I say that if you believe in dualism, it has to be the new concepts that triggered the enlargement of the brain. By the time you arrived on Planet Earth, the brain had already been enlarged.
DAVID: The enlarged brain gave the ability to develop concepts through a more advanced form of thinking, that the more complex brain allowed using the receipt of consciousness ability. We had the ability 200,000 years ago to do advanced theoretical math, but only developed it in the past 300 years. Brain size first, concepts afterward.

Two questions: Do you believe that the complexities of the brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness? Do you believe the complexities of the brain gave rise to advanced theoretical math? If your answer is yes, you are a materialist (which is fine). If your answer is no, then please tell us what you think did give rise to our enhanced consciousness and to advanced theoretical math.

14370 views

DAVID: No. I believe, as I've stated, that there is a universal consciousness, a part of which can be used by the brain for use by the brain. My portion of that consciousness returns to universal consciousness after death and now is in the afterlife.

dhw: I am trying hard to make sense of this, and I’ll take in stages. Presumably, then, your consciousness is a part of God. Your brain can use it so that it can use it. Difficult to follow. I keep pointing out that it is consciousness that uses the brain, but perhaps this double use of “use” is meant somehow to prove your contention that it is the other way round. When your brain dies, your bit of God returns to God, but – the factor you’ve left out – you believe you will still be the conscious you. And if you are still you, obviously consciousness/ you/your “self” and the brain are NOT interlocked.

I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness, which the brain through my interaction with it uses as a mechanism for conceptualization and other higher thought patterns. Yes, I view my consciousness as the way I am made in God's image. Consciousness is at my command and does not use the brain. NDE's show there is not a rigid interlock of brain and consciousness.

dhw: Two questions: Do you believe that the complexities of the brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness? Do you believe the complexities of the brain gave rise to advanced theoretical math? If your answer is yes, you are a materialist (which is fine). If your answer is no, then please tell us what you think did give rise to our enhanced consciousness and to advanced theoretical math.

The complexities of the human brain allows for a more complex use of the consciousness it receives. Humans have built up math knowledge from the simple invention of a number system. Note that current hunter-gatherers do not have a word for beyond the number five! But we know the capacity is there. Consciousness is not material. We hae the ability to expand its use as far as we can.

14370 views

DAVID: I view the brain as a receiver of consciousness, which the brain through my interaction with it uses as a mechanism for conceptualization […] Consciousness is at my command and does not use the brain. NDE's show there is not a rigid interlock of brain and consciousness.

Thank you for withdrawing your claim that the brain and consciousness are interlocked. Once again, please stop separating your identity (you, your self) from consciousness. According to your belief in dualism and NDEs, “you” survive as yourself in the form of consciousness without brain or body. You ARE your consciousness, which conceptualizes without the brain. The brain therefore does not use you/your consciousness for conceptualization; it is you/your consciousness that conceptualize, using information provided by the brain and body, and then using the brain and body to implement concepts that require implementation. The converse is the materialism you have rejected and concerning which I asked you two questions which you have not answered.

DAVID: The complexities of the human brain allows for a more complex use of the consciousness it receives. Humans have built up math knowledge from the simple invention of a number system. Note that current hunter-gatherers do not have a word for beyond the number five! But we know the capacity is there. Consciousness is not material. We have the ability to expand its use as far as we can.

All agreed. Perhaps you will now answer the questions I asked you: Do you believe that the complexities of the brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness? Do you believe the complexities of the brain gave rise to advanced theoretical math? If your answer is yes, you are a materialist (which is fine). If your answer is no, then please tell us what you think did give rise to our enhanced consciousness and to advanced theoretical math.

14334 views

DAVID: The complexities of the human brain allows for a more complex use of the consciousness it receives. Humans have built up math knowledge from the simple invention of a number system. Note that current hunter-gatherers do not have a word for beyond the number five! But we know the capacity is there. Consciousness is not material. We have the ability to expand its use as far as we can.

dhw: All agreed. Perhaps you will now answer the questions I asked you: Do you believe that the complexities of the brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness? Do you believe the complexities of the brain gave rise to advanced theoretical math? If your answer is yes, you are a materialist (which is fine). If your answer is no, then please tell us what you think did give rise to our enhanced consciousness and to advanced theoretical math.

To repeat, I don't think an H. habilis use of consciousness was as broad or effective or complete, as H. erectus, as H. neanderthalis or finally H. sapiens. Our use of consciousness must have become more enhanced as the brain became larger and more complex. It is a receiver, but I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level. The ability to use consciousness is what advances as the brain becomes more complex. You missed the point about hunter-gatherers. Cultural advancement plays a huge role. Newton and Leibniz had to invent calculus to get to where we are now in math. For the h-g's the capacity was always there. It is a matter of accumulating discoveries in thought and concepts. I am a dualist.

14351 views

dhw: Do you believe that the complexities of the brain gave rise to our enhanced consciousness? Do you believe the complexities of the brain gave rise to advanced theoretical math? If your answer is yes, you are a materialist (which is fine). If your answer is no, then please tell us what you think did give rise to our enhanced consciousness and to advanced theoretical math.

DAVID: To repeat, I don't think an H. habilis use of consciousness was as broad or effective or complete, as H. erectus, as H. neanderthalis or finally H. sapiens. Our use of consciousness must have become more enhanced as the brain became larger and more complex. It is a receiver, but I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level.

“Our use" once again separates identity from consciousness, which is not possible if you believe in an afterlife that preserves your conscious self. One level? Is your consciousness on the same level as your dog’s? What happened to self-awareness? And when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?

The nature of each individual consciousness will certainly depend on what it is conscious of (e.g. culture) – and in earthly life, that means the information collected and provided by the brain. But for a dualist, it is consciousness and not the brain that processes and “uses” the information provided. A dog’s sense of smell sends far more information to its brain than ours does, but it can’t “use” the information as we do. If you think the cause of our enhanced ability to use the information is the complexity of our brains, that’s fine, but then you are a materialist. If you think it is due to our enhanced consciousness, you are a dualist. This is highlighted by your next comment.

DAVID: The ability to use consciousness is what advances as the brain becomes more complex. You missed the point about hunter-gatherers. Cultural advancement plays a huge role. Newton and Leibniz had to invent calculus to get to where we are now in math. For the h-g's the capacity was always there. It is a matter of accumulating discoveries in thought and concepts. I am a dualist.

I agree with all of this. But in terms of “use” and “ability”, Newton, Leibniz and the hunter-gatherers may well have had the same complex providers of information and obeyers of instructions (brains), but – according to dualists and afterlifers – it is the different consciousness mind/intelligence that has the ability to use the information to create the new thoughts and concepts, which in turn contribute to the identity of the conscious mind which you believe survives the death of the brain.

This whole discussion, however, is riddled with problems which I tried to resolve some time ago by reconciling dualism and materialism. I may return to that later.

14409 views

dhw: “Our use" once again separates identity from consciousness, which is not possible if you believe in an afterlife that preserves your conscious self. One level? Is your consciousness on the same level as your dog’s? What happened to self-awareness? And when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?

Your confusion about my concepts is due to the fact that I have had no philosophic training in dualism or any other approach to consciousness. I am my consciousness, I'm not separate, but I view consciousness as a mechanism I use while I am within it.

dhw: If you think the cause of our enhanced ability to use the information is the complexity of our brains, that’s fine, but then you are a materialist. If you think it is due to our enhanced consciousness, you are a dualist. This is highlighted by your next comment.

My concept is that it is the complexity of our brain that allows us to receive a complex consciousness for our use:

DAVID: The ability to use consciousness is what advances as the brain becomes more complex. You missed the point about hunter-gatherers. Cultural advancement plays a huge role. Newton and Leibniz had to invent calculus to get to where we are now in math. For the h-g's the capacity was always there. It is a matter of accumulating discoveries in thought and concepts. I am a dualist. See my entry for today regarding the brain's ability to change helping illiterate women to read. Thursday, May 25, 2017, 18:53.

dhw: I agree with all of this. But in terms of “use” and “ability”, Newton, Leibniz and the hunter-gatherers may well have had the same complex providers of information and obeyers of instructions (brains), but – according to dualists and afterlifers – it is the different consciousness mind/intelligence that has the ability to use the information to create the new thoughts and concepts, which in turn contribute to the identity of the conscious mind which you believe survives the death of the brain.

This whole discussion, however, is riddled with problems which I tried to resolve some time ago by reconciling dualism and materialism. I may return to that later.

I don't know if you understand my view or not? My consciousness is me, but it is loaned to me until the afterlife when it leaves my body and returns to be part of the universal consciousness and I am 'me' as part of what I return to.

14390 views

dhw: “Our use" once again separates identity from consciousness, which is not possible if you believe in an afterlife that preserves your conscious self. One level? Is your consciousness on the same level as your dog’s? What happened to self-awareness? And when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?
DAVID: Your confusion about my concepts is due to the fact that I have had no philosophic training in dualism or any other approach to consciousness. I am my consciousness, I'm not separate, but I view consciousness as a mechanism I use while I am within it.

The confusion is not mine. If you agree that you are your consciousness, then you should stop trying to separate you from your consciousness when discussing whether the brain uses consciousness or consciousness uses the brain.
You said last time that there are no degrees or levels of consciousness, so do please answer the questions above.

dhw: If you think the cause of our enhanced ability to use the information is the complexity of our brains, that’s fine, but then you are a materialist. If you think it is due to our enhanced consciousness, you are a dualist.
DAVID: My concept is that it is the complexity of our brain that allows us to receive a complex consciousness for our use:

You have just agreed that you are your consciousness. So our complex brain allows our consciousness to receive our consciousness for our consciousness to use our consciousness. And you think I am confused about your concepts. Do you (your consciousness) use your brain, or does your brain use you (your consciousness)? Simple question. Please answer directly.

DAVID: A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process, since evolution has not prepared the brain for reading, although there is the preexisting speech area (Boca's):
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132589-learning-to-read-and-write-rewires-adult-b...

QUOTE: "By the end of the study, the team saw significant changes in the brains of the people who had learned to read and write".
DAVID’s comment: It is obvious from this study that size and complexity come first and learned use is second, just as I hypothesize in the hominin brain development I've discussed. This study clearly shows brain size and complexity first, then learned use.

QUOTE: "The relatively young phenomenon of human literacy therefore changes brain regions that are very old in evolutionary terms and already core parts of mice and other mammalian brains." (David’s bold)
DAVID’s comment: Obviously I consider this a very important bit of evidence in deciding whether enlargement first and use second is the correct interpretation. Note my bolded area which indicates a very old evolutionary part of the brain is brought into play for a new use. The brain's ability to re-coordinate its connections is part of its plasticity. The neurologic abilities are there for the finding. Enlargement first!

The study shows very clearly that conscious effort (here, to read) can change the brain. It is the conscious effort that precedes and therefore causes the changes. However, the brain has, we presume, now reached a size beyond which it cannot go, and so the current changes take place within the already enlarged brain. So yes, the enlargement preceded all the changes that we see taking place NOW, and which would have taken place ever since the brain reached its present size. But the question is what caused the enlargement in the first place. The experiments show that it is not the brain which gives rise to new ideas (reading), but new ideas (reading) which change the brain. In other words, the brain changes in response to the new demands of consciousness. Why, then, if you believe that the brain is a RECEIVER and not a generator of consciousness, would the whole process be reversed in early humans and the brain change itself before consciousness makes its new demands? The experiments could hardly be clearer: demands come first, and they change the brain. Now it’s the “wiring”, but then it was the size.

14535 views

dhw: “Our use" once again separates identity from consciousness, which is not possible if you believe in an afterlife that preserves your conscious self. One level? Is your consciousness on the same level as your dog’s? What happened to self-awareness? And when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?
DAVID: Your confusion about my concepts is due to the fact that I have had no philosophic training in dualism or any other approach to consciousness. I am my consciousness, I'm not separate, but I view consciousness as a mechanism I use while I am within it.

The confusion is not mine. If you agree that you are your consciousness, then you should stop trying to separate you from your consciousness when discussing whether the brain uses consciousness or consciousness uses the brain.

dhw: You said last time that there are no degrees or levels of consciousness, so do please answer the questions above.

My level of consciousness is advanced and approaches God's. I don't know why you brought up my dog, which is why I skipped the question before. My dog is consciousness but has no ability for introspection or conceptualization. He has sensory input and intentionality of his activities. He can be trained to respond to word commands and to perform tricks. All of this is obvious.

dhw: If you think the cause of our enhanced ability to use the information is the complexity of our brains, that’s fine, but then you are a materialist. If you think it is due to our enhanced consciousness, you are a dualist.
DAVID: My concept is that it is the complexity of our brain that allows us to receive a complex consciousness for our use:

dhw: You have just agreed that you are your consciousness. So our complex brain allows our consciousness to receive our consciousness for our consciousness to use our consciousness. And you think I am confused about your concepts. Do you (your consciousness) use your brain, or does your brain use you (your consciousness)? Simple question. Please answer directly.

I've said it before, my brain receives the mechanism of consciousness for my use of it. A concept taken from the current interpretation of NDE's by the authors I've read.

DAVID: A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process, since evolution has not prepared the brain for reading, although there is the preexisting speech area (Broca's):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132589-learning-to-read-and-write-rewires-adult-b...

dhw: The study shows very clearly that conscious effort (here, to read) can change the brain. It is the conscious effort that precedes and therefore causes the changes. However, the brain has, we presume, now reached a size beyond which it cannot go, and so the current changes take place within the already enlarged brain. So yes, the enlargement preceded all the changes that we see taking place NOW, and which would have taken place ever since the brain reached its present size. But the question is what caused the enlargement in the first place. The experiments show that it is not the brain which gives rise to new ideas (reading), but new ideas (reading) which change the brain. In other words, the brain changes in response to the new demands of consciousness. Why, then, if you believe that the brain is a RECEIVER and not a generator of consciousness, would the whole process be reversed in early humans and the brain change itself before consciousness makes its new demands? The experiments could hardly be clearer: demands come first, and they change the brain. Now it’s the “wiring”, but then it was the size.

Your puzzlement is because you don't recognize a giant brain grew before lots of its uses hadn't been invented yet! This study is one great example. The Neanderthal brain was larger than ours, but I think they didn't figure out how to use it like we did, and we survived. Perhaps it wasn't quite as complex. Both size and complexity are different aspects. Recently our brain size has shrunk slightly (in the last 50,000 years) but we are brighter than never. The hominin brain received consciousness and as it grew in size it could learn to handle more and more complex ideations and stimuli, recently like reading and writing in the past 3,000 years, but not before. Size and complexity first, use second.

14348 views

dhw: …when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?
David: My level of consciousness is advanced and approaches God's. I don't know why you brought up my dog, which is why I skipped the question before. My dog is consciousness but has no ability for introspection or conceptualization… etc.

On 25 May you wrote: “I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level.” Now you say your level is advanced and approaches God’s, and clearly your dog has a lower level. So what did you mean by your statement on 25 May?

dhw: Do you (your consciousness) use your brain, or does your brain use you (your consciousness)? Simple question. Please answer directly.
DAVID: I've said it before, my brain receives the mechanism of consciousness for my use of it.

Yes, you keep saying it. I wrote: “If you agree that you are your consciousness, then you should stop trying to separate you from your consciousness when discussing whether the brain uses consciousness or consciousness uses the brain.” Your latest statement means my brain receives the mechanism of my consciousness for my consciousness to use my consciousness. More confusion. Why won’t you answer my simple question?

DAVID: A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process, since evolution has not prepared the brain for reading, although there is the preexisting speech area (Broca's):
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132589-learning-to-read-and-write-rewires-adult-b...

dhw: The study shows very clearly that conscious effort (here, to read) can change the brain. It is the conscious effort that precedes and therefore causes the changes. However, the brain has, we presume, now reached a size beyond which it cannot go, and so the current changes take place within the already enlarged brain. So yes, the enlargement preceded all the changes that we see taking place NOW, and which would have taken place ever since the brain reached its present size. But the question is what caused the enlargement in the first place... etc.
DAVID: Your puzzlement is because you don't recognize a giant brain grew before lots of its uses hadn't been invented yet! This study is one great example.

There is no puzzlement. You don’t seem to have recognized that this study shows usage influencing the brain, not the other way round. Once the brain had reached its optimum size, the changes had to be to the “wiring”, not to the size. The more “uses” we invent, the more complex the “wiring”. Yes, the large brain preceded all these newer uses, but what enlarged the brain in the first place? If new concepts change the brain NOW, as the study clearly shows, I can only ask as I did before, why would the process be reversed for early humans, with changes preceding concepts?

DAVID: […]The hominin brain received consciousness and as it grew in size it could learn to handle more and more complex ideations and stimuli, recently like reading and writing in the past 3,000 years, but not before. Size and complexity first, use second. (Dhw’s bold)

Yes, the brain learns to handle more and more complex ideas by changing itself in order to accommodate them. It doesn’t create them. The brain did not say to the human: Here are the tools, so now read and write. The human said to the brain: I want to read and write, and THEN the brain changed. That is what the study tells us quite unequivocally, and what YOU tell us when commenting on another study:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/networks-form-as-brains-develop

QUOTE: "As children grow up – moving through adolescence and into young adulthood – their ability to control their impulses, stay organised and make decisions improves dramatically.”
According to a new study published in Current Biology, those improvements result from the development of distinct networks within the brain.” (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment:This study shows the intimate interconnection of our developing 'self' and how our brain changes to accommodate the integration of experience and responses. These changes are automatic but also cooperative as personality develops. We do develop ourselves. Consciousness and personality are immaterial, but based on the plasticity of the brain to fully develop and experience. (dhw’s bold)

The quote is unequivocal. If psychological improvements RESULT from changes in the brain, you have pure materialism (which may be right – I’m not taking sides). Your own comment suggests the exact opposite: we are our consciousness and personality, and the brain changes in order to accommodate the workings of immaterial consciousness and does not cause them. So why won’t you just have done with it and agree that according to your own scheme of things, consciousness uses and changes the brain, and not the other way round?

14369 views

dhw: …when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?
David: My level of consciousness is advanced and approaches God's. I don't know why you brought up my dog, which is why I skipped the question before. My dog is consciousness but has no ability for introspection or conceptualization… etc.

On 25 May you wrote: “I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level.” Now you say your level is advanced and approaches God’s, and clearly your dog has a lower level. So what did you mean by your statement on 25 May?

My May 25th statement means my brain receives consciousness to use as one unit. My rain enlargers and becomes more complex from infanthood. As I grow from childhood and mold my personality and approach to life, I use my consciousness from simple thoughts to very complex. I developed learned processes, like the typing at this moment. Under the use of my consciousness my brain responds to develop new connections. The whole thing is seamless: me, self, brain, consciousness.

dhw: Yes, you keep saying it. I wrote: “If you agree that you are your consciousness, then you should stop trying to separate you from your consciousness when discussing whether the brain uses consciousness or consciousness uses the brain.” Your latest statement means my brain receives the mechanism of my consciousness for my consciousness to use my consciousness. More confusion. Why won’t you answer my simple question?

We are discussing at two different understanding levels, and I'm not explaining it well to you. does the above paragraph of mine help?

DAVID: Your puzzlement is because you don't recognize a giant brain grew before lots of its uses hadn't been invented yet! This study is one great example.

dhw: There is no puzzlement. You don’t seem to have recognized that this study shows usage influencing the brain, not the other way round. Once the brain had reached its optimum size, the changes had to be to the “wiring”, not to the size. The more “uses” we invent, the more complex the “wiring”. Yes, the large brain preceded all these newer uses, but what enlarged the brain in the first place?

Exactly the point: If an enlarged brain came first with parts basically unused, because thoughts and activities hadn't been invented as yet, then its plasticity allowed for it to adapt as the mental discoveries advanced.

dhw: If new concepts change the brain NOW, as the study clearly shows, I can only ask as I did before, why would the process be reversed for early humans, with changes preceding concepts?

The gaps in evolution firmly predict change first. use second.

DAVID’s comment:This study shows the intimate interconnection of our developing 'self' and how our brain changes to accommodate the integration of experience and responses. These changes are automatic but also cooperative as personality develops. We do develop ourselves. Consciousness and personality are immaterial, but based on the plasticity of the brain to fully develop and experience. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: The quote is unequivocal. If psychological improvements RESULT from changes in the brain, you have pure materialism (which may be right – I’m not taking sides). Your own comment suggests the exact opposite: we are our consciousness and personality, and the brain changes in order to accommodate the workings of immaterial consciousness and does not cause them. So why won’t you just have done with it and agree that according to your own scheme of things, consciousness uses and changes the brain, and not the other way round?

True, but it is under the seamless control of me!

14345 views

My size first, use second of the brain, still fits what I see as evolutionary history. H sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago with a big jump of 200 cc in brain size. No evidence of new use gradually prodding the plastic brain to change. The key is recognizing the gap in size. Note the progression until now. The stone age, the bronze age, the appearance of complex language from simplistic language estimated for H. habilis and H. erectus (from The Ape That Spoke I've quoted). dhw is not taking into account the totality of the picture presented in the large-gapped human evolution. Stimulation of brain size by attempting new practices would result in tiny changes between new species. Of course a new size implies a causing mechanism. dhw can't find one. I posit God. so we are on opposite sides of his picket fence.

Look at the capacity of the brain with language: first spoken words by honinins, the modern complex language,perhaps 50,000 years ago, then symbols of alphabet (recent), then reading and writing, all of which the brain quickly accommodates as these concepts are developed. And even the development of 'click' languages of the Kalahari desert of Africa, or now the study on whistled languages:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170525-the-people-who-speak-in-whistles

If you are ever lucky enough to visit the foothills of the Himalayas, you may hear a remarkable duet ringing through the forest. To the untrained ear, it might sound like musicians warming up a strange instrument. In reality, the enchanting melody is the sound of two lovers talking in a secret, whistled language.

Joining just a handful of other communities, the Hmong people can speak in whistles. The sounds normally allow farmers to chat across their fields and hunters to call to each in their forest. But their language is perhaps most beautifully expressed during a now rarely-performed act of courtship, when boys wander through the nearby villages at nightfall, whistling their favourite poems between the houses. If a girl responds, the couple then start a flirty dialogue.

***
The practice not only highlights humanity’s amazing linguistic diversity; it may also help us to understand the limits of human communication. In most languages, whistles are used for little more than calling attention; they seem too simple to carry much meaning. But Meyer has now identified more than 70 groups across the world who can use whistles to express themselves with all the flexibility of normal speech.

These mysterious languages demonstrate the brain’s astonishing capacity to decode information from new signals – with insights that are causing some neuroscientists to rethink the fundamental organisation of the brain. The research may even shed light on the emergence of language itself. According to one hypothesis, our first words may have sounded something like the Hmong’s courtship songs. (my bold)

***
whistled signals could have begun as a musical protolanguage, and as they became more complex and imbued with meaning, they could have also helped coordinate hunting and foraging. After all, Meyer’s research certainly suggests that whistling is ideal for communicating over distance and avoiding the attention of predators and prey – advantages that would have helped our ancestors’ survival. Later on, we could have gained control of our vocal chords too, but the whistled languages continued to be a small but crucial element of humanity’s overall repertoire.

Comment: Recall the development of the human voice tract I've covered in the past and note my bolded sentence above. There are a complexity of changes in these human gaps in evolution which required both the humanoid and his brain to learn to use and coordinate together. To me from all I've read, size first, use second. To use a tube reminder sign, mind the gap!

14416 views

dhw: On 25 May you wrote: “I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level.” Now you say your level is advanced and approaches God’s, and clearly your dog has a lower level. So what did you mean by your statement on 25 May?
DAVID: My May 25th statement means my brain receives consciousness to use as one unit. My brain enlargers and becomes more complex from infanthood. As I grow from childhood and mold my personality and approach to life, I use my consciousness from simple thoughts to very complex. I developed learned processes, like the typing at this moment. Under the use of my consciousness my brain responds to develop new connections. The whole thing is seamless: me, self, brain, consciousness.

Not much to disagree with here. Let’s forget about the advanced/no advanced level contradiction, and focus on the big one. You have at last agreed that consciousness uses the brain and not the other way round, though with an unnecessary caveat:
dhw: So why won’t you just have done with it and agree that according to your own scheme of things, consciousness uses and changes the brain, and not the other way round?
DAVID: True, but it is under the seamless control of me!

No “but”. You have already agreed that “me” is your consciousness. We can now move to the question of enlargement.

dhw: You don’t seem to have recognized that this study shows usage influencing the brain, not the other way round. Once the brain had reached its optimum size, the changes had to be to the “wiring”, not to the size. The more “uses” we invent, the more complex the “wiring”. Yes, the large brain preceded all these newer uses, but what enlarged the brain in the first place?
DAVID: Exactly the point: If an enlarged brain came first with parts basically unused, because thoughts and activities hadn't been invented as yet, then its plasticity allowed for it to adapt as the mental discoveries advanced.

Pre-humans had brains, and if brains are plastic and conscious demands change them, as shown by the study, it is illogical to argue that the brain changed – whether by enlargement or by complexity - before there were demands.

dhw: …I can only ask as I did before, why would the process be reversed for early humans, with changes preceding concepts?
DAVID: The gaps in evolution firmly predict change first. use second.

The gaps cannot “predict” anything. We are trying to explain them, and as you so rightly observed: “This study shows the intimate interconnection of our developing 'self' and how our brain changes to accommodate the integration of experience and responses.” Same again: If our consciousness is independent of our brain (your belief – I remain neutral) and consciousness uses the brain, as you now agree, then the obvious conclusion is that consciousness caused the enlargement, just as it causes the complexifications.

DAVID: My size first, use second of the brain, still fits what I see as evolutionary history. H sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago with a big jump of 200 cc in brain size. No evidence of new use gradually prodding the plastic brain to change ...etc.

The “gradualness” of enlargement covers the growth from the earliest hominins to ourselves. If the different stages occurred as big jumps (= saltations), it makes no difference to the argument that the brain changes when consciousness makes new demands. We have already agreed many times that saltations are indeed a mystery and that there is no evidence for my hypothesis or for your own.

DAVID: Of course a new size implies a causing mechanism. dhw can't find one. I posit God. so we are on opposite sides of his picket fence.

As usual, you try to shift the argument to belief in God. I am not even discounting the possibility that the size of the brain IS the cause of enhanced consciousness (= materialism). I don’t know the cause of consciousness, whereas you think you do. I am simply pointing out that such a belief is a contradiction of your OWN belief that consciousness/the self (an independent entity which you envisage surviving into an afterlife) uses the brain. Neither belief excludes God anyway, but you are so fixed in your interpretation of his mind that you seem to think any other interpretation is atheistic!

Thank you for the post that follows, on the subject of language. It is fascinating, but makes not the slightest difference to the argument. You put the following in bold:

DAVID: These mysterious languages demonstrate the brain’s astonishing capacity to decode information from new signals – with insights that are causing some neuroscientists to rethink the fundamental organisation of the brain.

Nobody will deny the brain’s astonishing capacity to do all sorts of things. But if the brain is a RECEIVER according to your beliefs, it can only have changed when changes were needed in order to decode the information being sent by consciousness.

14394 views

DAVID: Exactly the point: If an enlarged brain came first with parts basically unused, because thoughts and activities hadn't been invented as yet, then its plasticity allowed for it to adapt as the mental discoveries advanced.

Pre-humans had brains, and if brains are plastic and conscious demands change them, as shown by the study, it is illogical to argue that the brain changed – whether by enlargement or by complexity - before there were demands.

You are skipping the fact that we have fossil skulls which give us brain sizes which large jumps in volume. We cannot know the brain complexity at each stage, but we can look at stone tools, use of fire, etc. to judge the level of brain use. Of course at each level of size brain plasticity responded to levels of thought and use from developed activities.

DAVID: The gaps in evolution firmly predict change first. use second.

dhw: The gaps cannot “predict” anything. We are trying to explain them, and as you so rightly observed: “This study shows the intimate interconnection of our developing 'self' and how our brain changes to accommodate the integration of experience and responses.” Same again: If our consciousness is independent of our brain (your belief – I remain neutral) and consciousness uses the brain, as you now agree, then the obvious conclusion is that consciousness caused the enlargement, just as it causes the complexifications.

These are not gradual changes in size, 200 cc at a time. And there is no evidence of major advanced uses of the brain until 10,000 years ago as our civilization suddenly advanced, finally taking advantage of our giant brain, which arrived 200,000 years ago.

DAVID: My size first, use second of the brain, still fits what I see as evolutionary history. H sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago with a big jump of 200 cc in brain size. No evidence of new use gradually prodding the plastic brain to change ...etc.

dhw: The “gradualness” of enlargement covers the growth from the earliest hominins to ourselves. If the different stages occurred as big jumps (= saltations), it makes no difference to the argument that the brain changes when consciousness makes new demands. We have already agreed many times that saltations are indeed a mystery and that there is no evidence for my hypothesis or for your own.

Once and for all there is no gradualness, no 'if' about the stages. Yes, saltations, which I think come from God. And not much use until 50,000 years ago with advanced language, and 45,000 years ago with cave art. Not like the use of today, which was allowed 200,000 years ago, but not taken advantage of.

DAVID: Of course a new size implies a causing mechanism. dhw can't find one. I posit God. so we are on opposite sides of his picket fence.

dhw: As usual, you try to shift the argument to belief in God. I am not even discounting the possibility that the size of the brain IS the cause of enhanced consciousness (= materialism). I don’t know the cause of consciousness, whereas you think you do. I am simply pointing out that such a belief is a contradiction of your OWN belief that consciousness/the self (an independent entity which you envisage surviving into an afterlife) uses the brain. Neither belief excludes God anyway, but you are so fixed in your interpretation of his mind that you seem to think any other interpretation is atheistic!

Well at least it is agnostic.

dhw: Thank you for the post that follows, on the subject of language. It is fascinating, but makes not the slightest difference to the argument. You put the following in bold:

DAVID: These mysterious languages demonstrate the brain’s astonishing capacity to decode information from new signals – with insights that are causing some neuroscientists to rethink the fundamental organisation of the brain.

dhw: Nobody will deny the brain’s astonishing capacity to do all sorts of things. But if the brain is a RECEIVER according to your beliefs, it can only have changed when changes were needed in order to decode the information being sent by consciousness.

Thank you. Of the brain's plastic abilities work intimately with consciousness.

14339 views

Dhw: Pre-humans had brains, and if brains are plastic and conscious demands change them, as shown by the study, it is illogical to argue that the brain changed – whether by enlargement or by complexity - before there were demands.
DAVID: You are skipping the fact that we have fossil skulls which give us brain sizes which large jumps in volume. We cannot know the brain complexity at each stage, but we can look at stone tools, use of fire, etc. to judge the level of brain use. Of course at each level of size brain plasticity responded to levels of thought and use from developed activities.

You are skipping the fact that in this same post I have discussed large jumps (saltations) and you have quoted and responded to my response below:

dhw: The “gradualness” of enlargement covers the growth from the earliest hominins to ourselves. If the different stages occurred as big jumps (= saltations), it makes no difference to the argument that the brain changes when consciousness makes new demands. We have already agreed many times that saltations are indeed a mystery and that there is no evidence for my hypothesis or for your own.
DAVID: Once and for all there is no gradualness, no 'if' about the stages. Yes, saltations, which I think come from God. And not much use until 50,000 years ago with advanced language, and 45,000 years ago with cave art. Not like the use of today, which was allowed 200,000 years ago, but not taken advantage of.

What do you mean by “not much use”? The first sapiens survived, didn’t they? And they used fire and tools and we don’t know what else in the way of language and other skills that enabled them to cope with their different environments.

There are two issues. 1) What caused the enlargement of the brain? 2) What caused all the advances humans have made over the last 200,000 years? You say we begin with an advanced form of God-given consciousness which you now agree uses the brain. According to the study you recommended, the brain changes according to the demands of consciousness. History: the brain grew larger by saltations. Implication: consciousness made demands…brain enlarged to cope with demands. Brain reached optimum size. Consciousness continued to come up with new concepts, and so the brain had to complexify in order to meet the new demands of consciousness. It could hardly be clearer, provided one believes in dualism and an afterlife as oneself.

QUOTE: These mysterious languages demonstrate the brain’s astonishing capacity to decode information from new signals – with insights that are causing some neuroscientists to rethink the fundamental organisation of the brain. (David’s bold)
dhw: Nobody will deny the brain’s astonishing capacity to do all sorts of things. But if the brain is a RECEIVER according to your beliefs, it can only have changed when changes were needed in order to decode the information being sent by consciousness.
DAVID: Thank you. Of the brain's plastic abilities work intimately with consciousness.

The intimate work consists in the plastic brain responding to the requirements of consciousness: since that is what is demonstrated by the study, it makes perfect sense that it would also apply to the enlargement of the brain until it reached its optimum size. I presume your thanks denote agreement, so why have you spent the first part of this post disagreeing?

14363 views

DAVID: Once and for all there is no gradualness, no 'if' about the stages. Yes, saltations, which I think come from God. And not much use until 50,000 years ago with advanced language, and 45,000 years ago with cave art. Not like the use of today, which was allowed 200,000 years ago, but not taken advantage of.

dhw: What do you mean by “not much use”? The first sapiens survived, didn’t they? And they used fire and tools and we don’t know what else in the way of language and other skills that enabled them to cope with their different environments.

There are two issues. 1) What caused the enlargement of the brain? 2) What caused all the advances humans have made over the last 200,000 years? You say we begin with an advanced form of God-given consciousness which you now agree uses the brain. According to the study you recommended, the brain changes according to the demands of consciousness. History: the brain grew larger by saltations. Implication: consciousness made demands…brain enlarged to cope with demands. Brain reached optimum size. Consciousness continued to come up with new concepts, and so the brain had to complexify in order to meet the new demands of consciousness. It could hardly be clearer, provided one believes in dualism and an afterlife as oneself.

Our brain arrived 200,000 years ago and in recent years has gotten a little smaller. That doesn't fit your concept of use driving a larger size, since in the past 10,000 years since agriculture arrived the use of the brain has tremendously expanded. The following study explains it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170526084524.htm

"Since it has been well-established that larger brain volume is associated with better cognitive performance, it was puzzling that cognitive performance shows a dramatic improvement from childhood to young adulthood at the same time that brain volume and cortical thickness decline.

"A new study ... may help resolve this puzzle, revealing that while volume indeed decreases from childhood to young adulthood, gray matter density actually increases. Their findings also show that while females have lower brain volume, proportionate to their smaller size, they have higher gray matter density than males, which could explain why their cognitive performance is comparable despite having lower brain volume. Thus, while adolescents lose brain volume, and females have lower brain volume than males, this is compensated for by increased density of gray matter.

***

"'Our findings also emphasize the need to examine several measures of brain structure at the same time. Volume and cortical thickness have received the most attention in developmental studies in the past, but gray matter density may be as important for understanding how improved performance relates to brain development.'"

The brain has the ability to increase density. Our highly used sapiens brain is shrinking under enormous new uses. No question, size first, use second with each 200cc jump.

DAVID: Thank you. Of the brain's plastic abilities work intimately with consciousness.

dhw: The intimate work consists in the plastic brain responding to the requirements of consciousness: since that is what is demonstrated by the study, it makes perfect sense that it would also apply to the enlargement of the brain until it reached its optimum size. I presume your thanks denote agreement, so why have you spent the first part of this post disagreeing?

Because what I conclude from the studies is opposite from you conclusions, which do not explain the small shrinkage in our brain size in the past 50,000 years.

14378 views

I think it should be clear that when a 200cc increase in size is mentioned, what that means should be visualized. The increase is roughly equivalent to a seven ounce glass of water. That is a big jump in brain volume. It doesn't reveal if complexity or density are increased in the newly enlarged brain, but its evolution involves coordination with skull growth to accommodate the new volume. Not a simple process.

14423 views

I think it should be clear that when a 200cc increase in size is mentioned, what that means should be visualized. The increase is roughly equivalent to a seven ounce glass of water. That is a big jump in brain volume. It doesn't reveal if complexity or density are increased in the newly enlarged brain, but its evolution involves coordination with skull growth to accommodate the new volume. Not a simple process.

We became civilized only 10,000 years ago as agriculture appeared and then intense civilization brought enormous uses of the brain. But our brain is slightly smaller in recent years. A current study looks at stone age shaping of stone tools at two ages and guesses at brain responses by looking at current subjects producing the stone tools:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508184905.htm

"By using highly advanced brain imaging technology to observe modern humans crafting ancient tools, an Indiana University neuroarchaeologist has found evidence that human-like ways of thinking may have emerged as early as 1.8 million years ago.

"The results, reported May 8 in the journal Nature Human Behavior, place the appearance of human-like cognition at the emergence of Homo erectus, an early apelike species of human first found in Africa whose evolution predates Neanderthals by nearly 600,000 years.

"'This is a significant result because it's commonly thought our most modern forms of cognition only appeared very recently in terms of human evolutionary history," said Shelby S. Putt, a postdoctoral researcher with The Stone Age Institute at Indiana University, who is first author on the study. "But these results suggest the transition from apelike to humanlike ways of thinking and behaving arose surprisingly early."

"The study's conclusions are based upon brain activity in modern individuals taught to create two types of ancient tools: simple Oldowan-era "flake tools" -- little more than broken rocks with a jagged edge -- and more complicated Acheulian-era hand axes, which resemble a large arrowhead. Both are formed by smashing rocks together using a process known as "flintknapping.'"

"Oldowan tools, which first appeared about 2.6 million years ago, are among the earliest used by humanity's ancestors. Acheulian-era tool use dates from 1.8 million to 100,000 years ago.

***

"The resulting brain scans revealed that visual attention and motor control were required to create the simpler Oldowan tools. A much larger portion of the brain was engaged in the creation of the more complex Acheulian tools, including regions of the brain associated with the integration of visual, auditory and sensorimotor information; the guidance of visual working memory; and higher-order action planning.

"'The fact that these more advanced forms of cognition were required to create Acheulean hand axes -- but not simpler Oldowan tools -- means the date for this more humanlike type of cognition can be pushed back to at least 1.8 million years ago, the earliest these tools are found in the archaeological record," Putt said. "Strikingly, these parts of the brain are the same areas engaged in modern activities like playing the piano.'"

Comment: H. erectus had a brain size of 900cc, and is showing development of an advancing human use of the brain at 1.8 million years ago. But Lucy is 3 million years ago at 400cc and the Oldowan tools did not require much brain activity at 2.8 million years ago and were made by H. habilis, who preceded H. erectus. Habilis brain size was 640cc. The brain was simply used until recently, and intensely in the past 10,000 years, but is slightly smaller. Based on the adolescent brain study quoted earlier, I would guess our brain is becoming more dense. Size first use second.

14336 views

dhw: The intimate work consists in the plastic brain responding to the requirements of consciousness: since that is what is demonstrated by the study, it makes perfect sense that it would also apply to the enlargement of the brain until it reached its optimum size. I presume your thanks denote agreement, so why have you spent the first part of this post disagreeing?
DAVID: Because what I conclude from the studies is opposite from you conclusions, which do not explain the small shrinkage in our brain size in the past 50,000 years.

You have now totally ignored all the previous arguments (repeated below) and are suddenly telling us that the current shrinking brain proves that the enlarged brain must have preceded the enhancement of consciousness. Why? It simply suggests that increased density is now more important than size.

DAVID: I think it should be clear that when a 200cc increase in size is mentioned, what that means should be visualized. The increase is roughly equivalent to a seven ounce glass of water. That is a big jump in brain volume. It doesn't reveal if complexity or density are increased in the newly enlarged brain, but its evolution involves coordination with skull growth to accommodate the new volume. Not a simple process.

Since nobody has yet come up with an explanation of how saltations (big jumps) work, I would have said the process must be extremely complex.

Comment: H. erectus had a brain size of 900cc, and is showing development of an advancing human use of the brain at 1.8 million years ago. But Lucy is 3 million years ago at 400cc and the Oldowan tools did not require much brain activity at 2.8 million years ago and were made by H. habilis, who preceded H. erectus. Habilis brain size was 640cc. The brain was simply used until recently, and intensely in the past 10,000 years, but is slightly smaller. Based on the adolescent brain study quoted earlier, I would guess our brain is becoming more dense. Size first use second.

I would also guess that our brain is becoming more dense. Clearly, therefore, size is not the causative factor in the advances of consciousness. If I were a dualist and an afterlifer, I would say that since consciousness/the self is separate from and survives the brain, which is only a receiver, and since consciousness uses and actually changes the brain, it is clear that consciousness provides the concepts, and the brain responds by changing itself – in the early days by way of enlargement, but later by way of densifying. And thanks to the brain’s plasticity, densifying makes size even less important – hence the slight shrinkage. And if I were a dualist, I would oppose any view that made the evolution of consciousness dependent on the growth of the brain. As a dualist, you have agreed with all of this. And yet suddenly, for no clear reason, you think a bit of shrinkage invalidates it all.

14391 views

DAVID: Because what I conclude from the studies is opposite from you conclusions, which do not explain the small shrinkage in our brain size in the past 50,000 years.

dhw: You have now totally ignored all the previous arguments (repeated below) and are suddenly telling us that the current shrinking brain proves that the enlarged brain must have preceded the enhancement of consciousness. Why? It simply suggests that increased density is now more important than size.

Increasing density is due to more complex use of a very responsive brain. Remember complex use started 10,000 years ago, with very simple use before then. The vast brain was there waiting for uses to appear. Now we see the new effect.

Comment: H. erectus had a brain size of 900cc, and is showing development of an advancing human use of the brain at 1.8 million years ago. But Lucy is 3 million years ago at 400cc and the Oldowan tools did not require much brain activity at 2.8 million years ago and were made by H. habilis, who preceded H. erectus. Habilis brain size was 640cc. The brain was simply used until recently, and intensely in the past 10,000 years, but is slightly smaller. Based on the adolescent brain study quoted earlier, I would guess our brain is becoming more dense. Size first use second.

dhw: I would also guess that our brain is becoming more dense. Clearly, therefore, size is not the causative factor in the advances of consciousness. If I were a dualist and an afterlifer, I would say that since consciousness/the self is separate from and survives the brain, which is only a receiver, and since consciousness uses and actually changes the brain, it is clear that consciousness provides the concepts, and the brain responds by changing itself – in the early days by way of enlargement, but later by way of densifying.

I would agree to all of this in a way, except the consciousness/me/self are the same and so I produce the uses and concepts which modify a brain that is already large and can handle the conceptual processes as they appear.

dhw: And thanks to the brain’s plasticity, densifying makes size even less important – hence the slight shrinkage. And if I were a dualist, I would oppose any view that made the evolution of consciousness dependent on the growth of the brain. As a dualist, you have agreed with all of this. And yet suddenly, for no clear reason, you think a bit of shrinkage invalidates it all.

Not at all. Shrinkage tells us the a highly used brain can become more dense and shrink and is simply a measure of the new usage. I've said in the past and again now, enlargement of the brain made it a better more competent receiver of consciousness. Size first, use second.

14388 views

dhw: You have now totally ignored all the previous arguments (repeated below) and are suddenly telling us that the current shrinking brain proves that the enlarged brain must have preceded the enhancement of consciousness. Why? It simply suggests that increased density is now more important than size.
DAVID: Increasing density is due to more complex use of a very responsive brain.

Precisely.

DAVID: Remember complex use started 10,000 years ago, with very simple use before then. The vast brain was there waiting for uses to appear. Now we see the new effect.

And still you ignore all the previous arguments, even though you acknowledge them again below! Yes the vast brain was waiting, and the question is what originally caused it to expand. The brain responds to usage. Concepts first, brain response second (dualistic view). The brain expanded through usage. Approx. 200,000 years ago, after approx. a couple of million years of saltatory enlargements through usage, it reached homo sapiens size and stopped growing. Subsequently usage resulted in densifying because otherwise the balloon would have burst.

dhw: If I were a dualist and an afterlifer, I would say that since consciousness/the self is separate from and survives the brain, which is only a receiver, and since consciousness uses and actually changes the brain, it is clear that consciousness provides the concepts, and the brain responds by changing itself – in the early days by way of enlargement, but later by way of densifying.
DAVID: I would agree to all of this in a way, except the consciousness/me/self are the same and so I produce the uses and concepts which modify a brain that is already large and can handle the conceptual processes as they appear.

There is no “except”. I am the one who keeps reminding you that consciousness/me/self are all the same. That is the essential element of your dualism which tells you that it is consciousness that modifies the receiver, and so it is only logical that enhanced consciousness caused the receiver to enlarge, and not enlargement that caused enhanced consciousness.

dhw: And if I were a dualist, I would oppose any view that made the evolution of consciousness dependent on the growth of the brain. As a dualist, you have agreed with all of this. And yet suddenly, for no clear reason, you think a bit of shrinkage invalidates it all.
DAVID: Not at all. Shrinkage tells us the a highly used brain can become more dense and shrink and is simply a measure of the new usage. I've said in the past and again now, enlargement of the brain made it a better more competent receiver of consciousness. Size first, use second.

Yes, shrinkage tell us that the brain can shrink, and usage makes it become more dense. And yes, enlargement made the brain a more competent receiver. Here once again is the dualistic sequence: usage leads to brain enlargement, but once the size has been fixed (say, 200,000 years ago) it already exists before the new thoughts arrive and require greater density instead of enlargement. Usage first, size second, further usage third, density fourth.

14361 views

DAVID: Remember complex use started 10,000 years ago, with very simple use before then. The vast brain was there waiting for uses to appear. Now we see the new effect.

dhw: And still you ignore all the previous arguments, even though you acknowledge them again below! Yes the vast brain was waiting, and the question is what originally caused it to expand. The brain responds to usage. Concepts first, brain response second (dualistic view). The brain expanded through usage. Approx. 200,000 years ago, after approx. a couple of million years of saltatory enlargements through usage, it reached homo sapiens size and stopped growing. Subsequently usage resulted in densifying because otherwise the balloon would have burst.

This is entirely backward. Compare brain size to known activity from archeological findings. Human activities were simplistic until 10,000 years ago, but advanced after each enlargement. Your approach totally ignores the jumps in size demonstrated by the fossils, and with each jump pre-human activity becomes a little more complex. The brain modifies itself by increasing complexity within size, and therefore density appears with the current shrinkage in size. Your dualistic view is not mine.

DAVID: I would agree to all of this in a way, except the consciousness/me/self are the same and so I produce the uses and concepts which modify a brain that is already large and can handle the conceptual processes as they appear.

dhw: There is no “except”. I am the one who keeps reminding you that consciousness/me/self are all the same. That is the essential element of your dualism which tells you that it is consciousness that modifies the receiver, and so it is only logical that enhanced consciousness caused the receiver to enlarge, and not enlargement that caused enhanced consciousness.

Based on my comments above, I find your analysis totally illogical. You are ignoring the gaps. Giant jumps in size with little advancement in use.

dhw: And if I were a dualist, I would oppose any view that made the evolution of consciousness dependent on the growth of the brain. As a dualist, you have agreed with all of this. And yet suddenly, for no clear reason, you think a bit of shrinkage invalidates it all.

DAVID: Not at all. Shrinkage tells us the a highly used brain can become more dense and shrink and is simply a measure of the new usage. I've said in the past and again now, enlargement of the brain made it a better more competent receiver of consciousness. Size first, use second.

dhw: Yes, shrinkage tell us that the brain can shrink, and usage makes it become more dense. And yes, enlargement made the brain a more competent receiver. Here once again is the dualistic sequence: usage leads to brain enlargement, but once the size has been fixed (say, 200,000 years ago) it already exists before the new thoughts arrive and require greater density instead of enlargement. Usage first, size second, further usage third, density fourth.

Your dualistic theory makes no sense. If Lucy's brain is about chimp size, what she uses it for is bipedalism. There isn't evidence of much more brain use. Tree dwelling still exists. What changes are the motor areas for walking. 600 cc's later we see stone tools, perhaps learned spear throwing. How much real mentation? Where is all the push for enlargement? Your approach implies a gradual enlargement. Not present in fossils. You are saying hominin thoughts were so explosive, the brain and skull simply jumped to a new use. Human history teaches us we had to learn to use our new big brain which has existed for 200,000 years. Important use started with modern language about 50,000 years ago, cave art, etc. Which brings up the point, when did building shelters start? not long ago, and that requires conceptual planning of structure. And the brain's response to all the new use is to shrink, not expand as you propose. What is true now has to be true with the early Homos. Not much use, no shrinkage, but sudden expansions, not explained by your theory.

14306 views

As you keep ignoring your own beliefs, I will summarize the argument so far, and then deal with the objections you keep raising.
According to you, body and mind are separate, and the mind is a piece of God’s consciousness which does all our thinking and which returns to God when the body dies, retaining its individual identity. This means that it is consciousness/the self that does the thinking and the brain is the receiver. We know that the brain changes its structure (densifying) in order to accommodate thought, and not the other way round. However, despite all of this, you believe that the enlargement of the receiver led to the complexification of thought, instead of complexified thought requiring and therefore producing the enlargement. I find this illogical in the context of the above beliefs.

DAVID: This is entirely backward. Compare brain size to known activity from archaeological findings. Human activities were simplistic until 10,000 years ago, but advanced after each enlargement.

We have no idea what our ancestors were thinking, because thought processes leave no archaeological traces, but we do have some products of their thought. What we know, for instance, is that our larger brained ancestors made tools. How do you know that the tools they used were not the products of thoughts that demanded new activities which in turn enlarged the brain? In other words, the receiver expanded to accommodate the demands of the generator. You make great play of the fact that the homo sapiens brain is approx. 200,000 years old, but there wasn’t much progress till 45,000 years ago (language) or 10,000 years ago with early civilizations. What does that prove? The apparent lack of progress is not explained by the theory that the receiver must be big before we can think big thoughts. Neither theory explains the apparent sluggishness. But yes, the receiver had reached its then optimum size, so instead of expanding (and bursting the balloon), it densified – a process we know involves thought (i.e. use of the brain) changing the brain, not the brain changing thought. Current shrinkage perhaps indicates the sheer efficiency of densifying – the extra volume is no longer required. I don’t know why you think shrinkage means brain size must precede enhanced consciousness.

Your other objection is that enlargement proceeded by saltations. We have agreed that this applies to many innovations throughout evolution, and nobody has yet explained them. Your hypothesis is a divine 3.8-billion-year programme or direct dabbling, and mine is a perhaps God-given intelligence which enables cell communities to cooperate in forming new structures. There is no proof for any of these hypotheses.

14379 views

dhw: According to you, body and mind are separate, and the mind is a piece of God’s consciousness which does all our thinking and which returns to God when the body dies, retaining its individual identity. This means that it is consciousness/the self that does the thinking and the brain is the receiver. We know that the brain changes its structure (densifying) in order to accommodate thought, and not the other way round. However, despite all of this, you believe that the enlargement of the receiver led to the complexification of thought, instead of complexified thought requiring and therefore producing the enlargement. I find this illogical in the context of the above beliefs.

The evidence I use is related to H. sapiens and its b rain. The stone age only disappeared recently yet our b rain was huge 200,000 years ago. We had to learn to use it. Not a great deal of mentation went on until recently. Not much internal drive to make it big in the earlier forms either. From their activities not much internal drive to make each size jump. They received a consciousness to work with, but had to learn how to develop it and use it. You are positing complex though when none existed to drive the enlargement.

DAVID: This is entirely backward. Compare brain size to known activity from archaeological findings. Human activities were simplistic until 10,000 years ago, but advanced after each enlargement.

dhw: We have no idea what our ancestors were thinking, because thought processes leave no archaeological traces, but we do have some products of their thought. What we know, for instance, is that our larger brained ancestors made tools. How do you know that the tools they used were not the products of thoughts that demanded new activities which in turn enlarged the brain?

Their tools were simple and their use lasted until 10,000 yea4w ago. Where is the drive for enlargement?

dhw: In other words, the receiver expanded to accommodate the demands of the generator. You make great play of the fact that the homo sapiens brain is approx. 200,000 years old, but there wasn’t much progress till 45,000 years ago (language) or 10,000 years ago with early civilizations. What does that prove? The apparent lack of progress is not explained by the theory that the receiver must be big before we can think big thoughts.

We had to learn to use it. You are frantically looking for an internal drive to cause enlargment, when none exists. Size first, use second, with the enlargement from a external source, God.

dhw: Neither theory explains the apparent sluggishness.

Mine does

dhw: But yes, the receiver had reached its then optimum size, so instead of expanding (and bursting the balloon), it densified – a process we know involves thought (i.e. use of the brain) changing the brain, not the brain changing thought. Current shrinkage perhaps indicates the sheer efficiency of densifying – the extra volume is no longer required. I don’t know why you think shrinkage means brain size must precede enhanced consciousness.

Because we had to use a process of learning how to use the brain ,and then with complex use it shrunk.

dhw: Your other objection is that enlargement proceeded by saltations. We have agreed that this applies to many innovations throughout evolution, and nobody has yet explained them. Your hypothesis is a divine 3.8-billion-year programme or direct dabbling, and mine is a perhaps God-given intelligence which enables cell communities to cooperate in forming new structures. There is no proof for any of these hypotheses.

Mine is much more logical. There has to be an external drive for evolution to proceed.

14374 views

dhw: According to you, body and mind are separate, and the mind is a piece of God’s consciousness which does all our thinking and which returns to God when the body dies, retaining its individual identity. This means that it is consciousness/the self that does the thinking and the brain is the receiver. We know that the brain changes its structure (densifying) in order to accommodate thought, and not the other way round. However, despite all of this, you believe that the enlargement of the receiver led to the complexification of thought, instead of complexified thought requiring and therefore producing the enlargement. I find this illogical in the context of the above beliefs.

DAVID: The evidence I use is related to H. sapiens and its brain. The stone age only disappeared recently yet our brain was huge 200,000 years ago. We had to learn to use it. Not a great deal of mentation went on until recently. Not much internal drive to make it big in the earlier forms either. From their activities not much internal drive to make each size jump. They received a consciousness to work with, but had to learn how to develop it and use it. You are positing complex thought when none existed to drive the enlargement.

How on earth do you know what our ancestors were thinking? The very fact that they used tools denotes highly complex thought. The earliest known throwing spears are 300,000 years old – long before the huge brain. But in any case, you continue to ignore your own beliefs which I have summarized above. Once more: how can you tell us that your God gave us a bit of his consciousness, that this consciousness/the self/you/me uses the brain and survives the death of the brain, is known to alter the density of the brain, and yet depends for its “mentation” on the size of the brain?

dhw: How do you know that the tools they used were not the products of thoughts that demanded new activities which in turn enlarged the brain?
DAVID: Their tools were simple and their use lasted until 10,000 years ago. Where is the drive for enlargement?

What do you mean by the “drive for enlargement”? The drive is for improvement, though you prefer complexity. Enlargement is the result of the drive for improvement, which requires recognition of the need or opportunity for change and the decision to act accordingly.
If I accepted dualism, I could not possibly argue that the large brain says to the self/consciousness “Find a use for me.” The self/consciousness would have to say to the brain, “I need/want to do this. Make it possible.” That is clearly shown by the process of densifying, and I am proposing that exactly the same process caused enlargement until the brain reached its (then) optimum size 200,000 years ago, after which consciousness used the brain by densifying it. As for homo sapiens not doing much for 190,000 years, I don’t know what they were thinking, or how much denser their brains became, or why they didn’t write books, invent computers, or mass produce chocolate. Perhaps they were too busy finding different ways to cope with their different environments. Or perhaps it just needed a few bright individuals with a bit of time on their hands to start asking questions nobody had ever asked before. What is your theory for the “delay”? “We had to learn to use it.” Yes, according to your beliefs, we use it and it does not use us. As the self/consciousness acquires more and more information (i.e. learns more and more), it demands more and more of the brain, and that is why the brain changes – initially in size, then for the last 200,000 years in density, as demonstrated.

dhw: Your other objection is that enlargement proceeded by saltations. We have agreed that this applies to many innovations throughout evolution, and nobody has yet explained them. Your hypothesis is a divine 3.8-billion-year programme or direct dabbling, and mine is a perhaps God-given intelligence which enables cell communities to cooperate in forming new structures. There is no proof for any of these hypotheses.
DAVID: Mine is much more logical. There has to be an external drive for evolution to proceed.

In my hypothesis, the drive is for improvement, and it is internal, and your God may have implanted it.

14370 views

DAVID: The evidence I use is related to H. sapiens and its brain. The stone age only disappeared recently yet our brain was huge 200,000 years ago. We had to learn to use it. Not a great deal of mentation went on until recently. Not much internal drive to make it big in the earlier forms either. From their activities not much internal drive to make each size jump. They received a consciousness to work with, but had to learn how to develop it and use it. You are positing complex thought when none existed to drive the enlargement.

dhw: How on earth do you know what our ancestors were thinking? The very fact that they used tools denotes highly complex thought. The earliest known throwing spears are 300,000 years old – long before the huge brain.

Sure Habilis was throwing spears. Involves eye and muscle coordination. How much advanced cogitation was required. Not much. Chimps can throw stones at humans in zoos, So?

dhw: But in any case, you continue to ignore your own beliefs which I have summarized above. Once more: how can you tell us that your God gave us a bit of his consciousness, that this consciousness/the self/you/me uses the brain and survives the death of the brain, is known to alter the density of the brain, and yet depends for its “mentation” on the size of the brain?

Do you think Erectus can do calculus. Did erectus have our degree of consciousness. When did humans build habitations, grow agricultural crops, form cooperative societies? In the past 10-20,000 years. 200,000 years ago little of the mentation I just described existed.

DAVID: Their tools were simple and their use lasted until 10,000 years ago. Where is the drive for enlargement?

dhw: What do you mean by the “drive for enlargement”? The drive is for improvement, though you prefer complexity. Enlargement is the result of the drive for improvement, which requires recognition of the need or opportunity for change and the decision to act accordingly.

How does a physical object like a brain create a drive for improvement without envisioning what the new brain would look like in advance, to jump the gap in size. You want some type of internal drive, and all I logically see is external drive, God.

If I accepted dualism, I could not possibly argue that the large brain says to the self/consciousness “Find a use for me.” The self/consciousness would have to say to the brain, “I need/want to do this. Make it possible.” That is clearly shown by the process of densifying, and I am proposing that exactly the same process caused enlargement until the brain reached its (then) optimum size 200,000 years ago, after which consciousness used the brain by densifying it. As for homo sapiens not doing much for 190,000 years, I don’t know what they were thinking, or how much denser their brains became, or why they didn’t write books, invent computers, or mass produce chocolate. Perhaps they were too busy finding different ways to cope with their different environments. Or perhaps it just needed a few bright individuals with a bit of time on their hands to start asking questions nobody had ever asked before. What is your theory for the “delay”?

Obvious. They had to learn how to use the big brain they were given. And once used more thoroughly, then it recently densified, as I said. Density indicates new intense use.

“We had to learn to use it.” Yes, according to your beliefs, we use it and it does not use us. As the self/consciousness acquires more and more information (i.e. learns more and more), it demands more and more of the brain, and that is why the brain changes – initially in size, then for the last 200,000 years in density, as demonstrated.

I said density is recent! Demonstrated by a shrinkage: "Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion."

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

DAVID: Mine is much more logical. There has to be an external drive for evolution to proceed.

dhw: In my hypothesis, the drive is for improvement, and it is internal, and your God may have implanted it.

I know.

14440 views

DAVID: You are positing complex thought when none existed to drive the enlargement.
dhw: How on earth do you know what our ancestors were thinking? The very fact that they used tools denotes highly complex thought. The earliest known throwing spears are 300,000 years old – long before the huge brain.
DAVID: Sure Habilis was throwing spears. Involves eye and muscle coordination. How much advanced cogitation was required. Not much. Chimps can throw stones at humans in zoos, So?

I am not talking about eye and muscle coordination but about technology, which requires highly complex thought.

World's Oldest Spears - Archaeology Magazine Archive
www.archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html
QUOTE: “The spears show design and construction skills previously attributed only to modern humans. "They are really high tech," says Hartmut Thieme of the Institut für Denkmalpflege in Hannover, who discovered them while excavating in advance of a rotary shovel digger used in the mine. "They are made of very tough Picea [spruce] trunk and are similarly carved." Their frontal center of gravity suggests they were used as javelins, says Thieme.”

DAVID: Do you think Erectus can do calculus. Did erectus have our degree of consciousness. When did humans build habitations, grow agricultural crops, form cooperative societies? In the past 10-20,000 years. 200,000 years ago little of the mentation I just described existed.

This is why you keep contradicting yourself. It was consciousness and not the big brain that devised calculus, and I'll bet the brain densified as a result, just as it would have expanded as a result of consciousness wanting to produce sophisticated weapons. See below regarding the 180-190,000-year gap.

DAVID: Their tools were simple and their use lasted until 10,000 years ago. Where is the drive for enlargement?
dhw: What do you mean by the “drive for enlargement”? The drive is for improvement, though you prefer complexity. Enlargement is the result of the drive for improvement, which requires recognition of the need or opportunity for change and the decision to act accordingly.
DAVID: How does a physical object like a brain create a drive for improvement without envisioning what the new brain would look like in advance, to jump the gap in size. You want some type of internal drive, and all I logically see is external drive, God.

I did not say the brain created the drive for improvement! The drive for improvement or survival is what underlies all adaptations and innovations, including the brain and its evolution, just as you argue that the drive for complexity does the same thing. See also my comment under “whale changes”.

Dhw: As for homo sapiens not doing much for 190,000 years, I don’t know what they were thinking, or how much denser their brains became, or why they didn’t write books, invent computers, or mass produce chocolate. Perhaps they were too busy finding different ways to cope with their different environments. Or perhaps it just needed a few bright individuals with a bit of time on their hands to start asking questions nobody had ever asked before. What is your theory for the “delay”?
DAVID: Obvious. They had to learn how to use the big brain they were given. And once used more thoroughly, then it recently densified, as I said. Density indicates new intense use.

So your question is why it took 180,000 years for homo sapiens to use and densify his brain once it had reached its then optimum size. I don’t know, and nor do you, but I have speculated in the passage you have quoted. We know that thought densifies the brain, and you believe that thought is the product of consciousness, not of the brain. And so we have a logical progression: thought changes the size of the brain as it makes more and more demands. The brain reaches a size beyond which the head and body would not be able to cope. The fact that it then took 180,000 or 190,000 years for consciousness to require more changes does not mean that until then all thought was engendered by the brain! At each stage of increased volume, you still have consciousness using and changing the brain and not the brain using and changing consciousness. “Learning to use it” in your dualistic framework can therefore only refer to the process whereby consciousness acquires more and more information from experience and from the brain (through our perceptions), and so makes more and more demands on the brain, which initially responds by expanding, and recently responds by densifying. For 180-190,000 years the brain size was adequate for the needs of homo sapiens, but for reasons unknown his consciousness then came up with new ideas and new demands, and so instead of the brain responding by enlargement, it responded by densifying. This all fits in perfectly with the dualistic belief that it is the mind that uses the body/brain and not the other way round. And it is no problem for those who believe in God, because they can say it was God who designed the process and the apparatus in the first place.

14426 views

dhw: World's Oldest Spears - Archaeology Magazine Archive
www.archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html
QUOTE: “The spears show design and construction skills previously attributed only to modern humans. "They are really high tech," says Hartmut Thieme of the Institut für Denkmalpflege in Hannover, who discovered them while excavating in advance of a rotary shovel digger used in the mine. "They are made of very tough Picea [spruce] trunk and are similarly carved." Their frontal center of gravity suggests they were used as javelins, says Thieme.”

I'm sure these spears developed by trial and error and our ancestors could do a bit of thinking and experimenting. This is practical conceptualization, n ot terribly advanced like the past 10,000 years.

dhw: This is why you keep contradicting yourself. It was consciousness and not the big brain that devised calculus, and I'll bet the brain densified as a result, just as it would have expanded as a result of consciousness wanting to produce sophisticated weapons.

You keep contradicting me by changing my concept of brain/consciousness interface. My brain and my thinking uses the mechanism of consciousness to develop calculus. My consciousness did not do it on its own.

DAVID: How does a physical object like a brain create a drive for improvement without envisioning what the new brain would look like in advance, to jump the gap in size. You want some type of internal drive, and all I logically see is external drive, God.

dhw: I did not say the brain created the drive for improvement! The drive for improvement or survival is what underlies all adaptations and innovations, including the brain and its evolution, just as you argue that the drive for complexity does the same thing. See also my comment under “whale changes”.

Again you push for an internal drive and I insist it is external, God.

DAVID: Obvious. They had to learn how to use the big brain they were given. And once used more thoroughly, then it recently densified, as I said. Density indicates new intense use.

dhw: So your question is why it took 180,000 years for homo sapiens to use and densify his brain once it had reached its then optimum size. I don’t know, and nor do you, but I have speculated in the passage you have quoted. We know that thought densifies the brain, and you believe that thought is the product of consciousness, not of the brain. And so we have a logical progression: thought changes the size of the brain as it makes more and more demands. The brain reaches a size beyond which the head and body would not be able to cope. The fact that it then took 180,000 or 190,000 years for consciousness to require more changes does not mean that until then all thought was engendered by the brain! At each stage of increased volume, you still have consciousness using and changing the brain and not the brain using and changing consciousness. “Learning to use it” in your dualistic framework can therefore only refer to the process whereby consciousness acquires more and more information from experience and from the brain (through our perceptions), and so makes more and more demands on the brain, which initially responds by expanding, and recently responds by densifying. For 180-190,000 years the brain size was adequate for the needs of homo sapiens, but for reasons unknown his consciousness then came up with new ideas and new demands, and so instead of the brain responding by enlargement, it responded by densifying. This all fits in perfectly with the dualistic belief that it is the mind that uses the body/brain and not the other way round. And it is no problem for those who believe in God, because they can say it was God who designed the process and the apparatus in the first place.

None of this fits my view of the brain/consciousness relationship as explained above. Whatever is your previously learned philosophic interpretation of dualism is getting in the way of understanding my concept, based on the brain as a receiver of a mechanism called consciousness, which none of us understand what it is or how it works, but we work with it constantly. It doesn't forcefully run my thoughts, I do.

200,000 yeaers ago H sapiens arrived with a brain perfectly capable of running their physical athletic affairs, handling a basic language and growing a cooperative society of hunter-gatherers in small groups. 50,000 years ago we think more complex language, 10,000 years ago agriculture, habitations not caves. 20,000 years ago the brain began to densify from the increasing use. It is completely obvious, size first and use second. And size came from God since it wasn't needed or used 200,000 years ago, but came to be used as we learned how to. Learning how to use it came naturally but took a long time. It was a process of discovery of what was available in planning and conceptualizing.

14518 views

dhw: World's Oldest Spears - Archaeology Magazine Archive
www.archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html
QUOTE: “The spears show design and construction skills previously attributed only to modern humans. "They are really high tech," says Hartmut Thieme of the Institut für Denkmalpflege in Hannover, who discovered them while excavating in advance of a rotary shovel digger used in the mine. "They are made of very tough Picea [spruce] trunk and are similarly carved." Their frontal center of gravity suggests they were used as javelins, says Thieme.”

DAVID: I'm sure these spears developed by trial and error and our ancestors could do a bit of thinking and experimenting. This is practical conceptualization, n ot terribly advanced like the past 10,000 years.

I am not comparing their achievements with ours. I am merely pointing out that long before homo sapiens there was “thinking and experimenting” far in advance of what chimps are capable of. And of course it was practical – so too are guns and rockets and bombs. Practical conceptualization is still conceptualization, and if conscious thought is the source of concepts, it would have led to earlier expansions of the brain, just as it now leads to densifying.

dhw: This is why you keep contradicting yourself. It was consciousness and not the big brain that devised calculus, and I'll bet the brain densified as a result, just as it would have expanded as a result of consciousness wanting to produce sophisticated weapons.
DAVID: You keep contradicting me by changing my concept of brain/consciousness interface. My brain and my thinking uses the mechanism of consciousness to develop calculus. My consciousness did not do it on its own.

You have now agreed several times that you, your thinking and your consciousness are all one, and according to YOUR concepts, this entity uses the brain and can exist independently of the brain. How else could you, your thinking, your consciousness survive the death of the brain, as is your stated belief?
In response to my attempt at summarizing the process you write:

DAVID: None of this fits my view of the brain/consciousness relationship as explained above. Whatever is your previously learned philosophic interpretation of dualism is getting in the way of understanding my concept, based on the brain as a receiver of a mechanism called consciousness, which none of us understand what it is or how it works, but we work with it constantly. It doesn't forcefully run my thoughts, I do.

Once again, you, your self, your mind, your consciousness, your thoughts are all one, according to your belief in an afterlife in which you, your self, your consciousness and your thoughts exist but your brain doesn’t. Yes, the brain is the receiver not the generator of thought. It has been demonstrated that thought changes the structure of the brain (densifying) and not the other way round. It therefore seems logical that the same process would apply to size – that thought led to size and size did not lead to thought.

DAVID: 200,000 years ago H sapiens arrived with a brain perfectly capable of running their physical athletic affairs, handling a basic language and growing a cooperative society of hunter-gatherers in small groups. 50,000 years ago we think more complex language, 10,000 years ago agriculture, habitations not caves. 20,000 years ago the brain began to densify from the increasing use. It is completely obvious, size first and use second. And size came from God since it wasn't needed or used 200,000 years ago, but came to be used as we learned how to. Learning how to use it came naturally but took a long time. It was a process of discovery of what was available in planning and conceptualizing.

I’m not disputing the first part of your comment, up until “20,000 years ago…”, but you are missing out all the stages that led to the brain of 200,000 years ago. This is why earlier conceptualizations are so important. Somewhere along the evolutionary line, we get a (God-given?) small brain. Let’s take that as our starting point. If consciousness (not the brain) is the source of conceptualization, and if thought influences the structure of the brain – as shown by the article you quoted – you would have had a sequence of expansions as consciousness came up with new ideas. Conscious use demands a bigger brain, i.e. use leads to expansion: use first, size second. 200,000 years ago, expansion ends. So yes of course that final size comes before all later uses of the brain, but each expansion has been the RESULT of conceptualization, not the CAUSE, because – according to you - the brain is only a receiver and not a generator. Having reached its maximum size, the brain is then used by you/consciousness according to whatever information it provides, and when it can no longer accommodate all the new thoughts of consciousness, it densifies.

May I now ask how you know that densification only began 20,000 years ago? If this is true and, to take one extremely important example, if human language really did emerge 50,000 years ago along with changes to the vocal tracts, I find it quite astonishing that there was no densifying or restructuring of the brain at that time. How has this been established?

14546 views

Only 100,000 humans survived:

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisavery/2017/06/04/when-too-little-co2-nearly-doome...

"During the last Ice Age, however, too little CO2 in the air almost eradicated mankind. That’s when the much-colder water in the oceans sucked most of the CO2 from the air. There were only about 180 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to today’s 400 ppm.

"The Ice Age’s combined horrors—intense cold, permanent drought, and CO2 starvation—killed most of the plants on earth. Only a few trees survived, in the mildest climates.Much of the planet’s grass turned to tundra, which is much less nourishing to the herbivores we depended on for food and fur. Cambridge University’s recent studies say that, worldwide, only about 100,000 humans were left alive when the current Interglacial warming mercifully began.

"The few surviving prey animals had to keep migrating to get enough food. That forced our ancestors to migrate with them, in temperatures that routinely fell to 40 degrees below zero (both Fahrenheit and Celsius). The Neanderthals had been living in warm caves protected from predators by fires at the cave mouths. They had hunted their prey by sneaking through the trees—which no longer existed. They apparently couldn’t adapt, and starved. Cambridge finds no signs of genocidal warfare.

"The most successful human survivors—who provided most of the DNA for modern Europeans—were nomads from the Black Sea region. The Gravettians had never had trees, so they invented mammoth-skin tents, held up by salvaged mammoth ribs. They also developed spear-throwers, to kill the huge mammoths from a safe distance. Most important, they tamed wolves into dogs, to protect their tents from marauders, to locate the game animals on the broad tundra, and to harry the prey into a defensive cluster. The scarcity of food in that Glacial Maximum intensified the wolves’ appreciation for the bones and bone marrow at the human camps. "

Comment: the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period Survival concepts are described in this article. Little else occupied our brain at that point. It must have become more complex faced with this degree of environmental adversity.

14623 views

More on the subject:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/

"The last ice age had intense cold, permanent drought and CO2 starvation – killed most of the plants on Earth. Only a few trees survived, in the mildest climates. Much of the planet’s grass turned to tundra, which is much less nourishing to the herbivores prehistoric humans depended on for food and fur. Recent Cambridge University studies conclude that only about 100,000 humans were left alive worldwide when the current interglacial warming mercifully began.

"The few surviving prey animals had to keep migrating to get enough food. That forced our ancestors to migrate with them, in temperatures that routinely fell to 40 degrees below zero (both Fahrenheit and Celsius). The Neanderthals had been living in relatively warm caves protected from predators by fires at the cave mouths. They had hunted their prey by sneaking through the trees – which no longer existed. They apparently couldn’t adapt, and starved. Cambridge found no evidence of genocidal warfare.

"The most successful human survivors – who provided most of the DNA for modern Europeans – were nomads from the Black Sea region. The Gravettians had never had trees, so they invented mammoth-skin tents, held up by salvaged mammoth ribs. They also developed spear-throwers, to kill the huge beasts from a safe distance.

"Equally important, Gravettians domesticated and bred wolves, to protect their tents from marauders, locate game animals on the broad tundra, and harry the prey into defensive clusters for easier killing. The scarcity of food in that Glacial Maximum intensified the dogs’ appreciation for the bones and bone marrow at the human camps.

"When that Ice Age ended, moreover, CO2 changes didn’t lead the warming. The atmospheric CO2 only began to recover about 800 years after the warming started.

***

"Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.

***

"Human numbers, moreover, expanded strongly during the Holocene Optimum, with temperatures 4 degrees C higher than today! Even now, residents of the tropics keep demonstrating that humans can tolerate much higher temperatures than most of us experience. (As we utilize the new malaria vaccine, the tropics will prosper even more.) And far more people die from “too cold” than from “too warm.'”

Comment: Global warming worries are shown to be scientifically stupid:

"Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had already pointed out that the Paris CO2 emission promises would cost $100 trillion dollars that no one has, and make only a 0.05 degree difference in Earth’s 2100 AD temperature. Others say perhaps a 0.2 degree C (0.3 degrees F) difference, and even that would hold only in the highly unlikely event that all parties actually kept their voluntary pledges."

14367 views

In response to my attempt at summarizing the process you write:

DAVID: None of this fits my view of the brain/consciousness relationship as explained above. Whatever is your previously learned philosophic interpretation of dualism is getting in the way of understanding my concept, based on the brain as a receiver of a mechanism called consciousness, which none of us understand what it is or how it works, but we work with it constantly. It doesn't forcefully run my thoughts, I do.

dhw: Once again, you, your self, your mind, your consciousness, your thoughts are all one, according to your belief in an afterlife in which you, your self, your consciousness and your thoughts exist but your brain doesn’t. Yes, the brain is the receiver not the generator of thought. It has been demonstrated that thought changes the structure of the brain (densifying) and not the other way round. It therefore seems logical that the same process would apply to size – that thought led to size and size did not lead to thought.

Thoughts did not cause a giant jump in size of 200cc to reach H. sapiens. Not that much thought was required at that time. Simple language and an athletic hunting lifestyle was not that complex. You are again hypothesizing an internal drive that makes no sense. We have no known proof of how speciation works except the historical record. I prefer an external drive, God.

dhw: I’m not disputing the first part of your comment, up until “20,000 years ago…”, but you are missing out all the stages that led to the brain of 200,000 years ago. This is why earlier conceptualizations are so important. Somewhere along the evolutionary line, we get a (God-given?) small brain. Let’s take that as our starting point. If consciousness (not the brain) is the source of conceptualization, and if thought influences the structure of the brain – as shown by the article you quoted – you would have had a sequence of expansions as consciousness came up with new ideas. Conscious use demands a bigger brain, i.e. use leads to expansion: use first, size second. 200,000 years ago, expansion ends. So yes of course that final size comes before all later uses of the brain, but each expansion has been the RESULT of conceptualization, not the CAUSE, because – according to you - the brain is only a receiver and not a generator. Having reached its maximum size, the brain is then used by you/consciousness according to whatever information it provides, and when it can no longer accommodate all the new thoughts of consciousness, it densifies.

The problem with your scenario is that jumps obviously preceded use. Each level of hominin lifestyle was more complex, after each jump.

dhw: May I now ask how you know that densification only began 20,000 years ago? If this is true and, to take one extremely important example, if human language really did emerge 50,000 years ago along with changes to the vocal tracts, I find it quite astonishing that there was no densifying or restructuring of the brain at that time. How has this been established?

You didn't see this entry: Saturday, June 03, 2017, 02:21 :

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

14430 views

DAVID: Whatever is your previously learned philosophic interpretation of dualism is getting in the way of understanding my concept, based on the brain as a receiver of a mechanism called consciousness, which none of us understand what it is or how it works, but we work with it constantly. It doesn't forcefully run my thoughts, I do.
dhw: Once again, you, your self, your mind, your consciousness, your thoughts are all one, according to your belief in an afterlife in which you, your self, your consciousness and your thoughts exist but your brain doesn’t. Yes, the brain is the receiver not the generator of thought. It has been demonstrated that thought changes the structure of the brain (densifying) and not the other way round. It therefore seems logical that the same process would apply to size – that thought led to size and size did not lead to thought.
DAVID: Thoughts did not cause a giant jump in size of 200cc to reach H. sapiens. Not that much thought was required at that time. Simple language and an athletic hunting lifestyle was not that complex. You are again hypothesizing an internal drive that makes no sense. We have no known proof of how speciation works except the historical record. I prefer an external drive, God.

I don’t know why you keep talking about internal and external drives when you know full well that my hypothesis allows for your God. You continue to ignore your own avowed belief that consciousness and the self can exist independently of the brain, which is only a receiver. If you truly believe this, I simply cannot understand how you can also believe that consciousness and the self are incapable of increased conceptualization until the receiver brain increases its size.

DAVID: The problem with your scenario is that jumps obviously preceded use. Each level of hominin lifestyle was more complex, after each jump.

That is the issue. If consciousness is the generator of concepts, each level of lifestyle would be a new concept, and for that new concept to become reality, it would require a change in the brain (initially size, and later densification). The concept would precede the implementation, just as reading and writing are the concept, and the implementation causes a change in the brain. Concept (of new lifestyle) first, brain change and implementation second.

dhw: May I now ask how you know that densification only began 20,000 years ago? If this is true and, to take one extremely important example, if human language really did emerge 50,000 years ago along with changes to the vocal tracts, I find it quite astonishing that there was no densifying or restructuring of the brain at that time. How has this been established?

DAVID: You didn't see this entry: Saturday, June 03, 2017, 02:21 :
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

I did see it, and it doesn’t answer my question. I understand perfectly well how science can measure the SIZE of the brain, but that doesn’t mean that there were no changes within the brain before it started shrinking. Perhaps this is a problem of semantics, though. I do not see densification as shrinkage but as complexification. If this is technically incorrect, then I’ll use the latter term. For example, the concept of killing prey with a throwable shaft that has a sharp tip would require a new use of brain and hands and various muscles in order to manufacture and use the shaft. Perhaps this would require an expansion of the brain (a leap), or alternatively there could be new wiring among existing cells (= densification/complexification), without expansion. It is this second scenario that I am asking about here – generally, not just in relation to tools: how can we know that once the brain had reached its homo sapiens size, there was no densification (complexification) during the 180,000 years that preceded shrinkage, e.g. during the evolution of language?

14377 views

DAVID: Thoughts did not cause a giant jump in size of 200cc to reach H. sapiens. Not that much thought was required at that time. Simple language and an athletic hunting lifestyle was not that complex. You are again hypothesizing an internal drive that makes no sense. We have no known proof of how speciation works except the historical record. I prefer an external drive, God.

dhw: I don’t know why you keep talking about internal and external drives when you know full well that my hypothesis allows for your God. You continue to ignore your own avowed belief that consciousness and the self can exist independently of the brain, which is only a receiver. If you truly believe this, I simply cannot understand how you can also believe that consciousness and the self are incapable of increased conceptualization until the receiver brain increases its size.

My thoughts come from the fact that chimps are conscious with their 400cc brain, but do not show evidence of consciousness. Consciousness appeared as brain size grew, and more complex use of the brain (based on demonstrated activities of daily living) appeared with each jump in brain size. In H sapiens full use appears to have taken place over 200,000 years, and caused the brain size to densify and shrink a little.

DAVID: The problem with your scenario is that jumps obviously preceded use. Each level of hominin lifestyle was more complex, after each jump.

dhw: That is the issue. If consciousness is the generator of concepts, each level of lifestyle would be a new concept, and for that new concept to become reality, it would require a change in the brain (initially size, and later densification). The concept would precede the implementation, just as reading and writing are the concept, and the implementation causes a change in the brain. Concept (of new lifestyle) first, brain change and implementation second.

You have it all backward as explained in my comment above.

dhw: May I now ask how you know that densification only began 20,000 years ago? If this is true and, to take one extremely important example, if human language really did emerge 50,000 years ago along with changes to the vocal tracts, I find it quite astonishing that there was no densifying or restructuring of the brain at that time. How has this been established?

DAVID: You didn't see this entry: Saturday, June 03, 2017, 02:21 :
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

dhw: I did see it, and it doesn’t answer my question. I understand perfectly well how science can measure the SIZE of the brain, but that doesn’t mean that there were no changes within the brain before it started shrinking. Perhaps this is a problem of semantics, though. I do not see densification as shrinkage but as complexification.

Of course density is result of complexification. Quite correct.

dhw: For example, the concept of killing prey with a throwable shaft that has a sharp tip would require a new use of brain and hands and various muscles in order to manufacture and use the shaft. Perhaps this would require an expansion of the brain (a leap), or alternatively there could be new wiring among existing cells (= densification/complexification), without expansion. It is this second scenario that I am asking about here – generally, not just in relation to tools: how can we know that once the brain had reached its homo sapiens size, there was no densification (complexification) during the 180,000 years that preceded shrinkage, e.g. during the evolution of language?

Of course there was a degree of complexification during the first 189,000 years of H sapiens, but a critical mass of complexity to cause densification only came 11,700 years ago. And since then the brain has been used in massive new ways. Civilization as we know it is less than 10,000 years old!

14353 views

A Dead Sea core analysis going back 220,000 years covers the time of H. sapiens. Evidence about the past 11,500 years uncovered:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-earliest-manmade-climate-years.html

"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century have been due to human activities. A new Tel Aviv University study has uncovered the earliest known geological indications of manmade climate change from 11,500 years ago. Within a core sample retrieved from the Dead Sea, researchers discovered basin-wide erosion rates dramatically incompatible with known tectonic and climatic regimes of the period recorded.

"'Human impact on the natural environment is now endangering the entire planet," said Prof. Shmuel Marco, Head of TAU's School of Geosciences, who led the research team. "It is therefore crucial to understand these fundamental processes. Our discovery provides a quantitative assessment for the commencement of significant human impact on the Earth's geology and ecosystems." The results of the study were published in Global and Planetary Change.

***

"It took place as part of the Dead Sea Deep Drilling project, which harnessed a 1,500-foot-deep drill core to delve into the Dead Sea basin. The core sample provided the team with a sediment record of the last 220,000 years.

"The newly-discovered erosion occurred during the Neolithic Revolution, the wide-scale transition of human cultures from hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement. The shift resulted in an exponentially larger human population on the planet.

"'Natural vegetation was replaced by crops, animals were domesticated, grazing reduced the natural plant cover, and deforestation provided more area for grazing," said Prof. Marco. "All these resulted in the intensified erosion of the surface and increased sedimentation, which we discovered in the Dead Sea core sample."

"The Dead Sea drainage basin serves as a natural laboratory for understanding how sedimentation rates in a deep basin are related to climate change, tectonics, and man-made impacts on the landscape.

"'We noted a sharp threefold increase in the fine sand that was carried into the Dead Sea by seasonal floods," said Prof. Marco. "This intensified erosion is incompatible with tectonic and climatic regimes during the Holocene, the geological epoch that began after the Pleistocene some 11,700 years ago.'"

Comment: those past 11,500 years is when humans really discovered how to make the best use of their very large brain. This period is right after the end of the last glacial period.

14380 views

dhw: You continue to ignore your own avowed belief that consciousness and the self can exist independently of the brain, which is only a receiver. If you truly believe this, I simply cannot understand how you can also believe that consciousness and the self are incapable of increased conceptualization until the receiver brain increases its size.
DAVID: My thoughts come from the fact that chimps are conscious with their 400cc brain, but do not show evidence of consciousness. Consciousness appeared as brain size grew, and more complex use of the brain (based on demonstrated activities of daily living) appeared with each jump in brain size. In H sapiens full use appears to have taken place over 200,000 years, and caused the brain size to densify and shrink a little.

You could hardly make it clearer that you believe the (expanded) brain was the source of (expanded) consciousness. It may well have been. Congratulations on your decisive embrace of materialism. Unfortunately, this totally contradicts your other belief that consciousness is an entity separate from the brain and the body, comes from God (not from the brain, which is only a receiver), and returns to God complete with your identity once the brain and body are dead. You can only remove this contradiction if you argue that the jumps and complexities were the result and not the cause of increased consciousness.

dhw: For example, the concept of killing prey with a throwable shaft that has a sharp tip would require a new use of brain and hands and various muscles in order to manufacture and use the shaft. Perhaps this would require an expansion of the brain (a leap), or alternatively there could be new wiring among existing cells (= densification/complexification), without expansion. It is this second scenario that I am asking about here – generally, not just in relation to tools: how can we know that once the brain had reached its homo sapiens size, there was no densification (complexification) during the 180,000 years that preceded shrinkage, e.g. during the evolution of language?
DAVID: Of course there was a degree of complexification during the first 189,000 years of H sapiens, but a critical mass of complexity to cause densification only came 11,700 years ago. And since then the brain has been used in massive new ways. Civilization as we know it is less than 10,000 years old!

Thank you. The brain reached its maximum size 200,000 years ago, and apparently there was a degree of densification/complexification for 188,300 years, then an unexplained intensification of densification/complexification 11,700 years ago. (Wonderful language, this, and amazing mathematical precision!) Having already hung around for 188,300 years doing a “degree” of complexifying, the big brain can hardly have been the cause of the sudden intensification, so this can only have come about through an increase in consciousness which caused complexification because the brain could no longer expand in response to the uses which consciousness demanded of it. Ergo, increased consciousness does not depend on increased size of the brain. Go back to the beginning: just as increased consciousness causes complexification, it must also have caused expansion.

14360 views

DAVID: My thoughts come from the fact that chimps are conscious with their 400cc brain, but do not show evidence of consciousness. Consciousness appeared as brain size grew, and more complex use of the brain (based on demonstrated activities of daily living) appeared with each jump in brain size. In H sapiens full use appears to have taken place over 200,000 years, and caused the brain size to densify and shrink a little.

dhw: You could hardly make it clearer that you believe the (expanded) brain was the source of (expanded) consciousness. It may well have been. Congratulations on your decisive embrace of materialism. Unfortunately, this totally contradicts your other belief that consciousness is an entity separate from the brain and the body, comes from God (not from the brain, which is only a receiver), and returns to God complete with your identity once the brain and body are dead.

You have continued to completely misunderstand my theory. A larger brain as a receiver developed an expanded use of the consciousness mechanism (immaterial) because of its size and increased complexity. A smaller earlier brain could only use a smaller amount of consciousness. Use of consciousness is a learned process. Logical thinking is a learned process:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-test-data-many-colleges-fail-to-improve-critical...

"Freshmen and seniors at about 200 colleges across the U.S. take a little-known test every year to measure how much better they get at learning to think. The results are discouraging.
At more than half of schools, at least a third of seniors were unable to make a cohesive argument, assess the quality of evidence in a document or interpret data in a table, The Wall Street Journal found after reviewing the latest results from dozens of public colleges and universities that gave the exam between 2013 and 2016. (See full results.)
At some of the most prestigious flagship universities, test results indicate the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years."

dhw: You can only remove this contradiction if you argue that the jumps and complexities were the result and not the cause of increased consciousness.

Opposite to my belief. Larger brain receives more consciousness and learns to use it more extensively all through human evolution.

DAVID: Of course there was a degree of complexification during the first 189,000 years of H sapiens, but a critical mass of complexity to cause densification only came 11,700 years ago. And since then the brain has been used in massive new ways. Civilization as we know it is less than 10,000 years old!

dhw: Thank you. The brain reached its maximum size 200,000 years ago, and apparently there was a degree of densification/complexification for 188,300 years, then an unexplained intensification of densification/complexification 11,700 years ago. (Wonderful language, this, and amazing mathematical precision!) Having already hung around for 188,300 years doing a “degree” of complexifying, the big brain can hardly have been the cause of the sudden intensification, so this can only have come about through an increase in consciousness which caused complexification because the brain could no longer expand in response to the uses which consciousness demanded of it. Ergo, increased consciousness does not depend on increased size of the brain. Go back to the beginning: just as increased consciousness causes complexification, it must also have caused expansion.

Totally backward. The brain receives consciousness as a mechanism and learns to use it. Consciousness is barely present in a newborn. The 25 year old has a fully developed use of consciousness. The pattern is the same as in the appearance of H. sapiens 200,000 years ago. Look at your twins. The pattern is right in front of you.

14452 views

DAVID (under “before or after?”): Now we have our pre-sapiens conceptualizing their need for bigger brains so they can handle their lives a little better, or better than that a lot better. Bigger skull, bigger frontal lobe, please, and then mirabile dictu it appears!

No, no, no, no! The expansion is the result of mental exercise, just as muscle expansion is the result of physical exercise. Pre-sapiens conceptualized the spear, and this required new skills which could only be implemented by an addition to the brain (expansion). You drew attention to the following: “A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process….” The women said: “I want to read,” not: “I want to rewire my brain.” The “concept” was reading, and in implementing the concept, they changed the structure of the brain. Concept first, rewiring second. I am proposing that the same process resulted in the expansion of the brain, as in the spear example, with someone thinking: “I want to make a weapon,” not: “I want to enlarge my brain.” And when the brain had reached its maximum size, rewiring/complexification/ densification was the new way forward. (NB as usual, this does not in any way exclude your God, who may have designed the whole process.)

dhw: You could hardly make it clearer that you believe the (expanded) brain was the source of (expanded) consciousness. It may well have been. Congratulations on your decisive embrace of materialism. Unfortunately, this totally contradicts your other belief that consciousness is an entity separate from the brain and the body, comes from God (not from the brain, which is only a receiver), and returns to God complete with your identity once the brain and body are dead.
DAVID: You have continued to completely misunderstand my theory. A larger brain as a receiver developed an expanded use of the consciousness mechanism (immaterial) because of its size and increased complexity. A smaller earlier brain could only use a smaller amount of consciousness.

We are both wrestling with something immensely complex, and we are only dealing with one side of the materialism versus dualism debate! The basic question here is: do you believe the brain uses you/your consciousness, or do you/your consciousness use the brain? “You”, according to your beliefs, are your consciousness and not your brain, because the conscious “you” survives the death of the brain. This can only mean that you/your consciousness use your brain.

DAVID: Use of consciousness is a learned process. Logical thinking is a learned process:

Agreed, but according to your beliefs, it is not the brain that does the learning. That is done by “you”/your consciousness. How else could your consciousness survive the death of the brain along with everything that you/your consciousness have learned?

DAVID: The brain receives consciousness as a mechanism and learns to use it. Consciousness is barely present in a newborn. The 25 year old has a fully developed use of consciousness. The pattern is the same as in the appearance of H. sapiens 200,000 years ago. Look at your twins. The pattern is right in front of you.

Consciousness has to be conscious of something. A baby is born with a minimum of information – you might say that its consciousness is confined to its mother’s breast and its own bodily needs. As the brain matures, it provides more and more information (e.g. through the senses) which consciousness processes and uses, and consciousness in turn uses the brain to implement communication, decisions, actions resulting from its processing of the information. A 25-year-old has a fully developed brain, but I would question whether anyone in this wide world has a fully developed “use of consciousness”. The students in your example (too long to quote again) were incapable of critical thinking because their consciousness was not sufficiently developed, and not because their brains were not large enough. Had they learned to think critically, perhaps their brains would have undergone some rewiring, as with the illiterate women (whose rewiring was the result of their reading, not the cause).

14385 views

No, no, no, no! The expansion is the result of mental exercise, just as muscle expansion is the result of physical exercise. Pre-sapiens conceptualized the spear, and this required new skills which could only be implemented by an addition to the brain (expansion). You drew attention to the following: “A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process….” The women said: “I want to read,” not: “I want to rewire my brain.” The “concept” was reading, and in implementing the concept, they changed the structure of the brain. Concept first, rewiring second.

Concept first, rewiring second is correct,

dhw: I am proposing that the same process resulted in the expansion of the brain, as in the spear example, with someone thinking: “I want to make a weapon,” not: “I want to enlarge my brain.” And when the brain had reached its maximum size, rewiring/complexification/ densification was the new way forward.

We have no proof that thinking concepts enlarges the brain. What we have is a little used H. sapiens brain from 200,000 years ago finally being completely used in the past 10-12,000 years of real civilization and the brain densifies and shrinks, all the opposite of your struggling theory to find an internal drive, not an external change by God.

DAVID: You have continued to completely misunderstand my theory. A larger brain as a receiver developed an expanded use of the consciousness mechanism (immaterial) because of its size and increased complexity. A smaller earlier brain could only use a smaller amount of consciousness.

We are both wrestling with something immensely complex, and we are only dealing with one side of the materialism versus dualism debate! The basic question here is: do you believe the brain uses you/your consciousness, or do you/your consciousness use the brain? “You”, according to your beliefs, are your consciousness and not your brain, because the conscious “you” survives the death of the brain. This can only mean that you/your consciousness use your brain.

Yes, my brain receives a consciousness mechanism and I, through use of my brain, mold my consciousness to resemble and become my personality, me. It is all seamless once it begins as an infant.

DAVID: Use of consciousness is a learned process. Logical thinking is a learned process:

dhw: Agreed, but according to your beliefs, it is not the brain that does the learning. That is done by “you”/your consciousness. How else could your consciousness survive the death of the brain along with everything that you/your consciousness have learned?

Yes.

DAVID: The brain receives consciousness as a mechanism and learns to use it. Consciousness is barely present in a newborn. The 25 year old has a fully developed use of consciousness. The pattern is the same as in the appearance of H. sapiens 200,000 years ago. Look at your twins. The pattern is right in front of you.

dhw: Consciousness has to be conscious of something. A baby is born with a minimum of information – you might say that its consciousness is confined to its mother’s breast and its own bodily needs.

All the original conscious actions by a baby are automatic instinct, which it then learns to take charge of and control.

dhw: As the brain matures, it provides more and more information (e.g. through the senses) which consciousness processes and uses, and consciousness in turn uses the brain to implement communication, decisions, actions resulting from its processing of the information. A 25-year-old has a fully developed brain, but I would question whether anyone in this wide world has a fully developed “use of consciousness”. The students in your example (too long to quote again) were incapable of critical thinking because their consciousness was not sufficiently developed, and not because their brains were not large enough. Had they learned to think critically, perhaps their brains would have undergone some rewiring, as with the illiterate women (whose rewiring was the result of their reading, not the cause).

All true. There may be conceptual areas not yet explored by humans.

14340 views

Dhw: The women said: “I want to read,” not: “I want to rewire my brain.” The “concept” was reading, and in implementing the concept, they changed the structure of the brain. Concept first, rewiring second.
DAVID: Concept first, rewiring second is correct.

Thank you.

dhw: I am proposing that the same process resulted in the expansion of the brain, as in the spear example, with someone thinking: “I want to make a weapon,” not: “I want to enlarge my brain.” And when the brain had reached its maximum size, rewiring/complexification/ densification was the new way forward.
DAVID: We have no proof that thinking concepts enlarges the brain.

We have no proof that your God fiddled with the brain to enlarge it, or that the enlargement of the brain was the CAUSE of conceptualization, but you seem to believe it. And you may well be right, but that makes you a materialist. We do, however, have proof that “thinking concepts” causes changes to the brain, so why assume that 200,001+ years ago changes to the brain caused the thinking of concepts, and 200,000 years ago the process was reversed?

DAVID: What we have is a little used H. sapiens brain from 200,000 years ago finally being completely used in the past 10-12,000 years of real civilization and the brain densifies and shrinks, all the opposite of your struggling theory to find an internal drive, not an external change by God.

You make it sound as if your personal belief is somehow the default position! The densifying of the brain is living proof that thought precedes structural change, and so that is quite clearly an internal drive. It may have been devised by your God (the external force), just like the process of thought enlarging the brain. The fact that the brain had reached maximum size 200,000 years ago and thereafter needed to densify rather than expand offers us a seamless process of thought expanding and then densifying the brain. As above, your theory has the brain changing before it can conceptualize, and then suddenly you reverse the process and have conceptualization changing the brain. Not much logic in that. The rest of your post acknowledges the correctness of all my arguments, so in fact your only objection to my hypothesis is that it isn’t yours. As I keep reminding you, mine is the only one that conforms to your dualistic scenario in which consciousness/the self uses the brain and - crucially for your beliefs - survives its death. (But once more, I am not taking sides in the dualism versus materialism debate.)

14363 views

DAVID: We have no proof that thinking concepts enlarges the brain.

dhw: We have no proof that your God fiddled with the brain to enlarge it, or that the enlargement of the brain was the CAUSE of conceptualization, but you seem to believe it. And you may well be right, but that makes you a materialist.

Your statement is wrong as to my view. A larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear, if desired by the human using his brain. Not a cause, not required.

dhw: We do, however, have proof that “thinking concepts” causes changes to the brain, so why assume that 200,001+ years ago changes to the brain caused the thinking of concepts, and 200,000 years ago the process was reversed?

Again backwards. A big brain allows for more complexity of thought, but does not cause it. One must look at how the humans lived and what they were required to do to survive. Humans were still stone age until 10,000 years ago, and American Indians until 400 years ago when Eastern people arrived and showed them some differences! Little advanced meditation was required. Hunt, gather, interact in small groups, early religious thought, domestication of animals. The advanced thinking that began to appear has recently made the brain slightly smaller. One cannot turn that around because the recent change occurs within the same species, not a way to compare to the big jumps in size as hominins advanced to humans. That would imply small brain size changes in fossils as they advanced, not found.

DAVID: What we have is a little used H. sapiens brain from 200,000 years ago finally being completely used in the past 10-12,000 years of real civilization and the brain densifies and shrinks, all the opposite of your struggling theory to find an internal drive, not an external change by God.

dhw: You make it sound as if your personal belief is somehow the default position! The densifying of the brain is living proof that thought precedes structural change, and so that is quite clearly an internal drive. It may have been devised by your God (the external force), just like the process of thought enlarging the brain. The fact that the brain had reached maximum size 200,000 years ago and thereafter needed to densify rather than expand offers us a seamless process of thought expanding and then densifying the brain. As above, your theory has the brain changing before it can conceptualize, and then suddenly you reverse the process and have conceptualization changing the brain. Not much logic in that. The rest of your post acknowledges the correctness of all my arguments, so in fact your only objection to my hypothesis is that it isn’t yours.

A total mischaracterization of my view. See above.

14296 views

DAVID: We have no proof that thinking concepts enlarges the brain.
dhw: We have no proof that your God fiddled with the brain to enlarge it, or that the enlargement of the brain was the CAUSE of conceptualization, but you seem to believe it. And you may well be right, but that makes you a materialist.
DAVID: Your statement is wrong as to my view. A larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear, if desired by the human using his brain. Not a cause, not required.

What do you mean by “allow”? If, as you believe, consciousness and the self are entities that are independent of the brain, you cannot possibly mean that consciousness and the self are incapable of conceptualization without the brain. What the brain does “allow” is for concept to be translated into action, but this means the concept must come first. The illiterate women desired the complex concept of reading, and this RESULTED in their using and restructuring their brain. You are now saying that the big brain does not cause conceptualization, so what DOES it do? With all your references to the mysterious gap of 190,000 years (possibly now increased to 290,000 years), the answer seems to be that it does precious little. It is simply there. And presumably the brain saltations in pre-humans also served little or no purpose. Just God expanding the brain clump by clump up to the 200,000-year mark so that eventually, after another 190,000 years, homo sapiens would “learn to use” the final biggie, by which time it was inadequate! And then concepts came BEFORE structural change (densification)! All of this as you describe here:

DAVID: What we have is a little used H. sapiens brain from 200,000 years ago finally being completely used in the past 10-12,000 years of real civilization and the brain densifies and shrinks, all the opposite of your struggling theory to find an internal drive, not an external change by God.

dhw: You make it sound as if your personal belief is somehow the default position! The densifying of the brain is living proof that thought precedes structural change, and so that is quite clearly an internal drive. It may have been devised by your God (the external force), just like the process of thought enlarging the brain. The fact that the brain had reached maximum size 200,000 years ago and thereafter needed to densify rather than expand offers us a seamless process of thought expanding and then densifying the brain. As above, your theory has the brain changing before [consciousness] can conceptualize, and then suddenly you reverse the process and have conceptualization changing the brain. Not much logic in that.

DAVID: A total mischaracterization of my view. See above.

Is the rewiring not an internal drive (though perhaps the process was designed by your God)? Does conceptualizing not precede the rewiring? Is it not a reversal of this known process to say that enlargement must precede conceptualization?

14269 views

DAVID: Your statement is wrong as to my view. A larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear, if desired by the human using his brain. Not a cause, not required.

dhw: What do you mean by “allow”? If, as you believe, consciousness and the self are entities that are independent of the brain, you cannot possibly mean that consciousness and the self are incapable of conceptualization without the brain. What the brain does “allow” is for concept to be translated into action, but this means the concept must come first.

I view the brain as my tool to use consciousness. I invent my concepts in my brain using my consciousness. In the NDE, the non-functional brain releases the consciousness which then has experiences, and when the consciousness return to the brain, the brain is able to transmit to me what happened during the NDE.

dhw: The illiterate women desired the complex concept of reading, and this RESULTED in their using and restructuring their brain. You are now saying that the big brain does not cause conceptualization, so what DOES it do? With all your references to the mysterious gap of 190,000 years (possibly now increased to 290,000 years), the answer seems to be that it does precious little.

For some reason you are not following what I write. Read my first statement as an answer to your comment:

dhw: We have no proof that your God fiddled with the brain to enlarge it, or that the enlargement of the brain was the CAUSE of conceptualization, but you seem to believe it.

The use of the big brain had to learned and its use in conceptualization exloded in the past 12,000 years, and only then did the brain shrink.

dhw: It is simply there. And presumably the brain saltations in pre-humans also served little or no purpose. Just God expanding the brain clump by clump up to the 200,000-year mark so that eventually, after another 190,000 years, homo sapiens would “learn to use” the final biggie, by which time it was inadequate!

What was inadequate? It is perfectly adequate for us.

dhw: Is the rewiring not an internal drive (though perhaps the process was designed by your God)? Does conceptualizing not precede the rewiring? Is it not a reversal of this known process to say that enlargement must precede conceptualization?

The rewiring is recent once the brain is under much more complex use. 190,000 years of hunter-gatherer use and 12,000 years of much more complex use and then it shrinks. Why do you extrapolate backwards?

14303 views

DAVID: Your statement is wrong as to my view. A larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear, if desired by the human using his brain. Not a cause, not required.
dhw: What do you mean by “allow”? If, as you believe, consciousness and the self are entities that are independent of the brain, you cannot possibly mean that consciousness and the self are incapable of conceptualization without the brain. What the brain does “allow” is for concept to be translated into action, but this means the concept must come first.
DAVID: I view the brain as my tool to use consciousness. I invent my concepts in my brain using my consciousness. In the NDE, the non-functional brain releases the consciousness which then has experiences, and when the consciousness return to the brain, the brain is able to transmit to me what happened during the NDE.

But you are as usual ignoring your own professed belief that there is an afterlife, and when you die, your self and your consciousness will survive the death of your brain! This means that you and your consciousness are an entity, as you keep admitting and then somehow forgetting. So it is you/your consciousness that invent your concepts and use your brain as a tool. And in the NDE it can only be you/your consciousness that transmit to your brain what happened to you during the NDE so that you/your consciousness can instruct your brain to perform the actions needed in order to tell other people about it.

dhw: The illiterate women desired the complex concept of reading, and this RESULTED in their using and restructuring their brain. You are now saying that the big brain does not cause conceptualization, so what DOES it do? With all your references to the mysterious gap of 190,000 years (possibly now increased to 290,000 years), the answer seems to be that it does precious little.
DAVID: For some reason you are not following what I write. Read my first statement as an answer to your comment:

You are right, I cannot follow at all. Read my first statement in answer to your first statement.

DAVID: The use of the big brain had to learned and its use in conceptualization exloded in the past 12,000 years, and only then did the brain shrink.

I agree: consciousness/the self learns to use the brain. And so I would start with the brain, not the big brain. As consciousness increased, pre-humans and then humans learned to use their brains, which expanded in accordance with new demands (= concepts conceived by consciousness). 200,000 years ago, the brain reached its big brain maximum. An explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago required restructuring of the brain, but as it could not expand, the restructuring had to be internal complexification (rewiring), which actually reduced the necessity for “size”.

dhw: …It is simply there. And presumably the brain saltations in pre-humans also served little or no purpose. Just God expanding the brain clump by clump up to the 200,000-year mark so that eventually, after another 190,000 years, homo sapiens would “learn to use” the final biggie, by which time it was inadequate!
DAVID: What was inadequate? It is perfectly adequate for us.

The brain cannot expand any more, and so in order to accommodate new concepts it has to keep rewiring itself.

dhw: Is the rewiring not an internal drive (though perhaps the process was designed by your God)? Does conceptualizing not precede the rewiring? Is it not a reversal of this known process to say that enlargement must precede conceptualization?
DAVID: The rewiring is recent once the brain is under much more complex use. 190,000 years of hunter-gatherer use and 12,000 years of much more complex use and then it shrinks. Why do you extrapolate backwards?

You claim that brain enlargement preceded conceptualization, but shrinkage denotes that rewiring replaced enlargement, and we know rewiring follows on from conceptualization. Your scenario therefore has restructuring (enlargement) followed by conceptualization; then you have conceptualization followed by restructuring (rewiring) – a reversal of the process.

14278 views

DAVID: I view the brain as my tool to use consciousness. I invent my concepts in my brain using my consciousness. In the NDE, the non-functional brain releases the consciousness which then has experiences, and when the consciousness return to the brain, the brain is able to transmit to me what happened during the NDE.

dhw: But you are as usual ignoring your own professed belief that there is an afterlife, and when you die, your self and your consciousness will survive the death of your brain! This means that you and your consciousness are an entity, as you keep admitting and then somehow forgetting. So it is you/your consciousness that invent your concepts and use your brain as a tool. And in the NDE it can only be you/your consciousness that transmit to your brain what happened to you during the NDE so that you/your consciousness can instruct your brain to perform the actions needed in order to tell other people about it.

I am not forgetting that consciousness is an entity. It is me. And my brain is my tool to use my consciousness. I don't see your problem.

DAVID: For some reason you are not following what I write. Read my first statement as an answer to your comment:

dhw: You are right, I cannot follow at all. Read my first statement in answer to your first statement./

For some reason we are talking past each other.

DAVID: The use of the big brain had to learned and its use in conceptualization exloded in the past 12,000 years, and only then did the brain shrink.

dhw: I agree: consciousness/the self learns to use the brain. And so I would start with the brain, not the big brain. As consciousness increased, pre-humans and then humans learned to use their brains, which expanded in accordance with new demands (= concepts conceived by consciousness). 200,000 years ago, the brain reached its big brain maximum. An explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago required restructuring of the brain, but as it could not expand, the restructuring had to be internal complexification (rewiring), which actually reduced the necessity for “size”.

Right. The big brain of 200,000 years ago was not used like recently. Therefore when it appeared, it had lots of useful parts that had to learned to be used, specifically the frontal and prefrontal areas, which were the areas that had grown. The body function areas, the motor areas, the sensory areas, etc., were all in full function. Even now adolescents don't fully learn how to use those prefrontal areas until they are in their 20's.

DAVID: What was inadequate? It is perfectly adequate for us.

dhw: The brain cannot expand any more, and so in order to accommodate new concepts it has to keep rewiring itself.

Understood.

dhw: Is the rewiring not an internal drive (though perhaps the process was designed by your God)? Does conceptualizing not precede the rewiring? Is it not a reversal of this known process to say that enlargement must precede conceptualization?

DAVID: The rewiring is recent once the brain is under much more complex use. 190,000 years of hunter-gatherer use and 12,000 years of much more complex use and then it shrinks. Why do you extrapolate backwards?

dhw:You claim that brain enlargement preceded conceptualization, but shrinkage denotes that rewiring replaced enlargement, and we know rewiring follows on from conceptualization. Your scenario therefore has restructuring (enlargement) followed by conceptualization; then you have conceptualization followed by restructuring (rewiring) – a reversal of the process.

Exactly, and that is another reason I think evolution is over. The past had the brain enlarging for improvement as we went from hominin to Homo. Now with full size it shrinks as necessary for improvement..

14297 views

DAVID: I view the brain as my tool to use consciousness. I invent my concepts in my brain using my consciousness. In the NDE, the non-functional brain releases the consciousness which then has experiences, and when the consciousness return to the brain, the brain is able to transmit to me what happened during the NDE.
dhw: But you are as usual ignoring your own professed belief that there is an afterlife, and when you die, your self and your consciousness will survive the death of your brain! This means that you and your consciousness are an entity, as you keep admitting and then somehow forgetting. So it is you/your consciousness that invent your concepts and use your brain as a tool. And in the NDE it can only be you/your consciousness that transmit to your brain what happened to you during the NDE so that you/your consciousness can instruct your brain to perform the actions needed in order to tell other people about it.
DAVID: I am not forgetting that consciousness is an entity. It is me. And my brain is my tool to use my consciousness. I don't see your problem.

The claim that your brain transmitted to you what happened during the NDE was clearly topsy-turvy, since you/your consciousness had the experience and your brain wasn’t even there. However, the major problem was your statement that “a larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear.” This is somewhat ambiguous, but you have proposed that your God enlarged the brain and only then could humans come up with more complex concepts. That is the nub of this discussion. I would propose a different interpretation of “allow to appear”. Concepts are the product of the me/consciousness entity. That is clear from your view of the afterlife. But in order for them to “appear”, i.e. to take on form in the shape of words, actions, inventions, books etc. in our physical world, they require a brain. And so complex conceptualizations demand changes to the brain. It is not the pre-existing larger brain that allows me/consciousness to think new thoughts; it is new thoughts that demand a larger brain so that they can be transformed into sensory reality.

DAVID: The use of the big brain had to learned and its use in conceptualization exloded in the past 12,000 years, and only then did the brain shrink.
dhw: I agree: consciousness/the self learns to use the brain. And so I would start with the brain, not the big brain. As consciousness increased, pre-humans and then humans learned to use their brains, which expanded in accordance with new demands (= concepts conceived by consciousness). 200,000 years ago, the brain reached its big brain maximum. An explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago required restructuring of the brain, but as it could not expand, the restructuring had to be internal complexification (rewiring), which actually reduced the necessity for “size”.
DAVID: Right. The big brain of 200,000 years ago was not used like recently. Therefore when it appeared, it had lots of useful parts that had to learned to be used, specifically the frontal and prefrontal areas, which were the areas that had grown. The body function areas, the motor areas, the sensory areas, etc., were all in full function. Even now adolescents don't fully learn how to use those prefrontal areas until they are in their 20's.

We seem to be in agreement and yet not in agreement! Our fellow animals also have the areas you’ve listed, but presumably 200,000+ years ago we were already more self-aware and inventive than they were. (I’m again thinking of artefacts that require complex conceptualizations.) This is why I start with the brain and not with the larger brain. Conceptualization changes the brain. The brain does not anticipate conceptualization, and so pre-sapiens enlargement took place in stages, as needed by conceptualization, before it reached its maximum size. For 190,000 years, the maximum size could cope with any new concepts (you tell us there weren’t many), but then came the explosion and so in came densification.

dhw:You claim that brain enlargement preceded conceptualization, but shrinkage denotes that rewiring replaced enlargement, and we know rewiring follows on from conceptualization. Your scenario therefore has restructuring (enlargement) followed by conceptualization; then you have conceptualization followed by restructuring (rewiring) – a reversal of the process.
DAVID: Exactly, and that is another reason I think evolution is over. The past had the brain enlarging for improvement as we went from hominin to Homo. Now with full size it shrinks as necessary for improvement.

Whether evolution is over is another matter altogether, but I agree with the rest. However once more: if we are to be consistent (i.e. without the extraordinary reversal explained above), the enlargement takes place in response to conceptualization and not before it. Shrinkage is only a side effect because of the efficiency of densification, which just like enlargement occurs as a result of new concepts. But I like the word “improvement”, since I would regard this as just one example of how evolutionary complexity occurs because of the drive for improvement and not just for its own sake.

14362 views

dhw: The claim that your brain transmitted to you what happened during the NDE was clearly topsy-turvy, since you/your consciousness had the experience and your brain wasn’t even there.

Again you do not understand. My consciousness returns to my brain which is now again functional and the two entities interact and my brain now informs me of the NDE experience which the consciousness memory contains.

dhw: However, the major problem was your statement that “a larger brain allowed a more complex use of consciousness and therefore allowed complex conceptualizations to appear.” This is somewhat ambiguous, but you have proposed that your God enlarged the brain and only then could humans come up with more complex concepts. That is the nub of this discussion. I would propose a different interpretation of “allow to appear”. Concepts are the product of the me/consciousness entity. That is clear from your view of the afterlife. But in order for them to “appear”, i.e. to take on form in the shape of words, actions, inventions, books etc. in our physical world, they require a brain. And so complex conceptualizations demand changes to the brain. It is not the pre-existing larger brain that allows me/consciousness to think new thoughts; it is new thoughts that demand a larger brain so that they can be transformed into sensory reality.

Please see my discussion below. I have approached hominin brains as athletic brains solving the problems of survival as stone age hunter gatherers. The frontal and pre-frontal lobes are the conceptual areas, the rest of the brain is sensory and athletic. We got the big front end and started really using it 11,500 years ago.

DAVID: The use of the big brain had to learned and its use in conceptualization exloded in the past 12,000 years, and only then did the brain shrink.

dhw: I agree: consciousness/the self learns to use the brain. And so I would start with the brain, not the big brain. As consciousness increased, pre-humans and then humans learned to use their brains, which expanded in accordance with new demands (= concepts conceived by consciousness). 200,000 years ago, the brain reached its big brain maximum. An explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago required restructuring of the brain, but as it could not expand, the restructuring had to be internal complexification (rewiring), which actually reduced the necessity for “size”.

DAVID: Right. The big brain of 200,000 years ago was not used like recently. Therefore when it appeared, it had lots of useful parts that had to learned to be used, specifically the frontal and prefrontal areas, which were the areas that had grown. The body function areas, the motor areas, the sensory areas, etc., were all in full function. Even now adolescents don't fully learn how to use those prefrontal areas until they are in their 20's.

dhw: We seem to be in agreement and yet not in agreement! Our fellow animals also have the areas you’ve listed, but presumably 200,000+ years ago we were already more self-aware and inventive than they were. (I’m again thinking of artefacts that require complex conceptualizations.) This is why I start with the brain and not with the larger brain. Conceptualization changes the brain. The brain does not anticipate conceptualization, and so pre-sapiens enlargement took place in stages, as needed by conceptualization, before it reached its maximum size. For 190,000 years, the maximum size could cope with any new concepts (you tell us there weren’t many), but then came the explosion and so in came densification.

Generally we are close in your discussion. What I'm trying to get you to recognize is where brain growth occurred (frontal conceptual area), but was not actively used until recently and the brain densified and shrunk. Size first use second.

dhw:You claim that brain enlargement preceded conceptualization, but shrinkage denotes that rewiring replaced enlargement, and we know rewiring follows on from conceptualization. Your scenario therefore has restructuring (enlargement) followed by conceptualization; then you have conceptualization followed by restructuring (rewiring) – a reversal of the process.
DAVID: Exactly, and that is another reason I think evolution is over. The past had the brain enlarging for improvement as we went from hominin to Homo. Now with full size it shrinks as necessary for improvement.

dhw: Whether evolution is over is another matter altogether, but I agree with the rest. However once more: if we are to be consistent (i.e. without the extraordinary reversal explained above), the enlargement takes place in response to conceptualization and not before it. Shrinkage is only a side effect because of the efficiency of densification, which just like enlargement occurs as a result of new concepts. But I like the word “improvement”, since I would regard this as just one example of how evolutionary complexity occurs because of the drive for improvement and not just for its own sake.

200cc H. sapiens growth while working on the basic elements of survival. Not much drive for enlargement. Robert Wright's two books: Non-Zero and The Moral Animal which study mental development in Hunter-gatherers have deeply influenced me about survival and group dynamics development. All learned in the first 190,000 years before real civilization appeared. Size first, use second.

14315 views

dhw: The claim that your brain transmitted to you what happened during the NDE was clearly topsy-turvy, since you/your consciousness had the experience and your brain wasn’t even there.
DAVID: Again you do not understand. My consciousness returns to my brain which is now again functional and the two entities interact and my brain now informs me of the NDE experience which the consciousness memory contains.

Again you insist on separating consciousness from “me”, although in your previous post you assured me that you were “not forgetting that consciousness is an entity. It is me.” It was the entity of consciousness/you that experienced the afterlife and then returned to and informed your brain so that your physical person could inform others of your experience. Your brain did not inform you/your consciousness of what you/your consciousness had experienced!

DAVID: Generally we are close in your discussion. What I'm trying to get you to recognize is where brain growth occurred (frontal conceptual area), but was not actively used until recently and the brain densified and shrunk. Size first use second.

The fact that it was the frontal cortex which expanded makes no difference to the argument. The question is what caused expansion, and I can only go back to the point I made before: the brain grew by stages when it was needed by new concepts, though you try to downgrade the achievements of pre-sapiens (e.g.homo erectus’s use of tools and weapons, fire, cooking). We know from recent discoveries that the Neanderthals were far more advanced than homo erectus, with clear elements of what we like to call “civilization”. They certainly conceptualized, and used the resultant big brains (even bigger than ours) to implement their concepts. And early homo sapiens also used his own now maximum sized frontal cortex. The earliest cave paintings go back about 40,000 years, so how can you claim that the conceptual area was not actively used until 10-12,000 years ago? But when the now maximum–sized brain could not cope with all the “recent” conceptualizations, it densified instead of growing, and we know that densification comes as a RESULT of conceptualization, not as a precondition for it. Concepts first, size second, use of size third, new concepts fourth, new size fifth, new use sixth etc. until maximum size, use of maximum size, new concepts, densification and shrinkage. A direct chain of cause and effect.

However, none of this explains the origin of consciousness, and so the conflict between dualism and materialism remains unresolved.

14288 views

dhw: The claim that your brain transmitted to you what happened during the NDE was clearly topsy-turvy, since you/your consciousness had the experience and your brain wasn’t even there.
DAVID: Again you do not understand. My consciousness returns to my brain which is now again functional and the two entities interact and my brain now informs me of the NDE experience which the consciousness memory contains.

dhw: Again you insist on separating consciousness from “me”, although in your previous post you assured me that you were “not forgetting that consciousness is an entity. It is me.” It was the entity of consciousness/you that experienced the afterlife and then returned to and informed your brain so that your physical person could inform others of your experience. Your brain did not inform you/your consciousness of what you/your consciousness had experienced!

No separation: My consciousness (me) returned to my now functional brain after an NDE and my brain using my consciousness told me what happened during the NDE, which the brain was unaware of until the reconnection. This is where you get confused about how I look at this:

dhw: "Your brain did not inform you/your consciousness of what you/your consciousness had experienced!"

DAVID: Generally we are close in your discussion. What I'm trying to get you to recognize is where brain growth occurred (frontal conceptual area), but was not actively used until recently and the brain densified and shrunk. Size first use second.

dhw: The fact that it was the frontal cortex which expanded makes no difference to the argument. The question is what caused expansion, and I can only go back to the point I made before: the brain grew by stages when it was needed by new concepts, though you try to downgrade the achievements of pre-sapiens (e.g.homo erectus’s use of tools and weapons, fire, cooking). We know from recent discoveries that the Neanderthals were far more advanced than homo erectus, with clear elements of what we like to call “civilization”. They certainly conceptualized, and used the resultant big brains (even bigger than ours) to implement their concepts. And early homo sapiens also used his own now maximum sized frontal cortex. The earliest cave paintings go back about 40,000 years, so how can you claim that the conceptual area was not actively used until 10-12,000 years ago? But when the now maximum–sized brain could not cope with all the “recent” conceptualizations, it densified instead of growing, and we know that densification comes as a RESULT of conceptualization, not as a precondition for it. Concepts first, size second, use of size third, new concepts fourth, new size fifth, new use sixth etc. until maximum size, use of maximum size, new concepts, densification and shrinkage. A direct chain of cause and effect.

I views this as completely confused. Neanderthal brain size (slightly larger) appeared 350,000 ago or so. Their 'civilized behavior' is recent, not at that time. Cave art is 40,000 years ago, not 200,000 years ago. My reference to 12,000 years is an accepted time of real civilization with agriculture starting, followed by settlements, pictographs (Egyptian)alphabets, numerals and math, etc. Size first, use second.

dhw: However, none of this explains the origin of consciousness, and so the conflict between dualism and materialism remains unresolved.

Bigger brains, more useful consciousness, with each increase in frontal size, which was the major thrust of enlargement.

14302 views

DAVID: No separation: My consciousness (me) returned to my now functional brain after an NDE and my brain using my consciousness told me what happened during the NDE, which the brain was unaware of until the reconnection. This is where you get confused about how I look at this:
dhw: "Your brain did not inform you/your consciousness of what you/your consciousness had experienced!"

You keep agreeing that you and your consciousness are inseparable, and then you separate them again, with your brain “using” your consciousness (which is you) to tell you/your consciousness what you/your consciousness already know! It is you/your consciousness that know what happened, and it is you/your consciousness that inform the brain (so that it can organize passing on the information to other people's brains). The brain is unaware of what happened until it is informed by you/your consciousness.

dhw:. Concepts first, size second, use of size third, new concepts fourth, new size fifth, new use sixth etc. until maximum size, use of maximum size, new concepts, densification and shrinkage. A direct chain of cause and effect.
DAVID: I view this as completely confused. Neanderthal brain size (slightly larger) appeared 350,000 ago or so. Their 'civilized behavior' is recent, not at that time. Cave art is 40,000 years ago, not 200,000 years ago. My reference to 12,000 years is an accepted time of real civilization with agriculture starting, followed by settlements, pictographs (Egyptian) alphabets, numerals and math, etc. Size first, use second.

Yes, of course “use” (by which I mean the translation of concepts into material reality) follows size, but you are omitting concept and hence reducing three stages to two: concept, size, “use”. The big question is whether conceptualization precedes and therefore causes size, or size precedes and therefore causes conceptualization (but see below). The fact that conceptualization causes rewiring, and not the other way round, gives credence to your own belief that the mind (consciousness/the self) is separate from the brain, but it also gives credence to the proposal that conceptualization caused expansion, as opposed to expansion preceding conceptualization. I shan’t repeat the rest of the argument, except to say that my reference to the Neanderthals and to cave paintings was in response to your claim that brain growth “was not actively used until recently”. You have said that “recently” means 12,000 years (though the figure seems to vary with each post), but it is abundantly clear that the large brain was used long before that.

dhw: However, none of this explains the origin of consciousness, and so the conflict between dualism and materialism remains unresolved.
DAVID: Bigger brains, more useful consciousness, with each increase in frontal size, which was the major thrust of enlargement.

Back we go to the meaning of “use”. If you mean bigger brains gave rise to more complex concepts, then you are a materialist, but earlier you rejected this and said bigger brains “allowed” more complex concepts. This too was ambiguous, and I tried in vain to pin you down, so I’ll try once more. Your belief that consciousness and the self are inseparable and live on after death can only mean that conceptualization does not depend on the brain or its size. Yes or no? Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no?

14311 views

DAVID: No separation: My consciousness (me) returned to my now functional brain after an NDE and my brain using my consciousness told me what happened during the NDE, which the brain was unaware of until the reconnection. This is where you get confused about how I look at this:
dhw: "Your brain did not inform you/your consciousness of what you/your consciousness had experienced!"

dhw: You keep agreeing that you and your consciousness are inseparable, and then you separate them again, with your brain “using” your consciousness (which is you) to tell you/your consciousness what you/your consciousness already know! It is you/your consciousness that know what happened, and it is you/your consciousness that inform the brain (so that it can organize passing on the information to other people's brains). The brain is unaware of what happened until it is informed by you/your consciousness.

Still confused. I am inseparable from my consciousness, unless my brain is useless. In an NDE my consciousness survives and experiences whatever. Then my brain recovers, reconnects with my consciousness and the NDE new information is now transmitted to me as new knowledge. My dualism assumes that the brain interprets the consciousness mechanism when it returns. I use my brain as my organ of consciousness interpretation and thought.

dhw: Yes, of course “use” (by which I mean the translation of concepts into material reality) follows size, but you are omitting concept and hence reducing three stages to two: concept, size, “use”. The big question is whether conceptualization precedes and therefore causes size, or size precedes and therefore causes conceptualization (but see below). The fact that conceptualization causes rewiring, and not the other way round, gives credence to your own belief that the mind (consciousness/the self) is separate from the brain, but it also gives credence to the proposal that conceptualization caused expansion, as opposed to expansion preceding conceptualization.

Size first, conceptual use second. You keep ignoring my comments about the required brain use as a hunter gatherer. There is some small group societal integration concepts, but most of the brain use in Habilis and Erectus is about survival and involves the athletic control part of the brain, not the frontal and prefrontal cortex, present 200,000 to 350,000 years ago. When we begin to see glimmers of civilization is with language about 50,000 years ago, and after that cave art, simple jewelry, funerals, etc. Full use of the frontal area since then causes shrinkage from complex densification. Size first, use second.

DAVID: Bigger brains, more useful consciousness, with each increase in frontal size, which was the major thrust of enlargement.

dhw: Back we go to the meaning of “use”. If you mean bigger brains gave rise to more complex concepts, then you are a materialist, but earlier you rejected this and said bigger brains “allowed” more complex concepts. This too was ambiguous, and I tried in vain to pin you down, so I’ll try once more. Your belief that consciousness and the self are inseparable and live on after death can only mean that conceptualization does not depend on the brain or its size. Yes or no? Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no?

I'll repeat. I cannot have concepts without a functional brain interpreting the mechanism of consciousness which it receives. Dualism, two parts. I use my brain willfully entering my consciousness through the brain/consciousness mechanism. It is a two-way functional arrangement seamless as I experience it. 'Bigger brains' do not automatically give rise to more complex concepts. They allow me (all humans) to create them by my free will using the brain/consciousness relationship. The brain automatically densifies as I do it. Size first, use (concepts) second; obvious.

14254 views

DAVID: Still confused. I am inseparable from my consciousness, unless my brain is useless.

I don’t know what this means. According to your belief in an afterlife, you are inseparable from your consciousness at all times, with or without a brain.

DAVID: In an NDE my consciousness survives and experiences whatever. Then my brain recovers, reconnects with my consciousness and the NDE new information is now transmitted to me as new knowledge.

But you and your consciousness are inseparable! It is you/your consciousness that had the experience, so how can the experience be “transmitted” to you/your consciousness as new knowledge? The knowledge is new to the brain, which wasn’t there!

DAVID: My dualism assumes that the brain interprets the consciousness mechanism when it returns. I use my brain as my organ of consciousness interpretation and thought.

What do you mean by your “organ of consciousness”? You keep using these nebulous terms. If you/yourconsciousness survive the death of the brain, your dualism means that it is you/your consciousness who do the interpreting and the thinking (and conceptualizing), and the brain is the organ through which you/your consciousness communicate your interpretations and thoughts to others, and translate them into reality.

DAVID: Size first, conceptual use second.

What do you mean by “conceptual use”? Another of your nebulous terms. You say later: 'Bigger brains' do not automatically give rise to more complex concepts. They allow me (all humans) to create them by my free will using the brain/consciousness relationship.” Your free will is also inseparable from you/your consciousness! So what creates the concepts (complex or not), you or your brain? I put two very straightforward points to you last time: "Your belief that consciousness and the self are inseparable and live on after death can only mean that conceptualization does not depend on the brain or its size. Yes or no? Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no?" Why do you refuse to give me a straightforward yes/no answer?

DAVID: You keep ignoring my comments about the required brain use as a hunter gatherer etc. […] Size first, use second.

There is no need to repeat the history. Hunter-gatherers go back hundreds of thousands of years, as does the use of tools and weapons, and they entail conceptualization. Do you think concepts relating to survival are not concepts? What we do not know is why the cortex expanded in the first place. According to you, God dabbled, and only then did hominins and homos have their conceptualizations. According to my alternative hypothesis, their conceptualizations led to expansions up to 200,000 years ago. After that, the size was adequate to cope with any new concepts, but then around 12,000 years ago, as new concepts mushroomed, “use” as realization of concepts exceeded capacity, and densification (which we know is preceded by conceptualization) replaced expansion.

To summarize: If concepts are the product of you/your consciousness and precede realization of concepts (which surely even you will accept), then prior to 200,000 years ago it's concept first, size second, realization (= use of concepts) third. After 200,000 years ago, size is already there, so yes, it's chronologically size first, concepts AND realization second and third, because the brain did not need to change to densification until 188,000 years later!

14322 views

DAVID: Still confused. I am inseparable from my consciousness, unless my brain is useless.
DAVID: In an NDE my consciousness survives and experiences whatever. Then my brain recovers, reconnects with my consciousness and the NDE new information is now transmitted to me as new knowledge.

dhw: But you and your consciousness are inseparable! It is you/your consciousness that had the experience, so how can the experience be “transmitted” to you/your consciousness as new knowledge? The knowledge is new to the brain, which wasn’t there!

When my brain is not there, I am not there! Remember I'm unconscious in an NDE. My consciousness if off by itself having experiences which when my brain revives and can receive my consciousness, I then learn about the episode! Not before!

DAVID: My dualism assumes that the brain interprets the consciousness mechanism when it returns. I use my brain as my organ of consciousness interpretation and thought.

dhw: So what creates the concepts (complex or not), you or your brain?

I develop concepts by using my brain.

dhw: I put two very straightforward points to you last time: "Your belief that consciousness and the self are inseparable and live on after death can only mean that conceptualization does not depend on the brain or its size. Yes or no?

The ability to create complex concepts does depend on brain size in the frontal and pre-frontal areas

dhw: Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no

Yes.

DAVID: You keep ignoring my comments about the required brain use as a hunter gatherer etc. […] Size first, use second.

dhw:There is no need to repeat the history. Hunter-gatherers go back hundreds of thousands of years, as does the use of tools and weapons, and they entail conceptualization. Do you think concepts relating to survival are not concepts? What we do not know is why the cortex expanded in the first place. According to you, God dabbled, and only then did hominins and homos have their conceptualizations. According to my alternative hypothesis, their conceptualizations led to expansions up to 200,000 years ago. After that, the size was adequate to cope with any new concepts, but then around 12,000 years ago, as new concepts mushroomed, “use” as realization of concepts exceeded capacity, and densification (which we know is preceded by conceptualization) replaced expansion.

What you miss is 90% of the mushrooming (your term) is 12,000 years old, which gives no reason for the larger size back 200,000 years ago. Instead with heavy use the brain shrunk as it densified.

dhw: To summarize: If concepts are the product of you/your consciousness and precede realization of concepts (which surely even you will accept), then prior to 200,000 years ago it's concept first, size second, realization (= use of concepts) third.

Each successive hominin had jumps in size like the one you describe below. Size first concepts second with each jump.

dhw: After 200,000 years ago, size is already there, so yes, it's chronologically size first, concepts AND realization second and third, because the brain did not need to change to densification until 188,000 years later!

True for each jump since Lucy.

14315 views

dhw: But you and your consciousness are inseparable! It is you/your consciousness that had the experience, so how can the experience be “transmitted” to you/your consciousness as new knowledge? The knowledge is new to the brain, which wasn’t there!
DAVID: When my brain is not there, I am not there! Remember I'm unconscious in an NDE. My consciousness if off by itself having experiences which when my brain revives and can receive my consciousness, I then learn about the episode! Not before!

No, you are not there, but YOU are not unconscious! According to your beliefs, YOU and your inseparable consciousness are having the temporary experience of an afterlife in which YOU and your inseparable consciousness will live on without a brain. During your experience and during your afterlife, your brain and body lie uselessly on the operating table or in the ground. They are not you. And so in an NDE, it is you and your consciousness who return to the revived brain and tell it what happened, so that it can instruct the relevant parts of your body to inform other people about it.

DAVID: My dualism assumes that the brain interprets the consciousness mechanism when it returns. I use my brain as my organ of consciousness interpretation and thought.
dhw: So what creates the concepts (complex or not), you or your brain?
DAVID: I develop concepts by using my brain.

“Develop” is another of your ambiguities. First comes the creation of the concept, then comes the realization of the concept. You use the brain to realize it.

dhw: I put two very straightforward points to you last time: "Your belief that consciousness and the self are inseparable and live on after death can only mean that conceptualization does not depend on the brain or its size. Yes or no?
DAVID: The ability to create complex concepts does depend on brain size in the frontal and pre-frontal areas.

No need for “complex” here. Either the brain creates all concepts or it doesn’t. If concepts depend on the brain, do you believe that in your afterlife you will be incapable of conceptualization? Yes or no.

dhw: Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no
DAVID: Yes.

Thank you. We are halfway towards agreement.

DAVID: What you miss is 90% of the mushrooming (your term) is 12,000 years old, which gives no reason for the larger size back 200,000 years ago. Instead with heavy use the brain shrunk as it densified.

That is the whole point. The larger size was reached in stages as the brain responded to new concepts. 200,000 years ago it reached its maximum, which was able to cope until the explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago. Then came densification, which was the RESULT of conceptualization, not the cause.

dhw: To summarize: If concepts are the product of you/your consciousness and precede realization of concepts (which surely even you will accept), then prior to 200,000 years ago it's concept first, size second, realization (= use of concepts) third.
DAVID: Each successive hominin had jumps in size like the one you describe below. Size first concepts second with each jump.

You continue to ignore the fact that the process involves three stages: concept, interaction of consciousness with brain, realization of concept. As above, if conceptualization depends on the brain, you cannot have an afterlife in which your conscious self can conceptualize.

dhw: After 200,000 years ago, size is already there, so yes, it's chronologically size first, concepts AND realization second and third, because the brain did not need to change to densification until 188,000 years later!
DAVID: True for each jump since Lucy.

Precisely: each jump was caused by new concepts, and once the jump had been made, the size was adequate for subsequent realization of concepts until more complex concepts (now complexity is relevant) demanded new actions. Example: hominin X comes up with the concept of a spear, but this requires new manufacturing skills, new use of muscles, new calculations (e.g. weight and balance)…and in order to make concept into material reality the brain responds by expanding, whereas 12,000 years ago it had to respond by densifying.

14321 views

dhw: But you and your consciousness are inseparable! It is you/your consciousness that had the experience, so how can the experience be “transmitted” to you/your consciousness as new knowledge? The knowledge is new to the brain, which wasn’t there!
DAVID: When my brain is not there, I am not there! Remember I'm unconscious in an NDE. My consciousness if off by itself having experiences which when my brain revives and can receive my consciousness, I then learn about the episode! Not before!

dhw: No, you are not there, but YOU are not unconscious! According to your beliefs, YOU and your inseparable consciousness are having the temporary experience of an afterlife in which YOU and your inseparable consciousness will live on without a brain. And so in an NDE, it is you and your consciousness who return to the revived brain and tell it what happened, so that it can instruct the relevant parts of your body to inform other people about it.

Yes, But until my brain and consciousness reconnect, I have no knowledge of the episode.

DAVID: I develop concepts by using my brain.

dhw: “Develop” is another of your ambiguities. First comes the creation of the concept, then comes the realization of the concept. You use the brain to realize it.

Calculus had to be invented by two thinking humans. That is development.

DAVID: The ability to create complex concepts does depend on brain size in the frontal and pre-frontal areas.

dhw: No need for “complex” here. Either the brain creates all concepts or it doesn’t. If concepts depend on the brain, do you believe that in your afterlife you will be incapable of conceptualization? Yes or no.

I use my brain to create concepts. Probably my self/consciousness is static, unchanging in afterlife, but following the NDE findings, has experiences.

dhw: Consciousness/you therefore use the brain to translate concept into action. Yes or no
DAVID: Yes.

Thank you. We are halfway towards agreement.

DAVID: What you miss is 90% of the mushrooming (your term) is 12,000 years old, which gives no reason for the larger size back 200,000 years ago. Instead with heavy use the brain shrunk as it densified.

dhw: That is the whole point. The larger size was reached in stages as the brain responded to new concepts. 200,000 years ago it reached its maximum, which was able to cope until the explosion of concepts 12,000 years ago. Then came densification, which was the RESULT of conceptualization, not the cause.

The stages were a series of 200cc jumps, way more than the need for the simple concepts that developed until 12,000 years ago.

dhw: After 200,000 years ago, size is already there, so yes, it's chronologically size first, concepts AND realization second and third, because the brain did not need to change to densification until 188,000 years later!
DAVID: True for each jump since Lucy.

dhw: Precisely: each jump was caused by new concepts, and once the jump had been made, the size was adequate for subsequent realization of concepts until more complex concepts (now complexity is relevant) demanded new actions. Example: hominin X comes up with the concept of a spear, but this requires new manufacturing skills, new use of muscles, new calculations (e.g. weight and balance)…and in order to make concept into material reality the brain responds by expanding, whereas 12,000 years ago it had to respond by densifying.

I agree in order to develop new athletic ability and new manufacturing skills a more useful larger brain was needed. Therefore a new species with 200cc more was provided and that extra size allowed for the development of these newly required mental and physical skills. I'm still with God doing the speciation.

14307 views

dhw: According to your beliefs, YOU and your inseparable consciousness are having the temporary experience of an afterlife in which YOU and your inseparable consciousness will live on without a brain. And so in an NDE, it is you and your consciousness who return to the revived brain and tell it what happened, so that it can instruct the relevant parts of your body to inform other people about it.
DAVID: Yes, But until my brain and consciousness reconnect, I have no knowledge of the episode.

Of course you do! It was you and your inseparable consciousness that consciously lived through and remember the episode. That is the whole basis of your belief in an afterlife in which the brainless you is still you! But until the reconnection with the brain, you and your inseparable consciousness have no way of communicating your knowledge of the episode to other people.

DAVID: I develop concepts by using my brain.
dhw: “Develop” is another of your ambiguities. First comes the creation of the concept, then comes the realization of the concept. You use the brain to realize it.
DAVID: Calculus had to be invented by two thinking humans. That is development.

And if you/your consciousness are a separate entity from your brain, as you believe, and you/your consciousness do the thinking, the activity of the brain can only be in response to the thinking, because according to you the brain is the RECEIVER of consciousness.

dhw: Either the brain creates all concepts or it doesn’t. If concepts depend on the brain, do you believe that in your afterlife you will be incapable of conceptualization? Yes or no.
DAVID: I use my brain to create concepts. Probably my self/consciousness is static, unchanging in afterlife, but following the NDE findings, has experiences.

Conceptualizing means forming ideas. Some NDE patients return with a totally different attitude towards life, and if experiences change attitudes, then clearly they are the trigger for new ideas. Do you think you will have experiences in your afterlife without responding to them? How can you still be you and yet be a zombie? (But once again, I need to stress that I am not taking sides in the materialism versus dualism debate. I am only following through the logic of your own dualistic beliefs.)

dhw: […] each jump was caused by new concepts, and once the jump had been made, the size was adequate for subsequent realization of concepts until more complex concepts (now complexity is relevant) demanded new actions. Example: hominin X comes up with the concept of a spear, but this requires new manufacturing skills, new use of muscles, new calculations (e.g. weight and balance)…and in order to make concept into material reality the brain responds by expanding, whereas 12,000 years ago it had to respond by densifying.
DAVID: I agree in order to develop new athletic ability and new manufacturing skills a more useful larger brain was needed. Therefore a new species with 200cc more was provided and that extra size allowed for the development of these newly required mental and physical skills. I'm still with God doing the speciation.

In other words, the larger brain was needed in order to realize the concepts, just as rewiring is needed for more modern concepts. But rewiring is the result of the need, whereas you claim that enlargement is preparation for the need. It’s precisely the same argument as your claim that pre-whales and pre-humans underwent divine surgery before entering the water or descending from the trees, instead of responding to the demands or opportunities resulting from changes in the environment.

God has his role in both scenarios. In my proposal, he would have invented the mechanism through which organisms are able to change themselves by adaptation and/or invention according to need or opportunity. Legs to flippers/bent to upright AFTER entering the water/descending from the trees, until they reach their final form; larger brains AFTER new concepts until they reach their final size. Then densification when size is no longer adequate.

14241 views

DAVID: Yes, But until my brain and consciousness reconnect, I have no knowledge of the episode.

dhw: Of course you do! It was you and your inseparable consciousness that consciously lived through and remember the episode. That is the whole basis of your belief in an afterlife in which the brainless you is still you! But until the reconnection with the brain, you and your inseparable consciousness have no way of communicating your knowledge of the episode to other people.

Yes to your version. Or become aware of it to my wakened self.

dhw: And if you/your consciousness are a separate entity from your brain, as you believe, and you/your consciousness do the thinking, the activity of the brain can only be in response to the thinking, because according to you the brain is the RECEIVER of consciousness.

Yes to your version.

dhw: Either the brain creates all concepts or it doesn’t. If concepts depend on the brain, do you believe that in your afterlife you will be incapable of conceptualization? Yes or no.
DAVID: I use my brain to create concepts. Probably my self/consciousness is static, unchanging in afterlife, but following the NDE findings, has experiences.

dhw: Conceptualizing means forming ideas. Some NDE patients return with a totally different attitude towards life, and if experiences change attitudes, then clearly they are the trigger for new ideas.

But only after the NDE is over and subject to wakeful analysis.

dhw: Do you think you will have experiences in your afterlife without responding to them? How can you still be you and yet be a zombie?

Once settled into afterlife I don't think there are any new experiences, just some telepathic communication with others, without advancing concepts.

dhw: In other words, the larger brain was needed in order to realize the concepts, just as rewiring is needed for more modern concepts. But rewiring is the result of the need, whereas you claim that enlargement is preparation for the need. It’s precisely the same argument as your claim that pre-whales and pre-humans underwent divine surgery before entering the water or descending from the trees, instead of responding to the demands or opportunities resulting from changes in the environment.

Right. All an external drive from God.

dhw: God has his role in both scenarios. In my proposal, he would have invented the mechanism through which organisms are able to change themselves by adaptation and/or invention according to need or opportunity. Legs to flippers/bent to upright AFTER entering the water/descending from the trees, until they reach their final form; larger brains AFTER new concepts until they reach their final size. Then densification when size is no longer adequate.

So we are back to chance or design, only in your version God provides a magical inventive system that does all the amazing modifications by itself. Bigger brains BEFORE concepts from IM foresight. So design still must come from God by proxy.

14369 views

DAVID: Yes, But until my brain and consciousness reconnect, I have no knowledge of the episode.
dhw: Of course you do! It was you and your inseparable consciousness that consciously lived through and remember the episode. That is the whole basis of your belief in an afterlife in which the brainless you is still you! But until the reconnection with the brain, you and your inseparable consciousness have no way of communicating your knowledge of the episode to other people.
DAVID: Yes to your version. Or become aware of it to my wakened self.

No, your self was always awake, because otherwise it couldn’t have had the experience or instructed your wakened brain to communicate the episode to others.

dhw: And if you/your consciousness are a separate entity from your brain, as you believe, and you/your consciousness do the thinking, the activity of the brain can only be in response to the thinking, because according to you the brain is the RECEIVER of consciousness.
DAVID: Yes to your version.

Thank you. This must always be borne in mind during our discussion of conceptualization.

dhw: Either the brain creates all concepts or it doesn’t. If concepts depend on the brain, do you believe that in your afterlife you will be incapable of conceptualization? Yes or no.
DAVID: I use my brain to create concepts. Probably my self/consciousness is static, unchanging in afterlife, but following the NDE findings, has experiences.
dhw: Conceptualizing means forming ideas. Some NDE patients return with a totally different attitude towards life, and if experiences change attitudes, then clearly they are the trigger for new ideas.
DAVID: But only after the NDE is over and subject to wakeful analysis.

The wakeful analysis is done by your conscious self, which never slept. Once again: according to you, the awakened brain is only the receiver of the analysis.

dhw: Do you think you will have experiences in your afterlife without responding to them? How can you still be you and yet be a zombie?
DAVID: Once settled into afterlife I don't think there are any new experiences, just some telepathic communication with others, without advancing concepts.

I shudder to think of the unutterable boredom of an afterlife in which nothing new ever happens, but that is not the issue here. During the NDE, the patient did have new experiences which led to new concepts, and the brain played no role whatsoever in forming these because it was dead and knew nothing about them until it was resuscitated and informed by your conscious self.

dhw: In other words, the larger brain was needed in order to realize the concepts, just as rewiring is needed for more modern concepts. But rewiring is the result of the need, whereas you claim that enlargement is preparation for the need. It’s precisely the same argument as your claim that pre-whales and pre-humans underwent divine surgery before entering the water or descending from the trees, instead of responding to the demands or opportunities resulting from changes in the environment.
DAVID: Right. All an external drive from God.

The external drive would be your dabbling. What happened to preprogramming, which is an internal “drive” implanted by your God? Unless you think he personally reaches down and presses each individual switch in each individual organism for each individual change. An internal inventive intelligence (possibly designed by your God) is my equivalent of the internal preprogramming drive, but it is autonomous and not automated. It responds adaptively or creatively to current conditions, but does not look into a crystal ball.

dhw: God has his role in both scenarios. In my proposal, he would have invented the mechanism through which organisms are able to change themselves by adaptation and/or invention according to need or opportunity. Legs to flippers/bent to upright AFTER entering the water/descending from the trees, until they reach their final form; larger brains AFTER new concepts until they reach their final size. Then densification when size is no longer adequate.
DAVID: So we are back to chance or design, only in your version God provides a magical inventive system that does all the amazing modifications by itself. Bigger brains BEFORE concepts from IM foresight. So design still must come from God by proxy.

Chance versus design is not the issue, and the inventive system is not magical – it entails deliberate and calculated action, as organisms work out their own methods of coping with or exploiting the environment. And there is no foresight involved: organismal changes take place in response to the needs or opportunities that arise, e.g. bigger brains RESULTING from new concepts. But yes, the hypothesis allows for God being the designer of the whole system whereby cellular communities (including the brain) are able to restructure themselves in order to realize those new concepts.

14240 views

DAVID: Yes to your version. Or become aware of it to my wakened self.

dhw: No, your self was always awake, because otherwise it couldn’t have had the experience or instructed your wakened brain to communicate the episode to others.

Yes, agreed.

DAVID: But only after the NDE is over and subject to wakeful analysis.

The wakeful analysis is done by your conscious self, which never slept. Once again: according to you, the awakened brain is only the receiver of the analysis.

OK.

DAVID: So we are back to chance or design, only in your version God provides a magical inventive system that does all the amazing modifications by itself. Bigger brains BEFORE concepts from IM foresight. So design still must come from God by proxy.

dhw: Chance versus design is not the issue, and the inventive system is not magical – it entails deliberate and calculated action, as organisms work out their own methods of coping with or exploiting the environment. And there is no foresight involved: organismal changes take place in response to the needs or opportunities that arise, e.g. bigger brains RESULTING from new concepts. But yes, the hypothesis allows for God being the designer of the whole system whereby cellular communities (including the brain) are able to restructure themselves in order to realize those new concepts.

You have again skipped over the part of advanced planning for the large (Gould noted) gaps in the fossil record. God must have given a full planning outline to your style of an IM.

14360 views

DAVID: So we are back to chance or design, only in your version God provides a magical inventive system that does all the amazing modifications by itself. Bigger brains BEFORE concepts from IM foresight. So design still must come from God by proxy.
dhw: Chance versus design is not the issue, and the inventive system is not magical – it entails deliberate and calculated action, as organisms work out their own methods of coping with or exploiting the environment. And there is no foresight involved: organismal changes take place in response to the needs or opportunities that arise, e.g. bigger brains RESULTING from new concepts. But yes, the hypothesis allows for God being the designer of the whole system whereby cellular communities (including the brain) are able to restructure themselves in order to realize those new concepts.

DAVID: You have again skipped over the part of advanced planning for the large (Gould noted) gaps in the fossil record. God must have given a full planning outline to your style of an IM.

In my hypothesis, as I keep repeating, there is no advance planning. Innovation takes place as a RESPONSE to opportunities offered by the environment. The gaps in the fossil record are because of saltations. I don’t know what you mean by a “full planning outline”. You can’t even make up your mind to what extent your God controls environmental change, so there is a huge question mark over your own theory that he had everything fully planned in advance.

14271 views

DAVID: You have again skipped over the part of advanced planning for the large (Gould noted) gaps in the fossil record. God must have given a full planning outline to your style of an IM.

dhw: In my hypothesis, as I keep repeating, there is no advance planning. Innovation takes place as a RESPONSE to opportunities offered by the environment. The gaps in the fossil record are because of saltations. I don’t know what you mean by a “full planning outline”. You can’t even make up your mind to what extent your God controls environmental change, so there is a huge question mark over your own theory that he had everything fully planned in advance.

Again you are skipping the import of the giant gaps. The whale changes are so large they require advanced planning to coordinate all the new physiologic changes. You are again using the word 'saltations' as something magical. A saltation is a giant change requiring coordination of new parts and processes. It requires design by a planning mind. As for environmental changes I've said that God guides evolution. I'm sure the cyanobacteria which have no precursor are one of God's steps. Note my entry. Chicxulub is probably His giant snowball. I keep saying He is in charge. You invent deficiencies in my thinking, because I cannot be sure as to every detail of God's actions.

14383 views

I am transferring this from the cave thread to the big brain thread, as it is more appropriate.

dhw: Have palaeontologists proved that a 200 cc (average) increase occurred BEFORE improved artefacts appeared, as opposed to the appearance of improved artefacts coinciding with a 200 cc (average) increase?
DAVID: What paleontologists find is that with each change in frontal brain size the early homos do more complex things like stone tools, conquering fire, wearing hides, etc. Each step in size works this way.

But what they cannot tell us is whether the expansion took place BEFORE the new concepts or as a RESULT of new concepts requiring expansion before they could be realized (just as the brain rewires itself as a RESULT of new concepts).

dhw:I don’t understand your reference to shrinkage and smaller steps. I thought shrinkage only started to occur 12,000 years ago, when the maximum size had long since been reached, and so densification took over from enlargement.
DAVID: Increasingly intense use over the past 50,000 years resulted in densification and shrinkage when the usage of the plastic brain became intense enough. Early usage was obviously not that intense, and nothing happened except which each new +200cc fossil the obviously had more mental ability, which it then had to learn at that new stage.

“Usage” of the brain could refer to immaterial concepts or to material realization of concepts, so we need to distinguish between them. We could say our earlier ancestors had room for brain expansion, which took place as a RESULT of new concepts and enabled these concepts to be realized, but when there was no more room for expansion, new concepts RESULTED in densification, whose efficiency was such that the maximum size was no longer required - hence shrinkage. Logical?

dhw: We should also be quite clear about your own theory. Are you saying that at regular intervals, your God dabbled with the brain, increasing its volume by 200 cc (average), and only after each increase were humans able to come up with new concepts?
DAVID: Yes
dhw: If so, how does this fit in with your belief that concepts are the product of the conscious self, which is independent of and survives the death of the receiver brain?
DAVID: Because I view the brain as a material computer receiver of the software consciousness, and I am the operator of that setup…….

This does not alter the fact that you believe "you" and your inseparable consciousness ARE the operator and form an inseparable entity that conceptualizes independently of the brain.

DAVID:…just as you sit at your computer and compose thoughts to me. I know the software (consciousness) can separate from me in NDE's, and therefore at fully realized death. It all fits what we know.

You keep agreeing that consciousness is NOT separable from “me”, and now you want to separate it again (until NDEs and death)! If you/your consciousness are a separate entity from the brain and live on after the death of the brain, then you/your consciousness must be capable of conceptualizing without the brain, which at all times according to you is only a RECEIVER. This contradicts the claim that humans were unable to come up with new concepts until the brain expanded.

dhw: I’d better repeat that I am basing these arguments on YOUR beliefs. I remain undecided between dualism and materialism.
DAVID: I understand.
Thank you. I may eventually return to my attempts to find a compromise between the two.

14351 views

DAVID: What paleontologists find is that with each change in frontal brain size the early homos do more complex things like stone tools, conquering fire, wearing hides, etc. Each step in size works this way.

dhw: But what they cannot tell us is whether the expansion took place BEFORE the new concepts or as a RESULT of new concepts requiring expansion before they could be realized (just as the brain rewires itself as a RESULT of new concepts).

They can tell us indirectly. At each larger stage they study all the artifacts the new brain sized fossil produced as they survived. The newly invented stuff is always with the larger size, never before. Logically the bigger size produces the advances.

dhw:I don’t understand your reference to shrinkage and smaller steps. I thought shrinkage only started to occur 12,000 years ago, when the maximum size had long since been reached, and so densification took over from enlargement.

DAVID: Increasingly intense use over the past 50,000 years resulted in densification and shrinkage when the usage of the plastic brain became intense enough. Early usage was obviously not that intense, and nothing happened except which each new +200cc fossil the obviously had more mental ability, which it then had to learn at that new stage.

dhw: “Usage” of the brain could refer to immaterial concepts or to material realization of concepts, so we need to distinguish between them. We could say our earlier ancestors had room for brain expansion, which took place as a RESULT of new concepts and enabled these concepts to be realized, but when there was no more room for expansion, new concepts RESULTED in densification, whose efficiency was such that the maximum size was no longer required - hence shrinkage. Logical?

There are so few fossils, the only time we can see shrinkage is in the recent past and so he only example we have is H. sapiens. As I've stated above it is obvious size first use to produce new inventions second.

DAVID: Because I view the brain as a material computer receiver of the software consciousness, and I am the operator of that setup…….

dhw: This does not alter the fact that you believe "you" and your inseparable consciousness ARE the operator and form an inseparable entity that conceptualizes independently of the brain.

You keep missing the point. I have to use my brain directly as a physical part of me to operate with my consciousness which I view as software I receive and can reprogram to fit my personality, etc. I program my consciousness/software using my brain. It all must work together seamlessly.

dhw: You keep agreeing that consciousness is NOT separable from “me”, and now you want to separate it again (until NDEs and death)! If you/your consciousness are a separate entity from the brain and live on after the death of the brain, then you/your consciousness must be capable of conceptualizing without the brain, which at all times according to you is only a RECEIVER. This contradicts the claim that humans were unable to come up with new concepts until the brain expanded.

Explained above. The brain has plasticity to mold itself to my needs as I use my consciousness which it receives. I can only mold the contents of my consciousness through the operation of my brain as I think. No contradiction about size vs. use.

14287 views

DAVID: What paleontologists find is that with each change in frontal brain size the early homos do more complex things like stone tools, conquering fire, wearing hides, etc. Each step in size works this way.
dhw: But what they cannot tell us is whether the expansion took place BEFORE the new concepts or as a RESULT of new concepts requiring expansion before they could be realized (just as the brain rewires itself as a RESULT of new concepts).
DAVID: They can tell us indirectly. At each larger stage they study all the artifacts the new brain sized fossil produced as they survived. The newly invented stuff is always with the larger size, never before. Logically the bigger size produces the advances.

Of course it’s with the larger size. In your dualistic world, it was only by increasing the size that hominins and homos were able to REALIZE their concepts, i.e. produce the artefacts. As with rewiring (concept of reading…then rewire…then able to read) you have concept of artefact…expand brain…make artefact. This entry (under “fire and brain size”) epitomizes the dichotomy in your thinking:

QUOTE: Understanding when people mastered fire could help archaeologists figure out if and how it contributed to these major events in the evolution of the human body and mind. For example, did it really coincide with a jump in brain size, which would indicate it may have helped make us deep thinkers? (David’s bold)
David’s comment: Note that fire appears to be related to larger brains: how to control it and also, at the same time, how to feed a bigger brain. There is no getting around the fact that with larger brains hominins found better ways to support. With each size better ways. Size first use second, always.

The starting point here is the assumption that large brains make us into deep thinkers. You have even put it in bold. And it may well be true – I am not in a position to choose between dualism and materialism. But it is YOUR belief that the brain is NOT the source of our deep-thinking consciousness! This can only mean that the bigger brain is the TOOL of a separate entity of consciousness/self, and so each new size is the result of finding “better ways” which can only be implemented by changes to the brain (here, enlargement). If you believe that the mind/conscious self is a separate entity from the body and will survive the death of the body, you cannot at the same time claim that our deep thinking is impossible without our enlarged brain. In YOUR dualistic world it is the material realization/communication of our thoughts that requires the enlarged brain, not the enlarged brain that enables us to have our thoughts.

dhw: This does not alter the fact that you believe "you" and your inseparable consciousness ARE the operator and form an inseparable entity that conceptualizes independently of the brain.
DAVID: You keep missing the point. I have to use my brain directly as a physical part of me to operate with my consciousness which I view as software I receive and can reprogram to fit my personality, etc. I program my consciousness/software using my brain. It all must work together seamlessly.

I don’t know why you have decided to muddy the waters with all this talk of software and programming. You have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. Yes, you/your consciousness operate the brain. No, “you” do not “receive” your consciousness – according to you, it is the brain that receives the messages from you/your consciousness.

DAVID: The brain has plasticity to mold itself to my needs as I use my consciousness which it receives. I can only mold the contents of my consciousness through the operation of my brain as I think. No contradiction about size vs. use.

Yes, the brain has plasticity to mold itself to your needs, but if you/your consciousness are a separate entity which survives the death of the brain, you do not need the brain in order to develop your thoughts (mold the content of your consciousness). You only need it in order to communicate or realize your concepts in the material world of this life.

14305 views

David’s comment: Note that fire appears to be related to larger brains: how to control it and also, at the same time, how to feed a bigger brain. There is no getting around the fact that with larger brains hominins found better ways to support. With each size better ways. Size first use second, always.

dhw: The starting point here is the assumption that large brains make us into deep thinkers. You have even put it in bold. And it may well be true – I am not in a position to choose between dualism and materialism. But it is YOUR belief that the brain is NOT the source of our deep-thinking consciousness! This can only mean that the bigger brain is the TOOL of a separate entity of consciousness/self, and so each new size is the result of finding “better ways” which can only be implemented by changes to the brain (here, enlargement). If you believe that the mind/conscious self is a separate entity from the body and will survive the death of the body, you cannot at the same time claim that our deep thinking is impossible without our enlarged brain. In YOUR dualistic world it is the material realization/communication of our thoughts that requires the enlarged brain, not the enlarged brain that enables us to have our thoughts.

In my view only a very complex brain can use the mechanism of consciousness to the extent we now use it. The pattern of frontal love development allowed all of the complex conceptual thinking we do now. We start with a consciousness after birth with an empty slate and form its content and its use. It has to be learned.

dhw: This does not alter the fact that you believe "you" and your inseparable consciousness ARE the operator and form an inseparable entity that conceptualizes independently of the brain.
DAVID: You keep missing the point. I have to use my brain directly as a physical part of me to operate with my consciousness which I view as software I receive and can reprogram to fit my personality, etc. I program my consciousness/software using my brain. It all must work together seamlessly.

dhw: I don’t know why you have decided to muddy the waters with all this talk of software and programming. You have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. Yes, you/your consciousness operate the brain. No, “you” do not “receive” your consciousness – according to you, it is the brain that receives the messages from you/your consciousness.

No, I operate my consciousness through my brain. The computer analogy fits.

DAVID: The brain has plasticity to mold itself to my needs as I use my consciousness which it receives. I can only mold the contents of my consciousness through the operation of my brain as I think. No contradiction about size vs. use.

dhw: Yes, the brain has plasticity to mold itself to your needs, but if you/your consciousness are a separate entity which survives the death of the brain, you do not need the brain in order to develop your thoughts (mold the content of your consciousness). You only need it in order to communicate or realize your concepts in the material world of this life.

Yes!

14284 views

A theory about socialization:

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/06/19/humans_evolved_big_brains_to_keep_t...

"To truly understand how the brain maintains our human intellect, we would need to know about the state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, as well as the varying strengths with which they are connected, and the state of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point. Neurobiologist Steven Rose suggests that even this is not enough – we would still need know how these connections have evolved over a person’s lifetime and even the social context in which they had occurred. It may take centuries just to figure out basic neuronal connectivity.

***

"Of course, we can see many advantages in having a large brain. In my recent book on human evolution I suggest it firstly allows humans to exist in a group size of about 150. This builds resilience to environmental changes by increasing and diversifying food production and sharing.

"A social brain also allows specialisation of skills so individuals can concentrate on supporting childbirth, tool-making, fire setting, hunting or resource allocation. Humans have no natural weapons, but working in large groups and having tools allowed us to become the apex predator, hunting animals as large as mammoths to extinction.

"Our social groups are large and complex, but this creates high stress levels for individuals because the rewards in terms of food, safety and reproduction are so great. Hence, Oxford anthropologist Robin Dunbar argues our huge brain is primarily developed to keep track of rapidly changing relationships. It takes a huge amount of cognitive ability to exist in large social groups, and if you fall out of the group you lose access to food and mates and are unlikely to reproduce and pass on your genes.

"As our ancestors got smarter, they became capable of living in larger and larger groups. Mark Maslin, Author provided (See the diagram)

***

"It is the detailed knowledge of society and the need to track and control the ever changing relationship between people around us that has created our huge complex brain.

"It seems our brains could be even more flexible that we previously thought. Recent genetic evidence suggests the modern human brain is more malleable and is modelled more by the surrounding environment than that of chimpanzees. The anatomy of the chimpanzee brain is strongly controlled by their genes, whereas the modern human brain is extensively shaped by the environment, no matter what the genetics.

"This means the human brain is pre-programmed to be extremely flexible; its cerebral organisation is adjusted by the environment and society in which it is raised. So each new generation’s brain structure can adapt to the new environmental and social challenges without the need to physically evolve. (my bold)

"This may also explain why we all complain that we do not understand the next generation as their brains are wired differently, having grown up in a different physical and social environment. An example of this is the ease with which the latest generation interacts with technology almost if they had co-evolved with it.

"So next time you turn on a computer just remember how big and complex your brain is – to keep a track of your friends and enemies."

Comment: this article has a clear diagram of our hominin ancestors. Each had a bigger frontal lobe. Note my bold about the modern brain's flexibility. He thinks the larger brains resulted from larger social groups. Dhw would agree. And I would state the opposite. The origin of a bigger brain allowed the larger social structures, but books I've read on hunter-gatherer size is not as large as he states: 150 individuals, 200,000 years ago. The figure I've seen is 35-50. The paragraph in italics only applies to H. sapiens, with the largest brain of all.

14342 views

This article poo poos the social brain idea for enlargement:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125935-putting-bigger-brains-down-to-our-social-n...

"In the past two million years, humans have experienced a massive increase in brain size, one not seen in any other species. This rapid evolution gave us brains roughly triple the volume of those of our pre-human ancestors.

"But the intelligence we enjoy as a result would seem to be advantageous for all sorts of species, not just us. So why was ours the only line to go down this route?

"The social brain hypothesis was a popular answer. It claims that bigger brains and advanced cognitive abilities are primarily an adaptation to social complexities, with natural selection strongly favouring individuals that can outsmart rivals.

"Some researchers, myself included, have never been especially persuaded by this idea, which gains its principal support from decades-old evidence that primates in bigger groups have larger brains. Large brains in humans supposedly followed from our ancestors living in relatively large groups, according to this argument.

"A new study now challenges the foundational evidence for this link. The problem is that traditional analyses have been based on too few species, says a team at New York University (NYU).

"The researchers collected measures of primate brains and sociality from more than 140 primate species, about three times as many as before, and found no correlation between indicators of brain size and measures of sociality such as group size.

"Their statistics look strong. The social brain hypothesis has failed its biggest test so far.

"Proponents of the social brain hypothesis will doubtless seek ways to resuscitate it, but for the moment the question of why humans gained big brains needs another kind of answer.

"The NYU team offers one. They found that among primates, brain volume is correlated with diet, with fruit-eating primates having the biggest brains. This idea, raised decades ago but long overshadowed by the social brain hypothesis, raises two complementary possibilities.

"First is the idea that brainy individuals are better foragers. Fruits are hard to find in a tropical forest, and so bigger-brained individuals might benefit if they are smart enough to find fruit more efficiently. That is plausible – but suspiciously simple.

"The other explanation for fruit-eaters having big brains is the energy allocation hypothesis. It takes an entirely different approach, noting that brains need a lot of energy. Every primate would have a bigger brain if only they could afford them, metabolically speaking, it suggests.

"The human brain consumes more than a fifth of the energy we use when at rest. If some other organ is not to be under-supplied, we need to acquire more energy for our size than other species.

"How, then, can we afford to divert fuel to especially big brains? High-quality diets provide one mechanism. Fruits, being sugar-rich, supply more easily digested energy than most items eaten by primates, such as leaves.

"This concept appeals to those, like me, who think that a diet of cooked food has been a critical influence on human evolution ever since the emergence of Homo erectus almost two million years ago. Cooked food provides easily available energy, requires little digestion, can be eaten in a fraction of the time it takes to consume raw food, and is unique to humans.

"The evidence that fruit-eating primates are big-brained strengthens the idea that our unique cognitive ability was made possible by our uniquely high-quality diets.:

Comment: the obvious corollary is if you have a big enough brain to control fire, you can nourish that big brain so it works properly. See my entry yesterday: Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 00:36 . Once again, big brain first, use second.

14394 views

A theory about socialization:
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/06/19/humans_evolved_big_brains_to_keep_t...

QUOTE: This means the human brain is pre-programmed to be extremely flexible; its cerebral organisation is adjusted by the environment and society in which it is raised. So each new generation’s brain structure can adapt to the new environmental and social challenges without the need to physically evolve. (DAVID's bold)

Flexible is the same as your own term “plastic”. I don’t know to what extent individual brains are individually wired, but each individual will respond in his/her own way to environmental and social challenges. In the distant past, quite clearly the brain did have to evolve physically, in order to realize new concepts (hence enlargement). Now it densifies, which is another form of physical evolution, so I don’t quite know what is the point of this bold.

DAVID’s comment: this article has a clear diagram of our hominin ancestors. Each had a bigger frontal lobe. Note my bold about the modern brain's flexibility. He thinks the larger brains resulted from larger social groups. Dhw would agree. And I would state the opposite. The origin of a bigger brain allowed the larger social structures….

I would not agree. If I adopted your dualistic approach to the source of consciousness, I would argue that new concepts demanded the larger brain for their realization, and these new concepts contributed to the success of the group, which therefore itself grew larger and larger. Concepts first, large brains second, realization of concepts third, large groups fourth. If I adopted the materialist approach, I would be stuck with the mystery of how blobs of material can give rise to consciousness (hence my earlier attempt to reconcile the two approaches, and I may return to this), but I might well come to the same conclusion.

DAVID: This article poo poos the social brain idea for enlargement:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125935-putting-bigger-brains-down-to-our-social-n...

QUOTE: "The evidence that fruit-eating primates are big-brained strengthens the idea that our unique cognitive ability was made possible by our uniquely high-quality diets.:
DAVID’s comment: the obvious corollary is if you have a big enough brain to control fire, you can nourish that big brain so it works properly. See my entry yesterday: Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 00:36 . Once again, big brain first, use second.

But you say our unique cognitive ability is not caused by our large brain, which we/our consciousness use only to give material expression to the results of our deep thinking. You keep restricting the discussion to two stages of "brain and use" without defining use. If you/your consciousness do not need the brain to do your thinking (as you have agreed), once more the sequence is: 1) concept; 2) big brain; 3)realization of concept (= use of brain). See my first post on the subject. But I agree with your obvious corollary: the large brain requires proper feeding. Food is a requirement, not a cause. This may have had an accumulative knock-on effect: need for more food demands new ways of getting food demand new concepts demand further growth of brain to realize new concepts…

14333 views

QUOTE: This means the human brain is pre-programmed to be extremely flexible; its cerebral organisation is adjusted by the environment and society in which it is raised. So each new generation’s brain structure can adapt to the new environmental and social challenges without the need to physically evolve. (DAVID's bold)

dhw: Flexible is the same as your own term “plastic”. I don’t know to what extent individual brains are individually wired, but each individual will respond in his/her own way to environmental and social challenges. In the distant past, quite clearly the brain did have to evolve physically, in order to realize new concepts (hence enlargement). Now it densifies, which is another form of physical evolution, so I don’t quite know what is the point of this bold.

It appears the evolution of size of the brain is over. Due to plasticity.

DAVID’s comment: this article has a clear diagram of our hominin ancestors. Each had a bigger frontal lobe. Note my bold about the modern brain's flexibility. He thinks the larger brains resulted from larger social groups. Dhw would agree. And I would state the opposite. The origin of a bigger brain allowed the larger social structures….

dhw: I would not agree. If I adopted your dualistic approach to the source of consciousness, I would argue that new concepts demanded the larger brain for their realization, and these new concepts contributed to the success of the group, which therefore itself grew larger and larger. Concepts first, large brains second, realization of concepts third, large groups fourth.

Again missing the obvious point. To use simple examples: H. habilis made simple tools and lived simply. H. erectus with a larger brain made more complex tools. Your claim is that habilis had concepts that forced enlargement, but the new tools are with erectus! Size first, use second. Your thoughts are totally backwards.

DAVID’s comment: the obvious corollary is if you have a big enough brain to control fire, you can nourish that big brain so it works properly. See my entry yesterday: Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 00:36 . Once again, big brain first, use second.

dhw: But you say our unique cognitive ability is not caused by our large brain, which we/our consciousness use only to give material expression to the results of our deep thinking. You keep restricting the discussion to two stages of "brain and use" without defining use.

You've forgotten I have defined use as survival activities. Tool making, etc.

dhw: If you/your consciousness do not need the brain to do your thinking (as you have agreed), once more the sequence is: 1) concept; 2) big brain; 3)realization of concept (= use of brain).

I don't know how you can describe my use of brain this way. My brain is my gateway to my consciousness. Only the recent development of the H. sapiens brain, starting 350,000 years ago allowed the complexity that required densification. Your sequence is backwards. Our current modern brain is filled with concepts and shrinking. Why isn't it enlarging per your hypothesis?

14322 views

DAVID’s comment: He thinks the larger brains resulted from larger social groups. Dhw would agree. And I would state the opposite. The origin of a bigger brain allowed the larger social structures….
dhw: I would not agree. If I adopted your dualistic approach to the source of consciousness, I would argue that new concepts demanded the larger brain for their realization, and these new concepts contributed to the success of the group, which therefore itself grew larger and larger. Concepts first, large brains second, realization of concepts third, large groups fourth.
DAVID: Again missing the obvious point. To use simple examples: H. habilis made simple tools and lived simply. H. erectus with a larger brain made more complex tools. Your claim is that habilis had concepts that forced enlargement, but the new tools are with erectus! Size first, use second. Your thoughts are totally backwards.

Again missing the obvious point that before habilis MADE his simple tools, he had to have the desire to make them. This is made perfectly clear by the next exchange:
DAVID’s comment: Once again, big brain first, use second.
dhw: But you say our unique cognitive ability is not caused by our large brain, which we/our consciousness use only to give material expression to the results of our deep thinking. You keep restricting the discussion to two stages of "brain and use" without defining use.
DAVID:You've forgotten I have defined use as survival activities. Tool making, etc.

Thank you. In the context of enlargement, that is the clarification I have been waiting for. We agree that brain enlargement precedes survival activities such as tool making. My point is that the CONCEPT of the tool must precede the making, and conceptualization according to you is independent of the brain. Therefore, just as the concept of reading demanded a rewiring of the illiterate women’s brains in order to be implemented, earlier concepts demanded enlargement for the same reason. So why assume that the process was reversed in earlier times, and the means of implementing the concept preceded the concept? In answer to the habilis and erectus comment: habilis’s simple tools required the first enlargement so that he could implement his simple but brand new concepts, and erectus’s new tools (plus use of fire, engravings and other more sophisticated advances) demanded another enlargement. Once more, we both want enlargement before realization, but you also want it before thought, although you believe that thought does not depend on the brain. (Of course the archaeological remains can’t tell us anything about the sequence.)

dhw: If you/your consciousness do not need the brain to do your thinking (as you have agreed), once more the sequence is: 1) concept; 2) big brain; 3)realization of concept (= use of brain).
DAVID: I don't know how you can describe my use of brain this way. My brain is my gateway to my consciousness.

As you keep agreeing and forgetting, you/your consciousness are an inseparable entity, and as explained above, your brain is the gateway through which you/your consciousness get your body to realize new concepts.

DAVID: Only the recent development of the H. sapiens brain, starting 350,000 years ago allowed the complexity that required densification. Your sequence is backwards. Our current modern brain is filled with concepts and shrinking. Why isn't it enlarging per your hypothesis?

Because there has to be a limit to enlargement, or you will end up with an elephant’s head on an ape’s body. Once the maximum size was reached, the only way new concepts could be implemented by the brain was through densification. Shrinkage is merely a by-product of the efficiency of densification.

14319 views

DAVID:You've forgotten I have defined use as survival activities. Tool making, etc.

dhw: Thank you. In the context of enlargement, that is the clarification I have been waiting for. We agree that brain enlargement precedes survival activities such as tool making. My point is that the CONCEPT of the tool must precede the making, and conceptualization according to you is independent of the brain.

I never said that. The level of conceptualization ability is directly related to the size and complexity of the brain, especially the prefrontal and frontal areas.

dhw: Therefore, just as the concept of reading demanded a rewiring of the illiterate women’s brains in order to be implemented, earlier concepts demanded enlargement for the same reason.

Exactly backwards. Reading was done by the already enlarged brain. Rewiring results in densification and shrinkage of brain size.

dhw: So why assume that the process was reversed in earlier times, and the means of implementing the concept preceded the concept? In answer to the habilis and erectus comment: habilis’s simple tools required the first enlargement so that he could implement his simple but brand new concepts, and erectus’s new tools (plus use of fire, engravings and other more sophisticated advances) demanded another enlargement. Once more, we both want enlargement before realization, but you also want it before thought, although you believe that thought does not depend on the brain. (Of course the archaeological remains can’t tell us anything about the sequence.)

You can't get around the fact that each bigger size is associated with more complex survival strategies. Under your idea, h. habilis wants to control fire, but can't figure out how to do it so he tries to think very hard and his brain suddenly jumps 200cc of frontal lobe. H. habilis doesn't know what he is missing by not being erectus! Habilis had no idea a spear was a better way to hunt. He did not have any inkling.

DAVID: I don't know how you can describe my use of brain this way. My brain is my gateway to my consciousness.

dhw: As you keep agreeing and forgetting, you/your consciousness are an inseparable entity, and as explained above, your brain is the gateway through which you/your consciousness get your body to realize new concepts.

My self, my brain and my consciousness are seamless. I'm not forgetting.

DAVID: Only the recent development of the H. sapiens brain, starting 350,000 years ago allowed the complexity that required densification. Your sequence is backwards. Our current modern brain is filled with concepts and shrinking. Why isn't it enlarging per your hypothesis?

dhw: Because there has to be a limit to enlargement, or you will end up with an elephant’s head on an ape’s body. Once the maximum size was reached, the only way new concepts could be implemented by the brain was through densification. Shrinkage is merely a by-product of the efficiency of densification.

Neanderthal brains were 150cc larger. We could have enlarged a little more. I didn't say we needed more enlargement. We shrunk with increased complexity and density, and that is one reason why I think evolution is over. You have just proved my point.

14386 views

DAVID:You've forgotten I have defined use as survival activities. Tool making, etc.
dhw: Thank you. In the context of enlargement, that is the clarification I have been waiting for. We agree that brain enlargement precedes survival activities such as tool making. My point is that the CONCEPT of the tool must precede the making, and conceptualization according to you is independent of the brain.
DAVID: I never said that. The level of conceptualization ability is directly related to the size and complexity of the brain, especially the prefrontal and frontal areas.

Concepts are ideas or thoughts, and whether simple or complex, your dualism argues that thought is independent of the brain. It is the materialization of thought that depends on the brain.

dhw: Therefore, just as the concept of reading demanded a rewiring of the illiterate women’s brains in order to be implemented, earlier concepts demanded enlargement for the same reason.
DAVID: Exactly backwards. Reading was done by the already enlarged brain. Rewiring results in densification and shrinkage of brain size.

Of course the brain was already enlarged, but reading required something new of the brain. Enlargement is over, and so the new method of implementing new concepts is densification through rewiring. The brain therefore responded to the new need by rewiring itself.

DAVID: You can't get around the fact that each bigger size is associated with more complex survival strategies. Under your idea, h. habilis wants to control fire, but can't figure out how to do it so he tries to think very hard and his brain suddenly jumps 200cc of frontal lobe. H. habilis doesn't know what he is missing by not being erectus! Habilis had no idea a spear was a better way to hunt. He did not have any inkling.

You can’t get around the fact that each bigger size is associated with the IMPLEMENTATION of more complex survival strategies, e.g. in the form of new tools. The strategy is the immaterial figuring out how to do it, which has to precede the doing, and the doing needs new material skills: the making and handling of the tools. Your brain doesn’t tell “you”/your conscious mind how to make and handle them. You/your mind work it out, and then get the brain and body to perform the material tasks. That is what requires changes to the brain. Just as the concept of reading required changes to the brains of the illiterate women – but in their case, densification instead of enlargement. Concept first, brain change second, realization of concept third.

DAVID: My brain is my gateway to my consciousness.
dhw: As you keep agreeing and forgetting, you/your consciousness are an inseparable entity, and as explained above, your brain is the gateway through which you/your consciousness get your body to realize new concepts.
DAVID: My self, my brain and my consciousness are seamless. I'm not forgetting.

But you are forgetting that according to your own beliefs, your self and your consciousness do the thinking (otherwise they could not survive into the afterlife), and so the brain is the gateway through which you/your consciousness translate thought into material action.

DAVID: Our current modern brain is filled with concepts and shrinking. Why isn't it enlarging per your hypothesis?
dhw: Because there has to be a limit to enlargement, or you will end up with an elephant’s head on an ape’s body. Once the maximum size was reached, the only way new concepts could be implemented by the brain was through densification. Shrinkage is merely a by-product of the efficiency of densification.
DAVID: Neanderthal brains were 150cc larger. We could have enlarged a little more. I didn't say we needed more enlargement. We shrunk with increased complexity and density, and that is one reason why I think evolution is over. You have just proved my point.

You asked why our brain is not enlarging. There has to be a limit. Densification took over from enlargement as the means whereby the brain increased its capacity to realize new concepts. I have suggested that shrinkage is a by-product of efficient densification. How on earth the densification of the human brain as a replacement for enlargement means that evolution is over I really don’t know. Let’s meet in a couple of billion years’ time to find out.

14308 views

dhw: Concepts are ideas or thoughts, and whether simple or complex, your dualism argues that thought is independent of the brain. It is the materialization of thought that depends on the brain.

No it doesn't. I do not separate the parts during life, only in death.

dhw: Therefore, just as the concept of reading demanded a rewiring of the illiterate women’s brains in order to be implemented, earlier concepts demanded enlargement for the same reason.
DAVID: Exactly backwards. Reading was done by the already enlarged brain. Rewiring results in densification and shrinkage of brain size.

dhw: Of course the brain was already enlarged, but reading required something new of the brain. Enlargement is over, and so the new method of implementing new concepts is densification through rewiring. The brain therefore responded to the new need by rewiring itself.

Yes.

DAVID: You can't get around the fact that each bigger size is associated with more complex survival strategies. Under your idea, h. habilis wants to control fire, but can't figure out how to do it so he tries to think very hard and his brain suddenly jumps 200cc of frontal lobe. H. habilis doesn't know what he is missing by not being erectus! Habilis had no idea a spear was a better way to hunt. He did not have any inkling.

dhw: You can’t get around the fact that each bigger size is associated with the IMPLEMENTATION of more complex survival strategies, e.g. in the form of new tools. The strategy is the immaterial figuring out how to do it, which has to precede the doing, and the doing needs new material skills: the making and handling of the tools. Your brain doesn’t tell “you”/your conscious mind how to make and handle them. You/your mind work it out, and then get the brain and body to perform the material tasks. That is what requires changes to the brain. Just as the concept of reading required changes to the brains of the illiterate women – but in their case, densification instead of enlargement. Concept first, brain change second, realization of concept third.

Totally missed my point. Habilis can't even imagine a spear, only flint hand tools. Erectus has the imagination to invent it. Size first, use second.

DAVID: Neanderthal brains were 150cc larger. We could have enlarged a little more. I didn't say we needed more enlargement. We shrunk with increased complexity and density, and that is one reason why I think evolution is over. You have just proved my point.

dhw: You asked why our brain is not enlarging. There has to be a limit. Densification took over from enlargement as the means whereby the brain increased its capacity to realize new concepts. I have suggested that shrinkage is a by-product of efficient densification. How on earth the densification of the human brain as a replacement for enlargement means that evolution is over I really don’t know. Let’s meet in a couple of billion years’ time to find out.

I just use the evidence at hand. I've cut the discussion here because it is duplicated in another thread.

14257 views

dhw: Yes, the brain has plasticity to mold itself to your needs, but if you/your consciousness are a separate entity which survives the death of the brain, you do not need the brain in order to develop your thoughts (mold the content of your consciousness). You only need it in order to communicate or realize your concepts in the material world of this life.
DAVID: Yes!

This was the final part of my last post and you agreed. And yet in the rest of your post, you tried to disagree:

dhw: You have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. Yes, you/your consciousness operate the brain. No, “you” do not “receive” your consciousness – according to you, it is the brain that receives the messages from you/your consciousness.
DAVID: No, I operate my consciousness through my brain.

You agree that you/your consciousness are the entity that operates the receiver brain in order to communicate or realize your concepts. What are you saying “no” to?

dhw: In YOUR dualistic world it is the material realization/communication of our thoughts that requires the enlarged brain, not the enlarged brain that enables us to have our thoughts.
DAVID: In my view only a very complex brain can use the mechanism of consciousness to the extent we now use it. The pattern of frontal lobe development allowed all of the complex conceptual thinking we do now. We start with a consciousness after birth with an empty slate and form its content and its use. It has to be learned.

According to your dualistic beliefs, the brain does NOT use us/our consciousness, we/our consciousness use the brain. The frontal lobe development did not “allow” our complex thinking, but it allowed us to translate our complex thinking into realizations and communications, as you have agreed. Yes, according to your dualistic beliefs, it is we/our consciousness that undergo development throughout our lives (and possibly beyond), and the brain responds to all these developments by allowing us to translate them into communication and realization in the material world of this life. “Yes!” you said. So why do you keep disagreeing?

14274 views

dhw: You have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. Yes, you/your consciousness operate the brain. No, “you” do not “receive” your consciousness – according to you, it is the brain that receives the messages from you/your consciousness.

DAVID: No, I operate my consciousness through my brain.

dhw:You agree that you/your consciousness are the entity that operates the receiver brain in order to communicate or realize your concepts. What are you saying “no” to?

Because you distort my concept. My brain is a material part of material me. I can only connect to my consciousness through the direct use of my brain by me. I do this in a material way and connect to my consciousness in thought through the brain. I think there is a material me operating my brain and an immaterial me/consciousness I reach through my brain.

DAVID: In my view only a very complex brain can use the mechanism of consciousness to the extent we now use it. The pattern of frontal lobe development allowed all of the complex conceptual thinking we do now. We start with a consciousness after birth with an empty slate and form its content and its use. It has to be learned.

dhw: According to your dualistic beliefs, the brain does NOT use us/our consciousness, we/our consciousness use the brain.

My newborn example doesn't say that. The newborn creates the shapes and forms that make his consciousness unique. He does this by operating on his consciousness through his brain.

dhw: The frontal lobe development did not “allow” our complex thinking, but it allowed us to translate our complex thinking into realizations and communications, as you have agreed. Yes, according to your dualistic beliefs, it is we/our consciousness that undergo development throughout our lives (and possibly beyond), and the brain responds to all these developments by allowing us to translate them into communication and realization in the material world of this life. “Yes!” you said. So why do you keep disagreeing?

Not exactly, as explained above.

14300 views

dhw: Yes, the brain has plasticity to mold itself to your needs, but if you/your consciousness are a separate entity which survives the death of the brain, you do not need the brain in order to develop your thoughts (mold the content of your consciousness). You only need it in order to communicate or realize your concepts in the material world of this life.
DAVID: Yes!

Dhw: You have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparble entity. Yes, you/your consciousness operate the brain. No, “you” do not “receive” your consciousness – according to you, it is the brain that receives the messages from you/your consciousness.
DAVID: No, I operate my consciousness through my brain.
dhw:You agree that you/your consciousness are the entity that operates the receiver brain in order to communicate or realize your concepts. What are you saying “no” to?
DAVID: Because you distort my concept. My brain is a material part of material me. I can only connect to my consciousness through the direct use of my brain by me.

The material you is your body, and yes, your brain is indeed part of your body. But according to your beliefs, your identity and your consciousness are an inseparable entity which survives the death of the body. “You” as an identity do not connect to your consciousness through the brain. The inseparable entity of you/your consciousness connects to your material body through the brain!

DAVID: I do this in a material way and connect to my consciousness in thought through the brain. I think there is a material me operating my brain and an immaterial me/consciousness I reach through my brain.

So now you have your body (material me) operating your brain. And yet you replied with an emphatic “Yes!”” when I said your conscious mind (the immaterial you) used the brain to make the body translate thought into action. But perhaps Doctor David and Philosopher David are confusing one another. If we agree that the brain is a receiver, it receives messages both from mind and from body. The mind produces the concepts and the decisions which it relays to the brain and thence to the body to put into action. But the body also produces aches and pains and needs and information which it relays to the brain, which in turn relays them to the mind, which then takes a decision and instructs the brain to organize a phone call to Dr David. So there is indeed a two-way process, but at all times – according to your dualistic beliefs - you/your consciousness are an entity which does all the thinking, operates the brain, processes the information, takes the decisions, and constitutes the conscious self which survives the death of the brain.

dhw: According to your dualistic beliefs, the brain does NOT use us/our consciousness, we/our consciousness use the brain.
DAVID: My newborn example doesn't say that. The newborn creates the shapes and forms that make his consciousness unique. He does this by operating on his consciousness through his brain.

You keep agreeing that he/his consciousness are an inseparable entity, and then you keep separating them! He/his consciousness doesn’t “operate on his consciousness”. He/his consciousness creates the shapes and forms that make him unique, and it does so by absorbing and processing the information provided by the material brain/body, largely through the senses, which are our main means of contact with the material world. (I would not like to speculate here on the degree to which our identity is moulded by our body or by our subconscious, since our discussion concerns the relationship between the brain and the entity of consciousness/self within the context of your own dualistic beliefs.) As the brain matures, and as life proceeds with its individual experiences, the amount of information accumulates and the baby/child/adult’s consciousness/identity creates its unique “shapes” accordingly. It is the inseparable self/consciousness that “uses” the information provided by the brain, and according to your beliefs retains and even uses that information when the brain and body are dead.

14332 views

DAVID: Because you distort my concept. My brain is a material part of material me. I can only connect to my consciousness through the direct use of my brain by me.

dhw: The material you is your body, and yes, your brain is indeed part of your body. But according to your beliefs, your identity and your consciousness are an inseparable entity which survives the death of the body. “You” as an identity do not connect to your consciousness through the brain. The inseparable entity of you/your consciousness connects to your material body through the brain!

When I am unconscious I am not connected to my consciousness. NDE's tell me that consciousness can survive death. Therefore it takes me into the afterlife, brain no longer necessary

DAVID: I do this in a material way and connect to my consciousness in thought through the brain. I think there is a material me operating my brain and an immaterial me/consciousness I reach through my brain.

dhw: So now you have your body (material me) operating your brain. And yet you replied with an emphatic “Yes!”” when I said your conscious mind (the immaterial you) used the brain to make the body translate thought into action.

The yes is obvious. I control my body and my thoughts through my brain and I can run the motor areas of my brain to move, to talk, etc. Yes I use my brain to think immaterial thoughts That is all the yes means. What underlying meaning are you implying?

dhw: If we agree that the brain is a receiver, it receives messages both from mind and from body. The mind produces the concepts and the decisions which it relays to the brain and thence to the body to put into action. But the body also produces aches and pains and needs and information which it relays to the brain, which in turn relays them to the mind, which then takes a decision and instructs the brain to organize a phone call to Dr David. So there is indeed a two-way process, but at all times – according to your dualistic beliefs - you/your consciousness are an entity which does all the thinking, operates the brain, processes the information, takes the decisions, and constitutes the conscious self which survives the death of the brain.

This is missing one point. I view the brain as equivalent to a computer and the consciousness mechanism it receives is the software. I run my computer. As a newborn I don't know how to control any of this, but with time I learn to use my consciousness

dhw: According to your dualistic beliefs, the brain does NOT use us/our consciousness, we/our consciousness use the brain.
DAVID: My newborn example doesn't say that. The newborn creates the shapes and forms that make his consciousness unique. He does this by operating on his consciousness through his brain.

dhw: You keep agreeing that he/his consciousness are an inseparable entity, and then you keep separating them! He/his consciousness doesn’t “operate on his consciousness”. He/his consciousness creates the shapes and forms that make him unique, and it does so by absorbing and processing the information provided by the material brain/body, largely through the senses, which are our main means of contact with the material world.

I view myself, my consciousness and my brain as a seamless arrangement. The only separation is at death, or in an NDE. Dualism: my brain and I are the material side; My consciousness and I are the immaterial side, joined together by the function of the brain.

dhw: As the brain matures, and as life proceeds with its individual experiences, the amount of information accumulates and the baby/child/adult’s consciousness/identity creates its unique “shapes” accordingly. It is the inseparable self/consciousness that “uses” the information provided by the brain, and according to your beliefs retains and even uses that information when the brain and body are dead.

That statement seems like my beliefs, but we keep talking past each other so I wonder what difference you may be inferring.

14346 views

DAVID: When I am unconscious I am not connected to my consciousness. NDE's tell me that consciousness can survive death. Therefore it takes me into the afterlife, brain no longer necessary.

The NDEs you believe in tell you that you/your consciousness do not depend on the brain for identity or for the power to think. During NDEs “you” are NOT unconscious – you are consciously experiencing the afterlife. You then return to your resuscitated brain and use it to recount your experiences.

DAVID: I think there is a material me operating my brain and an immaterial me/consciousness I reach through my brain.
dhw: So now you have your body (material me) operating your brain. And yet you replied with an emphatic “Yes!”” when I said your conscious mind (the immaterial you) used the brain to make the body translate thought into action.
DAVID: The yes is obvious. I control my body and my thoughts through my brain and I can run the motor areas of my brain to move, to talk, etc. Yes I use my brain to think immaterial thoughts. That is all the yes means. What underlying meaning are you implying?

You are intermingling two different processes. Yes, you control your body through your brain, but according to your beliefs, no, you do not control your thoughts through your brain: the inseparable entity of you/your consciousness controls your thoughts, and these are given material expression through your brain. Yes, you/your consciousness run the motor areas of your brain, but no, you do not use your brain to think immaterial thoughts. Your dualistic belief in a bodiless, brainless afterlife means that you think your immaterial thoughts without a brain. You only need a brain to translate your thoughts into material action and expression in this material world.

dhw: So there is indeed a two-way process, but at all times – according to your dualistic beliefs - you/your consciousness are an entity which does all the thinking, operates the brain, processes the information, takes the decisions, and constitutes the conscious self which survives the death of the brain.
DAVID: This is missing one point. I view the brain as equivalent to a computer and the consciousness mechanism it receives is the software. I run my computer. As a newborn I don't know how to control any of this, but with time I learn to use my consciousness.

Is the “I” that runs the computer brain your material body or your immaterial conscious mind?

DAVID: I view myself, my consciousness and my brain as a seamless arrangement. The only separation is at death, or in an NDE. Dualism: my brain and I are the material side; My consciousness and I are the immaterial side, joined together by the function of the brain.

I agree, since of course your body is part of you while you are alive. But in your dualism, thought is immaterial and its source is not the brain. The starting point of this discussion was your insistence that the large brain is essential for the thoughts or concepts that have led from “primitive” hominins to “civilized” homo sapiens. If you believe that mind and body are separate entities (no matter how closely they work together during earthly life), and that the mind survives the death of the body, you cannot at the same time argue that thought or increased complexity of thought is dependent on the brain or the increased size of the brain. It is the materialization of thought (action, expression, movement etc.) that depends on the brain.

14309 views

DAVID: When I am unconscious I am not connected to my consciousness. NDE's tell me that consciousness can survive death. Therefore it takes me into the afterlife, brain no longer necessary.

dhw: The NDEs you believe in tell you that you/your consciousness do not depend on the brain for identity or for the power to think. During NDEs “you” are NOT unconscious – you are consciously experiencing the afterlife. You then return to your resuscitated brain and use it to recount your experiences.

But first as I revive, I recount the NDE to myself, because I could not know about it until the brain functions again.

DAVID: The yes is obvious. I control my body and my thoughts through my brain and I can run the motor areas of my brain to move, to talk, etc. Yes I use my brain to think immaterial thoughts. That is all the yes means. What underlying meaning are you implying?

dhw:You are intermingling two different processes. Yes, you control your body through your brain, but according to your beliefs, no, you do not control your thoughts through your brain: the inseparable entity of you/your consciousness controls your thoughts, and these are given material expression through your brain. Yes, you/your consciousness run the motor areas of your brain, but no, you do not use your brain to think immaterial thoughts. Your dualistic belief in a bodiless, brainless afterlife means that you think your immaterial thoughts without a brain. You only need a brain to translate your thoughts into material action and expression in this material world.

You keep separating my self, my brain and my consciousness in your analysis. I consider it separable only at death and probably has a different level of functions at that level since NDE's are real experiences without the brain. My sense of self is a portion of my consciousness, but my self is in control of my thoughts, by using my brain during life. You cannot compare life/no life as the same.

DAVID: This is missing one point. I view the brain as equivalent to a computer and the consciousness mechanism it receives is the software. I run my computer. As a newborn I don't know how to control any of this, but with time I learn to use my consciousness.

dhw: Is the “I” that runs the computer brain your material body or your immaterial conscious mind?

I run the brain which uses the consciousness mechanism it receives in life. I create all the aspects of my consciousness from birth, as I learn to use it.

DAVID: I view myself, my consciousness and my brain as a seamless arrangement. The only separation is at death, or in an NDE. Dualism: my brain and I are the material side; My consciousness and I are the immaterial side, joined together by the function of the brain.

dhw: I agree, since of course your body is part of you while you are alive. But in your dualism, thought is immaterial and its source is not the brain. The starting point of this discussion was your insistence that the large brain is essential for the thoughts or concepts that have led from “primitive” hominins to “civilized” homo sapiens. If you believe that mind and body are separate entities (no matter how closely they work together during earthly life), and that the mind survives the death of the body, you cannot at the same time argue that thought or increased complexity of thought is dependent on the brain or the increased size of the brain. It is the materialization of thought (action, expression, movement etc.) that depends on the brain.

My objections explained above. Separation is only at death, not in life.

14261 views

This discussion, like so many, is now going round in circles or shooting off at tangents, and so I will try to summarize the central points.

The starting point is your insistence that your God enlarged the brain in stages, and each enlargement enabled hominins and humans to come up with new ideas. If we leave God out of the discussion for the moment, the sequence of brain first, thoughts second conforms to the materialist theory that the brain is the SOURCE of the mind – i.e. of that part of ourselves which produces our thoughts, ideas, opinions, decisions etc. (This may be so – I am not taking sides.) If the brain is indeed the source of the mind, and thoughts etc. are impossible without it, the obvious conclusion has to be that when the brain dies, the mind dies. There are various theories as to why the brain expanded (upright posture, diet etc.), all of which seem to take for granted that the brain is the source of the mind. Your own theory (”God did it”) clearly does the same, since you maintain that new ideas would not be possible without the enlargement of the brain.

However, dualists claim that the brain is not the source of the mind, which is an immaterial self. The experience of NDEs is that the mind (the immaterial self, complete with its immaterial thoughts, ideas etc.), survives the death of the brain and body. You regard NDEs as evidence for dualism.

These two theories are contradictory. While bearing in mind the distinction between immaterial ideas and the material implementation of those ideas (which entails an inseparable relationship between mind and brain), perhaps you would just clarify for us which of these two conflicting views you hold: 1) the brain is the source of the mind, which depends on the brain for its capacity to think; 2) the brain is not the source of the mind, which produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas etc. independently of the brain.

14224 views

dhw: This discussion, like so many, is now going round in circles or shooting off at tangents, and so I will try to summarize the central points.

dhw: These two theories are contradictory. While bearing in mind the distinction between immaterial ideas and the material implementation of those ideas (which entails an inseparable relationship between mind and brain), perhaps you would just clarify for us which of these two conflicting views you hold: 1) the brain is the source of the mind, which depends on the brain for its capacity to think; 2) the brain is not the source of the mind, which produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas etc. independently of the brain.

Neither: based on NDE's the brain receives an independent consciousness mechanism which is immaterial and from infancy learns to use and shape it from a blank slate to an operative mechanism. The computer analogy is not entirely accurate, but as I learn to operate my brain and its consciousness, the brain has the physical ability to modify itself to fit my actions both physically and mentally. Current computers due learn from experience and do some self-modification. I don't care what materialists or dualists think. This is my view.

To go back to hominins, each enlargement of the brain allows greater mental capacity, since it is the thinking pre-frontal and frontal areas that enlarge. The physical areas such as the laryngeal control regions develop as the larynx moves caudally to allow language to develop. the whole process reaches a pinnacle in Neanderthal and sapiens. Physical controls as for spear throwing and running arrive as the shoulders an pelvis change from ape like to human like.

But where you are totally confused is in the recognition that habilis does not know what it does not know. Its demonstrated concepts in its artifacts show what it was capable of producing. This is true at each stage of brain case enlargement. When intense conceptualization arrives, the brain responds by increased density, complexity and a small amount of brain case shrinkage. And this only happened after we civilized enough in the past 50,000 years to use our brain intensively. That had to be learned, obviously, and the lesson can be applied to previous ancestors. That pattern of development must be present since Lucy who was physically changed but had the same brain size as chimps. You want internal drives for development to avoid God operating externally. And you will scoot back to maybe God provided an internal mechanism. God is not 'maybe', and I don't believe you have any valid mechanism for evolution, since you have abandoned Darwin and chance. Planning is required for the gaps I've demonstrated from the studies. Modify a building for new function and you have to hire an architect to plan it out, the structure, the plumbing, the wiring, all coordinated. Organismal bodies are exactly the same. Is there any other way? Of course not.

14266 views

A review article of Homo brain development from studies in embryogenesis. The entire article should be read for full understanding and traces preliminary changes for upright posture back to about 39 million years ago, involving changes to the base of the skull which are required for bipedalism:

http://inference-review.com/article/the-last-threshold

At the end of the twentieth century, the theory that the origins of upright posture originated in climate change was abandoned by Phillip Tobias, a co-author of Leakey’s famous 1964 paper. East and South African habitats, Tobias argued, were a mosaic, ranging from gallery forests to woodlands and savannahs. Ten years later, paleontologists exploring the Ethiopian Rift recognized that Australopithecus afarensis and their quadruped arboreal predecessors, Ardipithecus, also lived in a mosaic environment.

If so, what was the engine driving the development of upright posture?

***

These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.

***

The sole vertebrate embryo in which the dorsal cord extremity is almost verticalized is that of Homo sapiens. This is a process that began around thirty-nine million years ago in an Asian species of prosimian that underwent a contraction in the base of its skull and a declination of its brain stem. This produced the first degree of neural straightening and cranio-facial contraction in the simians. Twenty-three million years ago, at least one African species of small gibbon-like simians underwent further contraction and declination. This produced the second degree of neural straightening.

***

It is nothing short of remarkable that the ability to create second-degree stone tools emerged from the threshold of embryonic neural verticality. This is not an arbitrary boundary for distinguishing between Homo and other hominins, as is the case with the notion of a cerebral rubicon. The threshold is objective and allows for the deduction of a reorganization of the nervous system and its component neuronal networks with the sensors necessary for controlling the body’s equilibrium. In Homo sapiens, the connections between the cerebellar and cerebral neocortex are known, and it appears they participate in high-level cognitive functions, for example memory, dexterity, language, and reflection. Gestures such as walking and grasping become conscious with psychomotor development.

The great novelty here is the sudden change in posture of the cerebellum, and a new neuronal complexity; the cerebellum had to control its own balance. A new loop of complexity must have developed between the neocortex of the cerebellum and the brain. These connections could then have favored the development of new reflective cognitive capacities associated with movements, those of the hands in particular.

New manual chains of operation reflect a symbolic and conceptual level of thought attributed to the brain of the genus Homo. My suggestion is that the emergence of these capacities should be broadened to encompass the hominin stage, denoted by the verticalization of the cerebellum, such as for Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, and Paranthropus. Although their brains were smaller than that of Homo habilis, they may have been capable of conceptual and creative innovations. Passing those first thresholds made possible the creative expression of ideas and concepts. (my bold)

Comment: Absolutely, size first, use second! God's preplanning at work! Note my bold. All of my theories come from this article among others. Don't think I've presented this before.

14282 views

DAVID: A review article of Homo brain development from studies in embryogenesis. The entire article should be read for full understanding and traces preliminary changes for upright posture back to about 39 million years ago, involving changes to the base of the skull which are required for bipedalism:
http://inference-review.com/article/the-last-threshold

QUOTE: New manual chains of operation reflect a symbolic and conceptual level of thought attributed to the brain of the genus Homo. My suggestion is that the emergence of these capacities should be broadened to encompass the hominin stage, denoted by the verticalization of the cerebellum, such as for Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, and Paranthropus. Although their brains were smaller than that of Homo habilis, they may have been capable of conceptual and creative innovations. Passing those first thresholds made possible the creative expression of ideas and concepts. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID’s comment: Absolutely, size first, use second! God's preplanning at work! Note my bold. All of my theories come from this article among others. Don't think I've presented this before.

“Size first, use second” is fair enough, since we now know that by use you mean nothing more than material implementation of immaterial thought. There is no doubt the author believes that the brain is the source of thought, including – interestingly – conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis. She may well be right. I’m not taking sides in the materialism v dualism debate. Complexification of the nervous system and the verticalization of the skull seem to be her keys to the emergence of Homo sapiens, but I can’t find any indication as to why she thinks this actually took place. She starts with a brief sideswipe at religion, but there’s no mention of God’s planning/dabbling (so I don’t know about “all” your theories), or of random mutations, or of cell communities working it out for themselves. Her causal theory stops at nerves and the base of the skull.

A couple more quotes that I found very interesting:
QUOTE: “Darwin and his contemporaries were themselves part of the Lamarckian revolution. A function gives rise to an organ and then the organ, including the shape of its bone tissues, is gradually modified. Those changes are then, through use, transmitted to later generations.”

This leaves out Darwin’s random mutations, but it’s a view that ties in with the hypothesis that physical changes take place in response to needs or opportunities, and not in anticipation of them. Malassé then refers to Arambourg:

“Arambourg was not a neo-Darwinian. He was a punctualist, a saltationist, and a Lamarckian:
The well-known facts of morphological convergence in groups with very diverse origins, but living in identical environments, seems to me to be difficult to explain, other than by a certain action of the environment, that is to say by the intervention of a “Lamarckian” cause.”

I must say I find this explanation very appealing, but Malassé rejects it:

MALASSÉ: These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.

And this is where, in the context of our discussions, it might have been interesting to know what she regards as the cause of the increasing complexity and the resultant upright posture.

14286 views

DAVID: A review article of Homo brain development from studies in embryogenesis. The entire article should be read for full understanding and traces preliminary changes for upright posture back to about 39 million years ago, involving changes to the base of the skull which are required for bipedalism:
http://inference-review.com/article/the-last-threshold

QUOTE: New manual chains of operation reflect a symbolic and conceptual level of thought attributed to the brain of the genus Homo. My suggestion is that the emergence of these capacities should be broadened to encompass the hominin stage, denoted by the verticalization of the cerebellum, such as for Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, and Paranthropus. Although their brains were smaller than that of Homo habilis, they may have been capable of conceptual and creative innovations. Passing those first thresholds made possible the creative expression of ideas and concepts. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID’s comment: Absolutely, size first, use second! God's preplanning at work! Note my bold. All of my theories come from this article among others. Don't think I've presented this before.

dhw: “Size first, use second” is fair enough, since we now know that by use you mean nothing more than material implementation of immaterial thought. There is no doubt the author believes that the brain is the source of thought, including – interestingly – conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis. She may well be right. I’m not taking sides in the materialism v dualism debate. Complexification of the nervous system and the verticalization of the skull seem to be her keys to the emergence of Homo sapiens, but I can’t find any indication as to why she thinks this actually took place. She starts with a brief sideswipe at religion, but there’s no mention of God’s planning/dabbling (so I don’t know about “all” your theories), or of random mutations, or of cell communities working it out for themselves. Her causal theory stops at nerves and the base of the skull.

Size first, use second is exactly as you now recognize I mean it. Brain growth is not from attempted conceptualization beyond the capacity of a particular sized brain. She shows pre-planning in the small changes. She is a scientist, not a theist. I'm the theist interpreting her work.

dhw: A couple more quotes that I found very interesting:
QUOTE: “Darwin and his contemporaries were themselves part of the Lamarckian revolution. A function gives rise to an organ and then the organ, including the shape of its bone tissues, is gradually modified. Those changes are then, through use, transmitted to later generations.”

This leaves out Darwin’s random mutations, but it’s a view that ties in with the hypothesis that physical changes take place in response to needs or opportunities, and not in anticipation of them. Malassé then refers to Arambourg:

“Arambourg was not a neo-Darwinian. He was a punctualist, a saltationist, and a Lamarckian:
The well-known facts of morphological convergence in groups with very diverse origins, but living in identical environments, seems to me to be difficult to explain, other than by a certain action of the environment, that is to say by the intervention of a “Lamarckian” cause.”

I must say I find this explanation very appealing, but Malassé rejects it:

MALASSÉ: These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.

dhw: And this is where, in the context of our discussions, it might have been interesting to know what she regards as the cause of the increasing complexity and the resultant upright posture.

I don't know if she has religious thoughts, but her whole work smells of teleology as humans appear in their earlier forms, and previous monkey forms have minor changes with no immediate benefit, but are obviously preparatory for bipedalism.

14325 views

dhw: “Size first, use second” is fair enough, since we now know that by use you mean nothing more than material implementation of immaterial thought.
DAVID: Size first, use second is exactly as you now recognize I mean it. Brain growth is not from attempted conceptualization beyond the capacity of a particular sized brain.

Once again you are equivocating. It is not attempted conceptualization that would cause brain growth but attempted material implementation of new concepts. In this dualistic hypothesis, the existing brain is not capable of implementing the concept of the spear, and so it has to add to its capacity. Concept first, brain growth second, implementation third.

dhw: She starts with a brief sideswipe at religion, but there’s no mention of God’s planning/dabbling (so I don’t know about “all” your theories), or of random mutations, or of cell communities working it out for themselves. Her causal theory stops at nerves and the base of the skull.
DAVID: She shows pre-planning in the small changes. She is a scientist, not a theist. I'm the theist interpreting her work.

The small changes are, of course, very interesting in view of your hostility to Darwin’s gradualism (though in general I agree with you that saltation seems far more likely in most cases of innovation), but “pre-planning” is entirely your theistic interpretation of her thesis.

MALASSÉ: These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.
dhw: And this is where, in the context of our discussions, it might have been interesting to know what she regards as the cause of the increasing complexity and the resultant upright posture.
DAVID: I don't know if she has religious thoughts, but her whole work smells of teleology as humans appear in their earlier forms, and previous monkey forms have minor changes with no immediate benefit, but are obviously preparatory for bipedalism.

I can’t whiff any teleology in her work, and you are simply guessing that the changes had no benefit. Malassé actually suggests that the changes may denote “conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis”, so you certainly can’t derive your assumption from her work. The changes clearly mark transitional stages on the way to full bipedalism, but in the context of your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was the production of Homo sapiens, that only raises the question of why the heck he didn’t just get on with it instead of messing around with all these itsy-bitsy twiddles to the position of the skull, and all these different hominins, and all these different pre-whales. What happened to the good old saltatory method? No need to answer. I know it doesn’t make sense to you either, but in your own immortal words: “If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense.”

14283 views

DAVID: Size first, use second is exactly as you now recognize I mean it. Brain growth is not from attempted conceptualization beyond the capacity of a particular sized brain.

dhw: Once again you are equivocating. It is not attempted conceptualization that would cause brain growth but attempted material implementation of new concepts. In this dualistic hypothesis, the existing brain is not capable of implementing the concept of the spear, and so it has to add to its capacity. Concept first, brain growth second, implementation third.

Just the opposite. More complex size, then more thought capacity. You want the brain to tell itself to enlarge for thoughts it has no knowledge of! "I can't think of a spear, I'd better enlarge."

DAVID: She shows pre-planning in the small changes. She is a scientist, not a theist. I'm the theist interpreting her work.

dhw: The small changes are, of course, very interesting in view of your hostility to Darwin’s gradualism (though in general I agree with you that saltation seems far more likely in most cases of innovation), but “pre-planning” is entirely your theistic interpretation of her thesis.

My hostility to Darwin is the world swallowed it hook line and sinker, and now Darwinists are trying to explain away gradualism. Not his fault. He didn't know any better.

DAVID: I don't know if she has religious thoughts, but her whole work smells of teleology as humans appear in their earlier forms, and previous monkey forms have minor changes with no immediate benefit, but are obviously preparatory for bipedalism.

dhw: I can’t whiff any teleology in her work, and you are simply guessing that the changes had no benefit. Malassé actually suggests that the changes may denote “conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis”, so you certainly can’t derive your assumption from her work.

And who made those innovations?

dhw:The changes clearly mark transitional stages on the way to full bipedalism, but in the context of your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was the production of Homo sapiens, that only raises the question of why the heck he didn’t just get on with it instead of messing around with all these itsy-bitsy twiddles to the position of the skull, and all these different hominins, and all these different pre-whales. What happened to the good old saltatory method? No need to answer. I know it doesn’t make sense to you either, but in your own immortal words: “If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense.”

Thank you. You have pointed out dabbling!

14243 views

DAVID: Brain growth is not from attempted conceptualization beyond the capacity of a particular sized brain.
dhw: Once again you are equivocating. It is not attempted conceptualization that would cause brain growth but attempted material implementation of new concepts. In this dualistic hypothesis, the existing brain is not capable of implementing the concept of the spear, and so it has to add to its capacity. Concept first, brain growth second, implementation third.
DAVID: Just the opposite. More complex size, then more thought capacity. You want the brain to tell itself to enlarge for thoughts it has no knowledge of! "I can't think of a spear, I'd better enlarge."

The brain, you keep telling us, is only a RECEIVER. And so according to your own beliefs, it is the independent conscious self that thinks of a spear and tells the brain to enlarge so that the body can make and use the spear. Where do you think ideas come from: your receiver brain or your conscious self? Do please answer.

DAVID: My hostility to Darwin is the world swallowed it hook line and sinker, and now Darwinists are trying to explain away gradualism. Not his fault. He didn't know any better.

And yet here you are telling us that your God produced humans by an itty-bitty process of gradual verticalization for no apparent purpose. But I agree with you that Darwin was wrong in his opposition to saltations. Perhaps, though, you should direct your hostility towards those who misrepresent Darwinism or who defend those aspects of his theory which even he might well have rejected if he had known what we know now.

DAVID: I don't know if she has religious thoughts, but her whole work smells of teleology as humans appear in their earlier forms, and previous monkey forms have minor changes with no immediate benefit, but are obviously preparatory for bipedalism.
dhw: I can’t whiff any teleology in her work, and you are simply guessing that the changes had no benefit. Malassé actually suggests that the changes may denote “conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis”, so you certainly can’t derive your assumption from her work.
DAVID: And who made those innovations?

The hominins!

dhw:[…] What happened to the good old saltatory method? No need to answer. I know it doesn’t make sense to you either, but in your own immortal words: “If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense.”
DAVID: Thank you. You have pointed out dabbling!

I have pointed out that even you can see no sense in your theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled all these different itsy-bitsy twiddles and all the hominins and all the pre-whales when all he really wanted to do was produce sapiens.

14248 views

dhw: The brain, you keep telling us, is only a RECEIVER. And so according to your own beliefs, it is the independent conscious self that thinks of a spear and tells the brain to enlarge so that the body can make and use the spear. Where do you think ideas come from: your receiver brain or your conscious self? Do please answer.

I don't know why you have understood my view. The brain is an active receiver of consciousness about which I have many times said that in a way the brain is a computer using consciousness as a software, an inexact analogy but it expresses my concept. I use my consciousness through my brain just as I direct my conputer at my keyboard.

dhw: Perhaps, though, you should direct your hostility towards those who misrepresent Darwinism or who defend those aspects of his theory which even he might well have rejected if he had known what we know now.

I don't blame Darwin. He didn't know what he didn't know. My hostility is toward the non-thinking Darwinists.

DAVID: I don't know if she has religious thoughts, but her whole work smells of teleology as humans appear in their earlier forms, and previous monkey forms have minor changes with no immediate benefit, but are obviously preparatory for bipedalism.

dhw: I can’t whiff any teleology in her work, and you are simply guessing that the changes had no benefit. Malassé actually suggests that the changes may denote “conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis”, so you certainly can’t derive your assumption from her work.

DAVID: And who made those innovations?

dhw: The hominins!

My comment is misunderstood. God made the bodily innovations. And how did the hominins make their innovations? Using a big brain they were given as a new species.

dhw: I have pointed out that even you can see no sense in your theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled all these different itsy-bitsy twiddles and all the hominins and all the pre-whales when all he really wanted to do was produce sapiens.

It all makes perfect sense if you accept balance of nature as a necessary part of evolution. And if you accept that God uses evolutionary processes to make the universe, the Earth, and evolved life to the point that humans appear. But you don't want to accept God. If you accepted what I present as 'evidence' you would have to accept God. So be it. We'll continue the debate.

14280 views

dhw: The brain, you keep telling us, is only a RECEIVER. And so according to your own beliefs, it is the independent conscious self that thinks of a spear and tells the brain to enlarge so that the body can make and use the spear. Where do you think ideas come from: your receiver brain or your conscious self? Do please answer.
DAVID: I don't know why you have understood my view. The brain is an active receiver of consciousness about which I have many times said that in a way the brain is a computer using consciousness as a software, an inexact analogy but it expresses my concept. I use my consciousness through my brain just as I direct my conputer at my keyboard.

Why bother with an inexact analogy? You believe you have a material receiver brain and an immaterial conscious self. So do you believe your ideas come from your material receiver brain or from your immaterial conscious self?

dhw: Malassé actually suggests that the changes may denote “conceptual and creative innovations well before homo habilis”, so you certainly can’t derive your assumption from her work.
DAVID: And who made those innovations?
dhw: The hominins!
DAVID: My comment is misunderstood. God made the bodily innovations. And how did the hominins make their innovations? Using a big brain they were given as a new species.

The hominins did indeed make their innovations by using their big brains. The question is whether the big brain engendered the concept of the spear, or the concept of the spear required and so engendered a bigger brain.

dhw: I have pointed out that even you can see no sense in your theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled all these different itsy-bitsy twiddles and all the hominins and all the pre-whales when all he really wanted to do was produce sapiens.
DAVID: It all makes perfect sense if you accept balance of nature as a necessary part of evolution.

Your "balance of nature" means life continues, regardless of what organisms survive, and of course evolution needs life to continue. You might just as well say life is a necessary part of evolution. Hardly a revelation.

DAVID: And if you accept that God uses evolutionary processes to make the universe, the Earth, and evolved life to the point that humans appear.

If God exists, of course I accept it. But that does not mean God specially designed the eight stages of the whale in order to keep life going until he could produce humans.

DAVID: But you don't want to accept God. If you accepted what I present as 'evidence' you would have to accept God. So be it. We'll continue the debate.

Irrelevant when our discussion is not over the existence of God but over his motives and methods. You constantly try to divert attention away from the self-confessed senselessness of your anthropocentric evolutionary hypothesis. (“If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense.”)

14205 views

dhw: Why bother with an inexact analogy? You believe you have a material receiver brain and an immaterial conscious self. So do you believe your ideas come from your material receiver brain or from your immaterial conscious self?

I create my own ideations using my material brain to employ my immaterial consciousness. A seamless arrangement.

DAVID: My comment is misunderstood. God made the bodily innovations. And how did the hominins make their innovations? Using a big brain they were given as a new species.

dhw: The hominins did indeed make their innovations by using their big brains. The question is whether the big brain engendered the concept of the spear, or the concept of the spear required and so engendered a bigger brain.

Habilis concepts rewired their brain, as proven in H sapiens Indian women learning to read. Size same until erectus arrived. Obvious.

DAVID: And if you accept that God uses evolutionary processes to make the universe, the Earth, and evolved life to the point that humans appear.

dhw: If God exists, of course I accept it. But that does not mean God specially designed the eight stages of the whale in order to keep life going until he could produce humans.

I still think whales are designed by God, as a side branch of evolution, but it is a large branch when you consider manatees, dugongs, orcas, dolphins, etc. All fit eco-niches and contribute to balance of nature.

DAVID: But you don't want to accept God. If you accepted what I present as 'evidence' you would have to accept God. So be it. We'll continue the debate.

dhw: Irrelevant when our discussion is not over the existence of God but over his motives and methods. You constantly try to divert attention away from the self-confessed senselessness of your anthropocentric evolutionary hypothesis. (“If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense.”)

It doesn't have to make sense if one is blindly faithful. I'm trying to make some sense of it with you, but you are blinded to the faith side of the issue. Creation of consciousness in the pinnacle of evolution (H. sapiens) is an obvious purpose. Its development is not explained otherwise. And you deny chance! God might want to be able to communicate with His creations.

14316 views

dhw: These two theories are contradictory. While bearing in mind the distinction between immaterial ideas and the material implementation of those ideas (which entails an inseparable relationship between mind and brain), perhaps you would just clarify for us which of these two conflicting views you hold: 1) the brain is the source of the mind, which depends on the brain for its capacity to think; 2) the brain is not the source of the mind, which produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas etc. independently of the brain.
DAVID: Neither: based on NDE's the brain receives an independent consciousness mechanism which is immaterial and from infancy learns to use and shape it from a blank slate to an operative mechanism.

Here you have the brain learning to use and shape consciousness, although the brain is only a receiver.

DAVID: The computer analogy is not entirely accurate, but as I learn to operate my brain and its consciousness, the brain has the physical ability to modify itself to fit my actions both physically and mentally.

There is no disagreement over the plasticity of the brain. The question is what moulds or “modifies” it, but according to your first sentence it is the brain that uses and shapes (= moulds/modifies) consciousness. In your second sentence there is a “you” that operates (= “learns to use and shape”?) both the brain and the BRAIN’s consciousness, although you say consciousness is independent of the brain and – crucially – you believe that “you” and your consciousness are an entity which survives the death of the body and brain. This ought to mean that the entity of you/your consciousness learns to operate the brain, as opposed to the brain using and shaping you/your consciousness. We can unravel this tangled web if you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: do you believe that the brain is the source of our capacity to think? But I suspect that you would rather not answer in the light of the following:

DAVID: To go back to hominins, each enlargement of the brain allows greater mental capacity, since it is the thinking pre-frontal and frontal areas that enlarge. The physical areas such as the laryngeal control regions develop as the larynx moves caudally to allow language to develop. the whole process reaches a pinnacle in Neanderthal and sapiens. Physical controls as for spear throwing and running arrive as the shoulders an pelvis change from ape like to human like.

I am aware of the history. The question is whether 1) mental changes, language, spear-making and spear-throwing etc. resulted from physical changes, or 2) mental changes resulted in physical changes that allowed for the implementation of concepts such as language, spear-making etc.. You seem to be opting for the former, which means the brain is the source of our capacity to think. I don’t know how you reconcile this with your belief that the capacity to think will survive the death of the brain.

DAVID: But where you are totally confused is in the recognition that habilis does not know what it does not know. Its demonstrated concepts in its artifacts show what it was capable of producing. This is true at each stage of brain case enlargement.

No confusion. The question is whether a) habilis’s artefacts were produced as a result of its own particular increase in brain capacity, or b) its conceptualization of its artefacts resulted in its increased brain capacity. This question applies to each stage of brain case enlargement. You are opting for the former, which means the brain is the source of our capacity to think. I don’t know how you reconcile this with your belief that the capacity to think will survive the death of the brain. (I may have said this before!)

The rest of your post ranges over a wide field of subjects we have already discussed on other threads.

14345 views

DAVID: Neither: based on NDE's the brain receives an independent consciousness mechanism which is immaterial and from infancy learns to use and shape it from a blank slate to an operative mechanism.

dhw: Here you have the brain learning to use and shape consciousness, although the brain is only a receiver.

It shapes the areas and facility of use and the content of experiences and memory. Seamless.

DAVID: The computer analogy is not entirely accurate, but as I learn to operate my brain and its consciousness, the brain has the physical ability to modify itself to fit my actions both physically and mentally.

dhw: There is no disagreement over the plasticity of the brain. ... This ought to mean that the entity of you/your consciousness learns to operate the brain, as opposed to the brain using and shaping you/your consciousness. We can unravel this tangled web if you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: do you believe that the brain is the source of our capacity to think?

My brain uses my consciousness to think. I view it as a seamless mechanism of my brain, in a way a computer, using the software of consciousness which I control as I am part of my brain physically and also mentally.>

dhw I am aware of the history. The question is whether 1) mental changes, language, spear-making and spear-throwing etc. resulted from physical changes, or 2) mental changes resulted in physical changes that allowed for the implementation of concepts such as language, spear-making etc.. You seem to be opting for the former, which means the brain is the source of our capacity to think. I don’t know how you reconcile this with your belief that the capacity to think will survive the death of the brain.

You are confusing the issue. The early hominins had a degree of consciousness. They could think, but not to the degree we can with our more complex larger frontal lobes. With each enlargement they could conceive of more options for survival. Why are you mixing language and spears? Erectus had spears, but a high larynx with slight chance of much speech. Neanderthal and sapiens had fully dropped larynxes for full speech. There are combinations of physical and mental developments that proceed together with each new appearance of a Homo.

DAVID: But where you are totally confused is in the recognition that habilis does not know what it does not know. Its demonstrated concepts in its artifacts show what it was capable of producing. This is true at each stage of brain case enlargement.

dhw: No confusion. The question is whether a) habilis’s artefacts were produced as a result of its own particular increase in brain capacity, or b) its conceptualization of its artefacts resulted in its increased brain capacity. This question applies to each stage of brain case enlargement. You are opting for the former, which means the brain is the source of our capacity to think.

Consciousness appears as the brain enlarges. The brain receives consciousness to think, as before.

14265 views

DAVID: Neither: based on NDE's the brain receives an independent consciousness mechanism which is immaterial and from infancy learns to use and shape it from a blank slate to an operative mechanism.
dhw: Here you have the brain learning to use and shape consciousness, although the brain is only a receiver.
DAVID: It shapes the areas and facility of use and the content of experiences and memory. Seamless.

We have agreed that “use” means the implementation of ideas, and it is clear that the brain is needed for this purpose. But I don’t know how the RECEIVER brain can be said to “shape” the ideas or the consciousness that provides the ideas, or the “content of experiences and memory”, if these exist independently of the brain, as you believe to be the case in a conscious afterlife.

dhw: …do you believe that the brain is the source of our capacity to think?
DAVID: My brain uses my consciousness to think. I view it as a seamless mechanism of my brain, in a way a computer, using the software of consciousness which I control as I am part of my brain physically and also mentally.

Another convoluted answer to a simple question. Let me try again (though I am not taking sides on this myself). You believe in an afterlife without brain or body, in which the conscious self continues to exist with its capacity to think. Yes or no? If the answer is yes, this means that the capacity to think must be independent of the brain. Yes or no?

DAVID: You are confusing the issue. The early hominins had a degree of consciousness. They could think, but not to the degree we can with our more complex larger frontal lobes.

No confusion. The question is whether our more complex larger frontal lobes are the source or the consequence of our increased degree of thought (the increase being necessary to cope with the demands of new concepts).

DAVID: With each enlargement they could conceive of more options for survival. Why are you mixing language and spears? Erectus had spears, but a high larynx with slight chance of much speech. Neanderthal and sapiens had fully dropped larynxes for full speech. There are combinations of physical and mental developments that proceed together with each new appearance of a Homo.

I am not mixing them. I am repeating the examples of new concepts that you used in your post. Each one required changes to the brain and the rest of the anatomy. You say the changes to brain and anatomy PRECEDED the manufacture of spears and the use of language, whereas if the capacity for thought (consciousness) is independent of the brain, as is indicated by the NDEs you believe in, it would be thought that engendered the changes to brain and anatomy, just as the illiterate women’s attempt to read engendered changes to their brain.

DAVID: Consciousness appears as the brain enlarges. The brain receives consciousness to think, as before.

I think you mean increased consciousness appears as the brain enlarges. But which comes first? I am not taking sides, but with your belief that your brainless conscious self will live on after death, and your belief that increased consciousness is impossible without brain enlargement, you are trying to take both sides.

14341 views

dhw: Here you have the brain learning to use and shape consciousness, although the brain is only a receiver.
DAVID: It shapes the areas and facility of use and the content of experiences and memory. Seamless.

dhw:We have agreed that “use” means the implementation of ideas, and it is clear that the brain is needed for this purpose. But I don’t know how the RECEIVER brain can be said to “shape” the ideas or the consciousness that provides the ideas, or the “content of experiences and memory”, if these exist independently of the brain, as you believe to be the case in a conscious afterlife.

The living brain/me/consciousness is seamless in life, but after death is a total different issue. Only me/consciousness exists in that circumstance. Why do you try to assume life and death are the same circumstance for the brain? In life material brain, immaterial me/consciousness; in death immaterial me/consciousness.

DAVID: My brain uses my consciousness to think. I view it as a seamless mechanism of my brain, in a way a computer, using the software of consciousness which I control as I am part of my brain physically and also mentally.

dhw: Another convoluted answer to a simple question. Let me try again (though I am not taking sides on this myself). You believe in an afterlife without brain or body, in which the conscious self continues to exist with its capacity to think. Yes or no?

Yes

dhw: If the answer is yes, this means that the capacity to think must be independent of the brain. Yes or no?

No. Same conflation. Life and death are different circumstances. See above.

DAVID: You are confusing the issue. The early hominins had a degree of consciousness. They could think, but not to the degree we can with our more complex larger frontal lobes.

dhw: No confusion. The question is whether our more complex larger frontal lobes are the source or the consequence of our increased degree of thought (the increase being necessary to cope with the demands of new concepts).

Bigger more complex pre-frontal and frontal lobes bring much more capacity for thoughts and concepts. Size first, mental use and concepts second.

DAVID: With each enlargement they could conceive of more options for survival. Why are you mixing language and spears? Erectus had spears, but a high larynx with slight chance of much speech. Neanderthal and sapiens had fully dropped larynxes for full speech. There are combinations of physical and mental developments that proceed together with each new appearance of a Homo.

dhw: I am not mixing them. I am repeating the examples of new concepts that you used in your post. Each one required changes to the brain and the rest of the anatomy. You say the changes to brain and anatomy PRECEDED the manufacture of spears and the use of language, whereas if the capacity for thought (consciousness) is independent of the brain, as is indicated by the NDEs you believe in, it would be thought that engendered the changes to brain and anatomy, just as the illiterate women’s attempt to read engendered changes to their brain.

An other mixed conflation. The women already had a large complex brain. The plasticity of the brain allowed them to modify it with learning to read. With enough new uses by humans the brain shrinks, not grows!

DAVID: Consciousness appears as the brain enlarges. The brain receives consciousness to think, as before.

dhw: I think you mean increased consciousness appears as the brain enlarge

Yes.

dhw: But which comes first? I am not taking sides, but with your belief that your brainless conscious self will live on after death, and your belief that increased consciousness is impossible without brain enlargement, you are trying to take both sides.

No, life and death are different, as above.

14345 views

dhw:We have agreed that “use” means the implementation of ideas, and it is clear that the brain is needed for this purpose. But I don’t know how the RECEIVER brain can be said to “shape” the ideas or the consciousness that provides the ideas, or the “content of experiences and memory”, if these exist independently of the brain, as you believe to be the case in a conscious afterlife.
DAVID: The living brain/me/consciousness is seamless in life, but after death is a total different issue. Only me/consciousness exists in that circumstance. Why do you try to assume life and death are the same circumstance for the brain? In life material brain, immaterial me/consciousness; in death immaterial me/consciousness.

Of course life and death are not the same circumstance for the brain! The brain is no longer there after death! But you believe that the immaterial you will continue to exist after the death of the brain, with the same capacity to think, the same memories, the same ideas. This is why it is a total contradiction for you to argue that in life the immaterial "you" cannot think or conceptualize without the brain, which you yourself keep telling us is only a RECEIVER. This can only mean that in life the brain does not do the thinking etc. but receives the thoughts and enables our immaterial self to express and implement them in the material world. It is no longer required when we move into an immaterial world. (I am simply repeating YOUR beliefs here. I remain neutral.) The rest of your post deals with the same subject, except for the following:

dhw: You say the changes to brain and anatomy PRECEDED the manufacture of spears and the use of language, whereas if the capacity for thought (consciousness) is independent of the brain, as is indicated by the NDEs you believe in, it would be thought that engendered the changes to brain and anatomy, just as the illiterate women’s attempt to read engendered changes to their brain.
DAVID: An other mixed conflation. The women already had a large complex brain. The plasticity of the brain allowed them to modify it with learning to read. With enough new uses by humans the brain shrinks, not grows!

Yes, they already had a large brain. I am suggesting that at some time in the past the brain reached a size beyond which it could not grow without serious consequences for the rest of the anatomy, and so later modifications took place through rewiring and densifying, as with the illiterate women. Shrinkage, I suggest, is the result of efficient densification.

14324 views

DAVID: The living brain/me/consciousness is seamless in life, but after death is a total different issue. Only me/consciousness exists in that circumstance. Why do you try to assume life and death are the same circumstance for the brain? In life material brain, immaterial me/consciousness; in death immaterial me/consciousness.

dhw: Of course life and death are not the same circumstance for the brain! The brain is no longer there after death! But you believe that the immaterial you will continue to exist after the death of the brain, with the same capacity to think, the same memories, the same ideas. This is why it is a total contradiction for you to argue that in life the immaterial "you" cannot think or conceptualize without the brain, which you yourself keep telling us is only a RECEIVER.

Your concept of brain as a receiver is that it is a passive receiver. I've never said nor implied that. Yes the brain receives the consciousness which it ACTIVELY uses under my direction to create all the attributes of my personality. All of what is created is immaterial, and leaves my body in death to join the afterlife all of which is immaterial. Events in the afterlife have been described, mainly as receiving information. Whether 'souls' discuss ideas, have conversations, etc. is unknown to me.

DAVID: An other mixed conflation. The women already had a large complex brain. The plasticity of the brain allowed them to modify it with learning to read. With enough new uses by humans the brain shrinks, not grows!

dhw: Yes, they already had a large brain. I am suggesting that at some time in the past the brain reached a size beyond which it could not grow without serious consequences for the rest of the anatomy, and so later modifications took place through rewiring and densifying, as with the illiterate women. Shrinkage, I suggest, is the result of efficient densification.

Your statement is true but avoids my comment about your internal drive theory that the wish for more concepts grows the brain. Habilis did not know what it did not know. These woman could learn to read because the brain they were given had a built in capacity to learn to read. All they had to do was use it. You cannot deny that. I'm sure habilis could not read.

14311 views

dhw: […] you believe that the immaterial you will continue to exist after the death of the brain, with the same capacity to think, the same memories, the same ideas. This is why it is a total contradiction for you to argue that in life the immaterial "you" cannot think or conceptualize without the brain, which you yourself keep telling us is only a RECEIVER.
DAVID: Your concept of brain as a receiver is that it is a passive receiver. I've never said nor implied that.

The brain as a receiver of consciousness (as opposed to a transmitter) is YOUR concept. I remain neutral. And a receiver by definition is passive.

DAVID: Yes the brain receives the consciousness which it ACTIVELY uses under my direction to create all the attributes of my personality. All of what is created is immaterial, and leaves my body in death to join the afterlife all of which is immaterial. Events in the afterlife have been described, mainly as receiving information. Whether 'souls' discuss ideas, have conversations, etc. is unknown to me.

How can the receiver brain use YOUR consciousness directed by YOU to create the personality which is YOU? You now have YOU directing the brain to make YOU! Over and over again, you have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. It is that entity which uses the brain. As for NDEs, you know very well that patients report conversations, which you say are conducted by telepathy. On Monday you confirmed your belief that in the afterlife the conscious self continues to exist with its capacity to think. Do you really believe that the ever probing Turell mind will stop thinking for itself and yet you will still be you?

dhw: I am suggesting that at some time in the past the brain reached a size beyond which it could not grow without serious consequences for the rest of the anatomy, and so later modifications took place through rewiring and densifying, as with the illiterate women. Shrinkage, I suggest, is the result of efficient densification.
DAVID: Your statement is true but avoids my comment about your internal drive theory that the wish for more concepts grows the brain.

That is NOT my theory, and in any case my theory is based on your beliefs, not mine. Once more : 1) the mind comes up with a new concept and wishes to IMPLEMENT it; 2) the IMPLEMENTATION requires changes to the brain; 3) the changes to the brain enable the concept to be implemented.

DAVID: Habilis did not know what it did not know.

Obviously. But habilis came up with a new idea (a spear), and then its brain had to expand in order to implement the idea.

DAVID: These woman could learn to read because the brain they were given had a built in capacity to learn to read. All they had to do was use it. You cannot deny that. I'm sure habilis could not read.

In order for the women to be able to read, their brain had to undergo some rewiring. The concept of reading (new to them) came first, and the effort to read caused the rewiring. Habilis never came up with the concept of reading or of motor cars or of airplanes, but his conscious mind (if you believe in dualism) did come up with the concept of spear-making and spear-throwing, and the effort to implement the concept caused the growth of the brain.

14260 views

DAVID: Your concept of brain as a receiver is that it is a passive receiver. I've never said nor implied that.

dhw: The brain as a receiver of consciousness (as opposed to a transmitter) is YOUR concept. I remain neutral. And a receiver by definition is passive.

Your narrow point that the brain may receive consciousness passively, but fails to note the brain is active as I use it.

DAVID: Yes the brain receives the consciousness which it ACTIVELY uses under my direction to create all the attributes of my personality. All of what is created is immaterial, and leaves my body in death to join the afterlife all of which is immaterial. Events in the afterlife have been described, mainly as receiving information. Whether 'souls' discuss ideas, have conversations, etc. is unknown to me.

dhw: How can the receiver brain use YOUR consciousness directed by YOU to create the personality which is YOU? You now have YOU directing the brain to make YOU! Over and over again, you have agreed that you and your consciousness are an inseparable entity. It is that entity which uses the brain. As for NDEs, you know very well that patients report conversations, which you say are conducted by telepathy. On Monday you confirmed your belief that in the afterlife the conscious self continues to exist with its capacity to think. Do you really believe that the ever probing Turell mind will stop thinking for itself and yet you will still be you?

The newborn receives a blank slate consciousness so I create me as I develop. Cautious thinking in the adolescent is not fully present until the frontal loves are fully developed in their 20's. As the brain develops it allows fuller thought capacity. You do not allow for all these obvious interactions. Full consciousness is not present until the brain is fully developed. In afterlife I'm not sure I will develop anything but will be in contact with other souls.>

DAVID: Habilis did not know what it did not know.

dhw: Obviously. But habilis came up with a new idea (a spear), and then its brain had to expand in order to implement the idea.

Hand stone tools, not spears for habilis. Hand stone tools simply rewired the habilis brain as in Indian women reading with our brain. You are totally inconsistent.

DAVID: These woman could learn to read because the brain they were given had a built in capacity to learn to read. All they had to do was use it. You cannot deny that. I'm sure habilis could not read.

dhw: In order for the women to be able to read, their brain had to undergo some rewiring. The concept of reading (new to them) came first, and the effort to read caused the rewiring. Habilis never came up with the concept of reading or of motor cars or of airplanes, but his conscious mind (if you believe in dualism) did come up with the concept of spear-making and spear-throwing, and the effort to implement the concept caused the growth of the brain.

Same rewiring inconsistency. Use at any level of brain size causes brain to rewire. Proven concept.

14279 views

DAVID: (under “big brain size or use") Habilis did not know what it did not know.

dhw: Obviously. But habilis came up with a new idea (a spear), and then its brain had to expand in order to implement the idea.

DAVID: Hand stone tools, not spears for habilis. Hand stone tools simply rewired the habilis brain as in Indian women reading with our brain. You are totally inconsistent.

My mistake. Thank you. Habilis came up with a new idea (stone tools, not spears). How the heck do you know that these simply rewired the brain? How many of our fellow animals invent and manufacture tools, no matter how primitive? This was a huge mental step forward in evolution, and it required a physical leap in order to manufacture and use the tools. You say God enlarged their brain first, and then they thought of making tools. Please explain how you know that the effort to implement the new concept of tool-making was not the cause of their brain enlargement, or that the effort to swim was not the cause of legs changing to flippers, or that the effort to walk on land was not the cause of fins changing to legs.

The effort to read caused rewiring because the brain had already long since reached its optimum size. There has to be a limit to brain growth. Before it reached its optimum size, the brain expanded in response to the effort to implement new concepts.

14239 views

DAVID: Hand stone tools, not spears for habilis. Hand stone tools simply rewired the habilis brain as in Indian women reading with our brain. You are totally inconsistent.

dhw: My mistake. Thank you. Habilis came up with a new idea (stone tools, not spears). How the heck do you know that these simply rewired the brain? How many of our fellow animals invent and manufacture tools, no matter how primitive? This was a huge mental step forward in evolution, and it required a physical leap in order to manufacture and use the tools.

Simple answer. We know the brain has plasticity. The first advanced hominin brains undoubtedly had that property. What is plasticity but rewiring as in the illiterate women. No enlargement from plasticity. The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging. Happens to all H. sapiens whose brains have shrunk. Obvious concept.

dhw:You say God enlarged their brain first, and then they thought of making tools. Please explain how you know that the effort to implement the new concept of tool-making was not the cause of their brain enlargement, or that the effort to swim was not the cause of legs changing to flippers, or that the effort to walk on land was not the cause of fins changing to legs.

Habilis did not know what it did not know. When it did something new its brain rewired as happens now. Now you are proposing that effort causes speciation?

dhw: The effort to read caused rewiring because the brain had already long since reached its optimum size. There has to be a limit to brain growth. Before it reached its optimum size, the brain expanded in response to the effort to implement new concepts.

If our brain is 'optimum' humans are the end point of evolution. Thanks.

14305 views

DAVID: Hand stone tools, not spears for habilis. Hand stone tools simply rewired the habilis brain as in Indian women reading with our brain. You are totally inconsistent.
dhw: My mistake. Thank you. Habilis came up with a new idea (stone tools, not spears). How the heck do you know that these simply rewired the brain? How many of our fellow animals invent and manufacture tools, no matter how primitive? This was a huge mental step forward in evolution, and it required a physical leap in order to manufacture and use the tools.
DAVID: Simple answer. We know the brain has plasticity. The first advanced hominin brains undoubtedly had that property. What is plasticity but rewiring as in the illiterate women. No enlargement from plasticity. The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging. Happens to all H. sapiens whose brains have shrunk. Obvious concept.

So why do you think your God kept on enlarging the human brain if rewiring is all that is required to produce and implement new ideas?

dhw:You say God enlarged their brain first, and then they thought of making tools. Please explain how you know that the effort to implement the new concept of tool-making was not the cause of their brain enlargement, or that the effort to swim was not the cause of legs changing to flippers, or that the effort to walk on land was not the cause of fins changing to legs.
DAVID: Habilis did not know what it did not know. When it did something new its brain rewired as happens now. Now you are proposing that effort causes speciation?

So once again, why did your God enlarge the brain? And where did the concept of new tools come from? The mind or the brain?
Yes, I am proposing that the effort to implement new concepts and new ways of life causes organisms to change themselves. Instead of God transforming a leg into a flipper and then plonking the pre-whale in the water, I am proposing that the pre-whale for whatever reason decided to enter the water, and the effort of adapting itself to life in the water resulted in the anatomical changes we know took place. (I have a strange feeling that this may not be an original idea. ;-) )

dhw: The effort to read caused rewiring because the brain had already long since reached its optimum size. There has to be a limit to brain growth. Before it reached its optimum size, the brain expanded in response to the effort to implement new concepts.
DAVID: If our brain is 'optimum' humans are the end point of evolution. Thanks.

A total non sequitur. The suggestion that the human head could not expand any more without causing problems for the rest of the human anatomy does not mean that evolution is over.

14334 views

DAVID: Simple answer. We know the brain has plasticity. The first advanced hominin brains undoubtedly had that property. What is plasticity but rewiring as in the illiterate women. No enlargement from plasticity. The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging. Happens to all H. sapiens whose brains have shrunk. Obvious concept.

dhw: So why do you think your God kept on enlarging the human brain if rewiring is all that is required to produce and implement new ideas?

Rewiring is what happens at each size change, but size of the frontal lobes is what allows for the advanced ideation of each new species on the way to humans. The capacity of each new hominin is shown by the artifacts found from their time of existence.

DAVID: Habilis did not know what it did not know. When it did something new its brain rewired as happens now. Now you are proposing that effort causes speciation?

So once again, why did your God enlarge the brain? And where did the concept of new tools come from? The mind or the brain?

Both working together as a consciousness/ brain seamless mechanism.

dhw: Yes, I am proposing that the effort to implement new concepts and new ways of life causes organisms to change themselves. Instead of God transforming a leg into a flipper and then plonking the pre-whale in the water, I am proposing that the pre-whale for whatever reason decided to enter the water, and the effort of adapting itself to life in the water resulted in the anatomical changes we know took place. (I have a strange feeling that this may not be an original idea. )

Again, your concept skips the idea that a planning mind must imagine the future phenotypic changes and form that are required and plan for them in advance. DNA must be mutated appropriately in a coordinated pattern to achieve those changes. Takes a brain/mind to do it, nothing less.

dhw: The effort to read caused rewiring because the brain had already long since reached its optimum size. There has to be a limit to brain growth. Before it reached its optimum size, the brain expanded in response to the effort to implement new concepts.
DAVID: If our brain is 'optimum' humans are the end point of evolution. Thanks.

dhw: A total non sequitur. The suggestion that the human head could not expand any more without causing problems for the rest of the human anatomy does not mean that evolution is over.

I didn't imply any of your suggestion. You have a great imagination. I suggest there is no need for enlargement because the brain is as complex as it needs to be for all future concepts.

14241 views

DAVID: We know the brain has plasticity. The first advanced hominin brains undoubtedly had that property. What is plasticity but rewiring as in the illiterate women. No enlargement from plasticity. The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging. Happens to all H. sapiens whose brains have shrunk. Obvious concept.
dhw: So why do you think your God kept on enlarging the human brain if rewiring is all that is required to produce and implement new ideas?
DAVID: Rewiring is what happens at each size change, but size of the frontal lobes is what allows for the advanced ideation of each new species on the way to humans. The capacity of each new hominin is shown by the artifacts found from their time of existence.

This is getting more and more confusing. “The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging” – i.e. by rewiring – now apparently means rewiring happens when the brain enlarges. I thought rewiring happened when there were new ideas. You keep saying the brain “allows for” new ideas, but this still doesn’t tell us where the new ideas come from. Once more, as under “dualism versus materialism”, please tell us (a) whether you think new ideas come from the brain or from the soul, and (b) why you think your God bothered to enlarge the brain if it could accommodate new ideas without enlarging. But yes, the artefacts tell us what ideas each hominin was capable of conceiving (= thought) and then implementing (= the material realization of the thought).

dhw: Yes, I am proposing that the effort to implement new concepts and new ways of life causes organisms to change themselves. Instead of God transforming a leg into a flipper and then plonking the pre-whale in the water, I am proposing that the pre-whale for whatever reason decided to enter the water, and the effort of adapting itself to life in the water resulted in the anatomical changes we know took place. (I have a strange feeling that this may not be an original idea. )

DAVID: Again, your concept skips the idea that a planning mind must imagine the future phenotypic changes and form that are required and plan for them in advance. DNA must be mutated appropriately in a coordinated pattern to achieve those changes. Takes a brain/mind to do it, nothing less.

Dealt with yet again under “gaps are very real”, but yes indeed the cell communities that make up every organism must coordinate, and this requires intelligence. Only apparently you do not believe your God is capable of endowing cell communities with the intelligence to do it themselves.

dhw: The effort to read caused rewiring because the brain had already long since reached its optimum size. There has to be a limit to brain growth. Before it reached its optimum size, the brain expanded in response to the effort to implement new concepts.
DAVID: If our brain is 'optimum' humans are the end point of evolution. Thanks.
dhw: A total non sequitur. The suggestion that the human head could not expand any more without causing problems for the rest of the human anatomy does not mean that evolution is over.
DAVID: I didn't imply any of your suggestion. You have a great imagination. I suggest there is no need for enlargement because the brain is as complex as it needs to be for all future concepts.

I thought it was densification that led to complexity, and future concepts would lead to further densification, i.e. further complexity. As for my imagination, I didn’t realize that “humans are the end point of evolution” meant their brains didn’t need to expand any more. I thought it meant humans were the end point of evolution. “"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language." (Oscar Wilde)

14351 views

DAVID: Rewiring is what happens at each size change, but size of the frontal lobes is what allows for the advanced ideation of each new species on the way to humans. The capacity of each new hominin is shown by the artifacts found from their time of existence.

dhw: This is getting more and more confusing. “The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging” – i.e. by rewiring – now apparently means rewiring happens when the brain enlarges. I thought rewiring happened when there were new ideas.

I have no idea why you are so confused. Let's use the knowledge we have about our brain and apply it to habilis. His little brain allows new concepts: hammering flint to make sharp hand axes. His brain plasticity allows him to learn how to hammer (apes can't). That is a result of a form of re-wiring: his brain does not enlarge, because it has the plasticity to adapt to his new desired activity. But we find that he doesn't conceive of putting the flint on a stick to throw as a spear. With erectus' bigger brain that concept appears.

dhw: You keep saying the brain “allows for” new ideas, but this still doesn’t tell us where the new ideas come from. Once more, as under “dualism versus materialism”, please tell us (a) whether you think new ideas come from the brain or from the soul, and (b) why you think your God bothered to enlarge the brain if it could accommodate new ideas without enlarging. But yes, the artefacts tell us what ideas each hominin was capable of conceiving (= thought) and then implementing (= the material realization of the thought).

You haven't accepted my idea that brain/ me/ consciousness are all fused together in life. As before, a larger brain obviously allowed for more advanced conceptualization, better use of the received consciousness.

DAVID: Again, your concept skips the idea that a planning mind must imagine the future phenotypic changes and form that are required and plan for them in advance. DNA must be mutated appropriately in a coordinated pattern to achieve those changes. Takes a brain/mind to do it, nothing less.

dhw: Dealt with yet again under “gaps are very real”, but yes indeed the cell communities that make up every organism must coordinate, and this requires intelligence. Only apparently you do not believe your God is capable of endowing cell communities with the intelligence to do it themselves.

I don't, and you know that.

DAVID: I didn't imply any of your suggestion. You have a great imagination. I suggest there is no need for enlargement because the brain is as complex as it needs to be for all future concepts.

dhw: I thought it was densification that led to complexity, and future concepts would lead to further densification, i.e. further complexity. As for my imagination, I didn’t realize that “humans are the end point of evolution” meant their brains didn’t need to expand any more. I thought it meant humans were the end point of evolution. “"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language." (Oscar Wilde)

Complex thought led to densification, as previously shown. We are the end of evolution, and our brain will not grow any more. It doesn't need to. Einstein had a thickened area related to conceptualization, but his hat size was normal.

14329 views

Addendum:

I view plasticity as present in all brains throughout evolution. see my bumblebee entry of today. It is another way of saying 'rewiring'. Densification is just an extreme form of plasticity/rewiring, as the result of extreme conceptualization by humans who are using their material/immaterial brain/consciousness complex.

14297 views

DAVID: Rewiring is what happens at each size change, but size of the frontal lobes is what allows for the advanced ideation of each new species on the way to humans. The capacity of each new hominin is shown by the artifacts found from their time of existence.
dhw: This is getting more and more confusing. “The brain can accommodate new ideas without enlarging” – i.e. by rewiring – now apparently means rewiring happens when the brain enlarges. I thought rewiring happened when there were new ideas.
DAVID: I have no idea why you are so confused. Let's use the knowledge we have about our brain and apply it to habilis. His little brain allows new concepts: hammering flint to make sharp hand axes. His brain plasticity allows him to learn how to hammer (apes can't). That is a result of a form of re-wiring: his brain does not enlarge, because it has the plasticity to adapt to his new desired activity. But we find that he doesn't conceive of putting the flint on a stick to throw as a spear. With erectus' bigger brain that concept appears.

You continue to use the word “allow” without telling us where the new concepts come from. (See under “dualism versus materialism”.) You now have habilis’s little brain “allowing” NEW concepts, but erectus has to have a bigger brain to “allow” NEW concepts – and you think I’m confused. If habilis could have NEW concepts through rewiring, why couldn’t erectus? “Appears” is another of your wishy-washy words. In any case, it’s not the concept that “appears” but the material manifestation of the concept – a distinction you keep avoiding because you refuse to say whether the concept originates in the immaterial mind or the material brain.

DAVID: You haven’t accepted my idea that brain/me/consciousness are all fused together in life. As before, a large brain obviously allowed for more advanced conceptualization, better use of the received consciousness.

“Fused together” is a cop-out, unless you believe that the brain is the source of consciousness, with all our thoughts, ideas etc. (which may be so - I remain neutral). The crucial evidence you have for your dualistic belief in an afterlife is NDEs, in which the “soul” is separate from the body. This can only mean that the material brain is NOT the source of your thoughts, since the "soul" returns to the patient and reports its experience to the brain, which gets the body to pass on the information. Under “Dualism versus materialism” I have tried to define the dualistic interaction (not “fusion”) between soul and material brain, and I hope you will give me a straight answer.

dhw: […] yes indeed the cell communities that make up every organism must coordinate, and this requires intelligence. Only apparently you do not believe your God is capable of endowing cell communities with the intelligence to do it themselves.
DAVID: I don't, and you know that.

You don’t what? Believe your God is capable of endowing cells with intelligence? Back to his limited powers?

DAVID: I didn't imply any of your suggestion. You have a great imagination. I suggest there is no need for enlargement because the brain is as complex as it needs to be for all future concepts.
dhw: I didn’t realize that “humans are the end point of evolution” meant their brains didn’t need to expand any more. I thought it meant humans were the end point of evolution. “"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language." (Oscar Wilde)
DAVID: Complex thought led to densification, as previously shown. We are the end of evolution, and our brain will not grow any more. It doesn't need to. Einstein had a thickened area related to conceptualization, but his hat size was normal.

It doesn’t need to grow, or maybe it can’t, but that hardly proves humans are the end point of evolution.

14245 views

Not so smart but much larger than ours. it depends where the neurons are placed:

http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/227/the-paradox-of-the-elephant-brain?utm_source=Nautilus...

"Lo and behold, the African elephant brain had more neurons than the human brain. And not just a few more: a full three times the number of neurons, 257 billion to our 86 billion neurons. But—and this was a huge, immense “but”—a whopping 98 percent of those neurons were located in the cerebellum, at the back of the brain. In every other mammal we had examined so far, the cerebellum concentrated most of the brain neurons, but never much more than 80 percent of them. The exceptional distribution of neurons within the elephant brain left a relatively meager 5.6 billion neurons in the whole cerebral cortex itself. Despite the size of the African elephant cerebral cortex, the 5.6 billion neurons in it paled in comparison to the average 16 billion neurons concentrated in the much smaller human cerebral cortex.

"So here was our answer. No, the human brain does not have more neurons than the much larger elephant brain—but the human cerebral cortex has nearly three times as many neurons as the over twice as large cerebral cortex of the elephant. Unless we were ready to concede that the elephant, with three times more neurons in its cerebellum (and, therefore, in its brain), must be more cognitively capable than we humans, we could rule out the hypothesis that total number of neurons in the cerebellum was in any way limiting or sufficient to determine the cognitive capabilities of a brain.

"Only the cerebral cortex remained, then. Nature had done the experiment that we needed, dissociating numbers of neurons in the cerebral cortex from the number of neurons in the cerebellum. The superior cognitive capabilities of the human brain over the elephant brain can simply—and only—be attributed to the remarkably large number of neurons in its cerebral cortex.

***

"As it turns out, there is a simple explanation for how the human brain, and it alone, can be at the same time similar to others in its evolutionary constraints, and yet so different to the point of endowing us with the ability to ponder our own material and metaphysical origins. First, we are primates, and this bestows upon humans the advantage of a large number of neurons packed into a small cerebral cortex. And second, thanks to a technological innovation introduced by our ancestors, we escaped the energetic constraint that limits all other animals to the smaller number of cortical neurons that can be afforded by a raw diet in the wild.

"So what do we have that no other animal has? A remarkable number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, the largest around, attainable by no other species, I say. And what do we do that absolutely no other animal does, and which I believe allowed us to amass that remarkable number of neurons in the first place? We cook our food. The rest—all the technological innovations made possible by that outstanding number of neurons in our cerebral cortex, and the ensuing cultural transmission of those innovations that has kept the spiral that turns capacities into abilities moving upward—is history."

Comment: Written like a true atheist. The bigger brain allowed us to learn how to use fire to nourish the bigger brain. The bigger brain appeared before we could use fire. She doesn't answer the issue of how the brain began to grow, on its own, or with God's direction? The cerebellum is important for coordination of physical activity, not the higher mental powers of the pre-frontal area.

14313 views

DAVID’s comment: Written like a true atheist. The bigger brain allowed us to learn how to use fire to nourish the bigger brain. The bigger brain appeared before we could use fire. She doesn't answer the issue of how the brain began to grow, on its own, or with God's direction? The cerebellum is important for coordination of physical activity, not the higher mental powers of the pre-frontal area.

Written like a true theist. According to the author, it was cooked food that enabled our brain to grow (well, that’s one theory), which means the new idea of how to use fire preceded the bigger brain. But there is actually no way anyone can prove which came first. However, yet again you are using the wishy-washy word “allowed”. If you think our ancestor’s big brain thought of using fire, you should say so. If you think it was our ancestor’s soul that thought of using fire, you should say so. See “dualism versus materialism”.

14194 views

DAVID’s comment: Written like a true atheist. The bigger brain allowed us to learn how to use fire to nourish the bigger brain. The bigger brain appeared before we could use fire. She doesn't answer the issue of how the brain began to grow, on its own, or with God's direction? The cerebellum is important for coordination of physical activity, not the higher mental powers of the pre-frontal area.

dhw: Written like a true theist. According to the author, it was cooked food that enabled our brain to grow (well, that’s one theory), which means the new idea of how to use fire preceded the bigger brain. But there is actually no way anyone can prove which came first. However, yet again you are using the wishy-washy word “allowed”. If you think our ancestor’s big brain thought of using fire, you should say so. If you think it was our ancestor’s soul that thought of using fire, you should say so. See “dualism versus materialism”.

Allowed means 'given the facility' to have the thought. The thought of use of fire was not demanded by the larger brain, but provided the substrate for the ancestor to eventually realize that the thought of using fire could appear. The material ancestor did his own thinking while he shaped the contents of his soul.

14245 views

dhw: You continue to use the word “allow” without telling us where the new concepts come from. (See under “dualism versus materialism”.) You now have habilis’s little brain “allowing” NEW concepts, but erectus has to have a bigger brain to “allow” NEW concepts – and you think I’m confused. If habilis could have NEW concepts through rewiring, why couldn’t erectus?

When habilis appears he has a bigger frontal area with more neurons. This allows him the ability to do a little more deep thinking. He becomes more conscious of possibilities. As he develops those ideas his brain can do a little plasticity rewiring to accommodate the new activities. Same for erectus at the next level of prefrontal size. He has the ability to conceptualize more. Again habilis brain/consciousness is seamless.

dhw;“Appears” is another of your wishy-washy words. In any case, it’s not the concept that “appears” but the material manifestation of the concept – a distinction you keep avoiding because you refuse to say whether the concept originates in the immaterial mind or the material brain.

I keep saying it is seamless. The material brain uses the immaterial mind/consciousness under the direction of the proto human.

dhw: “Fused together” is a cop-out, unless you believe that the brain is the source of consciousness, with all our thoughts, ideas etc. (which may be so - I remain neutral). The crucial evidence you have for your dualistic belief in an afterlife is NDEs, in which the “soul” is separate from the body. This can only mean that the material brain is NOT the source of your thoughts, since the "soul" returns to the patient and reports its experience to the brain, which gets the body to pass on the information. Under “Dualism versus materialism” I have tried to define the dualistic interaction (not “fusion”) between soul and material brain, and I hope you will give me a straight answer.

I view myself while alive as using my brain to create concepts with the mechanism of my immaterial consciousness. I view myself as material while alive, using my immaterial consciousness. That is my view of dualism.

dhw: […] yes indeed the cell communities that make up every organism must coordinate, and this requires intelligence. Only apparently you do not believe your God is capable of endowing cell communities with the intelligence to do it themselves.
DAVID: I don't, and you know that.

dhw: You don’t what? Believe your God is capable of endowing cells with intelligence? Back to his limited powers?

I've said He can give them an IM but only with guidelines to advance evolution according to his plans. Cells are not intelligent by themselves, but automatic.

DAVID: Complex thought led to densification, as previously shown. We are the end of evolution, and our brain will not grow any more. It doesn't need to. Einstein had a thickened area related to conceptualization, but his hat size was normal.

dhw: It doesn’t need to grow, or maybe it can’t, but that hardly proves humans are the end point of evolution.

Upright posture was fully developed one million years ago or before. 350,000 years ago a fully developed Homo sapiens brain appeared (latest findings in Morocco). Now the brain through civilized concepts is slightly smaller with plasticity rewiring and densification. The whole drive is posture and prefrontal brain for all that time. I don't see another drive on the horizon, nor can I imagine one that adds anything better. Can you?

14302 views

dhw: You continue to use the word “allow” without telling us where the new concepts come from. (See under “dualism versus materialism”.) You now have habilis’s little brain “allowing” NEW concepts, but erectus has to have a bigger brain to “allow” NEW concepts – and you think I’m confused. If habilis could have NEW concepts through rewiring, why couldn’t erectus?
DAVID: When habilis appears he has a bigger frontal area with more neurons. This allows him the ability to do a little more deep thinking.

First it was his “little brain allows new concepts” because of its plasticity, but now it’s his bigger brain that allows new concepts. You change your arguments from one day to the next.

DAVID: He becomes more conscious of possibilities. As he develops those ideas his brain can do a little plasticity rewiring to accommodate the new activities. Same for erectus at the next level of prefrontal size. He has the ability to conceptualize more. Again habilis brain/consciousness is seamless.

The new concept must precede the implementation of the new concept (I don’t know why you change my “implement” to “accommodate”.) Under “dualism versus materialism” you accept that the immaterial soul is in charge, and so – once more – it is the immaterial soul, not the brain or the enlarged brain, that directs the material brain to give material form to its concepts.

dhw: “Appears” is another of your wishy-washy words. In any case, it’s not the concept that “appears” but the material manifestation of the concept – a distinction you keep avoiding because you refuse to say whether the concept originates in the immaterial mind or the material brain.
DAVID: I keep saying it is seamless. The material brain uses the immaterial mind/consciousness under the direction of the proto human.

It is seamless in the sense that during life the soul and the body are “me”, but you say it is the soul/me that is in charge, and therefore the soul/me directs/uses the brain/me, and not the other way round. Unless, of course, you think that whatever is in charge is directed by the thing it is in charge of. (Back to your blind faith in the illogical?)

DAVID: I view myself while alive as using my brain to create concepts with the mechanism of my immaterial consciousness. I view myself as material while alive, using my immaterial consciousness. That is my view of dualism.

If your material self uses your immaterial self, then it is your material self that is in charge, the exact opposite of what you have agreed under “dualism versus materialism”.

dhw: You don’t what? Believe your God is capable of endowing cells with intelligence? Back to his limited powers?
DAVID: I've said He can give them an IM but only with guidelines to advance evolution according to his plans. Cells are not intelligent by themselves, but automatic.

If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.

dhw: It [the brain] doesn’t need to grow, or maybe it can’t, but that hardly proves humans are the end point of evolution.
DAVID: Upright posture was fully developed one million years ago or before. 350,000 years ago a fully developed Homo sapiens brain appeared (latest findings in Morocco). Now the brain through civilized concepts is slightly smaller with plasticity rewiring and densification. The whole drive is posture and prefrontal brain for all that time. I don't see another drive on the horizon, nor can I imagine one that adds anything better. Can you?

I am aware of the history, but the fact that I can’t imagine the human head expanding any more doesn’t help me to imagine what life will be like in, say, a thousand million years from now.

14263 views

DAVID: When habilis appears he has a bigger frontal area with more neurons. This allows him the ability to do a little more deep thinking.

dhw: First it was his “little brain allows new concepts” because of its plasticity, but now it’s his bigger brain that allows new concepts. You change your arguments from one day to the next.

Constant misinterpretation: It is obvious habilis had a bigger brain than his ancestors 'when he appears'. Obviously bigger frontal pre-frontal regions allows for deeper conceptualization.

DAVID: He becomes more conscious of possibilities. As he develops those ideas his brain can do a little plasticity rewiring to accommodate the new activities. Same for erectus at the next level of prefrontal size. He has the ability to conceptualize more. Again habilis brain/consciousness is seamless.

dhw: The new concept must precede the implementation of the new concept (I don’t know why you change my “implement” to “accommodate”.) Under “dualism versus materialism” you accept that the immaterial soul is in charge, and so – once more – it is the immaterial soul, not the brain or the enlarged brain, that directs the material brain to give material form to its concepts.

I use implement and accommodate as having the same meaning. Material me is in change of my material brain using an immaterial consciousness received by my brain to create my immaterial thoughts and the contents of my immaterial soul which is part of my consciousness.

dhw: It is seamless in the sense that during life the soul and the body are “me”, but you say it is the soul/me that is in charge, and therefore the soul/me directs/uses the brain/me, and not the other way round. Unless, of course, you think that whatever is in charge is directed by the thing it is in charge of. (Back to your blind faith in the illogical?)

See the statement above yours.

DAVID: I view myself while alive as using my brain to create concepts with the mechanism of my immaterial consciousness. I view myself as material while alive, using my immaterial consciousness. That is my view of dualism.

dhw: If your material self uses your immaterial self, then it is your material self that is in charge, the exact opposite of what you have agreed under “dualism versus materialism”.

Yes, my material self in life is currently in charge of running my immaterial self/consciousness.

dhw: You don’t what? Believe your God is capable of endowing cells with intelligence? Back to his limited powers?
DAVID: I've said He can give them an IM but only with guidelines to advance evolution according to his plans. Cells are not intelligent by themselves, but automatic.

dhw: If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.

If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

dhw: I am aware of the history, but the fact that I can’t imagine the human head expanding any more doesn’t help me to imagine what life will be like in, say, a thousand million years from now.

Humans will be gone by then, perhaps much sooner.

14228 views

We know animals and insects do it, but now there is some proof we may have that sense:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/heading-in-the-right-direction-humans-have-an-inb...

"The first inklings that humans might have an internal compass came from studies by Robin Baker at the University of Manchester in the UK. In 1980, he reported that if he blindfolded students and transported them out of town, they could almost always point towards the quadrant of their starting point, but they lost this ability if a bar magnet was strapped to their heads. Subsequent attempts to replicate the findings failed, however.

***

"Biophysicist Joe Kirschvink, then at Princeton University in the US, is one person whose replication experiments fizzled in the 1980s. But three decades later, and now at the California Institute of Technology, he and colleagues came up with a better way of testing whether humans have an internal compass.

"Instead of asking his subjects for a conscious, behavioural response to changes in magnetic field, he decided to ask their brains directly.

"To do that, his team rigged up a high-tech metal cell. The dark chamber is covered in thin aluminium sheets to shield the person sitting inside from the Earth’s magnetic field. An array of electrical coils lining the cell exposes the person to custom magnetic fields, and a cap studded with 64 electrodes connected to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine records brain waves.

"What the team was looking for were the tell-tale signs that the brain was busy "processing" something when the magnetic fields were altered.

"Away from the pings and flashes of smartphones, or even the gentle huff of a summer breeze on one’s neck, the brain settles into a pattern of synchronous activity known as alpha waves.
“When the brain receives a stimulus, like sound or smell, parts of the brain will hop out of this hum and start to worry about what's going on,” Kirschvink says.

“'It's a response that's across a lot of different senses, so we said, 'all right, let's try that to see if the magnetic sense is being perceived’.”

"Sure enough, when people were subjected to a magnetic field that rotated, as though they had been swivelled in their chair by 90 degrees, the alpha waves in their brain dipped. Neurons were being recruited to "sense" the change in magnetic field.

"Curiously, the effect of the rotation only occurred when the vertical magnetic field – which tells us where we are in relation to magnetic north – was directed downwards, as it is in the northern hemisphere. If the field was flipped to mimic a southern hemisphere magnetic field, the brain responses disappeared.

"According to Kirschvink, that’s because all 34 of the participants in the study grew up in the northern hemisphere. If the input makes no sense to what the brain knows of its surroundings, it disregards it.

***

"But the location of the magnetite receptors – if they exist – is a mystery. Kirschvink thinks it’s probably somewhere in the large trigeminal nerve that splays out around the head, but further research is needed to pin down that hunch.

***

"The team is also keen to see how people from the southern hemisphere or equatorial regions respond to the changing fields. This could help to unravel whether everyone is capable of sensing the Earth’s magnetic field, and whether anyone is able to do so on a conscious level."

Comment: If the mechanism is real which hemisphere you live in will require brain training after birth so the brain learns what to recognize.

7673 views

Mammals as a group have more complex forelimbs than any other group:

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/12/1802543116

"Significance
Mammals and their closest fossil relatives use their shoulders and forelimbs for many functions, which is reflected by the great range of mammalian forelimb shapes. We found that forelimb shape diversity in the early mammalian lineage (Synapsida) began to increase about 270 million years ago, with the emergence of a group called Therapsida, and is accompanied by new forelimb functions. The functional diversification of therapsid forelimbs was curtailed by the Permo-Triassic mass extinction, but eventually continued as more mammal-like therapsids evolved new ecologies. Our analyses characterize the deep time origin of a quintessential part of the mammalian body plan: evolutionarily labile forelimbs that can be deployed in a wide range of functional and ecological roles.

"Abstract
Mammals and their closest fossil relatives are unique among tetrapods in expressing a high degree of pectoral girdle and forelimb functional diversity associated with fully pelagic, cursorial, subterranean, volant, and other lifestyles. However, the earliest members of the mammalian stem lineage, the “pelycosaur”-grade synapsids, present a far more limited range of morphologies and inferred functions. The more crownward nonmammaliaform therapsids display novel forelimb morphologies that have been linked to expanded functional diversity, suggesting that the roots of this quintessentially mammalian phenotype can be traced to the pelycosaur–therapsid transition in the Permian period. We quantified morphological disparity of the humerus in pelycosaur-grade synapsids and therapsids using geometric morphometrics. We found that disparity begins to increase concurrently with the emergence of Therapsida, and that it continues to rise until the Permo-Triassic mass extinction. Further, therapsid exploration of new regions of morphospace is correlated with the evolution of novel ecomorphologies, some of which are characterized by changes to overall limb morphology. This evolutionary pattern confirms that nonmammaliaform therapsid forelimbs underwent ecomorphological diversification throughout the Permian, with functional elaboration initially being more strongly expressed in the proximal end of the humerus than the distal end. The role of the forelimbs in the functional diversification of therapsids foreshadows the deployment of forelimb morphofunctional diversity in the evolutionary radiation of mammals."

Comment: This means mammals were on the way 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared. God was following His plans for humans long before many other branches of life's bush had yet evolved. No surprise for me.

7761 views

How we follow moving light is explained to some degree:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-06-eyes-visual-cues.html

"Using advanced electrical recording techniques, researchers from UQ's Queensland Brain Institute (QBI) discovered how nerve cells in the eye's retina were integral to the process.

"Professor Stephen Williams said that dendrites - the branching processes of a neuron that conduct electrical signals toward the cell body - played a critical role in decoding images.

"'The retina is not a simple camera, but actively processes visual information in a neuronal network, to compute abstractions that are relayed to the higher brain," Professor Williams said.

"'Previously, dendrites of neurons were thought to be passive input areas.

"'Our research has found that dendrites also have powerful processing capabilities."

"Co-author Dr Simon Kalita-de Croft said dendritic processing enabled the retina to convert and refine visual cues into electrical signals.

"'We now know that movement of light - say, a flying bird, or a passing car - gets converted into an electrical signal by dendritic processing in the retina," Dr Kalita-de Croft said.

"'The discovery bridges the gap between our understanding of the anatomy and physiology of neuronal circuits in the retina."

"Professor Williams said the ability of dendrites in the retina to process visual information depended on the release of two neurotransmitters - chemical messengers - from a single class of cell.

"'These signals are integrated by the output neurons of the retina," Professor Williams said.

"'Determining how the neural circuits in the retina process information can help us understand computational principles operational throughout the brain.

"'Excitingly, our discovery provides a new template for how neuronal computations may be implemented in brain circuits.'"

Comment: We now know how the electricity works, but this is where consciousness has to step in and give us an impression of seemless vision. Magical and all from wet matter! No. Consciousness at work

14352 views

A study of illiterate 30-year-old Indian women has shown they can learn to read quickly and the brain rewires itself in the process, since evolution has not prepared the brain for reading. although there is the preexisting speech area (Boca's):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132589-learning-to-read-and-write-rewires-adult-b...

"Skeide and his colleagues wanted to study how culture changes the brain, so focused on reading and writing. These cultural inventions have appeared only recently in our evolutionary history, so we haven’t had a chance to evolve specific genes for such skills.

"The team recruited 30 Hindi-speaking adults from two villages near the north Indian city of Lucknow, with an average age of about 31 years. Twenty one people from this group were taught to read and write the Devanagari script, which is used in Hindi and other Indian languages, over six months. Nine people weren’t taught anything. All of the volunteers had their brains scanned before and after the six-month period.

"By the end of the study, the team saw significant changes in the brains of the people who had learned to read and write. These individuals showed an increase in brain activity in the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, which is involved in learning.

"Learning to read also seemed to change brain regions that aren’t typically involved in reading, writing or learning. Two regions deep in the brain, in particular, appeared more active after training – portions of the thalamus and the brainstem.

"These two regions are known to coordinate information from our senses and our movement, among other things. Both areas made stronger connections to the part of the brain that processes vision after learning to read. The most dramatic changes were seen in those people who progressed the most in their reading and writing skills.

"The brainstem and thalamus are also known to control attention, so this may also be enhanced by learning to read and write.

“'This clearly shows that reading, which involves important cognitive processes, also involves the development of important sensorimotor skills, namely the need to finely control eye movements to scan the text lines and to [move the eyes] onto most informative parts of text,” , says Gianluca Baldassarre of the Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies in Rome, Italy.

"Such changes are probably happening in children as they learn to read and write, potentially faster and more widely, but no such studies have been done in children, says team member Falk Huettig of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, Netherlands."

Comments from another site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4538816/Learning-read-adulthoood-transfo...

"'While it is quite difficult for us to learn a new language, it appears to be much easier for us to learn to read.

"'The adult brain proves to be astonishingly flexible.'
Specifically, researchers found that the exterior of the brain - known as the cortex, which is able to adapt quickly to new challenges - was not the main area where transformation occurred.

"Instead, researchers found that reorganisation took place deep inside the brain, particularly in the brainstem and thalamus,

***

"'We observed that the so-called colliculi superiores, a part of the brainstem, and the pulvinar, located in the thalamus, adapt the timing of their activity patterns to those of the visual cortex,'"

Comment: this is direct evidence that brain size and complexity contains abilities that can be learned by recruiting different areas of the brain, helped by actual brain plasticity, that stands at the ready to do the work. It is obvious from this study that size and complexity come first and learned use is second, just as I hypothesize in the hominin brain development I've discussed. This study clearly shows brain size and complexity first, then learned use.

14345 views

More commentary on t he illiterate study and brain changes:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/for-the-illiterate-adult-learning-to-...

"We expected to replicate previous findings that changes are limited to the outer layer of the brain, the cortex, which is known to adapt quickly to new challenges. We found the expected changes in the cortex but we also observed that the learning process leads to a reorganization that extends to deep brain structures in the thalamus and the brainstem. The relatively young phenomenon of human literacy therefore changes brain regions that are very old in evolutionary terms and already core parts of mice and other mammalian brains. (my bold)

"More precisely, we found that a part of the brainstem known as the superior colliculus, and the pulvinar, located in the thalamus, adapt the timing of their activity patterns to those of the visual cortex. These deep structures in the thalamus and brainstem help our visual cortex to filter important information from the flood of visual input even before we consciously perceive it. Interestingly, it seems that the more the signal timings between the two brain regions are aligned, the better the reading capabilities. It appears that these brain systems increasingly fine-tune their communication as learners become more and more proficient in reading."

Comment: Obviously I consider this a very important bit of evidence in deciding whether enlargement first and use second is the correct interpretation. Note my bolded area which indicates a very old evolutionary part of the brain is brought into play for a new use. The brain's ability to re-coordinate its connections is part of its plasticity. The neurologic abilities are there for the finding. Enlargement first!

14565 views

New fossil find in Morocco. we are older than thought:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607133246.htm

"New fossil finds from Morocco do more than push back the origins of our species by 100,000 years. They also reveal what was on the menu for our oldest-known Homo sapiens ancestors 300,000 years ago: Plenty of gazelle.

***

"The new excavation project -- led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer of the National Institute for Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP) in Rabat, Morocco -- uncovered 16 new Homo sapiens fossils along with stone tools and animal bones. The remains comprise skulls, teeth, and long bones of at least 5 individuals.

"Thermoluminescence dating of heated flints yielded an age of approximately 300,000 years ago -- 100,000 years earlier than the previously oldest Homo sapiens fossils.
Analysis of the animal fossils provided additional evidence to support the date. Dating of rodent remains suggested they were 337,000 to 374,000 years old.

"Steele sifted through hundreds of fossil bones and shells, identifying 472 of them to species as well as recording cut marks and breaks indicating which ones had been food for humans.

"Most of the animal bones came from gazelles. Among the other remains, Steele also identified hartebeests, wildebeests, zebras, buffalos, porcupines, hares, tortoises, freshwater mollusks, snakes and ostrich egg shells.

"Small game was a small percentage of the remains. "It really seemed like people were fond of hunting," she said.

***

"Steele said the findings support the idea that Middle Stone Age began just over 300,000 years ago, and that important changes in modern human biology and behaviour were taking place across most of Africa then.

"'In my view, what it does is to continue to make it more feasible that North Africa had a role to play in the evolution of modern humans.'"

Comment: We are older than thought. And Africa is still the spot of origin. Note they were stone age beings. No complex mentation, but simple activities of hunting and gathering.

14432 views

Another article on this new human find which differs in the description and conclusions:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133807-our-species-may-be-150000-years-older-than...

Has our species been hiding its real age? Fossils found in Morocco suggest the Homo sapiens lineage became distinct as early as 350,000 years ago – adding as much as 150,000 years to our species’ history.

On a literal reading of the fossil record, H. sapiens was thought to have emerged in East Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. But some researchers have long suspected that the roots of our species are deeper, given that H. sapiens-like fossils in South Africa have been tentatively dated at 260,000 years old.

The new evidence provides solid support to those suspicions. It comes from a Moroccan site called Jebel Irhoud (pictured below), which has been puzzling human evolution researchers for more than 50 years.

Hominin remains were found at the site in the 1960s. They have such an odd mix of ancient and modern features that they were initially mistaken for an African version of Neanderthals. Later reassessments put them closer to our species, and about a decade ago a dating technique suggested they were about 160,000 years old.

But by that point in prehistory, it is conventionally assumed that our fully modern species were already living in Africa, which made the Jebel Irhoud hominins’ mix of ancient and modern features confusing.

An analysis of the new fossils, and of those found at the site in the 1960s, confirms that the hominins had a primitive, elongated braincase. But the new adult skull shows that the hominins combined this ancient feature with a small, lightly built “modern” face – one that the researchers say is virtually indistinguishable from H. sapiens.

By assessing the levels of radiation at the site and measuring the radiation response in the tools, McPherron and his colleagues established that the tools were heated between 280,000 and 350,000 years ago. McPherron’s team also re-dated one of the hominin fossils found in the 1960s using their insight into the radiation levels at Jebel Irhoud and concluded it is 250,000 to 320,000 years old.

Armed with these dates, the Moroccan hominins become easier to understand, says Hublin. The researchers suggest that H. sapiens had begun to emerge – literally face-first – between about 250,000 and 350,000 years ago. Although other features of their anatomy still looked primitive, the Jebel Irhoud hominins should be considered the earliest known members of our species, say Hublin and his colleagues.

“The face is modern looking,” says Juan Luis Arsuaga at the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. “But the mandible [jawbone] is not clearly modern. I would say that Jebel Irhoud is not yet H. sapiens, but I would bet that H. sapiens evolved from something very similar to Jebel Irhoud.”

However, Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London is willing to loosen the definition of H. sapiens. ... We should consider including the Moroccan hominins in our species even though some of their features look ancient, he says.

Stringer thinks we shouldn’t be surprised to discover that our species is far more ancient than once thought. We know that our lineage split from the Neanderthal lineage at some point in prehistory, with Neanderthals then evolving in Europe while H. sapiens evolved in Africa. Recently, fossil and genetic evidence has suggested that this split occurred at least 500,000 years ago. “In my view, the date of this divergence should mark the origin of these two groups,” says Stringer.

This would imply that, roughly 500,000 years ago, Neanderthal-like hominins began appearing in Europe and H. sapiens-like hominins began appearing in Africa. In keeping with this idea, 430,000-year-old hominins found at a site called Sima de los Huesos in Spain do seem to be Neanderthal-like. But although the Jebel Irhoud fossils suggest H. sapiens had evolved a modern face 350,000 years ago, working out how, where and when our species evolved its other modern features will be challenging. “We have so few well-dated fossils,” says McPherron.

Comment: this ranch appears to be possibly a pre-branch before more modern H. sapiens appeared?

14469 views

An analysis in a cave shows how simplistic life was:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-neanderthal-homo-sapiens-transition.html

"An archaeological dig in a cave in the Moravian region of the Czech Republic has provided a timeline of evidence from 10 sedimentary layers spanning 28,000 to 50,000 years ago. This is the period when our modern human ancestors first arrived in Europe.

"The dig, in a cave near the Czech border with Austria and around 150kms north of Vienna, has unearthed over 20,000 animal bones as well as stone tools, weapons and an engraved bone bead that is the oldest of its kind in Central Europe.

"ANU archaeologist Dr Duncan Wright said the project was so important because it gives some of the earliest evidence of modern human activity in the region. This was a period when humans were moving substantial distances and bringing with them portable art objects.

"'In the early layers the items we've found are locally made flakes, possibly used by small communities living and hunting in the vicinity to kill animals or prepare food, but around 40,000 years ago we start to see objects coming from long distances away," Dr Wright said.

"'Dating from this same time we unearthed a bead made from mammal bone. This is the oldest portable art object of its type found anywhere in central Europe and provides evidence of social signalling, quite possibly used as a necklace to mark the identity of the wearer.

"'So between these two periods, we've either seen a change in behaviour and human movement or possibly even a change in species."

"Archaeologist Ladislav Nejman of the University of Sydney said one of the biggest questions is the beginnings of human exploration of this landscape by Homo sapiens who arrived in this area for the first time.

"'We've found that somewhere between 40-48,000 years ago people became highly mobile," Dr Nejman said.

"'Instead of moving short distances near the cave where they lived, they were walking for hundreds of kilometres quite often. We know that because we found various artefacts where the raw material comes from 100-200 kilometres away.

"'The artefacts were also made of different materials from different regions. Some from the North-West, some from the North, some from the East."

"However in layer 10, which represents an earlier time period between 48-45,000 years ago, all the recovered stone artefacts were made using local raw material, which indicates that the high residential mobility came later.

***

"The climate changed quite often from warmer to colder, and vice versa, but at all times it was much colder than the interglacial period that we have lived in for the past 10,000 years."

"Samples from the site have been sent through for analysis using a new technique, called ancient sediment DNA analysis. This is the first scientific method that can detect which species were present even without the bones of these species. It tests remnant DNA preserved in the sediment.

"Dr Wright said the results will shed new light on a period of transition between two species of humans and also give clearer evidence about the activities of our modern human ancestors in a period and region where little is known.

"'We can tell by the artefacts that small groups of people camped at this cave. This was during glacial periods suggesting they were well adapted to these harsh conditions" Dr Wright said.

"'It's quite possible that the two different species of humans met in this area.'"

Comment: Glaciers had come with cold temperature. They lived in caves. Their clothing was animal skins. They had simple language, simple social rules, sndf brains gaht had jumped 200,000 cc ove 150,000 years before and they hardly knew how to use that capacity. They learned in the past 12,000 years and the brain shrunk. Size first, use second, obviously in each staged jump in size.

14354 views

DAVID: An analysis in a cave shows how simplistic life was:
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-neanderthal-homo-sapiens-transition.html

Comment: Glaciers had come with cold temperature. They lived in caves. Their clothing was animal skins. They had simple language, simple social rules, sndf brains gaht had jumped 200,000 cc ove 150,000 years before and they hardly knew how to use that capacity. They learned in the past 12,000 years and the brain shrunk. Size first, use second, obviously in each staged jump in size.

Yes, their life was simple compared to ours, and that is why the brain did not require further changes. The earliest known clothes go back 170,000 years (they could go back further). Give or take a few thousand, this and other advances may have caused the last expansion. Then humans continued to use that capacity until 12,000 years ago it could not cope with an explosion of new concepts. The fact that densification is CAUSED by new concepts clearly suggests that conceptualization causes changes to the brain – expansion in the early days, densification in later times.

14376 views

DAVID: An analysis in a cave shows how simplistic life was:
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-neanderthal-homo-sapiens-transition.html

Comment: Glaciers had come with cold temperature. They lived in caves. Their clothing was animal skins. They had simple language, simple social rules, sndf brains gaht had jumped 200,000 cc ove 150,000 years before and they hardly knew how to use that capacity. They learned in the past 12,000 years and the brain shrunk. Size first, use second, obviously in each staged jump in size.

dhw: Yes, their life was simple compared to ours, and that is why the brain did not require further changes. The earliest known clothes go back 170,000 years (they could go back further). Give or take a few thousand, this and other advances may have caused the last expansion. Then humans continued to use that capacity until 12,000 years ago it could not cope with an explosion of new concepts. The fact that densification is CAUSED by new concepts clearly suggests that conceptualization causes changes to the brain – expansion in the early days, densification in later times.

Let's specify that the clothes were hides, the only coverings available through hunting, again not complex. Let's not fool ourselves. Concepts appeared gradually until recently. The 200 cc jump in size was sudden and not used it was learned how to use it, and then the brain shrunk. You still have it all backwards.

14373 views

DAVID: An analysis in a cave shows how simplistic life was:
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-neanderthal-homo-sapiens-transition.html

Comment: Glaciers had come with cold temperature. They lived in caves. Their clothing was animal skins. They had simple language, simple social rules, sndf brains gaht had jumped 200,000 cc ove 150,000 years before and they hardly knew how to use that capacity. They learned in the past 12,000 years and the brain shrunk. Size first, use second, obviously in each staged jump in size.

dhw: Yes, their life was simple compared to ours, and that is why the brain did not require further changes. The earliest known clothes go back 170,000 years (they could go back further). Give or take a few thousand, this and other advances may have caused the last expansion. Then humans continued to use that capacity until 12,000 years ago it could not cope with an explosion of new concepts. The fact that densification is CAUSED by new concepts clearly suggests that conceptualization causes changes to the brain – expansion in the early days, densification in later times.

DAVID: Let's specify that the clothes were hides, the only coverings available through hunting, again not complex. Let's not fool ourselves. Concepts appeared gradually until recently. The 200 cc jump in size was sudden and not used it was learned how to use it, and then the brain shrunk. You still have it all backwards.

Of course they were hides. And they were acquired by hunting. A quick google suggests that the first spears may even go back as many as 500,000 years. Name me one other animal that invents and makes weapons. Later came the use of hides as protection against the climate. Name me one other animal that cuts off the skin of another to protect itself. New concepts are new concepts, no matter how primitive they may seem to you, and each one may demand specialized use of the brain. Reading was a new concept to the illiterate women, and their brains responded to the new need by rewiring themselves, and so just as muscles respond to exercise by expanding, the brain would have done the same until it could no longer expand. Then, when it needed new abilities 12,000 years ago, it densified instead of expanding. I'm only theorizing of course, but can you fault the logic?

14333 views

dhw: Of course they were hides. And they were acquired by hunting. A quick google suggests that the first spears may even go back as many as 500,000 years. Name me one other animal that invents and makes weapons. Later came the use of hides as protection against the climate. Name me one other animal that cuts off the skin of another to protect itself. New concepts are new concepts, no matter how primitive they may seem to you, and each one may demand specialized use of the brain. Reading was a new concept to the illiterate women, and their brains responded to the new need by rewiring themselves, and so just as muscles respond to exercise by expanding, the brain would have done the same until it could no longer expand. Then, when it needed new abilities 12,000 years ago, it densified instead of expanding. I'm only theorizing of course, but can you fault the logic?

Somewhat logical. Of course we are not like any other animal. Just think about it. Heavy use results in shrinkage; light use results in 200cc jumps in size every 1.5 roughly million years. Size first use second. Reading is way more complex than chipping a flint point and attaching it to a stick to throw. Of course the brain adjusted to this, but it grew instead of shrinking.

14253 views

dhw: Of course they were hides. And they were acquired by hunting. A quick google suggests that the first spears may even go back as many as 500,000 years. Name me one other animal that invents and makes weapons. Later came the use of hides as protection against the climate. Name me one other animal that cuts off the skin of another to protect itself. New concepts are new concepts, no matter how primitive they may seem to you, and each one may demand specialized use of the brain. Reading was a new concept to the illiterate women, and their brains responded to the new need by rewiring themselves, and so just as muscles respond to exercise by expanding, the brain would have done the same until it could no longer expand. Then, when it needed new abilities 12,000 years ago, it densified instead of expanding. I'm only theorizing of course, but can you fault the logic?

DAVID: Somewhat logical. Of course we are not like any other animal. Just think about it. Heavy use results in shrinkage; light use results in 200cc jumps in size every 1.5 roughly million years. Size first use second. Reading is way more complex than chipping a flint point and attaching it to a stick to throw. Of course the brain adjusted to this, but it grew instead of shrinking.

It is not a matter of heavy use versus light use. The brain grew because there was room for it to grow without making the head too big for the body. Only when further expansion would have proved damaging to that balance did densifying replace growth. (I suggest that shrinkage is just a minor side effect of densification, which has become increasingly efficient.) The first manufacture of weapons would have demanded a veritable explosion of abilities: the concept of sharpening stone and attaching it to a shaft required finding the means of sharpening the stone and of making the attachment, experimenting to find the correct balance between shaft and tip, muscle coordination for the very act of throwing the spear. Of course it all seems very minor now, but we take for granted every new step taken by our ancestors. Concept first, brain "adjustment" (= expansion) second, realization of concept third.

14368 views

dhw:It is not a matter of heavy use versus light use. The brain grew because there was room for it to grow without making the head too big for the body. Only when further expansion would have proved damaging to that balance did densifying replace growth. (I suggest that shrinkage is just a minor side effect of densification, which has become increasingly efficient.) The first manufacture of weapons would have demanded a veritable explosion of abilities: the concept of sharpening stone and attaching it to a shaft required finding the means of sharpening the stone and of making the attachment, experimenting to find the correct balance between shaft and tip, muscle coordination for the very act of throwing the spear. Of course it all seems very minor now, but we take for granted every new step taken by our ancestors. Concept first, brain "adjustment" (= expansion) second, realization of concept third.

What do the paleontologists find in their studies? They look at the produced artifacts by each hominin at a new brain size. Lucy had none we3 now of, but she still climbed trees based on anatomy and her brain size was chimp size. She was bipedal. At each of the next 200cc (average) increase the artifacts improve until we reach H. sapiens with a giant frontal lobe still in the stone age until 10,000 years ago and Native Americans in it until 500 years ago, and some remote tribes basically still there. Simple logic tells us as they received larger brains, they learned to produce more, and when the brain is intensively used it shrinks which is a small adjustment. There is no evidence to the opposite that beginning to use it enlarges it by 200cc, which based on the shrinkage size should have occurred in smaller steps, which are non-existent. Obviously, size first use second.

14301 views

dhw:It is not a matter of heavy use versus light use. The brain grew because there was room for it to grow without making the head too big for the body. Only when further expansion would have proved damaging to that balance did densifying replace growth. (I suggest that shrinkage is just a minor side effect of densification, which has become increasingly efficient.) The first manufacture of weapons would have demanded a veritable explosion of abilities: the concept of sharpening stone and attaching it to a shaft required finding the means of sharpening the stone and of making the attachment, experimenting to find the correct balance between shaft and tip, muscle coordination for the very act of throwing the spear. Of course it all seems very minor now, but we take for granted every new step taken by our ancestors. Concept first, brain "adjustment" (= expansion) second, realization of concept third.

DAVID: What do the paleontologists find in their studies? They look at the produced artifacts by each hominin at a new brain size. Lucy had none we3 now of, but she still climbed trees based on anatomy and her brain size was chimp size. She was bipedal. At each of the next 200cc (average) increase the artifacts improve until we reach H. sapiens with a giant frontal lobe still in the stone age until 10,000 years ago and Native Americans in it until 500 years ago, and some remote tribes basically still there. Simple logic tells us as they received larger brains, they learned to produce more, and when the brain is intensively used it shrinks which is a small adjustment. There is no evidence to the opposite that beginning to use it enlarges it by 200cc, which based on the shrinkage size should have occurred in smaller steps, which are non-existent. Obviously, size first use second.

Have palaeontologists proved that a 200 cc (average) increase occurred BEFORE improved artefacts appeared, as opposed to the appearance of improved artefacts coinciding with a 200 cc (average) increase? I don’t understand your reference to shrinkage and smaller steps. I thought shrinkage only started to occur 12,000 years ago, when the maximum size had long since been reached, and so densification took over from enlargement. We should also be quite clear about your own theory. Are you saying that at regular intervals, your God dabbled with the brain, increasing its volume by 200 cc (average), and only after each increase were humans able to come up with new concepts? If so, how does this fit in with your belief that concepts are the product of the conscious self, which is independent of and survives the death of the receiver brain?

I’d better repeat that I am basing these arguments on YOUR beliefs. I remain undecided between dualism and materialism.

14236 views

dhw: Have palaeontologists proved that a 200 cc (average) increase occurred BEFORE improved artefacts appeared, as opposed to the appearance of improved artefacts coinciding with a 200 cc (average) increase?

What paleontologists find is that with each change in frontal brain size the early homos do more complex things like stone tools, conquering fire, wearing hides, etc. Each step in size works this way.

dhw:I don’t understand your reference to shrinkage and smaller steps. I thought shrinkage only started to occur 12,000 years ago, when the maximum size had long since been reached, and so densification took over from enlargement.

Increasingly intense use over the past 50,000 years resulted in densification and shrinkage when the usage of the plastic brain became intense enough. Early usage was obviously not that intense, and nothing happened except which each new +200cc fossil the obviously had more mental ability, which it then had to learn at that new stage

dhw: We should also be quite clear about your own theory. Are you saying that at regular intervals, your God dabbled with the brain, increasing its volume by 200 cc (average), and only after each increase were humans able to come up with new concepts?

Yes

dhw: If so, how does this fit in with your belief that concepts are the product of the conscious self, which is independent of and survives the death of the receiver brain?

Because I view the brain as a material computer receiver of the software consciousness, and I am the operator of that setup, just as you sit at your computer and compose thoughts to me. I know the software (consciousness) can separate from me in NDE's, and therefore at fully realized death. It all fits what we know.

dhw: I’d better repeat that I am basing these arguments on YOUR beliefs. I remain undecided between dualism and materialism.

I understand.

14247 views

Much earlier than thought:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49806/title/Neanderthal-Human-Int...

"An analysis of a Neanderthal femur found in a German cave suggests that species was mixing it up with humans more than 270,000 years ago, researchers reported yesterday (July 4) in Nature. The authors compared mitochondrial DNA from the femur to mitochondrial DNA from other Neanderthals’ bones and modern humans, finding that it was more similar to the latter. They also dated the bone to about 124,000 years ago.

"The result was puzzling, as modern humans were thought to have established themselves on continents outside Africa much more recently—about 70,000 years ago. Study author Cosimo Posth of the University of Tübingen in Germany tells the New York Times that early members of our own species may in fact have left Africa and bred with Neanderthals more than 270,000 years ago.

“'We are realizing more and more that the evolutionary history of modern and archaic humans was a lot more reticulated than we would have thought 10 years ago,” coauthor Fernando Racimo, a postdoc at the New York Genome Center, tells New Scientist.

"Previous work has established that these gene swaps were a two-way street, with modern humans retaining genetic traces—some of them adaptive—of our Neanderthal ancestors
“There is this joke in the population genetics community—there’s always one more interbreeding event,” researcher Sergi Castellano, a population geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany who was not involved in this study, told Nature last year. He predicted, “as more early modern humans and archaic humans are found and sequenced, we’re going to see many more instances of interbreeding.'”

Comment: Consensual sex or rape? Could they have spoken to each other?

Another article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139694-we-may-have-mated-with-neanderthals-more-t...

"'There is ample evidence of breeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans some 50,000 years ago. “Everyone knows Neanderthals gave us genes,” says Cosimo Posth at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Leipzig, Germany.

"'Analysis of mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal femur found in south-western Germany now adds to evidence that there was earlier interbreeding. The DNA in the energy-producing mitochondria in our cells is different from that in our cell nuclei, and is passed only down the female line.

***

"'Puzzlingly, the mtDNA in Neanderthal bones is more similar to that of modern humans than it is to that of the Denisovans.

"'Posth and his colleagues looked at differences between the mtDNA in this femur and in other Neanderthals, and used mutational rates to calculate that the bone is 124,000 years old. The approach also indicates that this Neanderthal split from all other known Neanderthals sometime between 316,000 and 219,000 years ago. Yet it still contains key elements of early human mtDNA.

***

"'The results also suggest that Neanderthals had a much greater genetic diversity and larger population than we realised.

"'This study broadens our view, from the genetic perspective, of who the Neanderthals were as a species, says Toomas Kivisild at the University of Cambridge. “Previous work based on more than a dozen Neanderthal samples whose mitochondrial DNA had been sequenced has portrayed Neanderthals as a species of very low effective population size and genetic diversity,” he says.'"

Comment: The addition of sapiens DNA did not help the Neanderthals survive.

14316 views

There is a last common ancestor for the human and the ape lines, not yet identified. No question, we split off from someone not yet found:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-betwee...

"The idea led to two inescapable conclusions. First, our species is not an only child. Somewhere out there in the natural world, there is at least one species of animal that is more closely related to humans than any other – what biologists would come to call humanity's "sister species".

"Secondly, and as importantly, our species has a long-lost parent. It stands to reason that if humanity has one or more sisters, then these siblings must have shared the same parent species at some point in prehistory. Evolutionary biologists call this species the "last common ancestor" (LCA). Most people know it by a non-scientific name: the "missing link".

"Scientists have been on the trail of the LCA for decades, and they still have not found it. But many are convinced that they have established enough information to make the hunt a lot easier. They think they know roughly when and where the LCA lived. They even have a reasonable idea of what it looked like and how it behaved.

***

""Lesser" apes like the gibbons offered a window into the anatomy of our earliest ape ancestors. Meanwhile the "great" apes – gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans – showed the anatomical features our ancestors possessed at the moment they split away from the other apes and began to develop a uniquely human appearance. Gorillas and chimps were not simply our sister species: they were also a lot like the LCA.

***

"It might seem absurd to argue that our highly developed brain is anything other than an example of primate evolution pushed to the extreme. But human arms, hands, legs and feet are not as highly specialised as we might assume.

"'In these characters man finds his counterparts not in anthropoid apes [gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans] but in animals that are clearly regarded… as more primitive," wrote Straus.

"What Straus and a few others were really getting at is that humans show none of the specialised features that allow other apes to swing through the trees. It made sense to at least consider the possibility that humans split apart from other primates before the apes evolved brachiation, or knuckle-walking for that matter.

"Straus could not say exactly which species should be recognised as our sister. But the LCA could well have been a relatively small-bodied primate that ran along branches rather than swinging beneath them.

***

"Working with his colleague, Emile Zuckerkandl, Pauling developed a truly revolutionary idea: the molecular clock......Their paper articulated the assumption that molecules are constantly changing, and the more ancient the divergence between species, the more time those species have had to accumulate their own molecular differences."

Pauling and Zuckerkandl used this concept – that some molecules accumulate tiny changes at a steady rate – to analyse proteins in human and gorilla blood. From the number of differences between the two sets of molecules, and an estimate of the rate that those differences accumulate, the researchers calculated that humans and gorillas had last shared a common ancestor roughly 11 million years ago.

***

"By the early 2000s, some physical anthropologists were even describing African apes like the chimpanzee as time machines into the earliest stages of human evolution.

"The story should end there, but it does not. Surprisingly, the last 15 years has actually seen popular opinion begin to swing away from the idea of a chimp-like LCA, and towards a model closer to that argued by people like Straus in the 1940s.

***

"By 2009, Tracy Kivell – now at the University of Kent, UK – and Daniel Schmitt at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, were arguing that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking LCA.

***

"Judging by fossil evidence from earlier apes, human hands are surprisingly primitive in appearance – notwithstanding the fact that we evolved an opposable thumb after the split from the LCA.

"Even the biologists studying modern primates are finding evidence that the LCA may not have been chimp-like.

***

"In the last five years, some geneticists have begun to question whether the molecular clocks they use to estimate when the LCA lived are being read correctly. It is possible, they say, that the LCA might actually have lived 13 – not seven – million years ago.

"Apes were still flourishing in Europe as well as Africa 13 million years ago, which means that in principle the LCA might have lived there."

Comment: The book Not a Chimp , 2009, points out that our DNA in action when analyzed is only 78% similar to chimps.

14400 views

Probably 60,000 years ago:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/first-australians-arrived-65-000-years-ago-archa...

"Academics have long argued over the date of first Aboriginal landfall on Australia. Teams including dating specialist Richard Roberts, now at the University of Wollongong, dropped bombshells in the 1990s by reporting dates up to 60,000 years old for northern sites. Roberts is a co-author of this latest paper.

"Academics continue to bicker, however, with some favouring dates as recent as 47,000 years.

"In this new study, a team led by Chris Clarkson, of the University of Queensland, reports the Madjedbebe rock shelter, previously called Malakunanja II, in the Arnhem Land region of Australia’s Northern Territory, is up to 65,000 years old.

"Clarkson’s team dug the site, within the traditional lands of the Mirarr people, in 2012 and 2015, retrieving more than 10,000 artefacts from the basal levels.

"Hatchets for hunting, seed grinding stones for food processing and ochre “crayons” for art were among the objects collected.

"The multidisciplinary team included the University of Wollongong’s Zenobia Jacobs, who deployed the optically stimulated luminescence dating method on single grains of sand associated with the material at the lowest levels. The scientists used radiocarbon dating on organic matter from higher layers.

“'It confirms the deep-rooted connection to country of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” Roberts told Cosmos. “It [the period of occupation] stretches back more than 2,000 generations.”

"Claudio Tuniz, a dating expert outside the research team, said the diversity of artefacts pointed to a “complex culture that could have been generated and sustained only by relatively large social groups”.

"The people would have had ample time to alter the landscape through the extinction of the continent’s giant marsupials, reptiles and birds called the megafauna.

"The new dates increase the possibility of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and other early human species in the region, added Tuniz, a dating specialist at the University of Wollongong and the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, in Italy."

Comment: Undoubtedly came from Africa originally. Humans roamed all over the globe, the last arrivals were in the Western hemisphere 15-25,000 years ago.

14277 views

Eye movement and ear drum movement are coordinated:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141467-your-eardrums-move-in-sync-with-your-eyes-...

"Jennifer Groh at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and her team have been using microphones inserted into people’s ears to study how their eardrums change during saccades – the movement that occurs when we shift visual focus from one place to another. You won’t notice it, but our eyes go through several saccades a second to take in our surroundings.

"Examining 16 people, the team detected changes in ear canal pressure that were probably caused by middle-ear muscles tugging on the eardrum. These pressure changes indicate that when we look left, for example, the drum of our left ear gets pulled further into the ear and that of our right ear pushed out, before they both swing back and forth a few times.

"These changes to the eardrums began as early as 10 milliseconds before the eyes even started to move, and continued for a few tens of milliseconds after the eyes stopped.

"We think that before actual eye movement occurs, the brain sends a signal to the ear to say ‘I have commanded the eyes to move 12 degrees to the right’,” says Groh. The eardrum movements that follow the change in focus may prepare our ears to hear sounds from a particular direction.

"Never before has the position of the eyes been seen to have an effect on the ears, says Dave Bulkin at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

"How our moving eardrums affect what we hear is unclear, says Groh. One theory for why the eyes and ears move together in this way is that it helps the brain make sense of what we see and hear.

"The discovery could lead to better hearing aids, which currently amplify all sound equally, regardless of where it is coming from.

"The brain of a person with normal hearing can focus on sound from a person you’re talking to in a restaurant, while ignoring a conversation at a nearby table, says Groh. “I could imagine a mechanism being incorporated into hearing aids that picks up signals of eyes moving to a new location and tries to amplify the sound at that location,” she says."

Comment: This is a logical arrangement. I imagine it will be found to be present in many animals.

14304 views

More discoveries that suggest that early humans started as much as 350,000 years ago in
south Africa:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928142016.htm

"A genomic analysis of ancient human remains from KwaZulu-Natal revealed that southern Africa has an important role to play in writing the history of humankind.

***

"The team sequenced the genomes of seven individuals who lived in southern Africa 2300-300 years ago. The three oldest individuals dating to 2300-1800 years ago were genetically related to the descendants of the southern Khoe-San groups, and the four younger individuals who lived 500-300 years ago were genetically related to current-day South African Bantu-speaking groups. "This illustrates the population replacement that occurred in southern Africa," says co-first author Carina Schlebusch, population geneticist at Uppsala University.

"The authors estimate the divergence among modern humans to have occurred between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago, based on the ancient Stone Age hunter-gatherer genomes. The deepest split time of 350,000 years ago represents a comparison between an ancient Stone Age hunter-gatherer boy from Ballito Bay on the east coast of South Africa and the West African Mandinka. "This means that modern humans emerged earlier than previously thought," says Mattias Jakobsson, population geneticist at Uppsala University

***

"The deeper estimate for modern human divergence at 350,000-260,000 years ago coincides with the Florisbad and Hoedjiespunt fossils, contemporaries of the small-brained Homo naledi in southern Africa. "It now seems that at least two or three Homo species occupied the southern African landscape during this time period, which also represents the early phases of the Middle Stone Age," says Marlize Lombard. It will be interesting to see in future if we find any evidence of interaction between these groups.

"'We did not find any evidence of deep structure or archaic admixture among southern African Stone Age hunter-gatherers, instead, we see some evidence for deep structure in the West African population, but that affects only a small fraction of their genome and is about the same age as the deepest divergence among all humans," says Mattias Jakobsson.

***

"Marlize Lombard said that "archaeological deposits dating to the time of the split by 350,000-260,000 years ago, attest to South Africa being populated by tool-making hunter-gatherers at the time. Although human fossils are sparse, those of Florisbad and Hoedjiespunt are seen as transitional to modern humans." These fossils may therefore be ancestral to the Ballito Bay boy and other San hunter-gatherers who lived in southern Africa 2000 years ago.

"The transition from archaic to modern humans might not have occurred in one place in Africa but in several, including southern Africa and northern Africa as recently reported. "Thus, both palaeo-anthropological and genetic evidence increasingly points to multiregional origins of anatomically modern humans in Africa, i.e. Homo sapiens did not originate in one place in Africa, but might have evolved from older forms in several places on the continent with gene flow between groups from different places," says Carina Schlebusch."

Comment: These findings add to the bush of humans that popped up all over Africa, including the fossil recently found in Morocco aged at 350,000 year ago. This burst of fossils of early humans supports the theory that evolution had a built-in special drive to create big-brained H. sapiens. God at work?

14112 views

There seems to be several lines of African descent:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/bones-of-stone-age-boy-challenge-single-origin...

"The 2,000-year-old bones of a boy found on a beach in South Africa have provided more grounds to challenge the prevailing theory that modern humans had a single origin in north-eastern Africa.

"That fraying theory, based on fossils found at Omo Kibish and elsewhere in Ethiopia, dates the emergence of modern humans to about 180,000 years ago. However, by using DNA analysis as a ‘molecular clock’ to calculate the length of time since the boy’s ancestors diverged genetically from other groups of modern humans, scientists in South Africa and Sweden estimate that modern humans must have existed between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago.

"This pushing back of the estimated date of the emergence of modern humans by at least 100,000 years is roughly in line with research published in June that dated human remains and other artefacts found at the Jebel Irhoud archaeological site in Morocco as about 300,000 years old.

"The finding lends weight to the hypothesis there was not just a single cradle of modern humankind in north-eastern Africa but, rather, an entire continental nursery.

“'It seems that both genetics and archaeology are converging on this point that there might be multiple places in Africa that archaic humans transitioned from Homo erectus to H. heidelbergensis to modern humans,” says Carina Schlebusch of Uppsala University in Sweden, lead author of the new research, published in the journal Science.

"Scientists have been hesitant about alternatives to the single-origin idea because of the demise of a previous ‘multiregional’ theory that once competed with the ‘Out of Africa’ hypothesis, Schlebusch says. That theory, suggesting separate groups of modern humans evolved from ancient hominin groups around the world, was disproven by DNA analysis showing Homo sapiens fossils throughout the rest of world were much closer genetically to each otherthan those from Africa, and therefore could not have evolved independently.

“'The multiregional theory was wrong in terms of how the globe was populated,” Schlebusch agrees, “but it is not necessarily wrong about how humans evolved in Africa.”

***

"Given the lack of supporting archaeological artefacts, the only thing known with certainty about the boy is what his genes tell us: he was a member of the San branch of the Khoe-San peoples of southern Africa. He likely lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and spoke with the clicks that linguistically unify the San with the Khoe, who practised a nomadic form of pastoral farming.

"The Khoe-San are not only genetically distinct from Europeans and Asians but also from other Africans. Research suggests that they are a branch of modern humans that diverged early from our oldest common H. sapiens ancestors.

"What makes Ballito Bay A special, from a contemporary scientific perspective, is his relative genetic “purity’, meaning his ancestry involved fewer procreative liaisons with members of other human groups than the other specimens."

Comment: In my view the burst of human development all over Africa can be the result of a direction by God. No other branch of primates did that.

14017 views

DAVID’s comment: In my view the burst of human development all over Africa can be the result of a direction by God. No other branch of primates did that.

I’m pleased to see that it “can be the result”, rather than “must”. It “can” also be the result of convergent evolution, with your God leaving it all to an inventive mechanism that exploits opportunities in similar environments. There are over 260 species of monkey. Why do you think your God organized such diversity among these primates? It used to be believed that monkeys also originated in Africa, but new evidence suggests that perhaps they originated in Asia. Like humans, they seem to have sprung up all over the place. All very strange, if God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

13980 views

DAVID’s comment: In my view the burst of human development all over Africa can be the result of a direction by God. No other branch of primates did that.

dhw: I’m pleased to see that it “can be the result”, rather than “must”. It “can” also be the result of convergent evolution, with your God leaving it all to an inventive mechanism that exploits opportunities in similar environments. There are over 260 species of monkey. Why do you think your God organized such diversity among these primates? It used to be believed that monkeys also originated in Africa, but new evidence suggests that perhaps they originated in Asia. Like humans, they seem to have sprung up all over the place. All very strange, if God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

The burst of monkeys only created monkeys. The burst of hominins created the human brain, the most complex organ on Earth. Obviously God's purpose.

14022 views

DAVID’s comment: In my view the burst of human development all over Africa can be the result of a direction by God. No other branch of primates did that.

dhw: I’m pleased to see that it “can be the result”, rather than “must”. It “can” also be the result of convergent evolution, with your God leaving it all to an inventive mechanism that exploits opportunities in similar environments. There are over 260 species of monkey. Why do you think your God organized such diversity among these primates? It used to be believed that monkeys also originated in Africa, but new evidence suggests that perhaps they originated in Asia. Like humans, they seem to have sprung up all over the place. All very strange, if God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: The burst of monkeys only created monkeys. The burst of hominins created the human brain, the most complex organ on Earth. Obviously God's purpose.

So why the burst of monkeys? Or are you agreeing with me that your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting? Or are you suggesting that only a burst of monkeys could have kept life going until your God could fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain?

14017 views

DAVID: The burst of monkeys only created monkeys. The burst of hominins created the human brain, the most complex organ on Earth. Obviously God's purpose.

dhw: So why the burst of monkeys? Or are you agreeing with me that your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting? Or are you suggesting that only a burst of monkeys could have kept life going until your God could fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain?

Obvious comment by me: monkeys in a zillion varieties did not improve their brain abilities. Our human burst did. Why the difference? Perhaps God at work.

14026 views

DAVID: The burst of monkeys only created monkeys. The burst of hominins created the human brain, the most complex organ on Earth. Obviously God's purpose.

dhw: So why the burst of monkeys? Or are you agreeing with me that your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting? Or are you suggesting that only a burst of monkeys could have kept life going until your God could fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain?

DAVID: Obvious comment by me: monkeys in a zillion varieties did not improve their brain abilities. Our human burst did. Why the difference? Perhaps God at work.

I am not denying that the human brain has more abilities than the monkey brain. I am asking if your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting, or did he have to organize a burst of monkeys in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain? As for God at work, I’m pleased to see a little note of caution now, in the shape of a “perhaps”. And as for why the difference, yes indeed, why the difference between the weaverbird’s nest (which apparently only God could design) and the robin’s?

13991 views

DAVID: The burst of monkeys only created monkeys. The burst of hominins created the human brain, the most complex organ on Earth. Obviously God's purpose.

dhw: So why the burst of monkeys? Or are you agreeing with me that your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting? Or are you suggesting that only a burst of monkeys could have kept life going until your God could fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain?

DAVID: Obvious comment by me: monkeys in a zillion varieties did not improve their brain abilities. Our human burst did. Why the difference? Perhaps God at work.

dhw: I am not denying that the human brain has more abilities than the monkey brain. I am asking if your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting, or did he have to organize a burst of monkeys in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain? As for God at work, I’m pleased to see a little note of caution now, in the shape of a “perhaps”. And as for why the difference, yes indeed, why the difference between the weaverbird’s nest (which apparently only God could design) and the robin’s?

As usual you ask lots of questions for which there are no answers. All species (here monkeys) have radiations of varieties, a pattern of evolution in general. My 'perhaps' is a softened way of presenting God to you. As for birds nests they all differ in design by species. Our bluebird nests do not look like robin's nests, but in my view God may have helped in all the designs by helping with a simple pattern to start with. The weaver is beyond simple.

14028 views

dhw: I am not denying that the human brain has more abilities than the monkey brain. I am asking if your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting, or did he have to organize a burst of monkeys in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain? As for God at work, I’m pleased to see a little note of caution now, in the shape of a “perhaps”. And as for why the difference, yes indeed, why the difference between the weaverbird’s nest (which apparently only God could design) and the robin’s?

DAVID: As usual you ask lots of questions for which there are no answers. All species (here monkeys) have radiations of varieties, a pattern of evolution in general. My 'perhaps' is a softened way of presenting God to you. As for birds nests they all differ in design by species. Our bluebird nests do not look like robin's nests, but in my view God may have helped in all the designs by helping with a simple pattern to start with. The weaver is beyond simple.

There are no answers if you keep insisting that God did it all, even though his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If you allow for the possibility that instead he gave organisms the ability to do things for themselves, you have an answer to all my questions. (See “Evolution: survival and adaptation")

14022 views

dhw: I am not denying that the human brain has more abilities than the monkey brain. I am asking if your God allowed monkeys to do their own bursting, or did he have to organize a burst of monkeys in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the human brain? As for God at work, I’m pleased to see a little note of caution now, in the shape of a “perhaps”. And as for why the difference, yes indeed, why the difference between the weaverbird’s nest (which apparently only God could design) and the robin’s?

DAVID: As usual you ask lots of questions for which there are no answers. All species (here monkeys) have radiations of varieties, a pattern of evolution in general. My 'perhaps' is a softened way of presenting God to you. As for birds nests they all differ in design by species. Our bluebird nests do not look like robin's nests, but in my view God may have helped in all the designs by helping with a simple pattern to start with. The weaver is beyond simple.

dhw: There are no answers if you keep insisting that God did it all, even though his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If you allow for the possibility that instead he gave organisms the ability to do things for themselves, you have an answer to all my questions. (See “Evolution: survival and adaptation")

That takes us back to God-lite, His giving a mechanism to organisms to change to newer (better?) forms, through their own action. But do you seriously think God would offer a free-style mechanism after producing the universe to support life, starting life, and then let organisms go it on their own? So He could watch the fun as they stupidly create all sorts of weird objects. That has been your approach. If I invested as much effort as God did, I'd at least guide the process. I'll stick with my thoughts.

14050 views

dhw: There are no answers if you keep insisting that God did it all, even though his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If you allow for the possibility that instead he gave organisms the ability to do things for themselves, you have an answer to all my questions. (See “Evolution: survival and adaptation")

DAVID: That takes us back to God-lite, His giving a mechanism to organisms to change to newer (better?) forms, through their own action. But do you seriously think God would offer a free-style mechanism after producing the universe to support life, starting life, and then let organisms go it on their own? So He could watch the fun as they stupidly create all sorts of weird objects. That has been your approach. If I invested as much effort as God did, I'd at least guide the process. I'll stick with my thoughts.

Why “stupidly”? I thought you were full of wonderment at and appreciation of the astonishing variety and beauty and cleverness of nature’s wonders. So why wouldn’t your God look on them in the same way?

You keep going on about purpose. Then tell me what you think was his purpose in creating life with all its wonders, including the human brain, and then in hiding himself.

14062 views

dhw: There are no answers if you keep insisting that God did it all, even though his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If you allow for the possibility that instead he gave organisms the ability to do things for themselves, you have an answer to all my questions. (See “Evolution: survival and adaptation")

DAVID: That takes us back to God-lite, His giving a mechanism to organisms to change to newer (better?) forms, through their own action. But do you seriously think God would offer a free-style mechanism after producing the universe to support life, starting life, and then let organisms go it on their own? So He could watch the fun as they stupidly create all sorts of weird objects. That has been your approach. If I invested as much effort as God did, I'd at least guide the process. I'll stick with my thoughts.

dhw: Why “stupidly”? I thought you were full of wonderment at and appreciation of the astonishing variety and beauty and cleverness of nature’s wonders. So why wouldn’t your God look on them in the same way?

You keep going on about purpose. Then tell me what you think was his purpose in creating life with all its wonders, including the human brain, and then in hiding himself.

Stupidly refers to the possibility of strange, unneeded forms. As for purpose, having humans with consciousness who could relate to Him through faith, because He is hidden. Life has its wonders but none of them, except us, recognize Him.

14057 views

dhw: There are no answers if you keep insisting that God did it all, even though his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If you allow for the possibility that instead he gave organisms the ability to do things for themselves, you have an answer to all my questions. (See “Evolution: survival and adaptation")

DAVID: That takes us back to God-lite, His giving a mechanism to organisms to change to newer (better?) forms, through their own action. But do you seriously think God would offer a free-style mechanism after producing the universe to support life, starting life, and then let organisms go it on their own? So He could watch the fun as they stupidly create all sorts of weird objects. That has been your approach. If I invested as much effort as God did, I'd at least guide the process. I'll stick with my thoughts.

dhw: Why “stupidly”? I thought you were full of wonderment at and appreciation of the astonishing variety and beauty and cleverness of nature’s wonders. So why wouldn’t your God look on them in the same way?
You keep going on about purpose. Then tell me what you think was his purpose in creating life with all its wonders, including the human brain, and then in hiding himself.

DAVID: Stupidly refers to the possibility of strange, unneeded forms. As for purpose, having humans with consciousness who could relate to Him through faith, because He is hidden. Life has its wonders but none of them, except us, recognize Him.

I don’t know what “strange, unneeded forms” you’re talking about. One might ask “unneeded for what?” The only answer from your hypothesis would be unneeded for the production of the human brain. And your inability to find any connection between the vast variety of “weird” forms and the brain makes your anthropocentric hypothesis all the more unlikely. In any case, why are they weird and stupid if produced by themselves, but not weird and stupid if produced by your God?

As for the purpose, we now have him producing all these weird and stupid creatures in order to keep life going until he can produce a being whose faith he can test. What sort of relationship can one have with a being that remains hidden? And what do you think he will get out of this faith? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, but I just can’t follow any of this.

14059 views

DAVID: Stupidly refers to the possibility of strange, unneeded forms. As for purpose, having humans with consciousness who could relate to Him through faith, because He is hidden. Life has its wonders but none of them, except us, recognize Him.

dhw: I don’t know what “strange, unneeded forms” you’re talking about. One might ask “unneeded for what?” The only answer from your hypothesis would be unneeded for the production of the human brain. And your inability to find any connection between the vast variety of “weird” forms and the brain makes your anthropocentric hypothesis all the more unlikely. In any case, why are they weird and stupid if produced by themselves, but not weird and stupid if produced by your God?

As for the purpose, we now have him producing all these weird and stupid creatures in order to keep life going until he can produce a being whose faith he can test. What sort of relationship can one have with a being that remains hidden? And what do you think he will get out of this faith? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, but I just can’t follow any of this.

Your confusion comes from trying to define God from total logic. Can't do it. I started from a discovery that the only explanation for the complexity of the universe and life was a designing mind. What that mind presents is what it produces, but it is hidden. We see the works, but not the source. As for purpose, one must look at the pinnacle of what is produced and that is the human brain, which can then recognize that a designer must have done all we see. To me that is a full circle. The rest is guessing. Religions make up all sorts of stuff and are of no help. As you know that is my teleology in a nutshell. The key is realizing a designer is needed.

14052 views

DAVID: Stupidly refers to the possibility of strange, unneeded forms. As for purpose, having humans with consciousness who could relate to Him through faith, because He is hidden. Life has its wonders but none of them, except us, recognize Him.

dhw: I don’t know what “strange, unneeded forms” you’re talking about. One might ask “unneeded for what?” The only answer from your hypothesis would be unneeded for the production of the human brain. And your inability to find any connection between the vast variety of “weird” forms and the brain makes your anthropocentric hypothesis all the more unlikely. In any case, why are they weird and stupid if produced by themselves, but not weird and stupid if produced by your God?
As for the purpose, we now have him producing all these weird and stupid creatures in order to keep life going until he can produce a being whose faith he can test. What sort of relationship can one have with a being that remains hidden? And what do you think he will get out of this faith? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, but I just can’t follow any of this.

DAVID: Your confusion comes from trying to define God from total logic. Can't do it. I started from a discovery that the only explanation for the complexity of the universe and life was a designing mind. What that mind presents is what it produces, but it is hidden. We see the works, but not the source. As for purpose, one must look at the pinnacle of what is produced and that is the human brain, which can then recognize that a designer must have done all we see. To me that is a full circle. The rest is guessing. Religions make up all sorts of stuff and are of no help. As you know that is my teleology in a nutshell. The key is realizing a designer is needed.

I understand perfectly well why you believe there is a designer. And I understand perfectly well why you think the human brain is the most complex organ that evolution has produced so far (although you do not believe it is the source of our extraordinary level of consciousness). What I do not understand is why your teleology is confined to the production of the human brain. Eight stages of whale, froggy poison, weaverbird’s nests, wasps laying eggs in spiders, and today’s toxin-eating snakes – all specially designed by your God to keep life going for the sake of the human brain? But I am NOT trying to define God from total logic. I am trying to find logic in your interpretation of how your God thinks and works. If your interpretation defies logic, we must face the possibility that it is wrong.

14023 views

DAVID: Your confusion comes from trying to define God from total logic. Can't do it. I started from a discovery that the only explanation for the complexity of the universe and life was a designing mind. What that mind presents is what it produces, but it is hidden. We see the works, but not the source. As for purpose, one must look at the pinnacle of what is produced and that is the human brain, which can then recognize that a designer must have done all we see. To me that is a full circle. The rest is guessing. Religions make up all sorts of stuff and are of no help. As you know that is my teleology in a nutshell. The key is realizing a designer is needed.

dhw: I understand perfectly well why you believe there is a designer. And I understand perfectly well why you think the human brain is the most complex organ that evolution has produced so far (although you do not believe it is the source of our extraordinary level of consciousness). What I do not understand is why your teleology is confined to the production of the human brain. Eight stages of whale, froggy poison, weaverbird’s nests, wasps laying eggs in spiders, and today’s toxin-eating snakes – all specially designed by your God to keep life going for the sake of the human brain? But I am NOT trying to define God from total logic. I am trying to find logic in your interpretation of how your God thinks and works. If your interpretation defies logic, we must face the possibility that it is wrong.

Your probing of God's reasoning is your problem. I don't know if I am right. I can only make suppositions from what we see He has produced. You question why He has produced certain organisms in evolution. I don't worry about it. I find a reasonable explanation in balance of nature to allow energy to be produced to have evolution continue until the human brain arrives. You can't seem to recognize human specialness in discussing the brain, in that to me evolution appears driven to produce us while all the other primates are left behind. The overall picture I present is very convincing to me. I'm sorry it doesn't move you.

In your answer you have again shifted the discussion to God's intentions. You have again, as always, avoided the issue of a need for a designer by agreeing that you understand my reasoning. I don't understand your reluctance in accepting a designer is needed. No matter how you squirm the only source of what we see is chance or design. Nothing else fits the issue.

14071 views

dhw: I understand perfectly well why you believe there is a designer. And I understand perfectly well why you think the human brain is the most complex organ that evolution has produced so far (although you do not believe it is the source of our extraordinary level of consciousness). What I do not understand is why your teleology is confined to the production of the human brain. Eight stages of whale, froggy poison, weaverbird’s nests, wasps laying eggs in spiders, and today’s toxin-eating snakes – all specially designed by your God to keep life going for the sake of the human brain? But I am NOT trying to define God from total logic. I am trying to find logic in your interpretation of how your God thinks and works. If your interpretation defies logic, we must face the possibility that it is wrong. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Your probing of God's reasoning is your problem. I don't know if I am right. I can only make suppositions from what we see He has produced. You question why He has produced certain organisms in evolution. I don't worry about it. I find a reasonable explanation in balance of nature to allow energy to be produced to have evolution continue until the human brain arrives. You can't seem to recognize human specialness in discussing the brain, in that to me evolution appears driven to produce us while all the other primates are left behind. The overall picture I present is very convincing to me. I'm sorry it doesn't move you. (dhw’s bold)
In your answer you have again shifted the discussion to God's intentions. You have again, as always, avoided the issue of a need for a designer by agreeing that you understand my reasoning. I don't understand your reluctance in accepting a designer is needed. No matter how you squirm the only source of what we see is chance or design. Nothing else fits the issue. (dhw’s bold)

Once we agree (the sections in bold), there is nothing further to discuss! That is not an avoidance of the issue. Your design argument makes sense to me, and I acknowledge that the human brain is special. However, the atheist argument that the mysteries of life cannot be explained by creating another mystery in the form of an unknown, unknowable, sourceless, superintelligent, universe-encompassing being also makes sense to me. Hence my agnosticism. Your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary intentions do not make sense to me, and since you cannot answer my questions, they clearly don’t make sense to you either, but you don’t worry about it. That’s one way of avoiding the issue, but fine, I don’t worry about it either. I just keep looking for more logical explanations of evolution than yours, while always allowing for a designer. “No matter how you squirm”, you have acknowledged that my theistic hypothesis (your God designing a process in which organisms can do their own designing, though he can dabble if he wants to) fits the facts as we know them, and so “I don’t understand your reluctance” to accept the possibility that it might be closer to the truth than your own.

14041 views

dhw: Once we agree (the sections in bold), there is nothing further to discuss! That is not an avoidance of the issue. Your design argument makes sense to me, and I acknowledge that the human brain is special. However, the atheist argument that the mysteries of life cannot be explained by creating another mystery in the form of an unknown, unknowable, sourceless, superintelligent, universe-encompassing being also makes sense to me. Hence my agnosticism.

But someone or something had to do the designing is my starting point. To me it is required. Major difference in though between us.

dhw: Your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary intentions do not make sense to me, and since you cannot answer my questions, they clearly don’t make sense to you either, but you don’t worry about it. That’s one way of avoiding the issue, but fine, I don’t worry about it either.

I gave you an answer you will not accept: balance of nature, until the human brain exists. Your mind is as closed as you infer below mine is.

dhw: I just keep looking for more logical explanations of evolution than yours, while always allowing for a designer. “No matter how you squirm”, you have acknowledged that my theistic hypothesis (your God designing a process in which organisms can do their own designing, though he can dabble if he wants to) fits the facts as we know them, and so “I don’t understand your reluctance” to accept the possibility that it might be closer to the truth than your own.

Theories that fit facts are not proof. I have identified what I view as powerful factors that point to God's purpose that include more than just studying evolution. I'll stick to my conclusions as I fit it into my overall views. I've crossed over to faith in my beliefs.

14042 views

dhw: […] Your design argument makes sense to me, and I acknowledge that the human brain is special. However, the atheist argument that the mysteries of life cannot be explained by creating another mystery in the form of an unknown, unknowable, sourceless, superintelligent, universe-encompassing being also makes sense to me. Hence my agnosticism.

DAVID: But someone or something had to do the designing is my starting point. To me it is required. Major difference in thought between us.

I find this a very logical and acceptable answer. It is one of the major reasons why I cannot embrace atheism, and why I admire the thoroughness with which you have accumulated your evidence for design.

dhw: Your interpretations of your God’s evolutionary intentions do not make sense to me, and since you cannot answer my questions, they clearly don’t make sense to you either, but you don’t worry about it. That’s one way of avoiding the issue, but fine, I don’t worry about it either.

DAVID: I gave you an answer you will not accept: balance of nature, until the human brain exists. Your mind is as closed as you infer below mine is.

This is the answer I find illogical and hence unacceptable: that your all-powerful God sets out to produce the human brain, but on the way has to design eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake, the monarch’s reproductive cycle etc. in order to “balance nature” so that life will go on until he can do what he really wants to do. You can’t make sense of it either (it is one of several questions you can’t answer), but you refuse to consider any other explanation.

dhw: I just keep looking for more logical explanations of evolution than yours, while always allowing for a designer. “No matter how you squirm”, you have acknowledged that my theistic hypothesis (your God designing a process in which organisms can do their own designing, though he can dabble if he wants to) fits the facts as we know them, and so “I don’t understand your reluctance” to accept the possibility that it might be closer to the truth than your own.

DAVID: Theories that fit facts are not proof. I have identified what I view as powerful factors that point to God's purpose that include more than just studying evolution. I'll stick to my conclusions as I fit it into my overall views. I've crossed over to faith in my beliefs.

None of the hypotheses are proven, though I would suggest that if they fit the facts, they have a better chance of being true than theories that don't fit the facts! I can understand and accept your faith in the God hypothesis, for which you provide logical reasons, but that is a separate issue from your faith in your illogical explanation of the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. And so whenever you claim that new discoveries or natural wonders support this particular aspect of your faith, we go down the same path: I ask how they fit the facts and you don’t know. Design: yes; anthropocentrism, no (although the option of a dabble remains open).

14084 views

dhw: Your interpretations of your God’s evolutionary intentions do not make sense to me, and since you cannot answer my questions, they clearly don’t make sense to you either, but you don’t worry about it. That’s one way of avoiding the issue, but fine, I don’t worry about it either.

DAVID: I gave you an answer you will not accept: balance of nature, until the human brain exists. Your mind is as closed as you infer below mine is.

dhw: This is the answer I find illogical and hence unacceptable: that your all-powerful God sets out to produce the human brain, but on the way has to design eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake, the monarch’s reproductive cycle etc. in order to “balance nature” so that life will go on until he can do what he really wants to do. You can’t make sense of it either (it is one of several questions you can’t answer), but you refuse to consider any other explanation.

Our difference here is I find my explanations entirely logical. I look at history: God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth, and humans. Balance of nature allows for the time involved. Whales contribute to the ocean's balance of nature. That has been shown. Some of the unanswerable points have no answers I can logically arrive it. Can't answer doesn't mean I've failed. If I find your suppositions as illogical in view of my acceptance of God, so be it.

dhw: I just keep looking for more logical explanations of evolution than yours, while always allowing for a designer. “No matter how you squirm”, you have acknowledged that my theistic hypothesis (your God designing a process in which organisms can do their own designing, though he can dabble if he wants to) fits the facts as we know them, and so “I don’t understand your reluctance” to accept the possibility that it might be closer to the truth than your own.

DAVID: Theories that fit facts are not proof. I have identified what I view as powerful factors that point to God's purpose that include more than just studying evolution. I'll stick to my conclusions as I fit it into my overall views. I've crossed over to faith in my beliefs.

dhw: None of the hypotheses are proven, though I would suggest that if they fit the facts, they have a better chance of being true than theories that don't fit the facts! I can understand and accept your faith in the God hypothesis, for which you provide logical reasons, but that is a separate issue from your faith in your illogical explanation of the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. And so whenever you claim that new discoveries or natural wonders support this particular aspect of your faith, we go down the same path: I ask how they fit the facts and you don’t know. Design: yes; anthropocentrism, no (although the option of a dabble remains open).

Unfortunately we are discussing evolution in a vacuum. My faith in God is based on much more than that one aspect of God's work. Those considerations are the content of both of my books which you have read. No need to represent all of them here. I find my view of evolution as logical. You just can't accept the bush is God's choice.

14079 views

DAVID: Our difference here is I find my explanations entirely logical. I look at history: God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth, and humans.

If God exists, so far so good. No difference except that my theistic hypothesis is that he also “chose to evolve” the whole evolutionary bush, which includes humans. But see below for HOW he chose to evolve the bush.

DAVID: Balance of nature allows for the time involved.

Which, as we have agreed over and over again, means there will be some sort of balance of nature so long as life exists. Nothing to do with the production of the human brain, without which there would STILL be some sort of balance in nature.

DAVID: Whales contribute to the ocean's balance of nature. That has been shown.

You have agreed you don’t know why your God needed eight stages to produce whales, and they – like most organisms that have existed and/or died out as the balance of nature keeps changing – have no connection with the production of the human brain. Do you seriously believe your God could not have produced humans if he hadn’t first designed eight stages of whale, the toxin-eating snake, the weaverbird’s nest etc.?

DAVID: Some of the unanswerable points have no answers I can logically arrive it. Can't answer doesn't mean I've failed. If I find your suppositions as illogical in view of my acceptance of God, so be it.

You have agreed that my evolutionary hypotheses (not suppositions), based on a hypothetical acceptance of God, fit in with the facts as we know them. They answer all the questions you cannot answer, so what do you find illogical?

DAVID: Unfortunately we are discussing evolution in a vacuum. My faith in God is based on much more than that one aspect of God's work. Those considerations are the content of both of my books which you have read. No need to represent all of them here. I find my view of evolution as logical. You just can't accept the bush is God's choice.

If God exists, my theistic hypothesis is precisely that the bush IS his choice. Once more: he CHOSE to design an autonomous mechanism which he knew would produce a bush – not just one single species (though he might have done a dabble to produce us, or to throw Chixculub at the dinosaurs) but the whole vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural wonders that have come and gone throughout life’s history. And yet again, I accept that your faith in God is based on a powerful argument for design as well as certain psychic phenomena. But your view of evolution is not based on your faith in God – it is based on your belief that God’s mind works in a way which even you cannot explain logically. “Can’t answer” doesn’t mean you’ve failed; it simply means that your hypothesis might be wrong, and a hypothesis that CAN answer might be right.

13969 views

DAVID: Balance of nature allows for the time involved.

dhw: Which, as we have agreed over and over again, means there will be some sort of balance of nature so long as life exists. Nothing to do with the production of the human brain, without which there would STILL be some sort of balance in nature.

Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

DAVID: Whales contribute to the ocean's balance of nature. That has been shown.

dhw: You have agreed you don’t know why your God needed eight stages to produce whales, and they – like most organisms that have existed and/or died out as the balance of nature keeps changing – have no connection with the production of the human brain. Do you seriously believe your God could not have produced humans if he hadn’t first designed eight stages of whale, the toxin-eating snake, the weaverbird’s nest etc.?

I view it as God's choice to allow for evolution as a prolonged process requiring balance of nature. I've told you I don't know if God can directly create. No scientific evidence of it.

DAVID: Some of the unanswerable points have no answers I can logically arrive it. Can't answer doesn't mean I've failed. If I find your suppositions as illogical in view of my acceptance of God, so be it.

dhw: You have agreed that my evolutionary hypotheses (not suppositions), based on a hypothetical acceptance of God, fit in with the facts as we know them. They answer all the questions you cannot answer, so what do you find illogical?

I feel I see God's purpose differently than you do. Your general purpose for God is to create a spectacle. I find that superficial. God wanted us to be able to think of Him.

DAVID: Unfortunately we are discussing evolution in a vacuum. My faith in God is based on much more than that one aspect of God's work. Those considerations are the content of both of my books which you have read. No need to represent all of them here. I find my view of evolution as logical. You just can't accept the bush is God's choice.

dhw: If God exists, my theistic hypothesis is precisely that the bush IS his choice. Once more: he CHOSE to design an autonomous mechanism which he knew would produce a bush – not just one single species (though he might have done a dabble to produce us, or to throw Chixculub at the dinosaurs) but the whole vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural wonders that have come and gone throughout life’s history. And yet again, I accept that your faith in God is based on a powerful argument for design as well as certain psychic phenomena. But your view of evolution is not based on your faith in God – it is based on your belief that God’s mind works in a way which even you cannot explain logically. “Can’t answer” doesn’t mean you’ve failed; it simply means that your hypothesis might be wrong, and a hypothesis that CAN answer might be right.

You raise the issue of can we have a full logical insight into God's intentions and thoughts. We can only approach this from what we see He produced, not just life's evolution but the universe, Earth, etc. I do the best I can, and I identify purpose as best I can.

14013 views

DAVID: Balance of nature allows for the time involved.
dhw: Which, as we have agreed over and over again, means there will be some sort of balance of nature so long as life exists. Nothing to do with the production of the human brain, without which there would STILL be some sort of balance in nature.
DAVID: Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

Dealt with a thousand times by both of us. Since bacteria have survived, there was no “necessary reason” for anything else to evolve. And your reasoning still doesn’t link the unnecessary weaverbird’s nest/eight-stage whale/toxin-eating snake etc. to the production of the unnecessary human brain.

DAVID: I view it as God's choice to allow for evolution as a prolonged process requiring balance of nature. I've told you I don't know if God can directly create. No scientific evidence of it.

All life requires some sort of balance in nature. I thought your alternative to preprogramming was dabbling, which I thought meant direct creation. Now all of a sudden you are considering limiting your previously all-powerful God’s powers again! I’m surprised that a God who can preprogramme every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution might be incapable of creating something directly. In your scenario, didn’t he directly create the first cells with those countless zillions of programmes?

dhw: You have agreed that my evolutionary hypotheses (not suppositions), based on a hypothetical acceptance of God, fit in with the facts as we know them. They answer all the questions you cannot answer, so what do you find illogical?
DAVID: I feel I see God's purpose differently than you do. Your general purpose for God is to create a spectacle. I find that superficial. God wanted us to be able to think of Him.

Part of the spectacle could be the different ways humans think of your God and act accordingly. Human behaviour would certainly provide the spectacle with enormous variety. In any case, how does your judgement of “superficiality” render the hypothesis illogical?

Dhw: “Can’t answer” doesn’t mean you’ve failed; it simply means that your hypothesis might be wrong, and a hypothesis that CAN answer might be right.
DAVID: You raise the issue of can we have a full logical insight into God's intentions and thoughts. We can only approach this from what we see He produced, not just life's evolution but the universe, Earth, etc. I do the best I can, and I identify purpose as best I can.

I have not raised that issue at all. We agree that nobody can possibly have a full insight into God’s intentions and thoughts. The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.

13976 views

DAVID: Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

Since bacteria have survived, there was no “necessary reason” for anything else to evolve. And your reasoning still doesn’t link the unnecessary weaverbird’s nest/eight-stage whale/toxin-eating snake etc. to the production of the unnecessary human brain.

But organisms kept appearing. For no reason or God driving? Totally reasonable as balance of nature.

DAVID: I view it as God's choice to allow for evolution as a prolonged process requiring balance of nature. I've told you I don't know if God can directly create. No scientific evidence of it.

dhw: All life requires some sort of balance in nature. I thought your alternative to preprogramming was dabbling, which I thought meant direct creation. Now all of a sudden you are considering limiting your previously all-powerful God’s powers again! I’m surprised that a God who can preprogramme every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution might be incapable of creating something directly. In your scenario, didn’t he directly create the first cells with those countless zillions of programmes?

Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.

dhw: You have agreed that my evolutionary hypotheses (not suppositions), based on a hypothetical acceptance of God, fit in with the facts as we know them. They answer all the questions you cannot answer, so what do you find illogical?
DAVID: I feel I see God's purpose differently than you do. Your general purpose for God is to create a spectacle. I find that superficial. God wanted us to be able to think of Him.

dhw: Part of the spectacle could be the different ways humans think of your God and act accordingly. Human behaviour would certainly provide the spectacle with enormous variety. In any case, how does your judgement of “superficiality” render the hypothesis illogical?

I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.

Dhw: “Can’t answer” doesn’t mean you’ve failed; it simply means that your hypothesis might be wrong, and a hypothesis that CAN answer might be right.

DAVID: You raise the issue of can we have a full logical insight into God's intentions and thoughts. We can only approach this from what we see He produced, not just life's evolution but the universe, Earth, etc. I do the best I can, and I identify purpose as best I can.

dhw: I have not raised that issue at all. We agree that nobody can possibly have a full insight into God’s intentions and thoughts. The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.

Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?

13977 views

DAVID: Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

dhw: Since bacteria have survived, there was no “necessary reason” for anything else to evolve. And your reasoning still doesn’t link the unnecessary weaverbird’s nest/eight-stage whale/toxin-eating snake etc. to the production of the unnecessary human brain.

DAVID: But organisms kept appearing. For no reason or God driving? Totally reasonable as balance of nature.

So they were all unnecessary, and somehow that means your all-powerful God said to himself: “I must design eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to balance nature until I can produce the human brain, which is my prime purpose.” You keep admitting you can’t find any logic in this, and yet you say it's “totally reasonable”.

DAVID: Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.

You also wrote “I don’t know if God can directly create.” And yet you believe he can create a whole universe, and preprogramme or dabble all the innovations that lead to new species, plus all the different lifestyles and natural wonders. Is this “totally reasonable”?

DAVID: I feel I see God's purpose differently than you do. Your general purpose for God is to create a spectacle. I find that superficial. God wanted us to be able to think of Him.
dhw: Part of the spectacle could be the different ways humans think of your God and act accordingly. Human behaviour would certainly provide the spectacle with enormous variety. In any case, how does your judgement of “superficiality” render the hypothesis illogical?
DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.

So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

dhw: The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.
DAVID: Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?

Nothing can be proven. Clearly you do indeed start with what you insist is God’s purpose (the production of Homo sapiens’ brain). Then you try to mould what we observe so that it will fit that purpose, and by your own admission it doesn’t. I start with the world we observe, and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.

13969 views

DAVID: Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.

dhw: You also wrote “I don’t know if God can directly create.” And yet you believe he can create a whole universe, and preprogramme or dabble all the innovations that lead to new species, plus all the different lifestyles and natural wonders. Is this “totally reasonable”?

My point is that within biological creation, I don't know if he can instantly produce a new organism in toto or He requires evolution. That view is reaonable.

DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.

So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

dhw: The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.

DAVID: Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?

dhw: Nothing can be proven. Clearly you do indeed start with what you insist is God’s purpose (the production of Homo sapiens’ brain). Then you try to mould what we observe so that it will fit that purpose, and by your own admission it doesn’t.

Neat trick. Your interpretation of my thoughts: "by your own admission it doesn’t" is your interpretation, not mine. I've explained everything satisfactorily for me, if not for you.

I start with the world we observe, and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.

14023 views

DAVID: Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.
dhw: You also wrote “I don’t know if God can directly create.” And yet you believe he can create a whole universe, and preprogramme or dabble all the innovations that lead to new species, plus all the different lifestyles and natural wonders. Is this “totally reasonable”?
DAVID: My point is that within biological creation, I don't know if he can instantly produce a new organism in toto or He requires evolution. That view is reaonable.

So we are back to a God whose powers may be limited. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of why he preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale when his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.
Dhw: So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

I notice you have not answered this.

dhw: The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.
DAVID: Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?
dhw: Nothing can be proven. Clearly you do indeed start with what you insist is God’s purpose (the production of Homo sapiens’ brain). Then you try to mould what we observe so that it will fit that purpose, and by your own admission it doesn’t.
DAVID: Neat trick. Your interpretation of my thoughts: "by your own admission it doesn’t" is your interpretation, not mine. I've explained everything satisfactorily for me, if not for you.

Over and over again I have asked you questions relating to your hypothesis (see below), and over and over again you have admitted that you can’t answer them, e.g. 1st October, under “Evolution, survival and adaptation”: “My not delving into your thought processes of God’s purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated.” If you are satisfied by an explanation that raises unanswerable questions, and are happy to reject an explanation which, by your own agreement, answers all the questions you cannot answer, then so be it.

DAVID: I start with the world we observe...

It’s true that you have always claimed this, and so perhaps your statement above that you “start with God’s purpose” was just a Freudian slip, but I think it’s more accurate. You have made up your mind that God’s purpose was to produce Homo sapiens’ brain, and then you try to manipulate the history of life to suit your conclusion.

DAVID: ... and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.

I absolutely do not! I can find no logic in your belief that your God personally preprogrammed and/or dabbled eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake etc. in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing Homo sapiens’ brain. And I find no logic in your belief that your God remains hidden and watches us with interest, with the purpose of having a relationship with us, but his way of watching and his interest and his concept of a relationship are not what we mean by watching, interest and relationship. And I find no logic in your belief that one moment he is all-powerful and the next moment his powers may be limited. Need I go on?

14028 views

DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.
Dhw: So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

dhw: I notice you have not answered this.

Of course we have to speak of his personality in our human terms, but I'll stick to Adler's terminology, a person like no other person.

DAVID: I start with the world we observe...

dhw: It’s true that you have always claimed this, and so perhaps your statement above that you “start with God’s purpose” was just a Freudian slip, but I think it’s more accurate. You have made up your mind that God’s purpose was to produce Homo sapiens’ brain, and then you try to manipulate the history of life to suit your conclusion.

Sequence of my thoughts: evolution requires responses to challenges to survival. The human brain appeared for no obvious reason, compared to ape survival. The human brain is the most complex object in the universe. Not a Freudian slip. I see the purpose.

DAVID: ... and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.

dhw: I absolutely do not! I can find no logic in your belief that your God personally preprogrammed and/or dabbled eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake etc. in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing Homo sapiens’ brain. And I find no logic in your belief that your God remains hidden and watches us with interest, with the purpose of having a relationship with us, but his way of watching and his interest and his concept of a relationship are not what we mean by watching, interest and relationship. And I find no logic in your belief that one moment he is all-powerful and the next moment his powers may be limited. Need I go on?

Faith may not be logical to you.

13998 views

DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.
Dhw: So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?
DAVID: Of course we have to speak of his personality in our human terms, but I'll stick to Adler's terminology, a person like no other person.

“He’s a person like no other person” is a cop-out. Your God watches with interest, but is too “serious” to want a spectacle, and wants us to think of him but stays hidden because...um... – all this is every bit as human as my own hypothesis, so please don’t use “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting it.

DAVID: I start with the world we observe...
dhw: It’s true that you have always claimed this, and so perhaps your statement above that you “start with God’s purpose” was just a Freudian slip, but I think it’s more accurate. You have made up your mind that God’s purpose was to produce Homo sapiens’ brain, and then you try to manipulate the history of life to suit your conclusion.
DAVID: Sequence of my thoughts: evolution requires responses to challenges to survival. The human brain appeared for no obvious reason, compared to ape survival. The human brain is the most complex object in the universe. Not a Freudian slip. I see the purpose.

1) You said you started with God’s purpose, but you meant to say you start with the world you observe. You can’t have two different starting points.
2) Nobody knows why pre-humans descended from the trees, but it is perfectly feasible that they did so in response to local environmental challenges, as opposed to your God fiddling with their anatomy in advance.
3) Every multicellular organism, including apes, humans, whales, and weaverbirds appeared for no obvious reason, because bacteria have survived from the start. My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.
4) You believe in common descent, but that does not mean each new species results in other related species disappearing or following the new example. Humans and apes branched off from their common ancestor, and both went their own way.
5) The human brain is the most complex object in the world we know. (I’m afraid I don’t have access to the whole universe.) But that does not mean your God specially designed the eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he could produce it.

DAVID: ... you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.
dhw: I absolutely do not! (I then listed some of your “purposes” that I find illogical.)
DAVID: Faith may not be logical to you.

I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions, and so of course your faith in the hypotheses I listed earlier does not seem logical to me. You are (quite rightly) happy enough to use logic to justify your faith in a designer. Why do you suddenly find logic unnecessary when it comes to your personal theory of God’s intentions and methods?

14033 views

DAVID: Of course we have to speak of his personality in our human terms, but I'll stick to Adler's terminology, a person like no other person.

dhw: “He’s a person like no other person” is a cop-out. Your God watches with interest, but is too “serious” to want a spectacle, and wants us to think of him but stays hidden because...um... – all this is every bit as human as my own hypothesis, so please don’t use “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting it.

Adler's statement is obviously true. God is NOT like us. I an only guess at His reactions to His own works. So I make human guesses, but I always carefully think, He is not human!

DAVID: Sequence of my thoughts: evolution requires responses to challenges to survival. The human brain appeared for no obvious reason, compared to ape survival. The human brain is the most complex object in the universe. Not a Freudian slip. I see the purpose.

dhw: 1) You said you started with God’s purpose, but you meant to say you start with the world you observe. You can’t have two different starting points.

Of course I can! I start by looking at works with purpose in mind

dhw: 2) Nobody knows why pre-humans descended from the trees, but it is perfectly feasible that they did so in response to local environmental challenges, as opposed to your God fiddling with their anatomy in advance.

But He did fiddle. There were lumbar changes in a 23 million year old monkey, remember?

dhw: 3) Every multicellular organism, including apes, humans, whales, and weaverbirds appeared for no obvious reason, because bacteria have survived from the start. My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.

Your statement about 'survival' is a suspect thesis. It is not proven. Complexification or your statement 'improvement' are more to the point.

dhw: 5) The human brain is the most complex object in the world we know. (I’m afraid I don’t have access to the whole universe.) But that does not mean your God specially designed the eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he could produce it.

It is obvious God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals. Everything we know about evolved from a beginning, even if we do not understand the beginnings of the universe or origin on life. Sorry you can't seem to see that. Evolution take time. Complexity of the brain implies purpose to me.

DAVID: Faith may not be logical to you.

dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions, and so of course your faith in the hypotheses I listed earlier does not seem logical to me. You are (quite rightly) happy enough to use logic to justify your faith in a designer. Why do you suddenly find logic unnecessary when it comes to your personal theory of God’s intentions and methods?

Because your logic about God does not understand that He is not human, and cannot be subject to human logic..

13977 views

DAVID: Of course we have to speak of his personality in our human terms, but I'll stick to Adler's terminology, a person like no other person.
dhw: “He’s a person like no other person” is a cop-out. Your God watches with interest, but is too “serious” to want a spectacle, and wants us to think of him but stays hidden because...um... – all this is every bit as human as my own hypothesis, so please don’t use “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting it.
DAVID: Adler's statement is obviously true. God is NOT like us. I an only guess at His reactions to His own works. So I make human guesses, but I always carefully think, He is not human!

If God exists, of course he’s not human! I don’t imagine him as an old man with a beard. But if, as you keep telling us, our consciousness is part of his consciousness, and he wants a relationship with us, and he has purpose, and, as the Bible tells us, he made us in his image, it is far from improbable that our consciousness bears similarities to his consciousness. You have every right to make “human guesses”. So do I. You “carefully think”? You may be surprised to hear that I do too. Your careful thoughts do not fit the history we know. As you keep acknowledging, mine do.

DAVID: Sequence of my thoughts: evolution requires responses to challenges to survival. The human brain appeared for no obvious reason, compared to ape survival. The human brain is the most complex object in the universe. Not a Freudian slip. I see the purpose.
dhw: 1)You said you started with God’s purpose, but you meant to say you start with the world you observe. You can’t have two different starting points.
DAVID: Of course I can! I start by looking at works with purpose in mind.

Either you start by looking at the history and extrapolate the purpose, or you start with the purpose and try to manipulate the history. You said you started with God’s purpose, but no doubt you meant to say you started with God’s works and then tried to extrapolate his purpose. Minor point.

dhw: 2) Nobody knows why pre-humans descended from the trees, but it is perfectly feasible that they did so in response to local environmental challenges, as opposed to your God fiddling with their anatomy in advance.
DAVID: But He did fiddle. There were lumbar changes in a 23 million year old monkey, remember?

Maybe the 23-million-year-old monkey was the first to descend from its local trees.

dhw: 3) Every multicellular organism, including apes, humans, whales, and weaverbirds appeared for no obvious reason, because bacteria have survived from the start. My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.
DAVID: Your statement about 'survival' is a suspect thesis. It is not proven. Complexification or your statement 'improvement' are more to the point.

You wrote: “evolution requires responses to challenges to survival”. I’m sorry you don’t agree with yourself. But I agree that ‘improvement’ is more to the point when it comes to innovations, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. (Improvement can be related to chances of survival as well as to opportunities provided by environmental change.)

dhw: 5) The human brain is the most complex object in the world we know. (I’m afraid I don’t have access to the whole universe.) But that does not mean your God specially designed the eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he could produce it.
DAVID: It is obvious God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.

If God exists, then of course you are right. The question mark is over your personal interpretation of his goals. If his prime goal was the production of the brain of Homo sapiens, why did he bother to design eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest?

DAVID: Everything we know about evolved from a beginning, even if we do not understand the beginnings of the universe or origin on life. Sorry you can't seem to see that. Evolution take time. Complexity of the brain implies purpose to me.

What on earth gives you the impression that I can’t see that there must have been a beginning? Or that evolution has taken 3.8 billion years so far (or whatever may be the true figure), no matter what its goal might be? It is the beginning that we can’t explain, and hence my openness to the possibility of a God. Complexity of the brain fits is perfectly well with the purpose of organisms to improve themselves.

DAVID: Faith may not be logical to you.
dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions, and so of course your faith in the hypotheses I listed earlier does not seem logical to me. You are (quite rightly) happy enough to use logic to justify your faith in a designer. Why do you suddenly find logic unnecessary when it comes to your personal theory of God’s intentions and methods?
DAVID: Because your logic about God does not understand that He is not human, and cannot be subject to human logic.

See above. If he exists, he can't be human, but there is no reason to suppose that we do NOT have certain attributes in common with him. Your hypothesis that “He wants us to think about him” is no less human than my hypothesis that he created a spectacle for himself.

14011 views

DAVID: Adler's statement is obviously true. God is NOT like us. I an only guess at His reactions to His own works. So I make human guesses, but I always carefully think, He is not human!

If God exists, of course he’s not human! I don’t imagine him as an old man with a beard. But if, as you keep telling us, our consciousness is part of his consciousness, and he wants a relationship with us, and he has purpose, and, as the Bible tells us, he made us in his image, it is far from improbable that our consciousness bears similarities to his consciousness. You have every right to make “human guesses”. So do I. You “carefully think”? You may be surprised to hear that I do too. Your careful thoughts do not fit the history we know. As you keep acknowledging, mine do.

Of course you carefully think. Of course His consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours. My theory fits the facts of history just as yours does. My view from purpose does not fit your concepts. So be it.

dhw: 3) Every multicellular organism, including apes, humans, whales, and weaverbirds appeared for no obvious reason, because bacteria have survived from the start. My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.

DAVID: Your statement about 'survival' is a suspect thesis. It is not proven. Complexification or your statement 'improvement' are more to the point.

dhw: You wrote: “evolution requires responses to challenges to survival”. I’m sorry you don’t agree with yourself. But I agree that ‘improvement’ is more to the point when it comes to innovations, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. (Improvement can be related to chances of survival as well as to opportunities provided by environmental change.)

Your parenthetical sentence is right on point.

dhw: 5) The human brain is the most complex object in the world we know. (I’m afraid I don’t have access to the whole universe.) But that does not mean your God specially designed the eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he could produce it.
DAVID: It is obvious God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.

dhw: If God exists, then of course you are right. The question mark is over your personal interpretation of his goals. If his prime goal was the production of the brain of Homo sapiens, why did he bother to design eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest?

We back to arguing about balance of nature which you accept and reject at the same time.

DAVID: Everything we know about evolved from a beginning, even if we do not understand the beginnings of the universe or origin on life. Sorry you can't seem to see that. Evolution take time. Complexity of the brain implies purpose to me.

dhw: What on earth gives you the impression that I can’t see that there must have been a beginning? Or that evolution has taken 3.8 billion years so far (or whatever may be the true figure), no matter what its goal might be? It is the beginning that we can’t explain, and hence my openness to the possibility of a God. Complexity of the brain fits is perfectly well with the purpose of organisms to improve themselves.

And what gives inanimate organisms the ability to improve themselves?

DAVID: Faith may not be logical to you.

dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions,

I have answers you do not accept, but satisfy me, which led to faith.

13959 views

These posts are getting very long, so I am editing them in order to pinpoint the main issues.

DAVID: Adler's statement is obviously true. God is NOT like us. […] He is not human!
Dhw: If God exists, of course he’s not human! I don’t imagine him as an old man with a beard. But if, as you keep telling us, our consciousness is part of his consciousness, and he wants a relationship with us, and he has purpose, and, as the Bible tells us, he made us in his image, it is far from improbable that our consciousness bears similarities to his consciousness.
DAVID: Of course His consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours. [...]

If “of course his consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours”, then your statement “God is NOT like us” clearly doesn’t refer to his consciousness, and so it is perfectly legitimate to extrapolate from his works what you like to call “humanizing” attributes. It is not legitimate, however, to dismiss my speculations because they “humanize” God, while at the same time offering your own “humanizing” speculations.

dhw: Every multicellular organism, including apes, humans, whales, and weaverbirds appeared for no obvious reason, because bacteria have survived from the start. My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.
DAVID: Your statement about 'survival' is a suspect thesis.
dhw: You wrote: “evolution requires responses to challenges to survival”. I’m sorry you don’t agree with yourself. But I agree that ‘improvement’ is more to the point when it comes to innovations, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. (Improvement can be related to chances of survival as well as to opportunities provided by environmental change.)
DAVID: Your parenthetical sentence is right on point.

Therefore your statement that my statement about ‘survival’ is a suspect thesis is right off point.

DAVID: And what gives inanimate organisms the ability to improve themselves?

I presume you mean animate organisms. There would be no point in having the intelligence to improve if they didn’t have the ability to do it! Your God may have designed the whole mechanism.

DAVID: It is obvious God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.
dhw: If God exists, then of course you are right. The question mark is over your personal interpretation of his goals. If his prime goal was the production of the brain of Homo sapiens, why did he bother to design eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest?
DAVID: We back to arguing about balance of nature which you accept and reject at the same time.

I accept that so long as there is life, there must be some kind of balance to enable living creatures to survive. That balance has constantly changed. I do not accept that your God specially designed eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, and a toxin-swallowing snake in order to keep different life forms coming and going (= the ever changing balance of nature) until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing the human brain.

dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions.
DAVID: I have answers you do not accept, but satisfy me, which led to faith.

Over and over again you have admitted you do NOT have the answers. I gave you a quote a couple of days ago: “Evolution, survival and adaptation”, 1 October at 14.37:
“My not delving into your thought processes of God’s purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated....” Here’s another from the same post, referring to my guesses: “Yours make me think, but if I have no answer to your questions, it is generally because I don’t see how to reach one I can believe.” But you believe in a guess that raises questions you can’t answer! My guess answers all those questions, to which you can only reply that God’s logic is different from ours. Maybe it isn’t.

13999 views

DAVID: Of course His consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours. [...]

dhw: If “of course his consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours”, then your statement “God is NOT like us” clearly doesn’t refer to his consciousness, and so it is perfectly legitimate to extrapolate from his works what you like to call “humanizing” attributes. It is not legitimate, however, to dismiss my speculations because they “humanize” God, while at the same time offering your own “humanizing” speculations.

We are arguing over a mater of degree. The mechanism of his consciousness is similar, but the thought content may be entirely different.

dhw: But I agree that ‘improvement’ is more to the point when it comes to innovations, though it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. (Improvement can be related to chances of survival as well as to opportunities provided by environmental change.)[/i]
DAVID: Your parenthetical sentence is right on point.

dhw: Therefore your statement that my statement about ‘survival’ is a suspect thesis is right off point.

Not so. As stated before the 'survival of the fittest' concept is circular reasoning.

DAVID: And what gives inanimate organisms the ability to improve themselves?

dhw: I presume you mean animate organisms. There would be no point in having the intelligence to improve if they didn’t have the ability to do it! Your God may have designed the whole mechanism.

I mean inanimate. I view early living cells as inanimate. You are again offering God in charge, but in a secondary way. Fudge factor.

DAVID: We back to arguing about balance of nature which you accept and reject at the same time.

dhw: I accept that so long as there is life, there must be some kind of balance to enable living creatures to survive. That balance has constantly changed. I do not accept that your God specially designed eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, and a toxin-swallowing snake in order to keep different life forms coming and going (= the ever changing balance of nature) until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing the human brain.

Which gets us back to the observation, if God created life, starting with inorganic matter, why didn't He just produce humans with their brains? He chose to evolve them. The question you should answer is was evolution chosen or required? I pick chosen.

dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions.
DAVID: I have answers you do not accept, but satisfy me, which led to faith.

dhw: Over and over again you have admitted you do NOT have the answers. I gave you a quote a couple of days ago: “Evolution, survival and adaptation”, 1 October at 14.37:
“My not delving into your thought processes of God’s purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated....” Here’s another from the same post, referring to my guesses: “Yours make me think, but if I have no answer to your questions, it is generally because I don’t see how to reach one I can believe.” But you believe in a guess that raises questions you can’t answer! My guess answers all those questions, to which you can only reply that God’s logic is different from ours. Maybe it isn’t.

I'm the guy who presented the whales. I see what seems unreasonable, but find what I think are reasonable answers, such as balance of nature in the oceans. Balance of nature is feeding homeostasis, a continuous process as you admit. Life itself in all organisms is a continuous homeostasis or it can't continue. It requires a continuous biochemical mechanism of struggle to maintain everything in a body in upper and lower limits of a normal range.

13967 views

DAVID: Of course His consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours. [...]
dhw: If “of course his consciousness must be somewhat similar to ours”, then your statement “God is NOT like us” clearly doesn’t refer to his consciousness. […]
DAVID: We are arguing over a mater of degree. The mechanism of his consciousness is similar, but the thought content may be entirely different.

Do you really think we are talking about mechanisms? (What mechanism anyway? I thought your God was pure energy). The subject of this discussion is purpose, i.e. your God’s intentions, i.e. thought content. You speculate that your God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens so that we would think of him. (Earlier, it was so that we could have a relationship with him.) You attack my suggestion that he created a spectacle for himself as “humanizing”. It is no more “humanizing” than your own suggestions.

dhw: My hypothesis adds the drive for improvement to that for survival.
DAVID: Your statement about ‘survival’ is a suspect thesis.
dhw: […] (Improvement can be related to chances of survival as well as to opportunities provided by environmental change.)
DAVID: Your parenthetical sentence is right on point.
dhw: Therefore your statement that my statement about ‘survival’ is a suspect thesis is right off point.
DAVID: Not so. As stated before the 'survival of the fittest' concept is circular reasoning.

I agree, but that was not the point we were discussing. You quite rightly wrote that “evolution requires responses to challenges for survival”. Of course it does, and I added the drive for improvement, which can mean improving chances of survival as well as taking advantage of new opportunities provided by environmental change. What is "suspect” about that?

DAVID: And what gives inanimate organisms the ability to improve themselves?
dhw: I presume you mean animate organisms. There would be no point in having the intelligence to improve if they didn’t have the ability to do it! Your God may have designed the whole mechanism.
DAVID: I mean inanimate. I view early living cells as inanimate. You are again offering God in charge, but in a secondary way. Fudge factor.

Inanimate means without life, so I don’t know how living cells can be without life. There is no fudge in my hypothesis that your God deliberately created a mechanism that would enable organisms to improve themselves.

DAVID: We back to arguing about balance of nature which you accept and reject at the same time.

dhw: I accept that so long as there is life, there must be some kind of balance to enable living creatures to survive. That balance has constantly changed. I do not accept that your God specially designed eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, and a toxin-swallowing snake in order to keep different life forms coming and going (= the ever changing balance of nature) until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing the human brain.
DAVID: Which gets us back to the observation, if God created life, starting with inorganic matter, why didn't He just produce humans with their brains? He chose to evolve them. The question you should answer is was evolution chosen or required? I pick chosen.

I suggest that if exists, he didn’t WANT to “just produce humans with their brains”. He wanted or "chose" to create a process that would lead to the ever changing higgledy-piggledy bush of dinosaurs, whales, weaverbirds’ nests, toxin-producing snakes and the whole vast variety, including humans. But he may have done an occasional dabble.

dhw: I explained to you why I do NOT admit that the purpose you extrapolate fits the history. You have no answers to my questions. […]
DAVID: I'm the guy who presented the whales. I see what seems unreasonable, but find what I think are reasonable answers, such as balance of nature in the oceans. Balance of nature is feeding homeostasis, a continuous process as you admit. Life itself in all organisms is a continuous homeostasis or it can't continue. It requires a continuous biochemical mechanism of struggle to maintain everything in a body in upper and lower limits of a normal range.

You are merely repeating what I have said above: all forms of life require some sort of balance (homeostasis), or life can’t go on. The balance constantly changes. That is true whether there are humans or not. If there had been no whales, there would have been a different balance. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being the production of Homo sapiens’ brain. You know “balance of nature” does not answer the questions thrown up by the illogicalities of your hypothesis, and that is why you keep admitting that you have no answers.

14019 views

dhw: You speculate that your God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens so that we would think of him. (Earlier, it was so that we could have a relationship with him.) You attack my suggestion that he created a spectacle for himself as “humanizing”. It is no more “humanizing” than your own suggestions.

Spectacle is pure humanizing. Look at our history: from gladiators in ancient Rome to cricket to soccer today we create sports for entertainment. What if God is pure purpose. More logical than your humanizing approach.

DAVID: Not so. As stated before the 'survival of the fittest' concept is circular reasoning.

dhw: I agree, but that was not the point we were discussing. You quite rightly wrote that “evolution requires responses to challenges for survival”. Of course it does, and I added the drive for improvement, which can mean improving chances of survival as well as taking advantage of new opportunities provided by environmental change. What is "suspect” about that?

What I see in the history of evolution is over-improvement. First multicellularity. The in humans such as our hand ability, our brain. Therefore a drive to complexity. If 99% of all have disappeared, survival is not a major point, just Darwin's supposition.

DAVID: I mean inanimate. I view early living cells as inanimate. You are again offering God in charge, but in a secondary way. Fudge factor.

dhw: Inanimate means without life, so I don’t know how living cells can be without life. There is no fudge in my hypothesis that your God deliberately created a mechanism that would enable organisms to improve themselves.

I used inanimate in the sense of mentation. You are strictly right. The fudge is God's secondary mechanism in your hypothesis is still God in control.

DAVID: I'm the guy who presented the whales. I see what seems unreasonable, but find what I think are reasonable answers, such as balance of nature in the oceans. Balance of nature is feeding homeostasis, a continuous process as you admit. Life itself in all organisms is a continuous homeostasis or it can't continue. It requires a continuous biochemical mechanism of struggle to maintain everything in a body in upper and lower limits of a normal range.

dhw: You are merely repeating what I have said above: all forms of life require some sort of balance (homeostasis), or life can’t go on. The balance constantly changes. That is true whether there are humans or not. If there had been no whales, there would have been a different balance. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being the production of Homo sapiens’ brain. You know “balance of nature” does not answer the questions thrown up by the illogicalities of your hypothesis, and that is why you keep admitting that you have no answers.

Of course without whales the balance would be different, but still balanced. But the whales are HERE. We are dealing with an evolutionary history presented to us to interpret. Should we get rid of great apes in discussing how humans appeared? I logically interpret history as I see it. It tells me it needs a planning brain, which you, illogically , can't accept. You overuse the word 'logic', amazingly, as a supposed defense.

13924 views

dhw: You attack my suggestion that he created a spectacle for himself as “humanizing”. It is no more “humanizing” than your own suggestions.
DAVID: Spectacle is pure humanizing. Look at our history: from gladiators in ancient Rome to cricket to soccer today we create sports for entertainment. What if God is pure purpose. More logical than your humanizing approach.

What is “pure purpose”? You tell us human consciousness is part of God’s, which “must be somewhat similar to ours”, you are pretty convinced that he watches his creation with interest, and you believe that he produced us because he wants us to think of him and to have a relationship with him, but you can’t see that this is just as “human” a purpose as wanting to create an ever changing bush of life that he can watch with interest.

DAVID: What I see in the history of evolution is over-improvement. First multicellularity. The in humans such as our hand ability, our brain. Therefore a drive to complexity. If 99% of all have disappeared, survival is not a major point, just Darwin's supposition.

Why are the human brain and hand “over-improvement”? I find mine quite useful actually. As you so rightly say, “evolution requires responses to challenges for survival”, and you agree that improvement can refer to chances of survival, and we can observe that all life forms do whatever they can to survive, so I don’t know why survival “is not a major point”. The fact that 99% fail to make it just goes to show what a higgledy-piggledy process it is, as opposed to everything being meticulously preprogrammed or dabbled.

DAVID: I mean inanimate. I view early living cells as inanimate. You are again offering God in charge, but in a secondary way. Fudge factor.
dhw: Inanimate means without life, so I don’t know how living cells can be without life. There is no fudge in my hypothesis that your God deliberately created a mechanism that would enable organisms to improve themselves.
DAVID: I used inanimate in the sense of mentation. You are strictly right. The fudge is God's secondary mechanism in your hypothesis is still God in control.

Some scientists think that all living cells are capable of a form of mentation. You insist that your God controlled every phase of evolution, and my theistic hypothesis is that he chose NOT to control it but to allow it to pursue its own course (with possible dabbles). What is unclear (fudgy) about that?

dhw: You are merely repeating what I have said above: all forms of life require some sort of balance (homeostasis), or life can’t go on. The balance constantly changes. That is true whether there are humans or not. If there had been no whales, there would have been a different balance. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being the production of Homo sapiens’ brain. You know “balance of nature” does not answer the questions thrown up by the illogicalities of your hypothesis, and that is why you keep admitting that you have no answers.
DAVID: Of course without whales the balance would be different, but still balanced. But the whales are HERE. We are dealing with an evolutionary history presented to us to interpret. Should we get rid of great apes in discussing how humans appeared?

I keep saying that so long as there is life, there is some kind of balance, regardless of whether there were/are/will be whales or no whales, humans or no humans. I don’t understand your question about apes. We both believe that whales descended from pre-whales, humans descended from pre-humans, and presumably the duck-billed platypus descended from pre-duckbilled platypuses. What is your point?

DAVID: I logically interpret history as I see it. It tells me it needs a planning brain, which you, illogically, can't accept. You overuse the word 'logic', amazingly, as a supposed defense.

I accept as logical that some form of intelligence (I didn’t know you thought your God had a brain) may have designed the mechanism that created evolutionary history. I see no logic in the claim that every twig of evolution’s higgledy-piggledy bush was planned 3.8 billion years ago to keep life going for the sake of humans, which is why I propose that if your God exists, his “plan” was to produce a higgledy-piggledy bush, and not just one particular species. You keep acknowledging that you can’t explain the higgledy-piggledy course to the fulfilment of his prime purpose, but then you trot out “balance of nature”, which explains nothing except that all life requires some form of balance. And most important of all, you keep acknowledging that my hypothesis fits the history and answers all the questions you cannot answer. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your God wanted to create the ever-changing spectacle of life’s history, which he watches with interest?

13965 views

dhw: You attack my suggestion that he created a spectacle for himself as “humanizing”. It is no more “humanizing” than your own suggestions.
DAVID: Spectacle is pure humanizing. Look at our history: from gladiators in ancient Rome to cricket to soccer today we create sports for entertainment. What if God is pure purpose. More logical than your humanizing approach.

dhw: What is “pure purpose”? You tell us human consciousness is part of God’s, which “must be somewhat similar to ours”, you are pretty convinced that he watches his creation with interest, and you believe that he produced us because he wants us to think of him and to have a relationship with him, but you can’t see that this is just as “human” a purpose as wanting to create an ever changing bush of life that he can watch with interest.

It is my belief God is more serious in his purposefulness than you do. Watching spectacle is a fun and games approach.

DAVID: What I see in the history of evolution is over-improvement. First multicellularity. The in humans such as our hand ability, our brain. Therefore a drive to complexity. If 99% of all have disappeared, survival is not a major point, just Darwin's supposition.

dhw: Why are the human brain and hand “over-improvement”? I find mine quite useful actually.

Of course you do. But the apes have survived with all their clumsiness.

DAVID: I used inanimate in the sense of mentation. You are strictly right. The fudge is God's secondary mechanism in your hypothesis is still God in control.

dhw: Some scientists think that all living cells are capable of a form of mentation. You insist that your God controlled every phase of evolution, and my theistic hypothesis is that he chose NOT to control it but to allow it to pursue its own course (with possible dabbles). What is unclear (fudgy) about that?

'Possible dabbles' are watching, guiding and correcting. God in control.

DAVID: Of course without whales the balance would be different, but still balanced. But the whales are HERE. We are dealing with an evolutionary history presented to us to interpret. Should we get rid of great apes in discussing how humans appeared?

dhw: I keep saying that so long as there is life, there is some kind of balance, regardless of whether there were/are/will be whales or no whales, humans or no humans. I don’t understand your question about apes.

You got rid of whales in your discussion so I suggested imagining evolution without apes.

DAVID: I logically interpret history as I see it. It tells me it needs a planning brain, which you, illogically, can't accept. You overuse the word 'logic', amazingly, as a supposed defense.

dhw: I accept as logical that some form of intelligence (I didn’t know you thought your God had a brain) may have designed the mechanism that created evolutionary history. I see no logic in the claim that every twig of evolution’s higgledy-piggledy bush was planned 3.8 billion years ago to keep life going for the sake of humans, which is why I propose that if your God exists, his “plan” was to produce a higgledy-piggledy bush, and not just one particular species. You keep acknowledging that you can’t explain the higgledy-piggledy course to the fulfilment of his prime purpose, but then you trot out “balance of nature”, which explains nothing except that all life requires some form of balance. And most important of all, you keep acknowledging that my hypothesis fits the history and answers all the questions you cannot answer. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your God wanted to create the ever-changing spectacle of life’s history, which he watches with interest?

Explained above. He is a more serious personality in achieving His purposes.

13950 views

DAVID: It is my belief God is more serious in his purposefulness than you do. Watching spectacle is a fun and games approach.

Go to the theatre or concert hall, and tell me Shakespeare’s King Lear or Mahler’s Kindertotenlieder are fun and games. The whole of life is one vast mixture of good and bad, funny and serious, beautiful and ugly. See below on the subject of “serious” purpose.

dhw: Why are the human brain and hand “over-improvement”? I find mine quite useful actually.
DAVID: Of course you do. But the apes have survived with all their clumsiness.

And bacteria and whales and the duck-billed platypus have also survived. How does that make my brain and hand an “over-improvement”?

dhw: You insist that your God controlled every phase of evolution, and my theistic hypothesis is that he chose NOT to control it but to allow it to pursue its own course (with possible dabbles). What is unclear (fudgy) about that?
DAVID: 'Possible dabbles' are watching, guiding and correcting. God in control.

Of course possible dabbles would be God in control. Those would be individual events (like Chixculub), not every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. One of the great advantages of my hypothesis is precisely that it leaves room both for God and for dabbles, but it also accounts for the uncontrolled (i.e. higgledy-piggledy) bush.

DAVID: Of course without whales the balance would be different, but still balanced. But the whales are HERE. We are dealing with an evolutionary history presented to us to interpret. Should we get rid of great apes in discussing how humans appeared?
dhw: I keep saying that so long as there is life, there is some kind of balance, regardless of whether there were/are/will be whales or no whales, humans or no humans. I don’t understand your question about apes.
DAVID: You got rid of whales in your discussion so I suggested imagining evolution without apes.

We both believe humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, but I can easily imagine evolution without apes AND without humans. If it hadn’t been for Chixculub, there might never have been any primates. Stroke of luck? Your God doing a dabble? Who knows? But I’m not disputing evolution! I’m disputing the relevance of your “balance of nature” argument to your insistence that the whole of evolution was geared to the production of humans.

DAVID: I logically interpret history as I see it.
dhw: ...you keep acknowledging that my hypothesis fits the history and answers all the questions you cannot answer. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your God wanted to create the ever-changing spectacle of life’s history, which he watches with interest?
DAVID: Explained above. He is a more serious personality in achieving His purposes.

I’m envious of your personal acquaintance with him, but so far the only serious purposes you have come up with are that he wants us to think of him, and he wants to have a relationship with us (although he remains hidden), and so he had to create/preprogramme eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest and the duck-billed platypus, because how else could an all-powerful God have kept life going until he produced the one thing he really wanted to produce? And you claim that this is a logical interpretation of history.

13956 views

dhw: Why are the human brain and hand “over-improvement”? I find mine quite useful actually.
DAVID: Of course you do. But the apes have survived with all their clumsiness.

dhw: And bacteria and whales and the duck-billed platypus have also survived. How does that make my brain and hand an “over-improvement”?

I was comparing them to the apes, who started as we did but have not changed, yet survive. A different view than yours.

DAVID: 'Possible dabbles' are watching, guiding and correcting. God in control.

dhw: Of course possible dabbles would be God in control. Those would be individual events (like Chixculub), not every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. One of the great advantages of my hypothesis is precisely that it leaves room both for God and for dabbles, but it also accounts for the uncontrolled (i.e. higgledy-piggledy) bush.

How do you know it is uncontrolled? You assume it.

DAVID: You got rid of whales in your discussion so I suggested imagining evolution without apes.

dhw: We both believe humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, but I can easily imagine evolution without apes AND without humans. If it hadn’t been for Chixculub, there might never have been any primates. Stroke of luck? Your God doing a dabble? Who knows? But I’m not disputing evolution! I’m disputing the relevance of your “balance of nature” argument to your insistence that the whole of evolution was geared to the production of humans.

Evolution takes time and our brain is a surprise result, in my view.

DAVID: I logically interpret history as I see it.
dhw: ...you keep acknowledging that my hypothesis fits the history and answers all the questions you cannot answer. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your God wanted to create the ever-changing spectacle of life’s history, which he watches with interest?
DAVID: Explained above. He is a more serious personality in achieving His purposes.

dhw: I’m envious of your personal acquaintance with him, but so far the only serious purposes you have come up with are that he wants us to think of him, and he wants to have a relationship with us (although he remains hidden), and so he had to create/preprogramme eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest and the duck-billed platypus, because how else could an all-powerful God have kept life going until he produced the one thing he really wanted to produce? And you claim that this is a logical interpretation of history.

I certainly think it is perfectly logical. You don't. All of this refers to balance of nature to supply the energy for evolution to continue.

13927 views

dhw: Why are the human brain and hand “over-improvement”? I find mine quite useful actually.
DAVID: Of course you do. But the apes have survived with all their clumsiness.
dhw: And bacteria and whales and the duck-billed platypus have also survived. How does that make my brain and hand an “over-improvement”?
DAVID: I was comparing them to the apes, who started as we did but have not changed, yet survive. A different view than yours.

I can hardly disagree that apes are apes and humans are humans and both have survived. What I don’t understand is why my brain and hand are an “over-improvement”. I consider them to be an improvement, in keeping with my argument that evolution develops through a drive for survival and/or improvement. (But that does not mean all apes should have turned into humans.)

DAVID: 'Possible dabbles' are watching, guiding and correcting. God in control.
dhw: Of course possible dabbles would be God in control. Those would be individual events (like Chixculub), not every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. One of the great advantages of my hypothesis is precisely that it leaves room both for God and for dabbles, but it also accounts for the uncontrolled (i.e. higgledy-piggledy) bush.
DAVID: How do you know it is uncontrolled? You assume it.

Agreed, since none of us “know” anything. However, I can see absolutely no evidence that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct has evolved in accordance with an overall plan of any kind other than the production of the vast variety of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. In particular I’m disputing the relevance of your “balance of nature” argument to your insistence that the whole of evolution was "controlled" so that it would lead to the production of humans.

DAVID: Evolution takes time and our brain is a surprise result, in my view.

Of course evolution takes time. That simply means life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years. Looking at the history, starting with single cells, I regard every animal, insect, bird, fish as a surprise result, though I would agree that human intelligence is an especially surprising result.

dhw: [...] so far the only serious purposes you have come up with are that he wants us to think of him, and he wants to have a relationship with us (although he remains hidden), and so he had to create/preprogramme eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest and the duck-billed platypus, because how else could an all-powerful God have kept life going until he produced the one thing he really wanted to produce? And you claim that this is a logical interpretation of history.
DAVID: I certainly think it is perfectly logical. You don't. All of this refers to balance of nature to supply the energy for evolution to continue.

It is perfectly logical to say that life needs energy to continue. That has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history. But if you really and truly believe that your God could not have produced humans and could not have had his relationship with us (while remaining hidden) if he hadn’t taught the weaverbird to build its nest, so be it.

13938 views

DAVID: I was comparing them to the apes, who started as we did but have not changed, yet survive. A different view than yours.

dhw: I can hardly disagree that apes are apes and humans are humans and both have survived. What I don’t understand is why my brain and hand are an “over-improvement”. I consider them to be an improvement, in keeping with my argument that evolution develops through a drive for survival and/or improvement.

You have a very different view of survival than I. Our improvements were obviously not necessary for survival compared to apes. They are here without changes. Therefore there is a drive for complexity even if not necessary for survival.

DAVID: How do you know it is uncontrolled? You assume it.

dhw: Agreed, since none of us “know” anything. However, I can see absolutely no evidence that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct has evolved in accordance with an overall plan of any kind other than the production of the vast variety of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. In particular I’m disputing the relevance of your “balance of nature” argument to your insistence that the whole of evolution was "controlled" so that it would lead to the production of humans.

You have no answer for the sudden and dramatic arrival of hominins to humans over eight million years. My answer is control by God.

dhw: [...] so far the only serious purposes you have come up with are that he wants us to think of him, and he wants to have a relationship with us (although he remains hidden), and so he had to create/preprogramme eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest and the duck-billed platypus, because how else could an all-powerful God have kept life going until he produced the one thing he really wanted to produce? And you claim that this is a logical interpretation of history.

DAVID: I certainly think it is perfectly logical. You don't. All of this refers to balance of nature to supply the energy for evolution to continue.

dhw: It is perfectly logical to say that life needs energy to continue. That has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history. But if you really and truly believe that your God could not have produced humans and could not have had his relationship with us (while remaining hidden) if he hadn’t taught the weaverbird to build its nest, so be it.

The bush of life presents no problem to me.

13894 views

DAVID: I was comparing them to the apes, who started as we did but have not changed, yet survive. A different view than yours.
dhw: I can hardly disagree that apes are apes and humans are humans and both have survived. What I don’t understand is why my brain and hand are an “over-improvement”. I consider them to be an improvement, in keeping with my argument that evolution develops through a drive for survival and/or improvement.
DAVID: You have a very different view of survival than I. Our improvements were obviously not necessary for survival compared to apes. They are here without changes. Therefore there is a drive for complexity even if not necessary for survival.

I did not say our improved brains and hands were necessary for survival. I said they were an improvement, which alongside survival I see as the driving force of evolution. And you still haven’t explained what you mean by “over-improvement”.

dhw: I can see absolutely no evidence that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct has evolved in accordance with an overall plan of any kind other than the production of the vast variety of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. In particular I’m disputing the relevance of your “balance of nature” argument to your insistence that the whole of evolution was "controlled" so that it would lead to the production of humans.
DAVID: You have no answer for the sudden and dramatic arrival of hominins to humans over eight million years. My answer is control by God.

You have no answer to any of the conundrums raised by your hypothesis (see below). And you have apparently forgotten that my theistic hypothesis to explain the “sudden and dramatic” arrival of many-stage hominins/humans and eight-stage whales and of all the new species that suddenly and dramatically appeared during the Cambrian, and indeed of all species suddenly or not so suddenly extant and extinct, is that your God created a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to work out their own methods of survival and/or improvement, and that the rate at which this happened depended on the nature of environmental change and the extent of cellular intelligence in the respective organisms.

dhw: It is perfectly logical to say that life needs energy to continue. That has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history. But if you really and truly believe that your God could not have produced humans and could not have had his relationship with us (while remaining hidden) if he hadn’t taught the weaverbird to build its nest, so be it.
DAVID: The bush of life presents no problem to me.

No, your problem, as I see it, is trying to find any coherent connection between the divinely constructed weaverbird’s nest etc., the “balance of nature” (which simply means life continues one way or another), your God’s roundabout way of fulfilling his prime purpose (producing the brain of Homo sapiens) though you believe the Cambrian shows he can produce species instantaneously, and his wanting a relationship with us but remaining hidden.

13942 views

DAVID: You have a very different view of survival than I. Our improvements were obviously not necessary for survival compared to apes. They are here without changes. Therefore there is a drive for complexity even if not necessary for survival.

dhw: I did not say our improved brains and hands were necessary for survival. I said they were an improvement, which alongside survival I see as the driving force of evolution. And you still haven’t explained what you mean by “over-improvement”.

I've said human brains were never needed, are an over-improvement since apes survive without them.

DAVID: You have no answer for the sudden and dramatic arrival of hominins to humans over eight million years. My answer is control by God.

dhw: You have no answer to any of the conundrums raised by your hypothesis (see below). And you have apparently forgotten that my theistic hypothesis to explain the “sudden and dramatic” arrival of many-stage hominins/humans and eight-stage whales and of all the new species that suddenly and dramatically appeared during the Cambrian, and indeed of all species suddenly or not so suddenly extant and extinct, is that your God created a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to work out their own methods of survival and/or improvement, and that the rate at which this happened depended on the nature of environmental change and the extent of cellular intelligence in the respective organisms.

I've never accepted your God-created mechanisms because many of the changes require long analysis of future requirements, i.e., planning.

dhw: It is perfectly logical to say that life needs energy to continue. That has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history. But if you really and truly believe that your God could not have produced humans and could not have had his relationship with us (while remaining hidden) if he hadn’t taught the weaverbird to build its nest, so be it.
DAVID: The bush of life presents no problem to me.

dhw: No, your problem, as I see it, is trying to find any coherent connection between the divinely constructed weaverbird’s nest etc., the “balance of nature” (which simply means life continues one way or another), your God’s roundabout way of fulfilling his prime purpose (producing the brain of Homo sapiens) though you believe the Cambrian shows he can produce species instantaneously, and his wanting a relationship with us but remaining hidden.

Except for the whales all perfectly logical to me. Sorry you can't or won't see it.

13888 views

DAVID: I've said human brains were never needed, are an over-improvement since apes survive without them.

Ah well, since bacteria have survived without brains and hands and a few more organs that were “never needed”, apparently the whole vast range of multicellular organisms is an over-improvement. I think I'll leave my hypothesis as it is: evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement.

DAVID: I've never accepted your God-created mechanisms because many of the changes require long analysis of future requirements, i.e., planning.

Since nobody knows how all the major changes took place, I really don’t know how you can be so sure that they require long analysis of future requirements, i.e. planning. The only concrete evidence we have of evolutionary change is adaptation, which is always in response to environmental change of some kind. Unless you think your God preprogrammed or dabbled even minor adaptations, they must be organized by an autonomous mechanism. I fully accept that there is no evidence that this can extend its range to the major innovations required for speciation. That is why it remains a hypothesis, as does the hypothesis that an unknown being preprogrammed the very first cells with every imaginable innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder other than those resulting from his personal intervention.

dhw: […] your problem, as I see it, is trying to find any coherent connection between the divinely constructed weaverbird’s nest etc., the “balance of nature” (which simply means life continues one way or another), your God’s roundabout way of fulfilling his prime purpose (producing the brain of Homo sapiens) though you believe the Cambrian shows he can produce species instantaneously, and his wanting a relationship with us but remaining hidden.
DAVID: Except for the whales all perfectly logical to me. Sorry you can't or won't see it.

Sorry, but I can’t see it. Same problem below:

DAVID: (under “how the universe evolved”): That is the way I see the history under God's guidance.
dhw: I know. And the more we examine it, the more illogical it becomes!
DAVID: The 'we' is you and you can't see the logic.

Even you can’t see the logic of the whale. And you are right, I can’t see the logic of the the weaverbird’s nest that keeps life going for the sake of humans, of a God who can create species instantaneously but goes all round the higgledy-piggledy mulberry bush to create the one species he really wants, and who watches us with interest but not with any sort of interest we can understand, and who would like to have a relationship with us but deliberately hides himself.

13936 views

DAVID: I've said human brains were never needed, are an over-improvement since apes survive without them.

dhw: Ah well, since bacteria have survived without brains and hands and a few more organs that were “never needed”, apparently the whole vast range of multicellular organisms is an over-improvement. I think I'll leave my hypothesis as it is: evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement.

And I'll always ask what created the drive, material nature?

DAVID: I've never accepted your God-created mechanisms because many of the changes require long analysis of future requirements, i.e., planning.

dhw: Since nobody knows how all the major changes took place, I really don’t know how you can be so sure that they require long analysis of future requirements, i.e. planning. The only concrete evidence we have of evolutionary change is adaptation, which is always in response to environmental change of some kind.

Adaptation does not provide the long term planning of full speciation.

DAVID: The 'we' is you and you can't see the logic.

dhw: Even you can’t see the logic of the whale. And you are right, I can’t see the logic of the the weaverbird’s nest that keeps life going for the sake of humans, of a God who can create species instantaneously but goes all round the higgledy-piggledy mulberry bush to create the one species he really wants, and who watches us with interest but not with any sort of interest we can understand, and who would like to have a relationship with us but deliberately hides himself.

God does what He prefers to do. I accept that. My problem is the whales which I view from a human standpoint. In that view, it seems a lot of extra effort to arrange for ocean balance of nature, but I fully believe it was easy for God. So be it. God's logic is not ours.

13918 views

DAVID: I've said human brains were never needed, are an over-improvement since apes survive without them.
dhw: Ah well, since bacteria have survived without brains and hands and a few more organs that were “never needed”, apparently the whole vast range of multicellular organisms is an over-improvement. I think I'll leave my hypothesis as it is: evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement.
DAVID: And I'll always ask what created the drive, material nature?

Exit the term “over-improvement”. Thank you. I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that the origin of the (hypothetical) cellular intelligence which drives organisms in the quest for survival and/or improvement is unknown, but it may be your God. I am an agnostic.

DAVID: I've never accepted your God-created mechanisms because many of the changes require long analysis of future requirements, i.e., planning.
dhw: Since nobody knows how all the major changes took place, I really don’t know how you can be so sure that they require long analysis of future requirements, i.e. planning. The only concrete evidence we have of evolutionary change is adaptation, which is always in response to environmental change of some kind.
DAVID: Adaptation does not provide the long term planning of full speciation.

I dispute your assumption that speciation requires long term planning. You have ignored the rest of my paragraph in which I accept that there is no evidence that the inventive mechanism can extend its range to speciation. That is why it is a hypothesis, just like that of an unknown being preprogramming or dabbling every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

DAVID: The 'we' is you and you can't see the logic.
dhw: Even you can’t see the logic of the whale. And you are right, I can’t see the logic of the the weaverbird’s nest that keeps life going for the sake of humans, of a God who can create species instantaneously but goes all round the higgledy-piggledy mulberry bush to create the one species he really wants, and who watches us with interest but not with any sort of interest we can understand, and who would like to have a relationship with us but deliberately hides himself.
DAVID: God does what He prefers to do. I accept that. My problem is the whales which I view from a human standpoint. In that view, it seems a lot of extra effort to arrange for ocean balance of nature, but I fully believe it was easy for God. So be it. God's logic is not ours.

You might say the same for the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and migration, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the toxin-eating snake: a lot of extra effort to arrange for terrestrial balance of nature. Of course it would have been easy for God, but it simply doesn’t fit in with your theory that it had to be done in order to keep life going until he could produce humans, even though he is perfectly capable of instantaneous creation. I suggest your logic may not be your God’s.

13947 views

DAVID: Adaptation does not provide the long term planning of full speciation.

dhw: I dispute your assumption that speciation requires long term planning. You have ignored the rest of my paragraph in which I accept that there is no evidence that the inventive mechanism can extend its range to speciation. That is why it is a hypothesis, just like that of an unknown being preprogramming or dabbling every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

Using the whale series, it is obvious lots of planning is required.

DAVID: God does what He prefers to do. I accept that. My problem is the whales which I view from a human standpoint. In that view, it seems a lot of extra effort to arrange for ocean balance of nature, but I fully believe it was easy for God. So be it. God's logic is not ours.

dhw: You might say the same for the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and migration, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the toxin-eating snake: a lot of extra effort to arrange for terrestrial balance of nature. Of course it would have been easy for God, but it simply doesn’t fit in with your theory that it had to be done in order to keep life going until he could produce humans, even though he is perfectly capable of instantaneous creation. I suggest your logic may not be your God’s.

You are right. The whales bother me, but I'm using human logic, not God's. Exactly the point. And I might add your view of God is to humanize Him.

13930 views

DAVID: Adaptation does not provide the long term planning of full speciation.

dhw: I dispute your assumption that speciation requires long term planning. You have ignored the rest of my paragraph in which I accept that there is no evidence that the inventive mechanism can extend its range to speciation. That is why it is a hypothesis, just like that of an unknown being preprogramming or dabbling every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

DAVID: Using the whale series, it is obvious lots of planning is required.

There is nothing “obvious” about an unknown being who 3.8 billion years ago provided the first living cells with plans for eight stages of whale, or who alternatively dabbled eight times to “plan” different stages of whale before and after they entered the water.

DAVID: God does what He prefers to do. I accept that. My problem is the whales which I view from a human standpoint. In that view, it seems a lot of extra effort to arrange for ocean balance of nature, but I fully believe it was easy for God. So be it. God's logic is not ours.

dhw: You might say the same for the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and migration, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the toxin-eating snake: a lot of extra effort to arrange for terrestrial balance of nature. Of course it would have been easy for God, but it simply doesn’t fit in with your theory that it had to be done in order to keep life going until he could produce humans, even though he is perfectly capable of instantaneous creation. I suggest your logic may not be your God’s.

DAVID: You are right. The whales bother me, but I'm using human logic, not God's. Exactly the point. And I might add your view of God is to humanize Him.

We both have no choice but to use human logic, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that my logical explanation of the whale is wrong just because I’m human, and your hypothesis is right because although it doesn’t make sense to you, your God doesn’t think like you! My hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest is no less human but far more logical than your hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest but his interest is not what we humans mean by “interest”.

13919 views

DAVID: You are right. The whales bother me, but I'm using human logic, not God's. Exactly the point. And I might add your view of God is to humanize Him.

dhw: We both have no choice but to use human logic, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that my logical explanation of the whale is wrong just because I’m human, and your hypothesis is right because although it doesn’t make sense to you, your God doesn’t think like you! My hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest is no less human but far more logical than your hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest but his interest is not what we humans mean by “interest”.

I'm still with Adler. God is a person like no other person. Which means our human logic doesn't apply.

13937 views

DAVID: You are right. The whales bother me, but I'm using human logic, not God's. Exactly the point. And I might add your view of God is to humanize Him.

dhw: We both have no choice but to use human logic, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that my logical explanation of the whale is wrong just because I’m human, and your hypothesis is right because although it doesn’t make sense to you, your God doesn’t think like you! My hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest is no less human but far more logical than your hypothesis that God watches his creation with interest but his interest is not what we humans mean by “interest”.

DAVID: I'm still with Adler. God is a person like no other person. Which means our human logic doesn't apply.

If God is pure conscious energy that is capable of creating a universe, he is not a person anyway. But that doesn’t mean your humanly illogical explanations are right and my humanly logical explanations are wrong!

13900 views

DAVID: I'm still with Adler. God is a person like no other person. Which means our human logic doesn't apply.

dhw: If God is pure conscious energy that is capable of creating a universe, he is not a person anyway. But that doesn’t mean your humanly illogical explanations are right and my humanly logical explanations are wrong!

Thank you for accepting that God is different!

13952 views

DAVID: I'm still with Adler. God is a person like no other person. Which means our human logic doesn't apply.

dhw: If God is pure conscious energy that is capable of creating a universe, he is not a person anyway. But that doesn’t mean your humanly illogical explanations are right and my humanly logical explanations are wrong!

DAVID: Thank you for accepting that God is different!

If he exists, of course he’s not a human being. God being “different” is no reason for believing an illogical hypothesis and rejecting a logical one.

13912 views

DAVID: I'm still with Adler. God is a person like no other person. Which means our human logic doesn't apply.

dhw: If God is pure conscious energy that is capable of creating a universe, he is not a person anyway. But that doesn’t mean your humanly illogical explanations are right and my humanly logical explanations are wrong!

DAVID: Thank you for accepting that God is different!

dhw: If he exists, of course he’s not a human being. God being “different” is no reason for believing an illogical hypothesis and rejecting a logical one.

Your 'logic' is not my logic.

13875 views

Tower of Babel

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

14036 views

Careful review of human DNA has found non-coding duplications that appear to create the differences with apes:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171018133230.htm

"Duplications of large segments of noncoding DNA in the human genome may have contributed to the emergence of differences between humans and nonhuman primates, according to new results. Identifying these duplications, which include regulatory sequences, and their effect on traits and behavior may help scientists explain genetic contributions to human disease.

***

"Paulina Carmona-Mora, PhD, who presented the work; Megan Dennis, PhD; and their colleagues at the University of California, Davis, study the history of human-specific duplications (HSDs), segments of DNA longer than 1,000 base pairs that are repeated in humans but not in primates or other animals. In this study, they focused on HSD regions that do not code for genes, but instead regulate the expression of other genes.

"'What's special about these regulatory elements is that they have the propensity to impact the expression of genes nearby on the same chromosome, as well as elsewhere in the genome," said Dr. Dennis. "This means that one duplication could affect many genes, amplifying its impact."

***

"For example, duplication of the SRGAP2 segment, which took place about three million years ago, may be associated with several neurological traits specific to humans, such as a larger prefrontal cortex in the brain and more efficient synapses, or connections between brain cells. Strikingly, when human-specific SRGAP2C was expressed in laboratory mouse embryos, the mice had similar outcomes. Beyond SRGAP2, many of the genes contained in HSDs examined were associated with neurological development, and some may also have implications for immune response.

"'Our results point to differences between humans and primates, and hint at what makes us unique as humans," said Dr. Dennis.

***

"The researchers are currently validating the candidate enhancer regions they found by comparing gene expression levels across tissue types. They are also assessing the effects of a duplication's introduction on the structure and function of nearby segments. Finally, they are measuring differences between original (ancestral) segments and the duplicated versions appearing in later generations, such as sequence changes since the duplication and potential effects on function.

"'We tend to think of DNA as a linear sequence, but these results remind us how dynamic it is," said Dr. Carmona-Mora. "It's exciting to see that not only does duplication of genes play a role in human evolution, but perhaps duplication of regulatory elements does, too -- even those outside the expected regions.'"

Comment: Much is made over the fact that chimp DNA and human DNA is 98% alike but that is the sum total of bases, not how they are arranged. The big question is why did those duplication areas appear only in the line that led to humans?

14127 views

Studies of Neanderthal, Denisovan, and hominin genomes show that retrotransposons drove the development:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/21/207241.full.pdf

Abstract:

"Transposable Elements are biologically important components of eukaryote genomes. In particular, non-LTR retrotransposons (N-LTRrs) extensively shaped the human genome throughout evolution. In this study, we compared retrotransposon insertions differentially present in the genomes of Anatomically Modern Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and Chimpanzees, in order to assess the possible impact of retrotransposition in
the differentiation of the human lineage. Briefly, we first identified species-specific N-LTRrs and established their distribution in present day human populations. These analyses shortlisted a group of N-LTRr insertions that were found exclusively in Anatomically Modern Humans. Notably, these insertions targeted genes more frequently than randomly expected and are associated with an increase in the number of transcriptional/splicing variants of those genes they inserted in. The analysis of the functionality of genes targeted by human-specific N-LTRr insertions seems to reflect phenotypic changes that occurred during
human evolution. Furthermore, the expression of genes containing the most recent N-LTRr insertions is enriched in the brain, especially in undifferentiated neurons, and these genes associate in networks related to neuron maturation and migration. Additionally, we also identified candidate N-LTRr insertions that have likely produced new functional variants exclusive to modern humans, which show traces of positive selection and are now fixed in all present-day human populations. In sum, our results strongly suggest that N-LTRr
impacted our differentiation as a species and have been a constant source of genomic variability all throughout the evolution of the human lineage.

Conclusion:

"The results presented in this study suggest that non-LTR retrotransposons mediated processes might have played a more than marginal role in recent human evolution. Their distribution in present-day individuals can be useful as a phylogenetic marker and highlights interactions and population dynamics that occurred after the separation from the chimpanzee lineage. RIs display patterns of maintenance and diffusion in modern populations that reflect slow but constant generation of variability. As the new variants can be co-opted at a later moment, selective pressures could arise resulting in the fixation of those variants. Indeed, non-LTR
retrotransposon activity results in an expansion of the genic pool of hominids, and can directly generate new functionalities for human genes and/or their transcripts. RIs are also possibly involved, as well, in the differentiation processes of the human brain and its increase in complexity that took place all throughout the evolution of the human lineage. In some instances, as for the AluYg6 insertion on chr1q25.3 and the AluYb9 insertion on chr10q25.3, the effects of RIs on their target in cis might have been key contributors to the molecular differentiation of the AMH genomes. Indeed, the impact of non-LTR retrotransposonsons on human evolution described here likely reflect the tip of a much large iceberg, as our study is limited to a few Neanderthal, Denisovan and Chimpanzee genomes, and because only RI-impacts on cis could be analyzed. However, the contribution of non-LTR retrotransposition, whose understanding still needs to be further developed, is starting to shed light on the variety and complexity of RI-driven evolutionary processes that
shaped our genome and will continue to influence our evolution in the future. "

Comment: We can see that evolution at this stage of human development appears driven by retrotransposons hopping around the genome. The case can be made hat it was God driven, since the improvements happened over such a short time of 8 million years. Chance random mutations would not do this, according to theory. Specific segments of a certain order of bases is required.

14111 views

A new study in children shows how the brain rewires areas of brain together:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-team-lift-brain-proficiency.html

"Here's a sentence. Got it? You just involuntarily transformed symbols on a screen into sounds in your head. Or to put it another way, you read it. That seems simple enough, but moving from what letters look like to what they sound like is a complex multisensory task that requires cooperation among brain areas specialized for visual and auditory processing.

"Researchers call this collection of specialized brain regions that map letters to sounds (or phonemes) the reading network. The extent to which these sensory-specific parts of the brain are able to connect as a network, not necessarily anatomically, but functionally, during a child's development predicts their reading proficiency, according to a new neuroimaging study from the University at Buffalo.

***

"'As children learn how to read, the brain rewires itself so that it goes from having one area working on visual matters and another working on auditory matters to the two areas working together as a cohesive unit," says Chris McNorgan, an assistant professor.

***

"There is no one reading area of the brain. Written language developed roughly 5,000 years ago, far too recently in evolutionary history to have part of the brain dedicated to reading."But we have inherited and repurposed specialized brain circuits from our ancient ancestors," says McNorgan. "They had to recognize objects, so there's inherently a part of our brain circuitry adapted for identifying the sorts of things necessary for discriminating between letters. The auditory part of the brain is good at recognizing speech sounds."Mastering both written and spoken forms of language requires one part of the brain to map to another, the nominally visual with the nominally auditory. (my bold)

***

"Anatomical connectivity refers to white matter tracks that physically connect parts of the brain, but functional connectivity (which often tracks anatomical connectivity) considers separate brain areas that seem to become active at the same time when responding to a specific task.

***

"Using data from the fMRI, McNorgan, doctoral advisor to the study's lead author Gregory J. Smith, a UB graduate student and co-author, and James R. Booth, a professor at Vanderbilt University, determined which brains areas are connected during the reading task.

Using techniques borrowed from the same branch of mathematics that measure how other types of real-world networks function, the researchers were able to measure cross talk in the patterns of interaction among the regions of the brain comprising the reading network.

"'This is fascinating because it falls in nicely with previous research on what's going on in a child's mind as they learn to read," says McNorgan. "Developmentally, children start to have more cross talk between their sound processing areas and visual processing areas.

"They're mutually reinforcing each other. If they're not getting this input then children are having difficulty reading."

Comment: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

11229 views

QUOTE: "There is no one reading area of the brain. Written language developed roughly 5,000 years ago, far too recently in evolutionary history to have part of the brain dedicated to reading."But we have inherited and repurposed specialized brain circuits from our ancient ancestors," says McNorgan. (David's bold)

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work.

Same principle as the illiterate women learning to read. It fits in neatly with my proposal that the different cell communities of the brain cooperate, just as ants do, to meet new challenges. The brain does not change in anticipation of the challenge but in response to it. Of course this entails plasticity, and I would not dispute that the complexity offers the strongest possible case for design. Whether it was designed directly by your God or by the cell communities themselves using their (possibly God-given) intelligence is an open question. It would be interesting to know if all our atheist friends believe these complexities arose by chance or might possibly have been designed by intelligent cell communities. I can’t think of any alternative once they exclude your God. Sadly, we no longer seem to have any atheists contributing to our discussions.

11164 views

QUOTE: "There is no one reading area of the brain. Written language developed roughly 5,000 years ago, far too recently in evolutionary history to have part of the brain dedicated to reading."But we have inherited and repurposed specialized brain circuits from our ancient ancestors," says McNorgan. (David's bold)

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work.

dhw: Same principle as the illiterate women learning to read. It fits in neatly with my proposal that the different cell communities of the brain cooperate, just as ants do, to meet new challenges. The brain does not change in anticipation of the challenge but in response to it. Of course this entails plasticity, and I would not dispute that the complexity offers the strongest possible case for design. Whether it was designed directly by your God or by the cell communities themselves using their (possibly God-given) intelligence is an open question. It would be interesting to know if all our atheist friends believe these complexities arose by chance or might possibly have been designed by intelligent cell communities. I can’t think of any alternative once they exclude your God. Sadly, we no longer seem to have any atheists contributing to our discussions.

We are too logical for atheists to handle.

11205 views

A new study in children shows how the brain rewires areas of brain together:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-team-lift-brain-proficiency.html

"Here's a sentence. Got it? You just involuntarily transformed symbols on a screen into sounds in your head. Or to put it another way, you read it. That seems simple enough, but moving from what letters look like to what they sound like is a complex multisensory task that requires cooperation among brain areas specialized for visual and auditory processing.

"Researchers call this collection of specialized brain regions that map letters to sounds (or phonemes) the reading network. The extent to which these sensory-specific parts of the brain are able to connect as a network, not necessarily anatomically, but functionally, during a child's development predicts their reading proficiency, according to a new neuroimaging study from the University at Buffalo.

***

"'As children learn how to read, the brain rewires itself so that it goes from having one area working on visual matters and another working on auditory matters to the two areas working together as a cohesive unit," says Chris McNorgan, an assistant professor.

***

"There is no one reading area of the brain. Written language developed roughly 5,000 years ago, far too recently in evolutionary history to have part of the brain dedicated to reading."But we have inherited and repurposed specialized brain circuits from our ancient ancestors," says McNorgan. "They had to recognize objects, so there's inherently a part of our brain circuitry adapted for identifying the sorts of things necessary for discriminating between letters. The auditory part of the brain is good at recognizing speech sounds."Mastering both written and spoken forms of language requires one part of the brain to map to another, the nominally visual with the nominally auditory. (my bold)

***

"Anatomical connectivity refers to white matter tracks that physically connect parts of the brain, but functional connectivity (which often tracks anatomical connectivity) considers separate brain areas that seem to become active at the same time when responding to a specific task.

***

"Using data from the fMRI, McNorgan, doctoral advisor to the study's lead author Gregory J. Smith, a UB graduate student and co-author, and James R. Booth, a professor at Vanderbilt University, determined which brains areas are connected during the reading task.

Using techniques borrowed from the same branch of mathematics that measure how other types of real-world networks function, the researchers were able to measure cross talk in the patterns of interaction among the regions of the brain comprising the reading network.

"'This is fascinating because it falls in nicely with previous research on what's going on in a child's mind as they learn to read," says McNorgan. "Developmentally, children start to have more cross talk between their sound processing areas and visual processing areas.

"They're mutually reinforcing each other. If they're not getting this input then children are having difficulty reading."

Comment: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

11142 views

A new study in children shows how the brain rewires areas of brain together:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-team-lift-brain-proficiency.html

"Here's a sentence. Got it? You just involuntarily transformed symbols on a screen into sounds in your head. Or to put it another way, you read it. That seems simple enough, but moving from what letters look like to what they sound like is a complex multisensory task that requires cooperation among brain areas specialized for visual and auditory processing.

"Researchers call this collection of specialized brain regions that map letters to sounds (or phonemes) the reading network. The extent to which these sensory-specific parts of the brain are able to connect as a network, not necessarily anatomically, but functionally, during a child's development predicts their reading proficiency, according to a new neuroimaging study from the University at Buffalo.

***

"'As children learn how to read, the brain rewires itself so that it goes from having one area working on visual matters and another working on auditory matters to the two areas working together as a cohesive unit," says Chris McNorgan, an assistant professor.

***

"There is no one reading area of the brain. Written language developed roughly 5,000 years ago, far too recently in evolutionary history to have part of the brain dedicated to reading."But we have inherited and repurposed specialized brain circuits from our ancient ancestors," says McNorgan. "They had to recognize objects, so there's inherently a part of our brain circuitry adapted for identifying the sorts of things necessary for discriminating between letters. The auditory part of the brain is good at recognizing speech sounds."Mastering both written and spoken forms of language requires one part of the brain to map to another, the nominally visual with the nominally auditory. (my bold)

***

"Anatomical connectivity refers to white matter tracks that physically connect parts of the brain, but functional connectivity (which often tracks anatomical connectivity) considers separate brain areas that seem to become active at the same time when responding to a specific task.

***

"Using data from the fMRI, McNorgan, doctoral advisor to the study's lead author Gregory J. Smith, a UB graduate student and co-author, and James R. Booth, a professor at Vanderbilt University, determined which brains areas are connected during the reading task.

Using techniques borrowed from the same branch of mathematics that measure how other types of real-world networks function, the researchers were able to measure cross talk in the patterns of interaction among the regions of the brain comprising the reading network.

"'This is fascinating because it falls in nicely with previous research on what's going on in a child's mind as they learn to read," says McNorgan. "Developmentally, children start to have more cross talk between their sound processing areas and visual processing areas.

"They're mutually reinforcing each other. If they're not getting this input then children are having difficulty reading."

Comment: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

Tony: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

If you looked at the Inca knot article, they are beginning to be deciphered. It is a tough code.

11093 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

--

11088 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

dhw: I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

No! God gave the brain the plasticity in advance to respond exactly as the article describes. Clever design.

11129 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

dhw: I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

DAVID: No! God gave the brain the plasticity in advance to respond exactly as the article describes. Clever design.

What I (and I think Tony too) objected to was plasticity “in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring” and the suggestion that it took 45,000 years for the brain to make the new connections which would enable humans to read and write. Plasticity is essential for the implementation of every single new concept, but as the article shows, it is the implementation that causes the new connections – not new connections giving rise to new concepts. However, if all you intended to say was that the plasticity of the brain must have been designed, I’m sure Tony would agree, and I shan’t disagree, but will leave open my options as to what did the designing.
--

11037 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

dhw: I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

DAVID: No! God gave the brain the plasticity in advance to respond exactly as the article describes. Clever design.

DHW: What I (and I think Tony too) objected to was plasticity “in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring” and the suggestion that it took 45,000 years for the brain to make the new connections which would enable humans to read and write. Plasticity is essential for the implementation of every single new concept, but as the article shows, it is the implementation that causes the new connections – not new connections giving rise to new concepts. However, if all you intended to say was that the plasticity of the brain must have been designed, I’m sure Tony would agree, and I shan’t disagree, but will leave open my options as to what did the designing.

Well, actually, I disagreed with the idea that 'reading' was pre-programmed, not the language centers. I have no reason, scientific or otherwise, to think that our early ancestors were incapable of spoken language.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

11043 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

dhw: I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

DAVID: No! God gave the brain the plasticity in advance to respond exactly as the article describes. Clever design.

DHW: What I (and I think Tony too) objected to was plasticity “in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring” and the suggestion that it took 45,000 years for the brain to make the new connections which would enable humans to read and write. Plasticity is essential for the implementation of every single new concept, but as the article shows, it is the implementation that causes the new connections – not new connections giving rise to new concepts. However, if all you intended to say was that the plasticity of the brain must have been designed, I’m sure Tony would agree, and I shan’t disagree, but will leave open my options as to what did the designing.

Tony: Well, actually, I disagreed with the idea that 'reading' was pre-programmed, not the language centers. I have no reason, scientific or otherwise, to think that our early ancestors were incapable of spoken language.

The article does not say that reading was pre-programmed. The brain was given the ability to change called plasticity. Humans developed language when the larynx was dropped, the roof of the mouth arched and the tongue provided with different use of its muscles, long before reading and writing

10953 views

dhw: [...] if all you intended to say was that the plasticity of the brain must have been designed, I’m sure Tony would agree, and I shan’t disagree, but will leave open my options as to what did the designing.

DAVID: Yes, what did the designing is the issue : logically only a thinking mind can do that. But you try to evade that logic by proposing panpsychism and thinking committees of cells. The design we see requires God.

I don’t think you raised the subject because you wanted me yet again to go into all the details of why I find it impossible to believe in ANY of the three hypotheses you have listed. You wrote: ”This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains.” My point is that it was the new concept of reading and writing that created the new connections. They didn’t “develop” in advance. Tony pointed out that the “networks” already existed, and the 45,000-year gap was better explained by the fact that there was no need for reading and writing. It was the invention of reading and writing that caused the changes to the network – not a 45,000-year process of rewiring.

TONY: Well, actually, I disagreed with the idea that 'reading' was pre-programmed, not the language centers. I have no reason, scientific or otherwise, to think that our early ancestors were incapable of spoken language.

I agree completely. The point is that the brain responds to needs; it does not change in anticipation of needs. This has been a major subject of disagreement between David and myself, who believes that his God changes organs and organisms in anticipation of - rather than their changing in response to - new needs and concepts.

DAVID: The article does not say that reading was pre-programmed. The brain was given the ability to change called plasticity. Humans developed language when the larynx was dropped, the roof of the mouth arched and the tongue provided with different use of its muscles, long before reading and writing.

You wrote that “our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirement the addition of language would bring.” The example under discussion was the new brain connections established through reading and writing (not the anatomical changes required for oral language, which we have already discussed in detail elsewhere). Once more: It is not the argument for design that is under discussion, but the argument that the brain changes described in the article were “developed” in anticipation of the new concept and not in response to it.

10928 views

TONY: Well, actually, I disagreed with the idea that 'reading' was pre-programmed, not the language centers. I have no reason, scientific or otherwise, to think that our early ancestors were incapable of spoken language.

dhw: I agree completely. The point is that the brain responds to needs; it does not change in anticipation of needs. This has been a major subject of disagreement between David and myself, who believes that his God changes organs and organisms in anticipation of - rather than their changing in response to - new needs and concepts.

DAVID: The article does not say that reading was pre-programmed. The brain was given the ability to change called plasticity. Humans developed language when the larynx was dropped, the roof of the mouth arched and the tongue provided with different use of its muscles, long before reading and writing.

dhw: You wrote that “our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirement the addition of language would bring.” The example under discussion was the new brain connections established through reading and writing (not the anatomical changes required for oral language, which we have already discussed in detail elsewhere). Once more: It is not the argument for design that is under discussion, but the argument that the brain changes described in the article were “developed” in anticipation of the new concept and not in response to it.

Without the ability to apply plasticity, the brain would not have rearranged its connections to handle reading and writing. Plasticity existed in advance, and therefore was in place for any anticipated need.

10926 views

dhw: You wrote that “our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirement the addition of language would bring.” The example under discussion was the new brain connections established through reading and writing (not the anatomical changes required for oral language, which we have already discussed in detail elsewhere). Once more: It is not the argument for design that is under discussion, but the argument that the brain changes described in the article were “developed” in anticipation of the new concept and not in response to it.

DAVID: Without the ability to apply plasticity, the brain would not have rearranged its connections to handle reading and writing. Plasticity existed in advance, and therefore was in place for any anticipated need.

If the brain was not plastic, it would not be able to form new connections. That has never been in dispute, because it is blindingly obvious. But the fact that reading and writing require new connections does not explain the 45,000-year gap between oral language and written language, as you claimed, and the article does not illustrate “anticipation of the requirements the addition of language” in the form of writing and reading would bring, because it shows how the brain changes in response to needs, not in anticipation of them. However, if all you wanted to prove was that the brain cannot make any changes unless it has plasticity, then there is no disagreement.

10888 views

dhw: You wrote that “our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirement the addition of language would bring.” The example under discussion was the new brain connections established through reading and writing (not the anatomical changes required for oral language, which we have already discussed in detail elsewhere). Once more: It is not the argument for design that is under discussion, but the argument that the brain changes described in the article were “developed” in anticipation of the new concept and not in response to it.

DAVID: Without the ability to apply plasticity, the brain would not have rearranged its connections to handle reading and writing. Plasticity existed in advance, and therefore was in place for any anticipated need.

dhw: If the brain was not plastic, it would not be able to form new connections. That has never been in dispute, because it is blindingly obvious. But the fact that reading and writing require new connections does not explain the 45,000-year gap between oral language and written language, as you claimed, and the article does not illustrate “anticipation of the requirements the addition of language” in the form of writing and reading would bring, because it shows how the brain changes in response to needs, not in anticipation of them. However, if all you wanted to prove was that the brain cannot make any changes unless it has plasticity, then there is no disagreement.

It just shows we have a brain like no other brain.

10908 views

A new MRI methodology used:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-11-physical-brain-due-differently-thought.html

"A team of researchers from the University of Tübingen and the Max-Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, both in Germany, has found evidence that suggests new-learning plasticity of the brain occurs faster than has been previously thought—and in different ways. In their paper published in the journal Science, the group describes their study of the brain using a less well-known kind of MRI.

***

"The brain changes to accommodate new knowledge as more learning occurs. Assaf notes that prior research has also shown that the hippocampus is the main brain region involved in memory retention. In this new effort, the researchers challenge both of these assumptions. But Assaf also points out that at this time, nobody really knows how memories are stored in the brain.

***

"To learn more about what happens physically in the brain when a person is learning something new, the researchers studied volunteers with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). This less well-known MRI technique detects how water is diffused in the body. The researchers used it to watch how water was diffused in the brain as volunteers learned new material. They suggest the results offer a new view of plasticity in the brain.

"The researchers report that they were able to see physical changes in the brain that occurred within hours of the volunteer's exposure to the new material. They also found that brain plasticity was occurring in the posterior parietal cortex, not the hippocampus. They further report that they found that memory engram (the physical changes the brain undergoes when learning something new) was also localized, which, Assaf suggests, strengthens theories that memory is not stored in brain "memory banks," but is instead stored in localized places throughout the brain."

Comment: With each neuron as a tiny computer and the brain spreading new information around the brain in many areas, no wonder the brain is so hard to interpret. More and more amazing.

8120 views

The appearance of new neurons in adult human brain is defended:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2019/01/30/new-look-neurogenesis-humans/...

"The debate over human neurogenesis has been one of the most prominent disputes in 21st century neuroscience. Just last year, two opposing papers appeared in leading journals, one claiming firm evidence of ongoing neurogenesis in the adult human dentate gyrus, while the other study came to the opposite conclusion. The fact that adult neurogenesis is reliably seen in rodents only adds to the confusion. If rats and mice have it, and we don’t, what does that mean?

"Snyder argues that there is no mystery about humans vs. rodent patterns of neurogenesis – the only real difference is in the timing:

"This graph, a summary of published data, shows that dentate gyrus neurogenesis follows the same timeline in all species studied: it initially peaks, and then declines to very low levels. The difference is that in humans, the peak occurs before birth, whereas in rodents, neurogenesis peaks much later (relative to their lifespan), at birth or shortly afterwards.

"In other words, Snyder says, it’s no surprise that adult neurogenesis has been found to be low in human adults. Neurogenesis is low throughout most of the lifespan of all species.

"The timing of DG neurogenesis is therefore consistent with the broader comparative pattern of neurodevelopment, where humans and nonhuman primates are born with a mature nervous system (at least in terms of cell production) compared to that in rodents [64,65].

"Still, even if neurogenesis only occurs at a very low rate in human adults, Snyder points out that it might still be functionally important:

"Spalding et al. estimated that only 0.004% of neurons are added each day in adult humans [10]. While this would appear negligible under the microscope (1 cell in 25,000), it translates to ∼15% over a decade; a sizable fraction…

"Even if we believe that neurogenesis absolutely ceases during human adolescence, the importance of neurogenesis might linger on, as there is evidence that the youngest neurons (the ones ‘born’ during childhood) retain distinct properties that make them especially important for learning and plasticity in adulthood:

"Newborn dentate gyrus neurons might be expected to have enhanced synaptic plasticity for over a year in primates and even longer in humans. Similarly, if the enhanced capacity for morphological plasticity, which lasts at least 4 months in rats [100], is scaled according to human lifespan (30×), dentate gyrus neurons in humans would be expected to retain this heightened plasticity for at least a decade."

Comment: I interpret his position as proposing that very few new neurons are produced in the adult human brain, but they retain remarkable plasticity fairly late into life..

7729 views

New evidence, but disputed, that the hippocampus grow new neurons in adults:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/more-evidence-that-humans-do-appear-to-creat...

"New neurons develop in the brains of healthy adult humans, but neurogenesis is severely diminished in the brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients no matter their age, researchers report today (March 26) in Nature Medicine.

“'This is the first really strong evidence showing that neurogenesis is reduced in human Alzheimer’s disease patients,” Xinyu Zhao, a neurobiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who was not involved in the study, tells The Scientist. Perhaps, the authors suggest, finding a way to promote neurogenesis in these patients could help in treating Alzheimer’s disease.

***

"The results show that neurogenesis does decrease moderately with age. But the number of immature neurons in healthy people appears to be consistently higher than the number found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, regardless of their age. These patients typically had tens of thousands fewer immature neurons compared with healthy subjects and the loss of cells progressed with the severity of the disease, the team found.

"Not everyone is convinced by the results. In an email to The Scientist, Shawn Sorrells, a neuroscientist at the University of Pittsburgh and a coauthor of last year’s study finding no evidence of adult human neurogenesis, writes, “accurately identifying newborn neurons is a complicated endeavor requiring multiple lines of evidence to rule out alternative explanations, none of which are presented in this study.” The cells’ appearance and protein profiles, he notes, suggest they are “actually a distinct set of mature hippocampal neurons that have been there since childhood.”

"Zhao disagrees and says the new study is actually the first to provide a clear view of the maturation of newly developing neurons in the human adult brain. In rodent models, scientists have shown that in addition to DCX, developing neurons produce a calcium-binding protein called CR when they are less mature and one called CB when they are a little farther along in their development. In the new study, Llorens-Martín and her colleagues used a labeling technique to identify the cells expressing both DCX and CR and those expressing both DCX and CB and then tracked where they existed in a part of the hippocampus called the subgranular zone. The cells expressing DCX and CR were located at the border of this part of the hippocampus and had smaller cell bodies and were more elongated, characteristic of less mature cells. Cells labeled for DCX and CB were located deeper in the dentate gyrus and had more of an oval shape, indicating they were more mature.

"Tracing the cells this way is important to show for certain that they are maturing into new neurons, Maura Boldrini, a neurobiologist at Columbia University who was not involved in the new study, tells The Scientist. A criticism of past experiments has been that the neurons may be transforming into some other types of cells, but the new work clearly shows the immature cells are becoming actual neurons. Boldrini was a coauthor of the 2018 study providing evidence of neurogenesis in adult humans."

Comment: Evidence seems to be stronger that human adults make new neurons in the memory area of the brain.

7635 views

Primarily in left- handed women. They have good senses of smell:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/olfactory-bulb-might-not-be-necessary-smell-s...

"But a new paper published in the journal Neuron has scientists questioning what the nose knows. Researchers have identified two women without olfactory bulbs that were still able to smell just as well, or better, than the average person.

"The finding happened by chance. Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel were conducting MRI scans of people with a good sense of smell. So the study team was shocked when they looked at the brain scan of one participant and found the 29-year-old, left-handed woman did not appear to have an olfactory bulb.

***

"Finding two women without olfactory bulbs, but with a sense of smell seemed like too much of a coincidence, so the team did a deep dive into the data, analyzing MRI brain scans from the Human Connectome Project, which has published over 1,113 brain scans. From that data set, which includes 606 women, they found three more female subjects who did not have olfactory bulbs, but retained their sense of smell. One of those women was also left-handed. According to the data, the team estimates that about 0.6 percent of women globally and 4.25 percent of left-handed women lack an olfactory bulb but still retain a sense of smell. None of the men in the database appeared to have the same ability.

***

"How exactly the women are able to smell without their sense organ is not known. “I’m not sure that our textbook view of how the [olfactory] system works is right,” Sobel tells Sofie Bates at Science News.

"The team does have a theory about how the smelling works. It’s thought that scents are mapped onto the olfactory bulb, with certain areas corresponding to certain smells. But it’s possible that in these cases, scents are mapped on a different area of the brain."

Comment: This is simply the brain's amazing ability at plasticity.

6891 views

DAVID: This explains why we developed complex spoken language perhaps 50,000 years ago and written and read language only 5,000 years ago. We had to develop the connections in different functioning parts of our brains. It means our brains had to be designed with plasticity in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring. I see God the designer at work. We still haven't found written records for the Aztecs, but knotted cords of a partially deciphered code.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-600-we-thought-the-incas-couldnt-write-...

TONY: Both these networks have always existed, these networks are able to build a correlation between sight and sound in less than 5 years, yet we are expected to believe that this took 45k years to develop? I find that highly suspicious. I would wager money that circumstance, not biology, prevented writing from being developed. Small communities with a strong oral tradition would have little need for it, honestly, and necessity is the mother of invention.

dhw: I agree. The brain’s plasticity was always there, and it is not new connections that enabled humans to invent reading and writing, but the invention of reading and writing that demanded new connections. However, David generally seems to think his God changes brains and bodies in advance of requirements instead of in response to them.

DAVID: No! God gave the brain the plasticity in advance to respond exactly as the article describes. Clever design.

dhw: What I (and I think Tony too) objected to was plasticity “in anticipation of the requirements the addition of language would bring” and the suggestion that it took 45,000 years for the brain to make the new connections which would enable humans to read and write. Plasticity is essential for the implementation of every single new concept, but as the article shows, it is the implementation that causes the new connections – not new connections giving rise to new concepts. However, if all you intended to say was that the plasticity of the brain must have been designed, I’m sure Tony would agree, and I shan’t disagree, but will leave open my options as to what did the designing.

Yes, what did the designing is the issue : logically only a thinking mind can do that. But you try to evade that logic by proposing panpsychism and thinking committees of cells. The design we see requires God.

11042 views

A review of the study on illiterate Indian women learning to read in their Hindi language:

http://maxplanck.nautil.us/article/338/learning-to-read-in-your-30s-profoundly-transfor...

"Reading is such a new ability in human evolutionary history that the existence of a “reading area” could not be specified in our genes. A kind of recycling process has to take place in the brain while learning to read: Areas evolved for the recognition of complex objects, such as faces, become engaged in translating letters into language. Some regions of our visual system thereby turn into interfaces between the visual and language systems.

***

"In contrast to previous assumptions, the learning process leads to a reorganization that extends to deep brain structures in the thalamus and the brainstem. The relatively young phenomenon of human writing, therefore, changes brain regions that are very old in evolutionary terms and already core parts of mice and other mammalian brains.

***

“'We observed that the so-called colliculi superiores, a part of the brainstem, and the pulvinar, located in the thalamus, adapt the timing of their activity patterns to those of the visual cortex,” says Michael Skeide, scientific researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and first author of the study, which has been published in the renowned magazine Science Advances. “These deep structures in the thalamus and brainstem help our visual cortex to filter important information from the flood of visual input even before we consciously perceive it.” Interestingly, it seems that the more the signal timings between the two brain regions are aligned, the better the reading capabilities. “We, therefore, believe that these brain systems increasingly fine-tune their communication as learners become more and more proficient in reading,” the neuroscientist explains further. “This could explain why experienced readers navigate more efficiently through a text.”

***

"Therefore, in this study, nearly all participants were women in their 30s. At the beginning of the training, the majority of them could not decipher a single written word of their mother tongue Hindi. Hindi, one of the official languages of India, is based on Devanagari, a scripture with complex characters describing whole syllables or words rather than single letters.

"Participants reached a level comparable to a first-grader after only six months of reading training. “This growth of knowledge is remarkable,” says project leader Huettig. “While it is quite difficult for us to learn a new language, it appears to be much easier for us to learn to read. The adult brain proves to be astonishingly flexible.'”

Comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

9300 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

9330 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

dhw: Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

The comment totally misses the point of the article. The brain had to be designed with this capacity to adapt to new uses well in advance of the new need. The H. sapiens big brain appeared about 315,000+ years ago and reading in the past 50,000 years. The article clearly shows existing areas were quickly adapted on the spot that reading was learned.

9351 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

dhw: Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

DAVID: The comment totally misses the point of the article. The brain had to be designed with this capacity to adapt to new uses well in advance of the new need. The H. sapiens big brain appeared about 315,000+ years ago and reading in the past 50,000 years. The article clearly shows existing areas were quickly adapted on the spot that reading was learned.

You are simply repeating the fact that the brain is plastic. All adaptation requires plasticity of some kind! And if cell communities were not able to undergo change, evolution would never have taken place – regardless of whether your God fiddled with them or they fiddled with themselves. Your interpretation of evolution, however, is that your God changed the cell communities in advance of the conditions that required or allowed the changes. The article shows that the cell communities that make up the brain changed in response to new demands, not before them.

9331 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

dhw: Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

DAVID: The comment totally misses the point of the article. The brain had to be designed with this capacity to adapt to new uses well in advance of the new need. The H. sapiens big brain appeared about 315,000+ years ago and reading in the past 50,000 years. The article clearly shows existing areas were quickly adapted on the spot that reading was learned.

dhw: You are simply repeating the fact that the brain is plastic. All adaptation requires plasticity of some kind! And if cell communities were not able to undergo change, evolution would never have taken place – regardless of whether your God fiddled with them or they fiddled with themselves. Your interpretation of evolution, however, is that your God changed the cell communities in advance of the conditions that required or allowed the changes. The article shows that the cell communities that make up the brain changed in response to new demands, not before them.

The brain areas that assumed new duties already existed and were given the ability to change as necessary when they were created. Why do you interpret that fact differently?

9339 views

Dhw: It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

TONY: Except that the sympathetic nervous system engages in preparation for an event, and the alterations can become part of the programming and be considered via epigenetics.

Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. How does the “sympathetic nervous system” prepare for something it knows nothing about? Once the brain/body has changed, certainly it will be programmed to perform the new tasks, and I have no doubt that epigenetics plays a major role in evolution.

DAVID: The larger brain had new areas that could be adopted for new uses, present at the time of newly found uses and not in anticipation of them.

Yes, and in view of my comments below and to avoid repeating our past discussions on the subject, I’d better add that once the brain/skull had reached its optimum size, new uses were implemented through complexification, not expansion, and the efficiency of this has even resulted in a degree of shrinkage.

Dhw (to David): You are simply repeating the fact that the brain is plastic. All adaptation requires plasticity of some kind! And if cell communities were not able to undergo change, evolution would never have taken place – regardless of whether your God fiddled with them or they fiddled with themselves. Your interpretation of evolution, however, is that your God changed the cell communities in advance of the conditions that required or allowed the changes. The article shows that the cell communities that make up the brain changed in response to new demands, not before them.

DAVID: The brain areas that assumed new duties already existed and were given the ability to change as necessary when they were created. Why do you interpret that fact differently?

I don’t. Of course the ability to change must have been present from the beginning! Otherwise evolution could not have taken place. But that does not mean your God made the changes in advance of new demands! I am referring to your insistence that your God changed the pre-sapiens brain before it could conceive the spear, changed legs into fins before the pre-whale entered the water, changed the anatomy before pre-humans descended from the trees – i.e. that every evolutionary innovation was planned in advance of changes in conditions. The brain like all other cells/cell communities RESPONDS to new conditions; there is no evidence that cells/cell communities change in anticipation of new conditions.

DAVID (under “Introducing the brain”): Rodent research makes the point that mental ability is increased by vigorous exercise:
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/this-is-your-brain-on-exercise-64934

But it also makes the point that exercise CHANGES the brain:

QUOTE: Researchers have long recognized that exercise sharpens certain cognitive skills. Indeed, Maejima and his colleagues have found that regular physical activity improves mice’s ability to distinguish new objects from ones they’ve seen before. Over the past 20 years, researchers have begun to get at the root of these benefits, with studies pointing to increases in the volume of the hippocampus, development of new neurons, and infiltration of blood vessels into the brain. Now, Maejima and others are starting to home in on the epigenetic mechanisms that drive the neurological changes brought on by physical activity.

The point could hardly be clearer. It is “exercise” that changes the brain, even to the extent of enlarging some parts and developing new neurons. If we go back into the past, the same process must have taken place in pre-humans – namely, that “exercise” in the form of implementing new concepts would have changed the brain, and the resultant increase in volume would have required a larger skull to house the larger brain. Can you fault the logic?

9277 views

TONY: Except that the sympathetic nervous system engages in preparation for an event, and the alterations can become part of the programming and be considered via epigenetics.

dhw; Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. How does the “sympathetic nervous system” prepare for something it knows nothing about? Once the brain/body has changed, certainly it will be programmed to perform the new tasks, and I have no doubt that epigenetics plays a major role in evolution.

Stepping in for a bit of medical education. The sympathetic nervous system is part of the autonomic nervous system:
"The sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are both components of the autonomic nervous system of the brain. They act in collaboration with each other to sustain the body’s homeostatic state."
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-sympathetic-and-parasympath...
Obviously the sympathetic system knows what is happening.

DAVID: The brain areas that assumed new duties already existed and were given the ability to change as necessary when they were created. Why do you interpret that fact differently?

dhw: I don’t. ... I am referring to your insistence that your God changed the pre-sapiens brain before it could conceive the spear, changed legs into fins before the pre-whale entered the water, changed the anatomy before pre-humans descended from the trees – i.e. that every evolutionary innovation was planned in advance of changes in conditions. The brain like all other cells/cell communities RESPONDS to new conditions; there is no evidence that cells/cell communities change in anticipation of new conditions.

You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed. See my entry today on how fungus changed the Earth, and was prepared to do so in advance!

DAVID (under “Introducing the brain”): Rodent research makes the point that mental ability is increased by vigorous exercise:
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/this-is-your-brain-on-exercise-64934

dhw: But it also makes the point that exercise CHANGES the brain:

QUOTE: Researchers have long recognized that exercise sharpens certain cognitive skills. Indeed, Maejima and his colleagues have found that regular physical activity improves mice’s ability to distinguish new objects from ones they’ve seen before. Over the past 20 years, researchers have begun to get at the root of these benefits, with studies pointing to increases in the volume of the hippocampus, development of new neurons, and infiltration of blood vessels into the brain. Now, Maejima and others are starting to home in on the epigenetic mechanisms that drive the neurological changes brought on by physical activity.

The point could hardly be clearer. It is “exercise” that changes the brain, even to the extent of enlarging some parts and developing new neurons. If we go back into the past, the same process must have taken place in pre-humans – namely, that “exercise” in the form of implementing new concepts would have changed the brain, and the resultant increase in volume would have required a larger skull to house the larger brain. Can you fault the logic?

Perfectly logical, with one huge exception: we have no idea why the brain grew so large from its smaller size before it was used as in today's humans. The mice did not have exploding skulls in this study, only plastic alteration of the brain that already existed. And we know aht plasticity shrinks existing brains

9316 views

TONY: Except that the sympathetic nervous system engages in preparation for an event, and the alterations can become part of the programming and be considered via epigenetics.

dhw: Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. How does the “sympathetic nervous system” prepare for something it knows nothing about? Once the brain/body has changed, certainly it will be programmed to perform the new tasks, and I have no doubt that epigenetics plays a major role in evolution.

DAVID: Stepping in for a bit of medical education. The sympathetic nervous system is part of the autonomic nervous system:
"The sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are both components of the autonomic nervous system of the brain. They act in collaboration with each other to sustain the body’s homeostatic state."
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-sympathetic-and-parasympath...
Obviously the sympathetic system knows what is happening.

Thank you, but the context of this was my contention that the brain changes in response to new concepts and not in anticipation. I still don’t understand how the “sympathetic nervous system” can prepare for something it knows nothing about.

DAVID: The brain areas that assumed new duties already existed and were given the ability to change as necessary when they were created. Why do you interpret that fact differently?

dhw: I am referring to your insistence that your God changed the pre-sapiens brain before it could conceive the spear, changed legs into fins before the pre-whale entered the water, changed the anatomy before pre-humans descended from the trees – i.e. that every evolutionary innovation was planned in advance of changes in conditions. The brain like all other cells/cell communities RESPONDS to new conditions; there is no evidence that cells/cell communities change in anticipation of new conditions.

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc. As regards the new concepts which appeared after the arrival of the “big brain”, why have you ignored the answer I already gave you? “In order to avoid repeating our past discussions on the subject, I’d better add that once the brain/skull had reached its optimum size, new uses were implemented through complexification, not expansion, and the efficiency of this has even resulted in a degree of shrinkage.”

DAVID: See my entry today on how fungus changed the Earth, and was prepared to do so in advance!
Note my bold: the algal ancestors of land plants, a group called ‘charophytes’, were equipped to communicate with fungi well before they encountered them.

Thank you for this intriguing article (and for all the others you posted yesterday). As usual, you prefer to ignore the fact that living organisms are composed of cells, and the whole point of my hypothesis is that cells from the very beginning were “equipped” with their own form of intelligence. You cannot have any kind of cooperation, including symbiosis, without some means of communicating. So of course the algae and fungi were equipped to communicate. Every form of multicellular life depends on the ability of its cells to communicate, and that ability must have existed before the cells cooperated.

DAVID (under “Introducing the brain”): Rodent research makes the point that mental ability is increased by vigorous exercise:
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/this-is-your-brain-on-exercise-64934

dhw: The point could hardly be clearer. It is “exercise” that changes the brain, even to the extent of enlarging some parts and developing new neurons. If we go back into the past, the same process must have taken place in pre-humans – namely, that “exercise” in the form of implementing new concepts would have changed the brain, and the resultant increase in volume would have required a larger skull to house the larger brain. Can you fault the logic?

DAVID: Perfectly logical, with one huge exception: we have no idea why the brain grew so large from its smaller size before it was used as in today's humans. The mice did not have exploding skulls in this study, only plastic alteration of the brain that already existed. And we know that plasticity shrinks existing brains

That is precisely what I am trying to explain: “exercise”, as in the implementation of new concepts, changes the brain. In pre-humans, I propose that the capacity of the brain was not large enough to cope with whatever those concepts were, and so it had to expand (just as it does now in certain areas of the brain when they become the main area of activity). The rest of the explanation – including shrinkage – is contained in the paragraph which you ignored.

9225 views

DAVID: Stepping in for a bit of medical education. The sympathetic nervous system is part of the autonomic nervous system:
"The sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are both components of the autonomic nervous system of the brain. They act in collaboration with each other to sustain the body’s homeostatic state."
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-sympathetic-and-parasympath...
Obviously the sympathetic system knows what is happening.

dhw: Thank you, but the context of this was my contention that the brain changes in response to new concepts and not in anticipation. I still don’t understand how the “sympathetic nervous system” can prepare for something it knows nothing about.

The sympathetic system works on its own and knows what its body is doing, separate from the brain, except that it informs the brain which can respond and influence the sympathetic.

DAVID: The brain areas that assumed new duties already existed and were given the ability to change as necessary when they were created. Why do you interpret that fact differently?

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

dhw: As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc.

You have forgotten that the fossils we have show the brain size jumped 200 cc at a time with each new homo ancestor. You're back to your Darwinism looking for itty -bitty changes.

dhw: As regards the new concepts which appeared after the arrival of the “big brain”, why have you ignored the answer I already gave you? “In order to avoid repeating our past discussions on the subject, I’d better add that once the brain/skull had reached its optimum size, new uses were implemented through complexification, not expansion, and the efficiency of this has even resulted in a degree of shrinkage.”

Not ignored, understood and agreed. What were you trying to prove?.

DAVID: See my entry today on how fungus changed the Earth, and was prepared to do so in advance!
Note my bold: the algal ancestors of land plants, a group called ‘charophytes’, were equipped to communicate with fungi well before they encountered them.

dhw: Thank you for this intriguing article (and for all the others you posted yesterday). As usual, you prefer to ignore the fact that living organisms are composed of cells, and the whole point of my hypothesis is that cells from the very beginning were “equipped” with their own form of intelligence. You cannot have any kind of cooperation, including symbiosis, without some means of communicating. So of course the algae and fungi were equipped to communicate. Every form of multicellular life depends on the ability of its cells to communicate, and that ability must have existed before the cells cooperated.

Did the communication evolve by chance or was it designed?

dhw: The point could hardly be clearer. It is “exercise” that changes the brain, even to the extent of enlarging some parts and developing new neurons. If we go back into the past, the same process must have taken place in pre-humans – namely, that “exercise” in the form of implementing new concepts would have changed the brain, and the resultant increase in volume would have required a larger skull to house the larger brain. Can you fault the logic?

DAVID: Perfectly logical, with one huge exception: we have no idea why the brain grew so large from its smaller size before it was used as in today's humans. The mice did not have exploding skulls in this study, only plastic alteration of the brain that already existed. And we know that plasticity shrinks existing brains

dhw: That is precisely what I am trying to explain: “exercise”, as in the implementation of new concepts, changes the brain. In pre-humans, I propose that the capacity of the brain was not large enough to cope with whatever those concepts were, and so it had to expand (just as it does now in certain areas of the brain when they become the main area of activity). The rest of the explanation – including shrinkage – is contained in the paragraph which you ignored.

Ignored nothing that we did not already agree upon. In each stage expansion allowed the development of new concepts within the larger size as those individuals learned how to use the larger size and complexity.

9299 views

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

dhw: As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc.

DAVID: You have forgotten that the fossils we have show the brain size jumped 200 cc at a time with each new homo ancestor. You're back to your Darwinism looking for itty -bitty changes.

I am offering an explanation for WHY the brain size jumped! (I used "gradually" because there were so many phases.) Namely, that new concepts “exercised” the brain - exercise was the word used in the article - to a degree that exceeded the existing capacity. Consequently the brain and its container had to expand.

dhw: As regards the new concepts which appeared after the arrival of the “big brain”, why have you ignored the answer I already gave you? “In order to avoid repeating our past discussions on the subject, I’d better add that once the brain/skull had reached its optimum size, new uses were implemented through complexification, not expansion, and the efficiency of this has even resulted in a degree of shrinkage.”

DAVID: Not ignored, understood and agreed. What were you trying to prove?
And later: In each stage expansion allowed the development of new concepts within the larger size as those individuals learned how to use the larger size and complexity.

You claimed that the big brain “appeared before all the new concepts were developed”. What I am suggesting (I can’t prove it) is that each phase of expansion was caused by the “exercise” of implementing new concepts, as opposed to your notion of new concepts only being possible AFTER your God stepped in to fiddle with pre-human brains, fiddle-jump after fiddle-jump, all the way to H. sapiens. The brain size would remain static until its capacity required further expansion in order to implement more new concepts. But the process of expansion ended when the brain and skull reached their optimum size (sapiens), as explained above in the passage you ignored.

DAVID: See my entry today on how fungus changed the Earth, and was prepared to do so in advance!
Note my bold: the algal ancestors of land plants, a group called ‘charophytes’, were equipped to communicate with fungi well before they encountered them.

dhw: Thank you for this intriguing article (and for all the others you posted yesterday). As usual, you prefer to ignore the fact that living organisms are composed of cells, and the whole point of my hypothesis is that cells from the very beginning were “equipped” with their own form of intelligence. You cannot have any kind of cooperation, including symbiosis, without some means of communicating. So of course the algae and fungi were equipped to communicate. Every form of multicellular life depends on the ability of its cells to communicate, and that ability must have existed before the cells cooperated.

DAVID: Did the communication evolve by chance or was it designed?

How often do I have to repeat that cellular intelligence, which inevitably includes the ability to communicate, may have been designed by your God? I am, however, pleased to see that you are not disputing my explanation.

9260 views

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

dhw: As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc.

DAVID: You have forgotten that the fossils we have show the brain size jumped 200 cc at a time with each new homo ancestor. You're back to your Darwinism looking for itty -bitty changes.

dhw: I am offering an explanation for WHY the brain size jumped! (I used "gradually" because there were so many phases.) Namely, that new concepts “exercised” the brain - exercise was the word used in the article - to a degree that exceeded the existing capacity. Consequently the brain and its container had to expand.

Yours is a non-answer: so many phases refers to 200 cc jumps in size in the fossils we have from 400 cc to 1,200 cc. I count four 'phases'. Why did human skulls expand while apes did not? New concepts did not drive expansion; they appeared because of the ability to create concepts with a bigger more complex brain.

dhw: As regards the new concepts which appeared after the arrival of the “big brain”, why have you ignored the answer I already gave you? “In order to avoid repeating our past discussions on the subject, I’d better add that once the brain/skull had reached its optimum size, new uses were implemented through complexification, not expansion, and the efficiency of this has even resulted in a degree of shrinkage.”

DAVID: Not ignored, understood and agreed. What were you trying to prove?
And later: In each stage expansion allowed the development of new concepts within the larger size as those individuals learned how to use the larger size and complexity.

dhw: You claimed that the big brain “appeared before all the new concepts were developed”. What I am suggesting (I can’t prove it) is that each phase of expansion was caused by the “exercise” of implementing new concepts, as opposed to your notion of new concepts only being possible AFTER your God stepped in to fiddle with pre-human brains, fiddle-jump after fiddle-jump, all the way to H. sapiens. The brain size would remain static until its capacity required further expansion in order to implement more new concepts. But the process of expansion ended when the brain and skull reached their optimum size (sapiens), as explained above in the passage you ignored.

Not ignored as explained above.

DAVID: See my entry today on how fungus changed the Earth, and was prepared to do so in advance!
Note my bold: the algal ancestors of land plants, a group called ‘charophytes’, were equipped to communicate with fungi well before they encountered them.

dhw: Thank you for this intriguing article (and for all the others you posted yesterday). As usual, you prefer to ignore the fact that living organisms are composed of cells, and the whole point of my hypothesis is that cells from the very beginning were “equipped” with their own form of intelligence. You cannot have any kind of cooperation, including symbiosis, without some means of communicating. So of course the algae and fungi were equipped to communicate. Every form of multicellular life depends on the ability of its cells to communicate, and that ability must have existed before the cells cooperated.

DAVID: Did the communication evolve by chance or was it designed?

dhw: How often do I have to repeat that cellular intelligence, which inevitably includes the ability to communicate, may have been designed by your God? I am, however, pleased to see that you are not disputing my explanation.

Thank you.

9374 views

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

dhw: As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc.

DAVID: You have forgotten that the fossils we have show the brain size jumped 200 cc at a time with each new homo ancestor. You're back to your Darwinism looking for itty -bitty changes.

dhw: I am offering an explanation for WHY the brain size jumped! (I used "gradually" because there were so many phases.) Namely, that new concepts “exercised” the brain - exercise was the word used in the article - to a degree that exceeded the existing capacity. Consequently the brain and its container had to expand.

DAVID: Yours is a non-answer: so many phases refers to 200 cc jumps in size in the fossils we have from 400 cc to 1,200 cc. I count four 'phases'. Why did human skulls expand while apes did not? New concepts did not drive expansion; they appeared because of the ability to create concepts with a bigger more complex brain.

We know that exercise, in the form of implementing new concepts, changes the sapiens brain, even to the extent of expanding certain sections of it, and so I don’t know why you think it is a non-answer to propose that exercise, in the form of implementation of new concepts, also changed the brain, even to the extent of expansion, in the past. I suggest that apes stayed as they were because they did not have the new concepts which required expansion of the brain. The split between apes and pre-humans may have occurred when, for whatever reason, a particular group or groups descended from the trees. This entailed a new way of life, which inevitably would have entailed new concepts, and hence changes to the brain. You seem to think that because some apes left the trees, all apes should have left the trees. Once the brain had expanded, yes, it may well have come up with more new concepts before these in turn required greater capacity and so on until the brain reached its optimum size in sapiens, and then complexification took over.

9194 views

DAVID: You stay blind to the fact that a big brain appeared before all the new concepts were developed.

dhw: As you well know, pre-sapiens brains gradually increased in size, and I’m sorry, but the H. sapiens brain (if that’s what you mean by a “big brain”) did not appear before such new concepts as tools, weapons, use of fire etc.

DAVID: You have forgotten that the fossils we have show the brain size jumped 200 cc at a time with each new homo ancestor. You're back to your Darwinism looking for itty -bitty changes.

dhw: I am offering an explanation for WHY the brain size jumped! (I used "gradually" because there were so many phases.) Namely, that new concepts “exercised” the brain - exercise was the word used in the article - to a degree that exceeded the existing capacity. Consequently the brain and its container had to expand.

DAVID: Yours is a non-answer: so many phases refers to 200 cc jumps in size in the fossils we have from 400 cc to 1,200 cc. I count four 'phases'. Why did human skulls expand while apes did not? New concepts did not drive expansion; they appeared because of the ability to create concepts with a bigger more complex brain.

dhw: We know that exercise, in the form of implementing new concepts, changes the sapiens brain, even to the extent of expanding certain sections of it, and so I don’t know why you think it is a non-answer to propose that exercise, in the form of implementation of new concepts, also changed the brain, even to the extent of expansion, in the past. I suggest that apes stayed as they were because they did not have the new concepts which required expansion of the brain. The split between apes and pre-humans may have occurred when, for whatever reason, a particular group or groups descended from the trees. This entailed a new way of life, which inevitably would have entailed new concepts, and hence changes to the brain. You seem to think that because some apes left the trees, all apes should have left the trees. Once the brain had expanded, yes, it may well have come up with more new concepts before these in turn required greater capacity and so on until the brain reached its optimum size in sapiens, and then complexification took over.

Once again you have successfully ignored the gaps in skull size in the fossil record. Of course exercise affected changes in the brains of any given size at any point in human evolution. Based on Lucy evidence, what left the trees, to some degree was something different than the species of apes that did not experience any morphological changes and stayed in the trees. Lucy was definitely transitional. What you don't seem to realize is Lucy was the beginning of leaving because she was different, as were her type. Of course all apes didn't leave because they weren't changed! Evolution drives the future for species as their phenotype changes. I say God made the changes in Lucy's group, because logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave. I say God drives evolution, and you have natural theories as to what made evolution happen.

9228 views

dhw: We know that exercise, in the form of implementing new concepts, changes the sapiens brain, even to the extent of expanding certain sections of it, and so I don’t know why you think it is a non-answer to propose that exercise, in the form of implementation of new concepts, also changed the brain, even to the extent of expansion, in the past. I suggest that apes stayed as they were because they did not have the new concepts which required expansion of the brain. The split between apes and pre-humans may have occurred when, for whatever reason, a particular group or groups descended from the trees. This entailed a new way of life, which inevitably would have entailed new concepts, and hence changes to the brain. You seem to think that because some apes left the trees, all apes should have left the trees. Once the brain had expanded, yes, it may well have come up with more new concepts before these in turn required greater capacity and so on until the brain reached its optimum size in sapiens, and then complexification took over.

DAVID: Once again you have successfully ignored the gaps in skull size in the fossil record. Of course exercise affected changes in the brains of any given size at any point in human evolution. Based on Lucy evidence, what left the trees, to some degree was something different than the species of apes that did not experience any morphological changes and stayed in the trees. Lucy was definitely transitional. What you don't seem to realize is Lucy was the beginning of leaving because she was different, as were her type. Of course all apes didn't leave because they weren't changed! Evolution drives the future for species as their phenotype changes. I say God made the changes in Lucy's group, because logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave. I say God drives evolution, and you have natural theories as to what made evolution happen.

You say your God preprogrammes or dabbles evolutionary change in advance of need, and I say evolutionary change happens in response to need (and/or opportunity). I have not ignored the gaps; I have tried to explain them, although in fairness we can hardly expect to find a complete line of fossils from 3 million years ago onwards. We were incredibly lucky to to find Lucy. And of course she was different from the apes who stayed in the trees, and of course she was transitional. That is the whole point! A tree-dweller that left the trees would still have tree-dwelling characteristics as well as ground-dwelling characteristics. “Logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave” seems to be the key to your thinking. We don’t know why Lucy and her ilk left the trees. She didn’t keep a diary. But, as explained above, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in a particular location a particular group of apes DID need to leave the trees. Or some apes decided to leave the trees and seek a new life, while the others decided to stay as they were. Your version also focuses on a particular group of apes up in the trees, but has your God fiddling with some bits of their anatomy (leaving the rest), and saying to them: “Now you lot will leave the trees, while the rest can stay where they are, because although I can design whatever I want to design, and I actually want to design H. sapiens, I want to design you as the first of a whole bunch of transitional forms.” Yes, I find my hypothesis more natural, whether your God exists or not. Meanwhile, since you agree that exercise changes the brain, why can’t you agree that the new way of life, i.e. the implementation of new concepts, would have changed the brain (and the body) of Lucy and all the other pre-sapiens?

9104 views

dhw: We know that exercise, in the form of implementing new concepts, changes the sapiens brain, even to the extent of expanding certain sections of it, and so I don’t know why you think it is a non-answer to propose that exercise, in the form of implementation of new concepts, also changed the brain, even to the extent of expansion, in the past. I suggest that apes stayed as they were because they did not have the new concepts which required expansion of the brain. The split between apes and pre-humans may have occurred when, for whatever reason, a particular group or groups descended from the trees. This entailed a new way of life, which inevitably would have entailed new concepts, and hence changes to the brain. You seem to think that because some apes left the trees, all apes should have left the trees. Once the brain had expanded, yes, it may well have come up with more new concepts before these in turn required greater capacity and so on until the brain reached its optimum size in sapiens, and then complexification took over.

DAVID: Once again you have successfully ignored the gaps in skull size in the fossil record. Of course exercise affected changes in the brains of any given size at any point in human evolution. Based on Lucy evidence, what left the trees, to some degree was something different than the species of apes that did not experience any morphological changes and stayed in the trees. Lucy was definitely transitional. What you don't seem to realize is Lucy was the beginning of leaving because she was different, as were her type. Of course all apes didn't leave because they weren't changed! Evolution drives the future for species as their phenotype changes. I say God made the changes in Lucy's group, because logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave. I say God drives evolution, and you have natural theories as to what made evolution happen.

dhw: You say your God preprogrammes or dabbles evolutionary change in advance of need, and I say evolutionary change happens in response to need (and/or opportunity). I have not ignored the gaps; I have tried to explain them, although in fairness we can hardly expect to find a complete line of fossils from 3 million years ago onwards. We were incredibly lucky to to find Lucy. And of course she was different from the apes who stayed in the trees, and of course she was transitional. That is the whole point! A tree-dweller that left the trees would still have tree-dwelling characteristics as well as ground-dwelling characteristics. “Logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave” seems to be the key to your thinking. We don’t know why Lucy and her ilk left the trees. She didn’t keep a diary. But, as explained above, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in a particular location a particular group of apes DID need to leave the trees. Or some apes decided to leave the trees and seek a new life, while the others decided to stay as they were. Your version also focuses on a particular group of apes up in the trees, but has your God fiddling with some bits of their anatomy (leaving the rest), and saying to them: “Now you lot will leave the trees, while the rest can stay where they are, because although I can design whatever I want to design, and I actually want to design H. sapiens, I want to design you as the first of a whole bunch of transitional forms.” Yes, I find my hypothesis more natural, whether your God exists or not. Meanwhile, since you agree that exercise changes the brain, why can’t you agree that the new way of life, i.e. the implementation of new concepts, would have changed the brain (and the body) of Lucy and all the other pre-sapiens?

Taking on your last sentence, I've agreed above that exercise changes the existing brain, just as the study shows. That doesn't explain the gap in brain size in the fossils we have. Darwin's hope is now expressed by you: gaps hopefully will be filled. And since Darwin died the gaps have not been filled but made to look much worse, especially with the new finds in China re' the Cambrian. Basically the findings have refuted all of Darwin's hopes of tiny steps. There is no question but that evolution is punctuated, not a step by step continuous process. Accepting that point, the issue between us remains: did Lucy come down from the trees and then change or was she changed so she could come down from the trees? We have no way of knowing, so each of us has a preferred view. I do not see a meeting point of minds.

9061 views

dhw: You say your God preprogrammes or dabbles evolutionary change in advance of need, and I say evolutionary change happens in response to need (and/or opportunity). I have not ignored the gaps; I have tried to explain them, although in fairness we can hardly expect to find a complete line of fossils from 3 million years ago onwards. We were incredibly lucky to to find Lucy. And of course she was different from the apes who stayed in the trees, and of course she was transitional. That is the whole point! A tree-dweller that left the trees would still have tree-dwelling characteristics as well as ground-dwelling characteristics. “Logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave” seems to be the key to your thinking. We don’t know why Lucy and her ilk left the trees. She didn’t keep a diary. But, as explained above, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in a particular location a particular group of apes DID need to leave the trees. Or some apes decided to leave the trees and seek a new life, while the others decided to stay as they were. Your version also focuses on a particular group of apes up in the trees, but has your God fiddling with some bits of their anatomy (leaving the rest), and saying to them: “Now you lot will leave the trees, while the rest can stay where they are, because although I can design whatever I want to design, and I actually want to design H. sapiens, I want to design you as the first of a whole bunch of transitional forms.” Yes, I find my hypothesis more natural, whether your God exists or not. Meanwhile, since you agree that exercise changes the brain, why can’t you agree that the new way of life, i.e. the implementation of new concepts, would have changed the brain (and the body) of Lucy and all the other pre-sapiens?

DAVID: Taking on your last sentence, I've agreed above that exercise changes the existing brain, just as the study shows. That doesn't explain the gap in brain size in the fossils we have. Darwin's hope is now expressed by you: gaps hopefully will be filled. And since Darwin died the gaps have not been filled but made to look much worse, especially with the new finds in China re' the Cambrian. Basically the findings have refuted all of Darwin's hopes of tiny steps. There is no question but that evolution is punctuated, not a step by step continuous process. Accepting that point, the issue between us remains: did Lucy come down from the trees and then change or was she changed so she could come down from the trees? We have no way of knowing, so each of us has a preferred view. I do not see a meeting point of minds.

We have no idea how many transitions there were, but I don’t know how often I have to repeat that I accept Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, and like Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog”, I reject Darwin’s gradualism and I accept saltation. I’m glad you agree that exercise changes the brain and body, which leads logically to the conclusion that a new way of life would have changed the brain and body, as opposed to the brain and body having to be divinely changed in anticipation of the new way of life. Now perhaps you will comment on the logic of my reply to your claim that God made the changes in Lucy's group, because "logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave". I have bolded it, just in case you missed it!

9032 views

dhw: You say your God preprogrammes or dabbles evolutionary change in advance of need, and I say evolutionary change happens in response to need (and/or opportunity). I have not ignored the gaps; I have tried to explain them, although in fairness we can hardly expect to find a complete line of fossils from 3 million years ago onwards. We were incredibly lucky to to find Lucy. And of course she was different from the apes who stayed in the trees, and of course she was transitional. That is the whole point! A tree-dweller that left the trees would still have tree-dwelling characteristics as well as ground-dwelling characteristics. “Logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave” seems to be the key to your thinking. We don’t know why Lucy and her ilk left the trees. She didn’t keep a diary. But, as explained above, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in a particular location a particular group of apes DID need to leave the trees. Or some apes decided to leave the trees and seek a new life, while the others decided to stay as they were. Your version also focuses on a particular group of apes up in the trees, but has your God fiddling with some bits of their anatomy (leaving the rest), and saying to them: “Now you lot will leave the trees, while the rest can stay where they are, because although I can design whatever I want to design, and I actually want to design H. sapiens, I want to design you as the first of a whole bunch of transitional forms.” Yes, I find my hypothesis more natural, whether your God exists or not. Meanwhile, since you agree that exercise changes the brain, why can’t you agree that the new way of life, i.e. the implementation of new concepts, would have changed the brain (and the body) of Lucy and all the other pre-sapiens?

DAVID: Taking on your last sentence, I've agreed above that exercise changes the existing brain, just as the study shows. That doesn't explain the gap in brain size in the fossils we have. Darwin's hope is now expressed by you: gaps hopefully will be filled. And since Darwin died the gaps have not been filled but made to look much worse, especially with the new finds in China re' the Cambrian. Basically the findings have refuted all of Darwin's hopes of tiny steps. There is no question but that evolution is punctuated, not a step by step continuous process. Accepting that point, the issue between us remains: did Lucy come down from the trees and then change or was she changed so she could come down from the trees? We have no way of knowing, so each of us has a preferred view. I do not see a meeting point of minds.

dhw: We have no idea how many transitions there were, but I don’t know how often I have to repeat that I accept Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, and like Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog”, I reject Darwin’s gradualism and I accept saltation. I’m glad you agree that exercise changes the brain and body, which leads logically to the conclusion that a new way of life would have changed the brain and body, as opposed to the brain and body having to be divinely changed in anticipation of the new way of life. Now perhaps you will comment on the logic of my reply to your claim that God made the changes in Lucy's group, because "logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave". I have bolded it, just in case you missed it!

Your version, which I have fully understood from the beginning, differs from mine in the impetus for change. You assume some guys, while apes, left the trees and the change in environment forced them to change form to fit the new partially terrestrial life. Accepting, currently, the gaps in the fossil record as real, which is the only historical record we have, I see a design problem. Lucy is transitional form with huge anatomic changes, including, as I've discussed elsewhere, the obstetrical dilemma. Gaps require design and design requires a designing mind. I'm with God. To conclude, of course the unchanged apes stayed treed; what else could they do?

8996 views

dhw: “Logically the unchanged apes who stayed in the trees had no need to leave” seems to be the key to your thinking.We don’t know why Lucy and her ilk left the trees. She didn’t keep a diary. But, as explained above, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in a particular location a particular group of apes DID need to leave the trees. Or some apes decided to leave the trees and seek a new life, while the others decided to stay as they were.

DAVID: Your version, which I have fully understood from the beginning, differs from mine in the impetus for change. You assume some guys, while apes, left the trees and the change in environment forced them to change form to fit the new partially terrestrial life. Accepting, currently, the gaps in the fossil record as real, which is the only historical record we have, I see a design problem. Lucy is transitional form with huge anatomic changes, including, as I've discussed elsewhere, the obstetrical dilemma. Gaps require design and design requires a designing mind. I'm with God. To conclude, of course the unchanged apes stayed treed; what else could they do?

You always see a design problem, whether major or minor, since you have your God designing every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. Once more: we do not know how major saltatory changes take place, which is why speciation remains a mystery, but saltation would inevitably create gaps. Meanwhile, your own saltation is from your argument that there was no need for apes to leave the trees since apes remained as they were – to which I have given a perfectly reasonable answer, now bolded – back to the huge anatomic changes which we have already discussed ad nauseam. However, since you repeat the problem yet again, I’ll repeat the two hypotheses yet again: since we know that exercise changes the body and brain, I propose that for whatever reason a particular group or groups of apes descended from the trees, and body and brain responded to the new way of life. Lucy exemplifies the transition. You propose that your God selected a particular group or groups, ignoring all the other apes, fiddled with their anatomies while they were still up in the trees, and then told them to climb down and start a new way of life. Believe it if you will.

9002 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

DHW: Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

Except that the sympathetic nervous system engages in preparation for an event, and the alterations can become part of the programming and be considered via epigenetics.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

9282 views

DAVID’s comment: We know this study but the description of the active brain changes is certainly interesting, making brain plasticity quite clear.

DHW: Thank you for this more detailed account. Yes, we know the brain is plastic. It is also clear that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new concepts and activities, and not in advance of them. I would extend this principle to the whole of evolution. The cells of the brain and the body respond to new demands and do not change in anticipation of them. However, it is also important to note that the plasticity of the brain does not explain how concepts originate, i.e. these observations do not solve the problem of the source of consciousness (materialism v dualism).

Tony: Except that the sympathetic nervous system engages in preparation for an event, and the alterations can become part of the programming and be considered via epigenetics.

The larger brain had new areas that could be adopted for new uses, present atthe time of newly found uses and not in anticipation of them.

9254 views

Human brains use about 20% of the calories consumed each day. This causes a change in muscle size as compared to other primates:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-selfish-brain-muscle-power.html

"Human brains are expensive - metabolically speaking. It takes lot of energy to run our sophisticated grey matter, and that comes at an evolutionary cost.

"Now, a new investigation into the immediate trade-off that occurs inside us when we have to think fast and work hard at the same time is the first to demonstrate that - while both are impaired - our mental ability is less affected than our physical capacity.

"Researchers say that the findings suggest a "preferential allocation of glucose to the brain", which they argue is likely to be an evolved trait - as prioritising quick thinking over fast moving, for example, may have helped our species survive and thrive.

***

"They then performed both tasks at once, with individual scores compared to those from previous tests. As expected, the challenge of rowing and remembering at the same time reduced both physical and mental performance.

"However, the research team found that change in recall was significantly less than the change in power output.

"During the simultaneous challenge, recall fell by an average of 9.7%, while power fell by an average of 12.6%. Across all participants the drop in physical power was on average 29.8% greater than drop in cognitive function.

"The team say the results of their new study, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, add evidence to the 'selfish brain' hypothesis: that the brain has evolved to prioritise its own energy needs over those of peripheral organs, such as skeletal muscle.

"'A well-fuelled brain may have offered us better survival odds than well-fuelled muscles when facing an environmental challenge," said Dr Danny Longman, the study's lead author from the PAVE team in Cambridge's Department of Archaeology.

"'The development of an enlarged and elaborated brain is considered a defining characteristic of human evolution, but one that has come as a result of trade-offs.

"'At the evolutionary level, our brains have arguably cost us decreased investment in muscle as well as a shrunken digestive system.

"'Developmentally, human babies have more stored fat than other mammals, acting as an energy buffer that feeds our high cerebral requirements.

"'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."

"The adult brain derives its energy almost exclusively from the metabolism of glucose. Yet skeletal muscle mass is also energetically expensive tissue, accounting for 20% of the human male 'basal metabolic rate' - the energy used when doing nothing.

"Longman says a limited supply of blood glucose and oxygen means that, when active, skeletal muscle becomes a "powerful competitor" to the brain. "This is the potential mechanism for the fast-acting trade-off in brain and muscle function we see in just a three minute window."

"'Trade-offs between organs and tissues allow many organisms to endure conditions of energy deficit through internal prioritising. However, this comes at a cost," said Longman.

"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

Comment: The findngs make perfect sense, and suggest the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition. I view God as in control. It is possible to imagine an ape with a giant brain, requiring enormous amounts of food, but the requirement for so food is the limiting point. So brain trickery to live beats giant muscles.

14045 views

QUOTES: "'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."

"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

David, perhaps you could explain to me how they know that, for example, a starving gorilla’s cognitive functions disappear before its body wastes away. The question should be particularly interesting for any dualist.

DAVID’s comment: The findngs make perfect sense, and suggest the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition. I view God as in control.

I can see no such suggestion in the article or in the implications of the article. It makes equally perfect sense to argue that the transition from trees to ground (possibly due to local environmental conditions) resulted in new requirements, and the need to fulfil these requirements gave rise to the expansion of the brain, which in turn gave rise to the brain’s increased demand for energy. A logical sequence begun as a RESPONSE to new conditions, not planned in advance.

13926 views

QUOTES: "'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."

"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

David, perhaps you could explain to me how they know that, for example, a starving gorilla’s cognitive functions disappear before its body wastes away. The question should be particularly interesting for any dualist.

DAVID’s comment: The findngs make perfect sense, and suggest the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition. I view God as in control.

dhw: I can see no such suggestion in the article or in the implications of the article. It makes equally perfect sense to argue that the transition from trees to ground (possibly due to local environmental conditions) resulted in new requirements, and the need to fulfil these requirements gave rise to the expansion of the brain, which in turn gave rise to the brain’s increased demand for energy. A logical sequence begun as a RESPONSE to new conditions, not planned in advance.

Except the change to upright began 23 million years ago in a monkey. And the changes we see in the early hominins show loss of muscle before the brain growth. Opposite of your comment.

13894 views

QUOTES: "'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."

"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

dhw: David, perhaps you could explain to me how they know that, for example, a starving gorilla’s cognitive functions disappear before its body wastes away. The question should be particularly interesting for any dualist.

I’d be grateful for an answer to this question, if you happen to know.

DAVID’s comment: The findngs make perfect sense, and suggest the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition. I view God as in control.

dhw: I can see no such suggestion in the article or in the implications of the article. It makes equally perfect sense to argue that the transition from trees to ground (possibly due to local environmental conditions) resulted in new requirements, and the need to fulfil these requirements gave rise to the expansion of the brain, which in turn gave rise to the brain’s increased demand for energy. A logical sequence begun as a RESPONSE to new conditions, not planned in advance.

DAVID: Except the change to upright began 23 million years ago in a monkey. And the changes we see in the early hominins show loss of muscle before the brain growth. Opposite of your comment.

It doesn’t matter when the changes began. You have no way of knowing that they were not in response to local changes in the environment. I don’t understand the reference to “loss of muscle before the brain growth”. I suggest that early hominins underwent anatomical changes, including those to the brain, after and as a result of their descent from the trees (whereas you tell us your God preprogrammed or dabbled them BEFORE they descended). How can we know the sequence?

13956 views

QUOTES: "'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."

"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

dhw: David, perhaps you could explain to me how they know that, for example, a starving gorilla’s cognitive functions disappear before its body wastes away. The question should be particularly interesting for any dualist.

I’d be grateful for an answer to this question, if you happen to know.

I don't know of any studies of starving apes, but in the human condition, concentration camp survivors weighing 80 pounds fully preserved their thinking capacity. Think of Viktor Frankl's book. I would think apes have the same preservation mechanism.

DAVID’s comment: The findngs make perfect sense, and suggest the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition. I view God as in control.

dhw: I can see no such suggestion in the article or in the implications of the article. It makes equally perfect sense to argue that the transition from trees to ground (possibly due to local environmental conditions) resulted in new requirements, and the need to fulfil these requirements gave rise to the expansion of the brain, which in turn gave rise to the brain’s increased demand for energy. A logical sequence begun as a RESPONSE to new conditions, not planned in advance.

DAVID: Except the change to upright began 23 million years ago in a monkey. And the changes we see in the early hominins show loss of muscle before the brain growth. Opposite of your comment.

dhw:It doesn’t matter when the changes began. You have no way of knowing that they were not in response to local changes in the environment. I don’t understand the reference to “loss of muscle before the brain growth”. I suggest that early hominins underwent anatomical changes, including those to the brain, after and as a result of their descent from the trees (whereas you tell us your God preprogrammed or dabbled them BEFORE they descended). How can we know the sequence?

The fossils demonstrate loss of muscle while the brains are still small and they are bipedal. There is an obvious sequence. Environmental response does not affect the swquence I point out.

13875 views

QUOTES: "'On an acute level, we have now demonstrated that when humans simultaneously experience extremes of physical and mental exertion, our internal trade-off preserves cognitive function as the body's priority."
"He points to examples of this trade-off in humans benefiting the brain. "The selfish nature of the brain has been observed in the unique preservation of brain mass as bodies waste away in people suffering from long-term malnutrition or starvation, as well as in children born with growth restriction.'"

dhw: David, perhaps you could explain to me how they know that, for example, a starving gorilla’s cognitive functions disappear before its body wastes away. The question should be particularly interesting for any dualist.
I’d be grateful for an answer to this question, if you happen to know.
DAVID: I don't know of any studies of starving apes, but in the human condition, concentration camp survivors weighing 80 pounds fully preserved their thinking capacity.
Think of Viktor Frankl's book. I would think apes have the same preservation mechanism.

Thank you. I suspect that all dying organisms with brains would have the same mechanism: i.e. their cognitive faculties would be the last to go (other than with such diseases as dementia). So I really don’t know why the researchers single out humans, as if they knew humans were special in this particular context.

dhw:It doesn’t matter when the changes began. You have no way of knowing that they were not in response to local changes in the environment. I don’t understand the reference to “loss of muscle before the brain growth”. I suggest that early hominins underwent anatomical changes, including those to the brain, after and as a result of their descent from the trees (whereas you tell us your God preprogrammed or dabbled them BEFORE they descended). How can we know the sequence?
DAVID: The fossils demonstrate loss of muscle while the brains are still small and they are bipedal. There is an obvious sequence. Environmental response does not affect the sequence I point out.

I can’t comment on this until you explain to me what muscles early hominins actually lost and when they lost them. If you’re thinking of 23 million years ago, it may well be that the adjustment did not require any development of the brain. Clearly your God didn't think it did, since you're telling us he did NOT expand their brain before they descended!

13909 views

DAVID: The fossils demonstrate loss of muscle while the brains are still small and they are bipedal. There is an obvious sequence. Environmental response does not affect the sequence I point out.

dhw: I can’t comment on this until you explain to me what muscles early hominins actually lost and when they lost them. If you’re thinking of 23 million years ago, it may well be that the adjustment did not require any development of the brain. Clearly your God didn't think it did, since you're telling us he did NOT expand their brain before they descended!

A study on Lucy decided she probably was a partial tree dweller who fell to her death, but it was her slight build that originally hid that conclusion from earlier studies. Earlier hominins had smaller upper bodies than apes, while their brains were still small implying they left tree dwelling and then grew larger brains in that sequence.

13921 views

DAVID: The fossils demonstrate loss of muscle while the brains are still small and they are bipedal. There is an obvious sequence. Environmental response does not affect the sequence I point out.

dhw: I can’t comment on this until you explain to me what muscles early hominins actually lost and when they lost them. If you’re thinking of 23 million years ago, it may well be that the adjustment did not require any development of the brain. Clearly your God didn't think it did, since you're telling us he did NOT expand their brain before they descended!

DAVID: A study on Lucy decided she probably was a partial tree dweller who fell to her death, but it was her slight build that originally hid that conclusion from earlier studies. Earlier hominins had smaller upper bodies than apes, while their brains were still small implying they left tree dwelling and then grew larger brains in that sequence.

If I’ve understood you correctly, then, the sequence supports my hypothesis that once they left the trees, there were new tasks to be performed, as a result of which their brains expanded.

13941 views

DAVID: The fossils demonstrate loss of muscle while the brains are still small and they are bipedal. There is an obvious sequence. Environmental response does not affect the sequence I point out.

dhw: I can’t comment on this until you explain to me what muscles early hominins actually lost and when they lost them. If you’re thinking of 23 million years ago, it may well be that the adjustment did not require any development of the brain. Clearly your God didn't think it did, since you're telling us he did NOT expand their brain before they descended!

DAVID: A study on Lucy decided she probably was a partial tree dweller who fell to her death, but it was her slight build that originally hid that conclusion from earlier studies. Earlier hominins had smaller upper bodies than apes, while their brains were still small implying they left tree dwelling and then grew larger brains in that sequence.

dhw: If I’ve understood you correctly, then, the sequence supports my hypothesis that once they left the trees, there were new tasks to be performed, as a result of which their brains expanded.

I know brains expanded in jumps with each new species in the advance of hominins to humans, and your approach does not fit the facts of brains becomimg smaller among humans with increased use.

13968 views

DAVID: A study on Lucy decided she probably was a partial tree dweller who fell to her death, but it was her slight build that originally hid that conclusion from earlier studies. Earlier hominins had smaller upper bodies than apes, while their brains were still small implying they left tree dwelling and then grew larger brains in that sequence.

dhw: If I’ve understood you correctly, then, the sequence supports my hypothesis that once they left the trees, there were new tasks to be performed, as a result of which their brains expanded.

DAVID: I know brains expanded in jumps with each new species in the advance of hominins to humans, and your approach does not fit the facts of brains becoming smaller among humans with increased use.

From the prioritization of brain mass you somehow extrapolated the claim that “the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition”. You then agreed that the brain did not change before pre-humans left the trees, which supports my argument that brain expansion was a RESPONSE to the new conditions and was not planned beforehand. As for brain shrinkage in Homo sapiens, we dealt with that in detail, my suggestion being that once the brain had reached a certain size, expansion was no longer an option and so complexification (rewiring) took its place, as exemplified by the illiterate Indian women, and this proved so successful that the brain no longer required its original mass. Do we really need to go over all that again?

13909 views

DAVID: I know brains expanded in jumps with each new species in the advance of hominins to humans, and your approach does not fit the facts of brains becoming smaller among humans with increased use.

dhw: From the prioritization of brain mass you somehow extrapolated the claim that “the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition”. You then agreed that the brain did not change before pre-humans left the trees, which supports my argument that brain expansion was a RESPONSE to the new conditions and was not planned beforehand. As for brain shrinkage in Homo sapiens, we dealt with that in detail, my suggestion being that once the brain had reached a certain size, expansion was no longer an option and so complexification (rewiring) took its place, as exemplified by the illiterate Indian women, and this proved so successful that the brain no longer required its original mass. Do we really need to go over all that again?

I'll again ask, shouldn't you note that my scenario fits the facts as much as you think yours does? Also most of our giant pre-frontal cortex arrived long before we figured out how to be civilized and develop all the non-material concepts now present in the arts and sciences. It is still obviously size first use second.

13951 views

DAVID: I know brains expanded in jumps with each new species in the advance of hominins to humans, and your approach does not fit the facts of brains becoming smaller among humans with increased use.

dhw: From the prioritization of brain mass you somehow extrapolated the claim that “the entire transition from trees to ground was a well-planned transition”. You then agreed that the brain did not change before pre-humans left the trees, which supports my argument that brain expansion was a RESPONSE to the new conditions and was not planned beforehand. As for brain shrinkage in Homo sapiens, we dealt with that in detail, my suggestion being that once the brain had reached a certain size, expansion was no longer an option and so complexification (rewiring) took its place, as exemplified by the illiterate Indian women, and this proved so successful that the brain no longer required its original mass. Do we really need to go over all that again?

DAVID: I'll again ask, shouldn't you note that my scenario fits the facts as much as you think yours does? Also most of our giant pre-frontal cortex arrived long before we figured out how to be civilized and develop all the non-material concepts now present in the arts and sciences. It is still obviously size first use second.

“God did it” certainly fits the facts, just as “diet or climate change or upright posture or random mutations did it” fits the facts. The only fact is that the brain expanded and is now shrinking, and nobody knows why, so you can offer any explanation you like. However, if the giant cortex was already present, the non-material concepts now present in the arts and sciences would have coincided with the process of brain complexification (rewiring and shrinkage), since the brain had reached its optimal size. We do know from the case of the illiterate Indian women that new concepts in this modern age result in rewiring. This clearly indicates that new concepts precede material changes to the brain, which runs contrary to the theory that material changes to the brain give rise to new concepts. We have been over all this again and again. The second point we have been over again and again is that your insistence on size before use (during the times before complexification took over), with its implication that the brain is the SOURCE of new concepts, runs counter to your dualistic belief that the brain is only a RECEIVER of ideas thought up by the “soul”. I’d better repeat that I am not taking sides in the dualism versus materialism debate, and I did try to reconcile the two hypotheses but can’t find the post. I shall eventually try again.

13923 views

DAVID: I'll again ask, shouldn't you note that my scenario fits the facts as much as you think yours does? Also most of our giant pre-frontal cortex arrived long before we figured out how to be civilized and develop all the non-material concepts now present in the arts and sciences. It is still obviously size first use second.

dhw: The second point we have been over again and again is that your insistence on size before use (during the times before complexification took over), with its implication that the brain is the SOURCE of new concepts, runs counter to your dualistic belief that the brain is only a RECEIVER of ideas thought up by the “soul”.

There is no implication in my thinking that the big brain is the source of new concepts. It allows them as the person/self/consciousness develops them.

13985 views

dhw: The second point we have been over again and again is that your insistence on size before use (during the times before complexification took over), with its implication that the brain is the SOURCE of new concepts, runs counter to your dualistic belief that the brain is only a RECEIVER of ideas thought up by the “soul”.

DAVID: There is no implication in my thinking that the big brain is the source of new concepts. It allows them as the person/self/consciousness develops them.

As before, please explain what you mean by “allows”. It sounds like the brain saying to the “soul”: “I’ve gotten bigger now, so you can think up some new concepts.” In our earlier discussions, my point was that if there is such a thing as a “soul”, the sequence is:
BRAIN: There’s an animal, and you gotta kill it if you wanner eat it.
SOUL: Ugh, tough goin’ an’ mighty dangerous wi’ just bare hands. But I got an idea. Maybe I could make sumpun real sharp, put it on a stick an’ throw it.
BRAIN: Ain’t never done nothin’ like that before. Gotta add a few bits an’ pieces to get them muscles to make it an’ throw it.
First: Information. Second: concept. Third: brain expansion in order to implement concept.

Of course, if the brain is the SOURCE of new concepts, we need to find another explanation for how a bunch of cells can come with ideas and expand their community in order to implement them. That would be the basis of my compromise between materialism and dualism (i.e. through cellular intelligence) which, please note, does NOT exclude your God. But it's an idea I need to work on.

13870 views

DAVID: There is no implication in my thinking that the big brain is the source of new concepts. It allows them as the person/self/consciousness develops them.

dhw: As before, please explain what you mean by “allows”. It sounds like the brain saying to the “soul”: “I’ve gotten bigger now, so you can think up some new concepts.” In our earlier discussions, my point was that if there is such a thing as a “soul”, the sequence is:
BRAIN: There’s an animal, and you gotta kill it if you wanner eat it.
SOUL: Ugh, tough goin’ an’ mighty dangerous wi’ just bare hands. But I got an idea. Maybe I could make sumpun real sharp, put it on a stick an’ throw it.
BRAIN: Ain’t never done nothin’ like that before. Gotta add a few bits an’ pieces to get them muscles to make it an’ throw it.
First: Information. Second: concept. Third: brain expansion in order to implement concept.

Of course, if the brain is the SOURCE of new concepts, we need to find another explanation for how a bunch of cells can come with ideas and expand their community in order to implement them. That would be the basis of my compromise between materialism and dualism (i.e. through cellular intelligence) which, please note, does NOT exclude your God. But it's an idea I need to work on.

You have totally forgotten hat I views the brain as a passive computer run by me/soul/ consciousness. The larger size allows the more complex development of thought, concepts, etc., conducted in our enormous cortex, which animals do not have.

13911 views

DAVID: There is no implication in my thinking that the big brain is the source of new concepts. It allows them as the person/self/consciousness develops them.

dhw: As before, please explain what you mean by “allows”. […] First: Information. Second: concept. Third: brain expansion in order to implement concept.

DAVID: You have totally forgotten hat I views the brain as a passive computer run by me/soul/ consciousness. The larger size allows the more complex development of thought, concepts, etc., conducted in our enormous cortex, which animals do not have.

I have not forgotten it at all. I asked you to explain what you meant by “allows” and all you have done is repeat “allows”! I can only say again that if the brain is a receiver run by your “soul”, it is you/soul/consciousness that comes up with the more complex thoughts, concepts etc. The larger brain size enables the body to produce the material implementation of the concept. We know that in modern times new concepts cause changes to the brain (rewiring). The logical sequence would therefore be that previously the new concept caused expansion of the brain (until it reached its optimum size), i.e. your God did not expand the brain before humans produced tools; the “soul” produced the concept of the tool, and the need to implement the concept resulted in expansion. (I shan’t repeat my comments about the materialist alternative.)

13715 views

DAVID: There is no implication in my thinking that the big brain is the source of new concepts. It allows them as the person/self/consciousness develops them.

dhw: As before, please explain what you mean by “allows”. […] First: Information. Second: concept. Third: brain expansion in order to implement concept.

DAVID: You have totally forgotten hat I views the brain as a passive computer run by me/soul/ consciousness. The larger size allows the more complex development of thought, concepts, etc., conducted in our enormous cortex, which animals do not have.

dhw: I have not forgotten it at all. I asked you to explain what you meant by “allows” and all you have done is repeat “allows”! I can only say again that if the brain is a receiver run by your “soul”, it is you/soul/consciousness that comes up with the more complex thoughts, concepts etc. The larger brain size enables the body to produce the material implementation of the concept. We know that in modern times new concepts cause changes to the brain (rewiring). The logical sequence would therefore be that previously the new concept caused expansion of the brain (until it reached its optimum size), i.e. your God did not expand the brain before humans produced tools; the “soul” produced the concept of the tool, and the need to implement the concept resulted in expansion. (I shan’t repeat my comments about the materialist alternative.)

You are troubled by the word 'allows'. Let's use the computer analogy again, A more complex computer permits more complex operations to be performed. A more complex brain allows more complex concepts to be developed. The artifacts found with the fossils clearly demonstrate that as the brain became larger, more sophisticated activities occurred. Size first.

13765 views

DAVID: […] I view the brain as a passive computer run by me/soul/ consciousness. The larger size allows the more complex development of thought, concepts, etc., conducted in our enormous cortex, which animals do not have.

dhw: I asked you to explain what you meant by “allows” and all you have done is repeat “allows”! I can only say again that if the brain is a receiver run by your “soul”, it is you/soul/consciousness that comes up with the more complex thoughts, concepts etc. The larger brain size enables the body to produce the material implementation of the concept. We know that in modern times new concepts cause changes to the brain (rewiring). The logical sequence would therefore be that previously the new concept caused expansion of the brain (until it reached its optimum size), i.e. your God did not expand the brain before humans produced tools; the “soul” produced the concept of the tool, and the need to implement the concept resulted in expansion. (I shan’t repeat my comments about the materialist alternative.)

DAVID: You are troubled by the word 'allows'. Let's use the computer analogy again, A more complex computer permits more complex operations to be performed. A more complex brain allows more complex concepts to be developed. The artifacts found with the fossils clearly demonstrate that as the brain became larger, more sophisticated activities occurred. Size first.

There is no analogy for the relation between brain expansion and consciousness, since nobody knows the source of consciousness or the reason why the brain expanded. But even with computers I wonder which came first – the need for computers/tools (and then for more complex computers/tools) leading to their making, or people making computers/tools (and then more complex computers/tools) when there was no need for them. In any case, the artifacts cannot possibly tell us which came first: the idea for the artifacts or the larger brain that enabled them to be produced.

13780 views

DAVID: You are troubled by the word 'allows'. Let's use the computer analogy again, A more complex computer permits more complex operations to be performed. A more complex brain allows more complex concepts to be developed. The artifacts found with the fossils clearly demonstrate that as the brain became larger, more sophisticated activities occurred. Size first.

dhw: There is no analogy for the relation between brain expansion and consciousness, since nobody knows the source of consciousness or the reason why the brain expanded. But even with computers I wonder which came first – the need for computers/tools (and then for more complex computers/tools) leading to their making, or people making computers/tools (and then more complex computers/tools) when there was no need for them. In any case, the artifacts cannot possibly tell us which came first: the idea for the artifacts or the larger brain that enabled them to be produced.

Computers were developed because early on it was recognized how useful they would be. I think from your comments, that you do not understand capitalism. The need was recognized and then computers were developed and improved so the manufacturers could make profits, pure and simple. As for artifacts, more sophisticated ones appeared associated only with larger brains. The inference that larger brains were the source, strongly implies the larger brains were required to allow the inventiveness.

13737 views

DAVID: You are troubled by the word 'allows'. Let's use the computer analogy again, A more complex computer permits more complex operations to be performed. A more complex brain allows more complex concepts to be developed. The artifacts found with the fossils clearly demonstrate that as the brain became larger, more sophisticated activities occurred. Size first.

dhw: There is no analogy for the relation between brain expansion and consciousness, since nobody knows the source of consciousness or the reason why the brain expanded. But even with computers I wonder which came first – the need for computers/tools (and then for more complex computers/tools) leading to their making, or people making computers/tools (and then more complex computers/tools) when there was no need for them.

DAVID: Computers were developed because early on it was recognized how useful they would be. I think from your comments, that you do not understand capitalism. The need was recognized and then computers were developed and improved so the manufacturers could make profits, pure and simple.

You tried to draw an analogy between brain expansion and the complexification of computers! You now agree that the need for computers/more complex computers preceded their making. What would have been the use of making/complexifying computers if there was no need for them? What would have been the use of expanding the brain if there was no need to expand it? In both cases, expansion/complexification were a response to the need, so although the analogy is not a good one, thank you for offering it and supporting my argument. (As usual, however, I must repeat that I am NOT arguing for dualism against materialism.)

Dhw: In any case, the artifacts cannot possibly tell us which came first: the idea for the artifacts or the larger brain that enabled them to be produced.

DAVID: As for artifacts, more sophisticated ones appeared associated only with larger brains. The inference that larger brains were the source, strongly implies the larger brains were required to allow the inventiveness.

“Associated” does not mean the larger brain came first! It would also be “associated” if the idea of the artefact PRECEDED the expansion. If there is a “soul” which does our inventive thinking, larger brains would only be required to “allow” the implementation of our inventive thoughts. The idea precedes the implementation.

13705 views

DAVID: Computers were developed because early on it was recognized how useful they would be. I think from your comments, that you do not understand capitalism. The need was recognized and then computers were developed and improved so the manufacturers could make profits, pure and simple.

dhw: You tried to draw an analogy between brain expansion and the complexification of computers! You now agree that the need for computers/more complex computers preceded their making. What would have been the use of making/complexifying computers if there was no need for them? What would have been the use of expanding the brain if there was no need to expand it? In both cases, expansion/complexification were a response to the need, so although the analogy is not a good one, thank you for offering it and supporting my argument.

I am not supporting your twisted argument! Each stage of hominin development, did not know what they did not know. Development of more complex computers occurred because thinking industrialists recognized a need. In the case of evolution, God recognized the need for better brains and with each stage created better ones for proto-humans to survive and use them to provide improved artifacts for a better life. Habilis did not sit around the fire in the cave and say I need to have a bigger brain. He could not will it. God could.
=

Dhw: In any case, the artifacts cannot possibly tell us which came first: the idea for the artifacts or the larger brain that enabled them to be produced.

DAVID: As for artifacts, more sophisticated ones appeared associated only with larger brains. The inference that larger brains were the source, strongly implies the larger brains were required to allow the inventiveness.

dhw: “Associated” does not mean the larger brain came first! It would also be “associated” if the idea of the artefact PRECEDED the expansion. If there is a “soul” which does our inventive thinking, larger brains would only be required to “allow” the implementation of our inventive thoughts. The idea precedes the implementation.

Larger brains are required to implement invention. Thank you for supporting me, finally. Having the idea to force a larger brain is impossible, if the brain cannot be used to think of the idea. Artifacts found at each level of brain development support the interpretation of that brain's soul's ability to create. Larger size, better creation. you have it all backwards.

13790 views

dhw: You tried to draw an analogy between brain expansion and the complexification of computers! You now agree that the need for computers/more complex computers preceded their making. […] In both cases, expansion/complexification were a response to the need, so although the analogy is not a good one, thank you for offering it and supporting my argument.
DAVID: I am not supporting your twisted argument! Each stage of hominin development, did not know what they did not know.

Nobody knows what they do not know until they know it! No invention has been invented until it has been invented! According to your beliefs the invention is done by the “soul”, not the brain, and so each stage of hominin development produces new ideas which may require new activities from the brain, which must then adjust accordingly in order to implement the ideas – initially through expansion (not proven), and in modern times through rewiring (proven). (See below)

DAVID: Development of more complex computers occurred because thinking industrialists recognized a need.

Exactly. The need preceded and resulted in the complexification, not the other way round.

DAVID: In the case of evolution, God recognized the need for better brains and with each stage created better ones for proto-humans to survive and use them to provide improved artifacts for a better life. Habilis did not sit around the fire in the cave and say I need to have a bigger brain. He could not will it. God could.

Of course habilis did not will it. When I do exercises, I do not “will” my muscles to get bigger. When organisms adapt, they do not “will” their bodies to make the necessary changes. When the illiterate Indian women tried to read, they did not “will” the brain to rewire itself. In each case, the body responds to the demands made on it. You have had your God restructuring pre-humans before they descended from the trees, whales before they entered water, fish before they stepped onto the land, and you have him expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded. Why must your God preprogramme or dabble all these changes in advance? We know bodies and brains change IN RESPONSE to different demands. If your God created the mechanisms that enable them to do so, why do you insist that he has to change bodies and brains IN ADVANCE of new demands?

The rest of your post revolves around the same subject. Briefly, yes “larger brains are required to implement invention”, which is the reason why in my hypothesis the “soul” causes the brain to expand. There is no reason for it to expand if its current size is adequate for all tasks. (My hypothesis, however, allows for a materialistic explanation of the “soul”. This is the “reconciliation” between materialism and dualism that I keep talking about.) I don’t know what you mean by “the brain’s soul”, but yes to “larger size, better creation”, which is why the effort to create something better results in changes to the brain, whether in size or in complexity, just as in my hypothesis organisms evolve because of the drive for survival and/or improvement: they do not change before the needs and opportunities arise.

13823 views

DAVID: In the case of evolution, God recognized the need for better brains and with each stage created better ones for proto-humans to survive and use them to provide improved artifacts for a better life. Habilis did not sit around the fire in the cave and say I need to have a bigger brain. He could not will it. God could.

dhw: Of course habilis did not will it. When I do exercises, I do not “will” my muscles to get bigger. When organisms adapt, they do not “will” their bodies to make the necessary changes. When the illiterate Indian women tried to read, they did not “will” the brain to rewire itself. In each case, the body responds to the demands made on it. You have had your God restructuring pre-humans before they descended from the trees, whales before they entered water, fish before they stepped onto the land, and you have him expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded. Why must your God preprogramme or dabble all these changes in advance? We know bodies and brains change IN RESPONSE to different demands. If your God created the mechanisms that enable them to do so, why do you insist that he has to change bodies and brains IN ADVANCE of new demands?

Because the advances could not occur unless the abilities were available. The ability to have upright posture preceded the descent from the trees. Lucy walked upright but still had long muscular arms to show she also used the trees. The recent study to suggest she died from a fall from trees fits that view. The only response we know about brain use is to shrink not enlarge! The only examples you have given refer to existing organisms already changed from previous forms. Of course they adapt with what they are given! " expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded" is God allowing them to get to a more advanced mental status. In my view God creates advances by 'suction' pulling advances forward by design. You believe in 'pushing' from behind. Two very different interpretations which will not be resolved, since you are so fixed upon avoiding God as a necessary designer.

dhw: just as in my hypothesis organisms evolve because of the drive for survival and/or improvement: they do not change before the needs and opportunities arise.

Yes, environmental changes foster epigenetic adaptations. Species change require advanced planning and is a process we do not understand. but it is obvious planning and design are required. Again we have two very different views of the requirements for new species to appear. It cannot be a bit-by-bit stepwise process. The fossils do not show it as Gould repeatedly pointed out.

13706 views

Dhw: We know bodies and brains change IN RESPONSE to different demands. If your God created the mechanisms that enable them to do so, why do you insist that he has to change bodies and brains IN ADVANCE of new demands?
DAVID: Because the advances could not occur unless the abilities were available. The ability to have upright posture preceded the descent from the trees. Lucy walked upright but still had long muscular arms to show she also used the trees.

Perhaps when her species left the trees and began to walk upright, their long arms were still useful and enabled them to continue spending time in the trees. Isn’t this just as likely as your God suddenly dabbling with a bunch of apes up in the trees, fiddling with their bodies, and telling them to go walk on the ground except when they felt like going back up the trees?

DAVID: The only response we know about brain use is to shrink not enlarge!

Nobody knows why the brain expanded. But since we know the brain alters its structure (rewiring) IN RESPONSE to demands made on it, why do you find it illogical to hypothesize that expansion was also the result of response to demand, and shrinkage came about when rewiring took over from expansion?

DAVID: “…expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded" is God allowing them to get to a more advanced mental status.

An extraordinary claim for a dualist, who believes that the mental state does NOT depend on the brain. If the “soul” exists, it would provide the advanced thinking, and if the existing brain could not implement the “soul’s” new ideas, it would have to expand/complexify. You have it the other way round: the brain expands/complexifies and then apparently says to the “soul”, “Now I'll be able to make the tools you haven’t yet thought of.” (NB as usual, I am replying to your arguments, not taking sides in the debate between dualism and materialism, which I think may be reconcilable.)

DAVID: In my view God creates advances by 'suction' pulling advances forward by design. You believe in 'pushing' from behind. Two very different interpretations which will not be resolved, since you are so fixed upon avoiding God as a necessary designer.

At no time have I ever offered any hypothesis that does not include the possibility of God as a designer. I am not an atheist. You reject my theistic hypothesis because you are “fixed upon” a personal interpretation of your God’s intentions, even though it does not explain most of evolution’s history.

dhw: just as in my hypothesis organisms evolve because of the drive for survival and/or improvement: they do not change before the needs and opportunities arise.
DAVID: Yes, environmental changes foster epigenetic adaptations. Species change require advanced planning and is a process we do not understand. but it is obvious planning and design are required. Again we have two very different views of the requirements for new species to appear. It cannot be a bit-by-bit stepwise process. The fossils do not show it as Gould repeatedly pointed out.

My hypothesis allows for saltations as well as “bit-by-bit” processes such as the eight-stage whale and the multi-staged history of hominins, hominids and humans. I agree that we do not understand the process, and I agree that design is required. I do not agree that the design has to be planned in advance. Epigenetic adaptations require design, which is carried out by the cell communities RESPONDING to environmental changes. That is clear evidence of a mechanism (possibly designed by God) for physical changes as a response. There is absolutely no evidence for physical changes in anticipation of environmental changes that have not yet happened.

13731 views

DAVID: Because the advances could not occur unless the abilities were available. The ability to have upright posture preceded the descent from the trees. Lucy walked upright but still had long muscular arms to show she also used the trees.

dhw: Perhaps when her species left the trees and began to walk upright, their long arms were still useful and enabled them to continue spending time in the trees. Isn’t this just as likely as your God suddenly dabbling with a bunch of apes up in the trees, fiddling with their bodies, and telling them to go walk on the ground except when they felt like going back up the trees?

That comment agrees with my concept. Of course they used the trees and ground at first with their changed bodies.

DAVID: The only response we know about brain use is to shrink not enlarge!

dhw: Nobody knows why the brain expanded. But since we know the brain alters its structure (rewiring) IN RESPONSE to demands made on it, why do you find it illogical to hypothesize that expansion was also the result of response to demand, and shrinkage came about when rewiring took over from expansion?

Because the only event we know of in intense use of a brain is shrinkage. You are extrapolating in the opposite direction with no evidence.

DAVID: “…expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded" is God allowing them to get to a more advanced mental status.

dhw: An extraordinary claim for a dualist, who believes that the mental state does NOT depend on the brain. If the “soul” exists, it would provide the advanced thinking, and if the existing brain could not implement the “soul’s” new ideas, it would have to expand/complexify. You have it the other way round: the brain expands/complexifies and then apparently says to the “soul”, “Now I'll be able to make the tools you haven’t yet thought of.”

I'll go back to computers: an advanced computer allows production of advanced artifacts, which a lesser computer cannot. The soul uses the early brain to create complexity as far as that brain allows. With the soul in charge the next more complex brain allows more complex creations. Yes, it is the other way 'round from you.

DAVID: In my view God creates advances by 'suction' pulling advances forward by design. You believe in 'pushing' from behind. Two very different interpretations which will not be resolved, since you are so fixed upon avoiding God as a necessary designer.

dhw: At no time have I ever offered any hypothesis that does not include the possibility of God as a designer. I am not an atheist. You reject my theistic hypothesis because you are “fixed upon” a personal interpretation of your God’s intentions, even though it does not explain most of evolution’s history.

Thanks again for offering God lite, and my theory does provide for the bush of life

DAVID: Yes, environmental changes foster epigenetic adaptations. Species change require advanced planning and is a process we do not understand. but it is obvious planning and design are required. Again we have two very different views of the requirements for new species to appear. It cannot be a bit-by-bit stepwise process. The fossils do not show it as Gould repeatedly pointed out.

dhw: My hypothesis allows for saltations as well as “bit-by-bit” processes such as the eight-stage whale and the multi-staged history of hominins, hominids and humans.

Bit-by-bit only implies tiny changes, adaptations not speciation!

dhw: I agree that we do not understand the process, and I agree that design is required. I do not agree that the design has to be planned in advance. Epigenetic adaptations require design, which is carried out by the cell communities RESPONDING to environmental changes. That is clear evidence of a mechanism (possibly designed by God) for physical changes as a response. There is absolutely no evidence for physical changes in anticipation of environmental changes that have not yet happened.

Environmental changes are only one of many reasons for speciation. Speciation is planning in advance. Epigenetic modifications are not speciation.

13789 views

DAVID: The ability to have upright posture preceded the descent from the trees. Lucy walked upright but still had long muscular arms to show she also used the trees.
dhw: Perhaps when her species left the trees and began to walk upright, their long arms were still useful and enabled them to continue spending time in the trees. Isn’t this just as likely as your God suddenly dabbling with a bunch of apes up in the trees, fiddling with their bodies, and telling them to go walk on the ground except when they felt like going back up the trees?
DAVID: That comment agrees with my concept. Of course they used the trees and ground at first with their changed bodies.

There is no agreement. My concept is that they descended from the trees, which led to their upright posture, though they retained their long arms. Yours has God preprogramming or dabbling the changes before they descend. The concepts are directly opposed.

DAVID: […] the only event we know of in intense use of a brain is shrinkage. You are extrapolating in the opposite direction with no evidence.

You continue to ignore the other event we know of, which is that the brain complexifies (rewires ) IN RESPONSE to new tasks imposed on it (e.g. the illiterate Indian women who learned to read). Shrinkage would have begun after the brain had reached optimum size, and complexification had taken over.

DAVID: “…expanding hominid brains before there is any reason for them to be expanded" is God allowing them to get to a more advanced mental status.
dhw: An extraordinary claim for a dualist, who believes that the mental state does NOT depend on the brain.
DAVID: I'll go back to computers: an advanced computer allows production of advanced artifacts, which a lesser computer cannot. The soul uses the early brain to create complexity as far as that brain allows. With the soul in charge the next more complex brain allows more complex creations. Yes, it is the other way 'round from you.

Your computer analogy clearly showed that advanced computers were designed IN RESPONSE to the need for more complexity, not in anticipation of such a need. Your dualistic “soul” does indeed use the brain to implement its ideas. If the existing brain does not allow implementation, then it needs to expand (former times) or complexify (modern times). Why would it expand/complexify in anticipation of ideas that have not yet been thought of?

DAVID: In my view God creates advances by 'suction' pulling advances forward by design. You believe in 'pushing' from behind. Two very different interpretations which will not be resolved, since you are so fixed upon avoiding God as a necessary designer.
dhw: At no time have I ever offered any hypothesis that does not include the possibility of God as a designer. I am not an atheist. You reject my theistic hypothesis because you are “fixed upon” a personal interpretation of your God’s intentions, even though it does not explain most of evolution’s history.
DAVID: Thanks again for offering God lite, and my theory does provide for the bush of life.

I don’t know what you mean by God lite. A God who invents a mechanism that creates an evolutionary free-for-all with the option of the occasional dabble is just as much a God as one who designs every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder so that he can have a relationship with one particular species.

DAVID: Yes, environmental changes foster epigenetic adaptations. Species change require advanced planning and is a process we do not understand. but it is obvious planning and design are required. Again we have two very different views of the requirements for new species to appear. It cannot be a bit-by-bit stepwise process. The fossils do not show it as Gould repeatedly pointed out.
dhw: My hypothesis allows for saltations as well as “bit-by-bit” processes such as the eight-stage whale and the multi-staged history of hominins, hominids and humans.
DAVID: Bit-by-bit only implies tiny changes, adaptations not speciation!

You have quoted me above: my hypothesis allows for saltations as well as “bit-by-bit”.

DAVID: Environmental changes are only one of many reasons for speciation. Speciation is planning in advance. Epigenetic modifications are not speciation.

NOBODY knows how speciation occurs, and I keep agreeing that epigenetic modifications are not speciation. But they are proof that there is an autonomous mechanism which can change the bodies of organisms. The question is whether it is capable of major innovations as well as minor changes. Speciation (broad sense) is not planning in advance. Speciation is major changes to the anatomy. It is you who insist that they must be planned in advance, as opposed to being responses to the challenges and opportunities offered by the conditions in which organisms find themselves.

13740 views

DAVID: That comment agrees with my concept. Of course they used the trees and ground at first with their changed bodies.

dhw: There is no agreement. My concept is that they descended from the trees, which led to their upright posture, though they retained their long arms. Yours has God preprogramming or dabbling the changes before they descend. The concepts are directly opposed.

No self-respecting ape type leaves the trees without a reason. There is evidence of upright posture alterations in the spine 23 million years ago, in preparation for the descent. If they came out of the trees as you propose, there should be more fossil evidence of the pelvic alterations required. There are none. The speciation gap exists.

DAVID: […] the only event we know of in intense use of a brain is shrinkage. You are extrapolating in the opposite direction with no evidence.

dhw: You continue to ignore the other event we know of, which is that the brain complexifies (rewires ) IN RESPONSE to new tasks imposed on it (e.g. the illiterate Indian women who learned to read). Shrinkage would have begun after the brain had reached optimum size, and complexification had taken over.

You keep skipping over in your reasoning the fact that shrinkage is only seen after a brain is enlarged, although you recognize the sequence. The cause of enlargement is not proven by that observation. A particular size is reached with gaps in the fossil story. It is not epigenetic, while the shrinkage is.

DAVID: I'll go back to computers: an advanced computer allows production of advanced artifacts, which a lesser computer cannot. The soul uses the early brain to create complexity as far as that brain allows. With the soul in charge the next more complex brain allows more complex creations. Yes, it is the other way 'round from you.

dhw: Your computer analogy clearly showed that advanced computers were designed IN RESPONSE to the need for more complexity, not in anticipation of such a need. Your dualistic “soul” does indeed use the brain to implement its ideas. If the existing brain does not allow implementation, then it needs to expand (former times) or complexify (modern times). Why would it expand/complexify in anticipation of ideas that have not yet been thought of?

My point. Simply, the brain can't by itself. It needs God as an outside agent to do it.

DAVID: Thanks again for offering God lite, and my theory does provide for the bush of life.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by God lite. A God who invents a mechanism that creates an evolutionary free-for-all with the option of the occasional dabble is just as much a God as one who designs every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder so that he can have a relationship with one particular species.

God lite is your way of introducing God by having Him create a semi-autonomous mechanism which is still God in action. He dabbles!

DAVID: Environmental changes are only one of many reasons for speciation. Speciation is planning in advance. Epigenetic modifications are not speciation.

dhw: NOBODY knows how speciation occurs, and I keep agreeing that epigenetic modifications are not speciation. But they are proof that there is an autonomous mechanism which can change the bodies of organisms. The question is whether it is capable of major innovations as well as minor changes. Speciation (broad sense) is not planning in advance. Speciation is major changes to the anatomy. It is you who insist that they must be planned in advance, as opposed to being responses to the challenges and opportunities offered by the conditions in which organisms find themselves.

Yes I insist as well as my ID friends.

13692 views

DAVID: That comment agrees with my concept. Of course they used the trees and ground at first with their changed bodies.
dhw: There is no agreement. My concept is that they descended from the trees, which led to their upright posture, though they retained their long arms. Yours has God preprogramming or dabbling the changes before they descend. The concepts are directly opposed.
DAVID: No self-respecting ape type leaves the trees without a reason. There is evidence of upright posture alterations in the spine 23 million years ago, in preparation for the descent. If they came out of the trees as you propose, there should be more fossil evidence of the pelvic alterations required. There are none. The speciation gap exists.

Why do you assume there was no reason? Local conditions may have made it advantageous to spend more time on the ground than before. What on earth would be God’s reason for altering the spine 23 million years ago if there was nothing for the ape to do on the ground? “Just hang around in the trees, buddy, and in 23 million years’ time, you’ll understand why I fiddled with your spine.” And why should there be more fossils of pelvic alterations after descent than there are of pelvic alterations in anticipation of descent?

DAVID: […] the only event we know of in intense use of a brain is shrinkage. You are extrapolating in the opposite direction with no evidence.
dhw: You continue to ignore the other event we know of, which is that the brain complexifies (rewires ) IN RESPONSE to new tasks imposed on it (e.g. the illiterate Indian women who learned to read). Shrinkage would have begun after the brain had reached optimum size, and complexification had taken over.
DAVID: You keep skipping over in your reasoning the fact that shrinkage is only seen after a brain is enlarged, although you recognize the sequence. The cause of enlargement is not proven by that observation. A particular size is reached with gaps in the fossil story. It is not epigenetic, while the shrinkage is.

You have quoted my answer! Once the brain had reached optimum size, complexity took over from enlargement. The efficiency of complexification would then eventually have led to less volume. Nobody knows the cause of enlargement (hence hypotheses concerning diet, upright posture, cooking, random mutations, divine dabbling), but since we KNOW that new concepts RESULT in rewiring/complexification, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in earlier times new concepts RESULTED in expansion.

dhw: Why would it [the brain] expand/complexify in anticipation of ideas that have not yet been thought of?
DAVID: My point. Simply, the brain can't by itself. It needs God as an outside agent to do it.

So only God can expand the brain, but the brain can complexify of its own accord, or do you believe your God dabbled with the Indian women’s brains before they learned to read?

DAVID: Thanks again for offering God lite…
dhw: I don’t know what you mean by God lite. A God who invents a mechanism that creates an evolutionary free-for-all with the option of the occasional dabble is just as much a God as one who designs every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder so that he can have a relationship with one particular species.
DAVID: God lite is your way of introducing God by having Him create a semi-autonomous mechanism which is still God in action. He dabbles!

That is not God lite, it is control lite.

DAVID: Speciation is planning in advance.
Dhw Speciation is major changes to the anatomy. It is you who insist that they must be planned in advance, as opposed to being responses to the challenges and opportunities offered by the conditions in which organisms find themselves.
DAVID: Yes I insist as well as my ID friends.

As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.

13774 views

DAVID: No self-respecting ape type leaves the trees without a reason. There is evidence of upright posture alterations in the spine 23 million years ago, in preparation for the descent. If they came out of the trees as you propose, there should be more fossil evidence of the pelvic alterations required. There are none. The speciation gap exists.

dhw: And why should there be more fossils of pelvic alterations after descent than there are of pelvic alterations in anticipation of descent?

Lucy walked fully upright at the start with pelvic lumbar spine changes in place. Fossils are few and far between with early hominins. Lucy is the closest thing we have to an ape-human in-between. We don't know when Lucy in her forbears achieved her form. In trees or down.

DAVID: You keep skipping over in your reasoning the fact that shrinkage is only seen after a brain is enlarged, although you recognize the sequence. The cause of enlargement is not proven by that observation. A particular size is reached with gaps in the fossil story. It is not epigenetic, while the shrinkage is.

Dhw: You have quoted my answer! Once the brain had reached optimum size, complexity took over from enlargement. The efficiency of complexification would then eventually have led to less volume. Nobody knows the cause of enlargement (hence hypotheses concerning diet, upright posture, cooking, random mutations, divine dabbling), but since we KNOW that new concepts RESULT in rewiring/complexification, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in earlier times new concepts RESULTED in expansion.

It is unreasonable since the only event we have seen is shrinkage in an established size of brain in an large skull. How does the skull decided to enlarge if the brains says to itself I'm enlarging, so it tells the skull, "skull get bigger"? Note the need for advanced planning, which you like to forget. I repeat: shrinkage is epigenetic, enlargement must be speciation.

dhw: Why would it [the brain] expand/complexify in anticipation of ideas that have not yet been thought of?
DAVID: My point. Simply, the brain can't by itself. It needs God as an outside agent to do it.

dhw: So only God can expand the brain, but the brain can complexify of its own accord, or do you believe your God dabbled with the Indian women’s brains before they learned to read?

Brain complexification/shrinkage is epigenetic, obviously. The brain does it on its own.

DAVID: Speciation is planning in advance.
Dhw Speciation is major changes to the anatomy. It is you who insist that they must be planned in advance, as opposed to being responses to the challenges and opportunities offered by the conditions in which organisms find themselves.
DAVID: Yes I insist as well as my ID friends.

dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.

Generally, yes. They believe in planning and design.

13681 views

DAVID: No self-respecting ape type leaves the trees without a reason. There is evidence of upright posture alterations in the spine 23 million years ago, in preparation for the descent. If they came out of the trees as you propose, there should be more fossil evidence of the pelvic alterations required. There are none. The speciation gap exists.
dhw: And why should there be more fossils of pelvic alterations after descent than there are of pelvic alterations in anticipation of descent?
DAVID: Lucy walked fully upright at the start with pelvic lumbar spine changes in place. Fossils are few and far between with early hominins. Lucy is the closest thing we have to an ape-human in-between. We don't know when Lucy in her forbears achieved her form. In trees or down.

You were talking about a fossil from 23 million years ago with spinal changes which you think your God must have engineered "in preparation" before the ape descended from the trees. Now you tell me we don’t even know if the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy “achieved her form” before or after she descended, and you have not told me why there should be more fossils if the 23-million-year-old’s anatomy changed after it had descended from the trees. Yes indeed, fossils are few and far between. So how does that prove that your God must have dabbled BEFORE early hominins descended?

Dhw: Once the brain had reached optimum size, complexity took over from enlargement. The efficiency of complexification would then eventually have led to less volume. Nobody knows the cause of enlargement (hence hypotheses concerning diet, upright posture, cooking, random mutations, divine dabbling), but since we KNOW that new concepts RESULT in rewiring/complexification, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in earlier times new concepts RESULTED in expansion.
DAVID: It is unreasonable since the only event we have seen is shrinkage in an established size of brain in an large skull. How does the skull decided to enlarge if the brains says to itself I'm enlarging, so it tells the skull, "skull get bigger"? Note the need for advanced planning, which you like to forget. I repeat: shrinkage is epigenetic, enlargement must be speciation.

If shrinkage is epigenetic (i.e. does not require a divine dabble), then the brain cells are cooperating to make the changes. (You agree that “the brain does it on its own”). The same process would apply with enlargement, as the different cell communities cooperate, just as they do whenever organisms adapt. I don’t “forget” the need for advanced planning: I challenge that whole assumption. In my hypothesis, adaptation and speciation follow the same course, and are often connected, as they RESPOND to challenges and opportunities. The skull adapts to contain the expanding brain it houses; the leg adapts to its new maritime environment and becomes a fin; the hominin spine adapts to the new demands of life on the ground. If God can create a mechanism that enables the brain to shrink on its own, why do you think the same mechanism is incapable of making the brain expand, and is incapable of making the skull adapt to the expansion?

dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.
DAVID: Generally, yes. They believe in planning and design.

Of course intelligent design believers believe in planning and design. It’s the details of your divinely controlled evolutionary history I’m asking about. Do they insist, for instance, that their God dabbled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees?

13732 views

DAVID: Lucy walked fully upright at the start with pelvic lumbar spine changes in place. Fossils are few and far between with early hominins. Lucy is the closest thing we have to an ape-human in-between. We don't know when Lucy in her forbears achieved her form. In trees or down.

dhw: You were talking about a fossil from 23 million years ago with spinal changes which you think your God must have engineered "in preparation" before the ape descended from the trees. Now you tell me we don’t even know if the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy “achieved her form” before or after she descended, and you have not told me why there should be more fossils if the 23-million-year-old’s anatomy changed after it had descended from the trees. Yes indeed, fossils are few and far between. So how does that prove that your God must have dabbled BEFORE early hominins descended?

He obviously dabbled 23 million years ago. Lucy was a major change from an ape body structure. She used both land and trees. That involved many leg and pelvic changes structurally. Since she had the changes she probably used land more than trees. We don't have the fossils to tell us how it happened, but with the 23 million year old evidence, and since I believe God speciates, they were changed so they could then descend.

Dhw: Once the brain had reached optimum size, complexity took over from enlargement. The efficiency of complexification would then eventually have led to less volume. Nobody knows the cause of enlargement (hence hypotheses concerning diet, upright posture, cooking, random mutations, divine dabbling), but since we KNOW that new concepts RESULT in rewiring/complexification, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in earlier times new concepts RESULTED in expansion.
DAVID: It is unreasonable since the only event we have seen is shrinkage in an established size of brain in an large skull. How does the skull decided to enlarge if the brains says to itself I'm enlarging, so it tells the skull, "skull get bigger"? Note the need for advanced planning, which you like to forget. I repeat: shrinkage is epigenetic, enlargement must be speciation.

dhw: If shrinkage is epigenetic (i.e. does not require a divine dabble), then the brain cells are cooperating to make the changes. (You agree that “the brain does it on its own”). The same process would apply with enlargement, as the different cell communities cooperate, just as they do whenever organisms adapt. I don’t “forget” the need for advanced planning: I challenge that whole assumption. In my hypothesis, adaptation and speciation follow the same course, and are often connected, as they RESPOND to challenges and opportunities. The skull adapts to contain the expanding brain it houses; the leg adapts to its new maritime environment and becomes a fin; the hominin spine adapts to the new demands of life on the ground. If God can create a mechanism that enables the brain to shrink on its own, why do you think the same mechanism is incapable of making the brain expand, and is incapable of making the skull adapt to the expansion?

First, you propose the early forms tried to think, and epigenetically forced an expansion of the brain. At a time when they did not know what they did not know, and lacked the capacity of imagining future possibilities. That is how I interpret what you have presented. But the skull as bone is a different type of cells. Did the brain cell committees tell the skull cell committees what to do? It is the same chicken and egg problem that I've presented with larger brains, larger skulls and the required larger maternal birth canal in a changed pelvis. Requires foresight and design planning, none of which is epigenetic. God makes these changes in new species.

dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.
DAVID: Generally, yes. They believe in planning and design.

dhw: Of course intelligent design believers believe in planning and design. It’s the details of your divinely controlled evolutionary history I’m asking about. Do they insist, for instance, that their God dabbled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees?

It fits their theories.

13687 views

dhw: …you have not told me why there should be more fossils if the 23-million-year-old’s anatomy changed after it had descended from the trees. Yes indeed, fossils are few and far between. So how does that prove that your God must have dabbled BEFORE early hominins descended?
DAVID: He obviously dabbled 23 million years ago.

Some folk might say that 23 million years ago a pre-human “obviously” descended from the trees and indulged in a degree of land-dwelling that changed the form of its spine.

DAVID: Lucy was a major change from an ape body structure. She used both land and trees. That involved many leg and pelvic changes structurally. Since she had the changes she probably used land more than trees.

Agreed.

DAVID: We don't have the fossils to tell us how it happened, but with the 23 million year old evidence, and since I believe God speciates, they were changed so they could then descend.

There’s no such 23-million-year-old “evidence” beyond your totally unobvious “obviously”. But now we learn that since you believe God changed pre-humans in advance in order to speciate, God changed them in advance. They could just as easily have been “speciated” by descending from the trees and adapting their bodies to the new conditions.

dhw: If God can create a mechanism that enables the brain to shrink on its own, why do you think the same mechanism is incapable of making the brain expand, and is incapable of making the skull adapt to the expansion?
DAVID: First, you propose the early forms tried to think, and epigenetically forced an expansion of the brain. At a time when they did not know what they did not know, and lacked the capacity of imagining future possibilities.

What makes you believe that early forms couldn’t think? We have countless examples of our fellow animals solving new problems (and even making tools, although theirs do not require abilities beyond their existing physical capacities), so why shouldn’t pre-humans have had the same ability? No organism knows how to solve a problem before the problem arises, or before it has actually worked out the solution!

DAVID: But the skull as bone is a different type of cells. Did the brain cell committees tell the skull cell committees what to do? It is the same chicken and egg problem that I've presented with larger brains, larger skulls and the required larger maternal birth canal in a changed pelvis. Requires foresight and design planning, none of which is epigenetic. God makes these changes in new species.

All anatomical changes require cooperation between DIFFERENT cell communities. And so instead of your God preprogramming this cooperation 3.8 billion years ago, or personally intervening and forcing the cells in each individual “pre-species species” to cooperate before necessary (= foresight and design planning), I propose a mechanism (perhaps invented by him) which enables them to do their own cooperating in response to need or opportunity. Whichever way, the different cell communities must cooperate, whether on a small or a large scale. According to you, they can do it by themselves to shrink the brain, but they can't do it to enlarge the brain.

DAVID: Generally, yes. They [ID-ers] believe in planning and design.
dhw: Of course intelligent design believers believe in planning and design. It’s the details of your divinely controlled evolutionary history I’m asking about. Do they insist, for instance, that their God dabbled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees?
DAVID: It fits their theories.

Ah, the master of evasion! Come on, admit it: Your “ID-friends” do not insist that their God dabbled with apes and whales BEFORE they descended from the trees or entered the water.

13712 views

DAVID: He obviously dabbled 23 million years ago.

dhw: Some folk might say that 23 million years ago a pre-human “obviously” descended from the trees and indulged in a degree of land-dwelling that changed the form of its spine.

Not likely. This was an ancient monkey followed by other species of monkeys with a slight change in one lumbar vertebrae.

DAVID: We don't have the fossils to tell us how it happened, but with the 23 million year old evidence, and since I believe God speciates, they were changed so they could then descend.

dhw: There’s no such 23-million-year-old “evidence” beyond your totally unobvious “obviously”. But now we learn that since you believe God changed pre-humans in advance in order to speciate, God changed them in advance. They could just as easily have been “speciated” by descending from the trees and adapting their bodies to the new conditions.

Lucy obviously lived in and out of trees which fits your suggestion. But silverbacks and other great apes have done that for centuries without change. Lucy was something very different. God at work.

DAVID: First, you propose the early forms tried to think, and epigenetically forced an expansion of the brain. At a time when they did not know what they did not know, and lacked the capacity of imagining future possibilities.

dhw: What makes you believe that early forms couldn’t think? We have countless examples of our fellow animals solving new problems (and even making tools, although theirs do not require abilities beyond their existing physical capacities), so why shouldn’t pre-humans have had the same ability? No organism knows how to solve a problem before the problem arises, or before it has actually worked out the solution!

A non-answer. They could conceptualize to a certain level of compexity at each stage. The artifacts show what they could think of, and artifacts advance with jump in brain size.

DAVID: But the skull as bone is a different type of cells. Did the brain cell committees tell the skull cell committees what to do? It is the same chicken and egg problem that I've presented with larger brains, larger skulls and the required larger maternal birth canal in a changed pelvis. Requires foresight and design planning, none of which is epigenetic. God makes these changes in new species.

dhw: All anatomical changes require cooperation between DIFFERENT cell communities. And so instead of your God preprogramming this cooperation 3.8 billion years ago, or personally intervening and forcing the cells in each individual “pre-species species” to cooperate before necessary (= foresight and design planning), I propose a mechanism (perhaps invented by him) which enables them to do their own cooperating in response to need or opportunity. Whichever way, the different cell communities must cooperate, whether on a small or a large scale. According to you, they can do it by themselves to shrink the brain, but they can't do it to enlarge the brain.

You struggle to have cell communities doing their own thing, and bring in God to give them a mechanism to do so on their own, so He is never directly in charge. Intellectual side-step. If God created the universe, started life, managed evolution, then of course He speciated. As an agnostic you like to dabble a toe in holy waters.

DAVID: Generally, yes. They [ID-ers] believe in planning and design.
dhw: Of course intelligent design believers believe in planning and design. It’s the details of your divinely controlled evolutionary history I’m asking about. Do they insist, for instance, that their God dabbled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees?
DAVID: It fits their theories.

dhw: Ah, the master of evasion! Come on, admit it: Your “ID-friends” do not insist that their God dabbled with apes and whales BEFORE they descended from the trees or entered the water.

Putting words in IDer's mouths doesn't work. They fully believe in prior design.

13811 views

dhw: Some folk might say that 23 million years ago a pre-human “obviously” descended from the trees and indulged in a degree of land-dwelling that changed the form of its spine.
DAVID: Not likely. This was an ancient monkey followed by other species of monkeys with a slight change in one lumbar vertebrae.

I don’t know what this implies for your hypothesis. Are you saying that 23 million years ago your God personally dabbled or preprogrammed a slight change in one lumbar vertebra for absolutely no reason? Or to “prepare the way” for Lucy some 20 million years later? If not, what is your point?

DAVID: Lucy obviously lived in and out of trees which fits your suggestion. But silverbacks and other great apes have done that for centuries without change. Lucy was something very different. God at work.

Why do you think every species of ape should have turned into humans? They have managed perfectly well as apes (at least till we came along), or they would have died out. Common descent means all species have branched out from earlier forms. It doesn’t mean every other form had to go extinct or to change into an ape and then into a human.

DAVID: First, you propose the early forms tried to think, and epigenetically forced an expansion of the brain. At a time when they did not know what they did not know, and lacked the capacity of imagining future possibilities.

dhw: What makes you believe that early forms couldn’t think? We have countless examples of our fellow animals solving new problems (and even making tools, although theirs do not require abilities beyond their existing physical capacities), so why shouldn’t pre-humans have had the same ability? No organism knows how to solve a problem before the problem arises, or before it has actually worked out the solution!

DAVID: A non-answer. They could conceptualize to a certain level of compexity at each stage. The artifacts show what they could think of, and artifacts advance with jump in brain size.

Yes, they could conceptualize, i.e. they could think (not “try to think”) of things that had not yet existed, i.e. were not yet known, so the artefacts do indeed show what they could think of. It is the implementation, not the concept that requires the jump in brain size. Concept first, then expansion if the brain is not already able to accomplish the implementation. Just as later the Indian women’s brains had to rewire in order to implement the concept of reading, instead of your God doing the rewiring first.

DAVID: But the skull as bone is a different type of cells. Did the brain cell committees tell the skull cell committees what to do?
dhw: All anatomical changes require cooperation between DIFFERENT cell communities. [...] Whichever way, the different cell communities must cooperate, whether on a small or a large scale. According to you, they can do it by themselves to shrink the brain, but they can't do it to enlarge the brain.
DAVID: You struggle to have cell communities doing their own thing, and bring in God to give them a mechanism to do so on their own, so He is never directly in charge. Intellectual side-step. If God created the universe, started life, managed evolution, then of course He speciated. As an agnostic you like to dabble a toe in holy waters.

You have already agreed that they do their own thing when changes are epigenetic and also when the brain shrinks. If I “bring God in…” as a possible inventor of the mechanism, how is that different from your “bringing God in” to invent a programme for the whole of evolution or to keep dabbling? “Directly in charge” is an “intellectual sidestep”. If God created the universe, life and the mechanisms of evolution, that does not mean he had to direct every step of evolution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder. Just as – according to you – he gave humans free will, he could have given organisms the means of inventing new forms for themselves, i.e. deliberately sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished. My agnosticism has absolutely nothing to do with it, unless you think that the only person qualified to talk about God is someone who shares your beliefs and non-beliefs (since you reject most religious concepts of God).

Dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.
Your answers so far have been: “Generally, yes. They (ID-ers) believe in planning and design.” And “It fits their theories.” And now: “They fully believe in prior design.”

“Prior design” of what? Everything listed above, as you believe? A simple yes or no will do.

13714 views

DAVID: Not likely. This was an ancient monkey followed by other species of monkeys with a slight change in one lumbar vertebrae.

dhw: Are you saying that 23 million years ago your God personally dabbled or preprogrammed a slight change in one lumbar vertebra for absolutely no reason? Or to “prepare the way” for Lucy some 20 million years later? If not, what is your point?

Obviously to prepare the way for Lucy.

DAVID: Lucy obviously lived in and out of trees which fits your suggestion. But silverbacks and other great apes have done that for centuries without change. Lucy was something very different. God at work.

dhw: Why do you think every species of ape should have turned into humans? They have managed perfectly well as apes (at least till we came along), or they would have died out. Common descent means all species have branched out from earlier forms. It doesn’t mean every other form had to go extinct or to change into an ape and then into a human.

Of course common descent means branching. I'm raising the issue of why this branch appeared at all. We see no driving force, but I see purpose in the giant brain.

DAVID: A non-answer. They could conceptualize to a certain level of compexity at each stage. The artifacts show what they could think of, and artifacts advance with jump in brain size.

dhw: Yes, they could conceptualize, i.e. they could think (not “try to think”) of things that had not yet existed, i.e. were not yet known, so the artefacts do indeed show what they could think of. It is the implementation, not the concept that requires the jump in brain size. Concept first, then expansion if the brain is not already able to accomplish the implementation. Just as later the Indian women’s brains had to rewire in order to implement the concept of reading, instead of your God doing the rewiring first.

You have again equating epigenetic change with full speciation.

DAVID: You struggle to have cell communities doing their own thing, and bring in God to give them a mechanism to do so on their own, so He is never directly in charge. Intellectual side-step. If God created the universe, started life, managed evolution, then of course He speciated. As an agnostic you like to dabble a toe in holy waters.

dhw: You have already agreed that they do their own thing when changes are epigenetic and also when the brain shrinks. If I “bring God in…” as a possible inventor of the mechanism, how is that different from your “bringing God in” to invent a programme for the whole of evolution or to keep dabbling? “Directly in charge” is an “intellectual sidestep”. If God created the universe, life and the mechanisms of evolution, that does not mean he had to direct every step of evolution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder. Just as – according to you – he gave humans free will, he could have given organisms the means of inventing new forms for themselves, i.e. deliberately sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished.

The problem with your last sentence "sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished" at its basis assumes God does what He wants. God is therefore in full control.

Dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.
Your answers so far have been: “Generally, yes. They (ID-ers) believe in planning and design.” And “It fits their theories.” And now: “They fully believe in prior design.”

“Prior design” of what? Everything listed above, as you believe? A simple yes or no will do.

Of course, yes

13803 views

dhw: Are you saying that 23 million years ago your God personally dabbled or preprogrammed a slight change in one lumbar vertebra for absolutely no reason? Or to “prepare the way” for Lucy some 20 million years later? If not, what is your point?
DAVID: Obviously to prepare the way for Lucy.

And why do you think your always purposeful God, who is in full control, needed to change one lumbar vertebra which, according to you served no purpose whatsoever, so that 20 million years later he would be able to make much bigger changes to Lucy?

dhw: Why do you think every species of ape should have turned into humans? They have managed perfectly well as apes (at least till we came along), or they would have died out. Common descent means all species have branched out from earlier forms. It doesn’t mean every other form had to go extinct or to change into an ape and then into a human.

DAVID: Of course common descent means branching. I'm raising the issue of why this branch appeared at all. We see no driving force, but I see purpose in the giant brain.

Same old story. Why did ANY branch of ANY species other than bacteria appear at all? What do you reckon was the driving force behind the appearance of the duckbilled platypus?

DAVID: They [early hominins] could conceptualize to a certain level of compexity at each stage. The artifacts show what they could think of, and artifacts advance with jump in brain size.
dhw: Yes, they could conceptualize, i.e. they could think (not “try to think”) of things that had not yet existed, i.e. were not yet known, so the artefacts do indeed show what they could think of. It is the implementation, not the concept that requires the jump in brain size. Concept first, then expansion if the brain is not already able to accomplish the implementation. Just as later the Indian women’s brains had to rewire in order to implement the concept of reading, instead of your God doing the rewiring first.
DAVID: You have again equating epigenetic change with full speciation.

Once again: if brains can rewire themselves, why can't they expand themselves? I never “equate” epigenetic change with full speciation, of which nobody knows the cause. But epigenetic change proves the existence of an autonomous mechanism which may also be responsible for full speciation. (In any case, a hominin with a bigger brain is still a hominin, not a totally new form of being.)

dhw: If God created the universe, life and the mechanisms of evolution, that does not mean he had to direct every step of evolution, every lifestyle, every natural wonder. Just as – according to you – he gave humans free will, he could have given organisms the means of inventing new forms for themselves, i.e. deliberately sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished.
DAVID: The problem with your last sentence "sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished" at its basis assumes God does what He wants. God is therefore in full control.

You are clutching at semantic straws. Being able to do what he wants, and choosing to sacrifice control most of the time (i.e. allow a free-for-all) is a million miles away from being able to do what he wants and controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

Dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID friends insist that their God fiddled with ape anatomy before apes left the trees, designed eight stages of pre-whales before they entered the water, and planned weaverbird’s nests, toxin-swallowing snakes and skull shrinking shrews in order to keep life going until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain? A simple yes or no will do.
DAVID: Of course, yes.

It would have saved us half a dozen entries if you had said so straight away. I shan’t ask you for references.

13693 views

DAVID: Obviously to prepare the way for Lucy.

dhw: And why do you think your always purposeful God, who is in full control, needed to change one lumbar vertebra which, according to you served no purpose whatsoever, so that 20 million years later he would be able to make much bigger changes to Lucy?

This is the one example I've found. Lucy's anatomy is so different many changes are required. The fossils don't provide them.

dhw: Why do you think every species of ape should have turned into humans? They have managed perfectly well as apes (at least till we came along), or they would have died out. Common descent means all species have branched out from earlier forms. It doesn’t mean every other form had to go extinct or to change into an ape and then into a human.

DAVID: Of course common descent means branching. I'm raising the issue of why this branch appeared at all. We see no driving force, but I see purpose in the giant brain.

dhw: Same old story. Why did ANY branch of ANY species other than bacteria appear at all? What do you reckon was the driving force behind the appearance of the duckbilled platypus?

I see no driving force in environmental challenges, but I see a force in God.

DAVID: You have again equating epigenetic change with full speciation.

dhw: Once again: if brains can rewire themselves, why can't they expand themselves? I never “equate” epigenetic change with full speciation, of which nobody knows the cause. But epigenetic change proves the existence of an autonomous mechanism which may also be responsible for full speciation. (In any case, a hominin with a bigger brain is still a hominin, not a totally new form of being.)

Once again you are stretching epigenetic adaptations into an explanation for speciation. It is not, as it only describes adaptation. As for hominins, each stage is a new species, isn't it, requiring the process of speciation?!

DAVID: The problem with your last sentence "sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished" at its basis assumes God does what He wants. God is therefore in full control.

dhw: You are clutching at semantic straws. Being able to do what he wants, and choosing to sacrifice control most of the time (i.e. allow a free-for-all) is a million miles away from being able to do what he wants and controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

But God is in control making your proposed choices. It is God who is making the choice!

13656 views

It is not known if early hominin stone tools were culturally transmitted or not:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/693846

Abstract:

"We have learned much about tool use in nonhumans since the discovery of Oldowan stone tools. ... We pragmatically suggest resetting the null hypothesis for the processes underlying early stone tool production. The null hypothesis that we prefer is that early stone tools might have been so-called latent solutions rather than cultural material that derived from—and depended upon—modern human-like high-fidelity cultural transmission. This simple shift in perspective prioritizes the systematic investigation of more parsimonious potential explanations and forces us to demonstrate, rather than presume, that stone tools could not have existed without high-fidelity cultural transmission.

"The archaeological record clearly shows that, by at least 2.6 million years ago, one or more fossil hominin taxa were frequently making and using stone tools. A defining (and puzzling) feature of early stone tool assemblages is that patterns of production appear to have few identifiable or directional changes over hundreds of thousands of years.....In short, researchers interested in what the archaeological record can tell us about cognition commonly ascribe modern human cognitive skills, such as shared intentionality, conformity, overimitation, and teaching (skills that many have argued are key to the sophisticated way that modern humans, but not other living primates, transmit information socially), to Pliocene and Early Pleistocene hominins.

"It is not surprising that archaeologists see signs of modern human cognition in early stone tools given that the technology appears at once so impressive and so foreign. If hive making were culturally transmitted among bees (it is not), then one could excuse a hapless “modern bee-man” visitor to a museum of “prehistoric bee artifacts” for making a similar inference about the cognitive abilities of her Early Pleistocene ancestors from the impressively ordered and complex nature of her lineage’s presumed “culture material”. Despite the complexity of beehives, there is no evidence that the structure of these forms reflects anything more sophisticated than low-fidelity social learning.

***

"For us, however, a null hypothesis that this technology was passed from hominin brain to brain and from generation to generation via cultural transmission in a way reminiscent of, if not exactly like, that used by humans today is not clearly supported by the archaeological evidence. Here, we suggest resetting the null hypothesis for early stone tool production, ... before we reach a hypothesis that invokes modern high-fidelity social learning mechanisms (i.e., cultural transmission) in hominin species living more than a million years ago. The null hypothesis that we prefer is that early stone tools might have been so-called latent solutions rather than cultural material.

"Our concern is that current explanations that view even the earliest stone tools as necessarily cultural products likely overinterpret the underlying cognitive mechanisms. This view on the archaeological record comes in part from research on tool use by living great apes (i.e., the phylogenetically most appropriate comparison group), which faces similar difficulties. For instance, in light of available evidence, one can make the argument that high-fidelity cultural transmission is not necessarily responsible for many great ape tool “cultures”. Instead, population-wide behaviors currently described as cultural are largely the result of individual learning, loosely connected by low-fidelity social learning, such as stimulus enhancement.

***

"we propose that—at this time—a more appropriate null hypothesis is that the first stone tools were latent solutions resulting from individual learning augmented by low-fidelity social learning. The question that must then be asked is what data from Oldowan, Acheulean, or even Middle Stone Age/Middle Paleolithic stone tool assemblages falsify this hypothesis? In other words, when we set aside the presumption that the very presence of similar stone tools must mean cumulative culture, we can ask the question of fundamental interest to human origins—when did cumulative culture begin?

***

"The time seems right to reset the null hypothesis for early stone tools and cultural transmission. The picture emerging from both primate studies and Paleolithic archaeology is one in which simple stone tool technology might not require the cultural scaffolding or related cognitive hardware that modern human flintknappers employ.

***

"One might point to increased brain size as the obvious explanation for such a change in hominin technology, but the toolmaking abilities of the relatively small-brained Homo floresiensis (or the beehives of tiny-brained bees) show that the relationship between brain size and technological sophistication, including examples of cumulative culture in the case of hominins, is not as simple or direct as it was once widely thought to be.

***

" We count ourselves among those. 2016) who think the best practice, in this case, is to assume that early stone tools were not culturally transmitted until it is demonstrated otherwise."

Comment: It is interesting that these archeologists are not sure that brain size is an issue. Cultural transmission is a major issue.

13769 views

This entry refers back to previous discussion of the meaning of artifacts as indications of cultural interconnections and transmission of the way to manufacture them:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/693846

"The archaeological record clearly shows that, by at least 2.6 million years ago, one or more fossil hominin taxa were frequently making and using stone tools. A defining (and puzzling) feature of early stone tool assemblages is that patterns of production appear to have few identifiable or directional changes over hundreds of thousands of years.

"For us, however, a null hypothesis that this technology was passed from hominin brain to brain and from generation to generation via cultural transmission in a way reminiscent of, if not exactly like, that used by humans today is not clearly supported by the archaeological evidence.

***

"we propose that—at this time—a more appropriate null hypothesis is that the first stone tools were latent solutions resulting from individual learning augmented by low-fidelity social learning."

Comment: This means the artifacts were made by the existing hominins of that time, and no one knows how the knowledge was jumped to the next more advanced species.

And then this opinion:

http://adrenaline.ucsd.edu/kirsh/Articles/Artifact_Evolution/Kirsh-Explaining_Artifact_...

The argument I shall explore as to why more evidence can be extracted from the archaeological record starts by assuming that users, artifacts, practices and tasks have coevolved. Artifacts typically arise to address a need connected with a task.

David: From a modern point of view:

The key feature of artifacts, however, is the way they co-evolve with the humans who use them. Artifacts are unlike oceans and deserts in that they evolved to support human experience. They help to preserve the collective practical knowledge of a group. A major function of artifacts, then, is to serve as a repository of knowledge. Because most of the cognitive life of a culture is tied up in the way its members perform tasks and solve everyday problems, the artifacts that partly constitute and frame those practices, and embody the intelligence of generations of designing, serve as partners in task performance. This intelligence in design does not earn them the right to a ‘cognitive life’ of their own. They are parasitic on human culture.

Comment: The prevailing view is artifacts represent the cultural time/generation with which they are found. No one ascribes artifacts to thoughts in a previous species. It is either evolution produced larger brained hominins/homos or as ID and I believe, God did it.

6098 views

DAVID: Obviously to prepare the way for Lucy.
dhw: And why do you think your always purposeful God, who is in full control, needed to change one lumbar vertebra which, according to you served no purpose whatsoever, so that 20 million years later he would be able to make much bigger changes to Lucy?
DAVID: This is the one example I've found. Lucy's anatomy is so different many changes are required. The fossils don't provide them.

So how on earth does that prove that your God changed one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago in order to prepare the way for Lucy 20 million years later (in order to prepare the way for Homo sapiens)?

dhw: Why do you think every species of ape should have turned into humans? They have managed perfectly well as apes (at least till we came along), or they would have died out. Common descent means all species have branched out from earlier forms. It doesn’t mean every other form had to go extinct or to change into an ape and then into a human.
DAVID: Of course common descent means branching. I'm raising the issue of why this branch appeared at all. We see no driving force, but I see purpose in the giant brain.
dhw: Same old story. Why did ANY branch of ANY species other than bacteria appear at all? What do you reckon was the driving force behind the appearance of the duckbilled platypus?
DAVID: I see no driving force in environmental challenges, but I see a force in God.

Challenges and opportunities. You cannot see that if food was scarce on land, organisms might be forced to seek it in nearby water, or if trees disappeared, tree-dwelling organisms might be forced to spend more time on the land, and such changes might lead to changes in the anatomy? Meanwhile, do you really believe that God was "driven" to specially preprogramme or dabble eight pre-whales, the weaverbird’s nest, the skull-shrinking shrew because it was the only way to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: You have again equating epigenetic change with full speciation.
dhw: Once again: if brains can rewire themselves, why can't they expand themselves? I never “equate” epigenetic change with full speciation, of which nobody knows the cause. But epigenetic change proves the existence of an autonomous mechanism which may also be responsible for full speciation. (In any case, a hominin with a bigger brain is still a hominin, not a totally new form of being.)
DAVID: Once again you are stretching epigenetic adaptations into an explanation for speciation. It is not, as it only describes adaptation. As for hominins, each stage is a new species, isn't it, requiring the process of speciation?!

I am proposing a hypothesis to explain speciation. We know there is an autonomous mechanism for minor change, but we don’t know if it is capable of major change. (But it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between adaptation and innovation.) As for speciation, you know as well as I do that it is difficult to define. Since the ability to interbreed is often used as a definition of the broader sense of the word, and we know that different varieties of hominin interbred, it is not unreasonable to say that brain expansion does NOT constitute what you call “full speciation”. But classification is not the real issue here. The question is the potential inventiveness of the autonomous mechanism which enables brains to complexify and shrink of their own accord.

DAVID: The problem with your last sentence "sacrificing control, though he could take it again if he wished" at its basis assumes God does what He wants. God is therefore in full control.
dhw: You are clutching at semantic straws. Being able to do what he wants, and choosing to sacrifice control most of the time (i.e. allow a free-for-all) is a million miles away from being able to do what he wants and controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.
DAVID: But God is in control making your proposed choices. It is God who is making the choice!

Of course God, if he exists, makes the choice, and in my hypothesis he chooses to allow a free-for-all, which is the opposite of choosing to control everything.

13666 views

DAVID: This is the one example I've found. Lucy's anatomy is so different many changes are required. The fossils don't provide them.

dhw: So how on earth does that prove that your God changed one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago in order to prepare the way for Lucy 20 million years later (in order to prepare the way for Homo sapiens)?

Preparation for bipedalism had to start somewhere and at some time. You don't accept goal oriented evolution managed by God.

DAVID: I see no driving force in environmental challenges, but I see a force in God.

dhw: Challenges and opportunities. You cannot see that if food was scarce on land, organisms might be forced to seek it in nearby water, or if trees disappeared, tree-dwelling organisms might be forced to spend more time on the land, and such changes might lead to changes in the anatomy? Meanwhile, do you really believe that God was "driven" to specially preprogramme or dabble eight pre-whales, the weaverbird’s nest, the skull-shrinking shrew because it was the only way to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

Of course all living organisms have to seek food, but that is not prove they have to modify to the point of speciation.. All Darwin's finches do is modify beaks back and forth in size. I do believe God drives speciation because of all the planning an design involved. I've not changed my views.

DAVID: Once again you are stretching epigenetic adaptations into an explanation for speciation. It is not, as it only describes adaptation. As for hominins, each stage is a new species, isn't it, requiring the process of speciation?!

dhw: I am proposing a hypothesis to explain speciation. We know there is an autonomous mechanism for minor change, but we don’t know if it is capable of major change. (But it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between adaptation and innovation.) As for speciation, you know as well as I do that it is difficult to define. Since the ability to interbreed is often used as a definition of the broader sense of the word, and we know that different varieties of hominin interbred, it is not unreasonable to say that brain expansion does NOT constitute what you call “full speciation”. But classification is not the real issue here. The question is the potential inventiveness of the autonomous mechanism which enables brains to complexify and shrink of their own accord.

The shrinkage of the brain is at the same level of modification as Darwin's finch beaks, epigenetic, nothing more. You cannot escape brain size changes implying speciation. Body proportions also changed. Just compare us to Neanderthals. There are a whole herd of various hominins with various brain sizes and body shapes, literally a bush of them, many not in our line.

dhw: You are clutching at semantic straws. Being able to do what he wants, and choosing to sacrifice control most of the time (i.e. allow a free-for-all) is a million miles away from being able to do what he wants and controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

DAVID: But God is in control making your proposed choices. It is God who is making the choice!

dhw: Of course God, if he exists, makes the choice, and in my hypothesis he chooses to allow a free-for-all, which is the opposite of choosing to control everything.

And then you always add He can step in and dabble! You imply He carefully watches a free-for-all. And if He dabbles He guides it. You can't have it both ways.

13699 views

DAVID: This is the one example I've found. Lucy's anatomy is so different many changes are required. The fossils don't provide them.
dhw: So how on earth does that prove that your God changed one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago in order to prepare the way for Lucy 20 million years later (in order to prepare the way for Homo sapiens)?
DAVID: Preparation for bipedalism had to start somewhere and at some time. You don't accept goal oriented evolution managed by God.

Why “preparation”? Yes, bipedalism started somewhere, and developed from a little bit to total. That still doesn’t explain why your all-powerful, all-controlling God, twiddles one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago for no practical purpose whatsoever, and takes another 20 million years to get to the Lucy stage when all he wants to do is produce Homo sapiens and his brain. Are you going back to the idea of “limitations”? “Dammit,” said God, “I really want full bipedalism, but at the moment I just can’t seem to do more than one lumbar vertebra.”

QUOTE (under “Archaea and neuclei”): "Packed inside the nucleus of every eukaryotic cell is several feet of genetic material that is compacted in a very specific way. Small sections of DNA are wrapped, like thread around a spool, roughly two times around eight small proteins called histones. This entire DNA-histone complex is called a nucleosome, and a string of compacted nucleosomes is called chromatin."
DAVID’s comment: More evidence for pre-planning the future of evolution, just like a change in monkey lumbar changes.

The duckbilled platypus, the mosquito, dead dinosaurs, skull-shrinking shrews and even bacteria contain DNA, which is essential for evolution. How the heck does this prove that just like a change in one monkey vertebra, evolution was planned to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: I see no driving force in environmental challenges, but I see a force in God.
dhw: Challenges and opportunities. You cannot see that if food was scarce on land, organisms might be forced to seek it in nearby water, or if trees disappeared, tree-dwelling organisms might be forced to spend more time on the land, and such changes might lead to changes in the anatomy? Meanwhile, do you really believe that God was "driven" to specially preprogramme or dabble eight pre-whales, the weaverbird’s nest, the skull-shrinking shrew because it was the only way to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens?
DAVID: Of course all living organisms have to seek food, but that is not prove they have to modify to the point of speciation. All Darwin's finches do is modify beaks back and forth in size.

There are small modifications and large modifications, depending on the nature of the challenges and opportunities. Land-dwelling pre-whale to water-dwelling whale and tree-dwelling ape to ground-dwelling hominin required large modifications. Finches only required small modifications. All these were driven by environmental change, but you see no “driving force” in environmental challenges.

dhw: (under “multiple neuron types”): Once again you are acknowledging that thought changes the brain. If it can shrink the brain by altering existing neurons, why do you think it can’t expand the brain by adding neurons?
David: Because expansion, as shown by the fossils is 200cc at a time and involves a binary process, expanding the bony skull. Shrinkage is at the scale of epigenetic modification, while the enlargements are speciation.
DAVID (on this thread): The shrinkage of the brain is at the same level of modification as Darwin's finch beaks, epigenetic, nothing more. You cannot escape brain size changes implying speciation. Body proportions also changed. Just compare us to Neanderthals. There are a whole herd of various hominins with various brain sizes and body shapes, literally a bush of them, many not in our line.

As I said in my previous post, the definition of “speciation” is a red herring. The question is simply to what extent the known autonomous mechanism for change (in this case complexification and shrinkage) is capable of larger modifications (expansion of brain and skull). We don’t know the answer, which is no reason to jump to the conclusion that your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled it all.

As for the bush of hominins, many not in our line, doesn’t that make you wonder why, if your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, he produced a bush? Doesn’t the bush suggest a free-for-all? Or a God who just isn’t in control and can’t get what he wants?

DAVID: But God is in control making your proposed choices. It is God who is making the choice!
dhw: Of course God, if he exists, makes the choice, and in my hypothesis he chooses to allow a free-for-all, which is the opposite of choosing to control everything.
DAVID: And then you always add He can step in and dabble! You imply He carefully watches a free-for-all. And if He dabbles He guides it. You can't have it both ways.

If he exists, then of course he can watch AND dabble. And of course I can have it both ways! He watches the dinosaurs messing about for 180 million years, gets fed up with them and chucks a comet at them.

13792 views

DAVID: Preparation for bipedalism had to start somewhere and at some time. You don't accept goal oriented evolution managed by God.

dhw: Why “preparation”? Yes, bipedalism started somewhere, and developed from a little bit to total. That still doesn’t explain why your all-powerful, all-controlling God, twiddles one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago for no practical purpose whatsoever, and takes another 20 million years to get to the Lucy stage when all he wants to do is produce Homo sapiens and his brain. Are you going back to the idea of “limitations”? “Dammit,” said God, “I really want full bipedalism, but at the moment I just can’t seem to do more than one lumbar vertebra.”

Your problem is you don't look at history with a sense of purpose like I do. God prefers evolving things. No evidence of limitations, although I admit it is possible that He must use evolution because of some intrinsic limitations.

DAVID’s comment: More evidence for pre-planning the future of evolution, just like a change in monkey lumbar changes.

dhw: The duckbilled platypus, the mosquito, dead dinosaurs, skull-shrinking shrews and even bacteria contain DNA, which is essential for evolution. How the heck does this prove that just like a change in one monkey vertebra, evolution was planned to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DNA works throughout all evolved organisms, and is a highly complex code, the origin of which not explained, except in my view by a designer. The human brain arrived. That is proof enough for me

DAVID: Of course all living organisms have to seek food, but that is not prove they have to modify to the point of speciation. All Darwin's finches do is modify beaks back and forth in size.

dhw: There are small modifications and large modifications, depending on the nature of the challenges and opportunities. Land-dwelling pre-whale to water-dwelling whale and tree-dwelling ape to ground-dwelling hominin required large modifications. Finches only required small modifications. All these were driven by environmental change, but you see no “driving force” in environmental challenges.

Environment is only one of many reasons for adaptations. Only very major changes related to mass extinctions are that important.

DAVID (on this thread): The shrinkage of the brain is at the same level of modification as Darwin's finch beaks, epigenetic, nothing more. You cannot escape brain size changes implying speciation. Body proportions also changed. Just compare us to Neanderthals. There are a whole herd of various hominins with various brain sizes and body shapes, literally a bush of them, many not in our line.

dhw: As I said in my previous post, the definition of “speciation” is a red herring. The question is simply to what extent the known autonomous mechanism for change (in this case complexification and shrinkage) is capable of larger modifications (expansion of brain and skull). We don’t know the answer, which is no reason to jump to the conclusion that your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled it all.

You may not accept the answer, but enlarging the frontal lobe by 200cc and expanding the skull requires multiple coordinated mutations and can only be accomplished by a planning mind , God's.

dhw: As for the bush of hominins, many not in our line, doesn’t that make you wonder why, if your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, he produced a bush? Doesn’t the bush suggest a free-for-all? Or a God who just isn’t in control and can’t get what he wants?

As before He prefers evolution to reach His goals. He gets what He wants, and yes, limitations are possible.

DAVID: But God is in control making your proposed choices. It is God who is making the choice!
dhw: Of course God, if he exists, makes the choice, and in my hypothesis he chooses to allow a free-for-all, which is the opposite of choosing to control everything.
DAVID: And then you always add He can step in and dabble! You imply He carefully watches a free-for-all. And if He dabbles He guides it. You can't have it both ways.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he can watch AND dabble. And of course I can have it both ways! He watches the dinosaurs messing about for 180 million years, gets fed up with them and chucks a comet at them.

Yes!

13688 views

DAVID: Preparation for bipedalism had to start somewhere and at some time. You don't accept goal oriented evolution managed by God.
dhw: Why “preparation”? Yes, bipedalism started somewhere, and developed from a little bit to total. That still doesn’t explain why your all-powerful, all-controlling God, twiddles one lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago for no practical purpose whatsoever, and takes another 20 million years to get to the Lucy stage when all he wants to do is produce Homo sapiens and his brain. Are you going back to the idea of “limitations”? “Dammit,” said God, “I really want full bipedalism, but at the moment I just can’t seem to do more than one lumbar vertebra.”
DAVID: Your problem is you don't look at history with a sense of purpose like I do. God prefers evolving things. No evidence of limitations, although I admit it is possible that He must use evolution because of some intrinsic limitations.

Your problem is that you try to impose one particular purpose on history, and it simply doesn’t fit. Why would a God whose purpose is to produce a bi-pedalling Homo sapiens fiddle with one useless lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago, and then 20+ million years later with umpteen different types of hominin, hominid and homo, some of them unrelated? And that’s without even mentioning the billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. You have the same problem with the giant universe. Your reading of God's mind simply doesn't explain the history.

DAVID: DNA works throughout all evolved organisms, and is a highly complex code, the origin of which not explained, except in my view by a designer. The human brain arrived. That is proof enough for me.

As usual, you are conflating two separate issues. The complex code as a case for design is the strongest one you have for the existence of a designer. I have never denied that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with your insistence that it was designed for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. It also produced the duckbilled platypus, the mosquito, dead dinosaurs, skull-shrinking shrews etc.

dhw: There are small modifications and large modifications, depending on the nature of the challenges and opportunities. Land-dwelling pre-whale to water-dwelling whale and tree-dwelling ape to ground-dwelling hominin required large modifications. Finches only required small modifications. All these were driven by environmental change, but you see no “driving force” in environmental challenges.
DAVID: Environment is only one of many reasons for adaptations. Only very major changes related to mass extinctions are that important.

Environment encompasses climate, living conditions, predators, food shortage, pollution…so please tell us some of the many other reasons there are for adaptations. As for major changes, why should these not arise from local conditions and then spread further afield if successful? Localized changes may very well have been the trigger for tree-dwelling apes to descend to the ground, thereby causing the transition from pre-human to human. No mass extinction necessary.

dhw: The question is simply to what extent the known autonomous mechanism for change (in this case complexification and shrinkage) is capable of larger modifications (expansion of brain and skull). We don’t know the answer, which is no reason to jump to the conclusion that your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled it all.
DAVID: You may not accept the answer, but enlarging the frontal lobe by 200cc and expanding the skull requires multiple coordinated mutations and can only be accomplished by a planning mind , God's.

I certainly accept that the expansion required coordinated mutations (though not random), just as bipedalism, flight, land-to-water, water-to-land all required coordinated mutations, and these could only be accomplished by the cooperation of cell communities. You say God preprogrammed the cells 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled with them to make them cooperate – a hypothesis as unproven as my own. See above.

dhw: As for the bush of hominins, many not in our line, doesn’t that make you wonder why, if your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, he produced a bush? Doesn’t the bush suggest a free-for-all? Or a God who just isn’t in control and can’t get what he wants?
DAVID: As before He prefers evolution to reach His goals. He gets what He wants, and yes, limitations are possible.

One moment he’s in total control, the next moment he’s not, he can do it (early Cambrian), he can’t do it (bipedalism, sapiens’ brain), and the irrationality of wanting one thing and producing billions of others is explained by the fact that you think his mind works that way, and human logic is irrelevant.

DAVID: And then you always add He can step in and dabble! You imply He carefully watches a free-for-all. And if He dabbles He guides it. You can't have it both ways.
dhw: If he exists, then of course he can watch AND dabble. And of course I can have it both ways! He watches the dinosaurs messing about for 180 million years, gets fed up with them and chucks a comet at them.
DAVID: Yes!

Thank you. At least we can now get rid of that non sequitur.

13580 views

DAVID: Your problem is you don't look at history with a sense of purpose like I do. God prefers evolving things. No evidence of limitations, although I admit it is possible that He must use evolution because of some intrinsic limitations.

dhw: Your problem is that you try to impose one particular purpose on history, and it simply doesn’t fit. Why would a God whose purpose is to produce a bi-pedalling Homo sapiens fiddle with one useless lumbar vertebra 23 million years ago, and then 20+ million years later with umpteen different types of hominin, hominid and homo, some of them unrelated? And that’s without even mentioning the billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. You have the same problem with the giant universe. Your reading of God's mind simply doesn't explain the history.

You refuse to accept the idea that God uses evolution in everything He creates. You are describing His process. Just as you don't understand the necessity for planning and design for speciation.

DAVID: DNA works throughout all evolved organisms, and is a highly complex code, the origin of which not explained, except in my view by a designer. The human brain arrived. That is proof enough for me.

dhw: As usual, you are conflating two separate issues. The complex code as a case for design is the strongest one you have for the existence of a designer. I have never denied that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with your insistence that it was designed for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. It also produced the duckbilled platypus, the mosquito, dead dinosaurs, skull-shrinking shrews etc.

Of course it did produce all those lesser results on the way to the pinnacle, the human brain. God uses evolution to reach His goals.

DAVID: Environment is only one of many reasons for adaptations. Only very major changes related to mass extinctions are that important.

dhw: Environment encompasses climate, living conditions, predators, food shortage, pollution…so please tell us some of the many other reasons there are for adaptations. As for major changes, why should these not arise from local conditions and then spread further afield if successful? Localized changes may very well have been the trigger for tree-dwelling apes to descend to the ground, thereby causing the transition from pre-human to human. No mass extinction necessary.

At the level of adaptation I agree with you. But at speciation I disagree. Reviving the whale issue: just because the water was there doesn't mean they should have jumped in and change to a fish like form. The issue is the impediment of the enormous form and physiologic changes required.

dhw: The question is simply to what extent the known autonomous mechanism for change (in this case complexification and shrinkage) is capable of larger modifications (expansion of brain and skull). We don’t know the answer, which is no reason to jump to the conclusion that your God must have preprogrammed or dabbled it all.

dhw: As for the bush of hominins, many not in our line, doesn’t that make you wonder why, if your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, he produced a bush? Doesn’t the bush suggest a free-for-all? Or a God who just isn’t in control and can’t get what he wants?

DAVID: As before He prefers evolution to reach His goals. He gets what He wants, and yes, limitations are possible.

dhw: One moment he’s in total control, the next moment he’s not, he can do it (early Cambrian), he can’t do it (bipedalism, sapiens’ brain), and the irrationality of wanting one thing and producing billions of others is explained by the fact that you think his mind works that way, and human logic is irrelevant.

The Cambrian explosion, bipedalism, the human brain are all part of the history of God's evolutionary process and show His abilities. The limits may be that He has to use evolution, not direct creation with stages of life, and creates one species after an other to reach His goal.

13617 views

dhw: Your reading of God's mind simply doesn't explain the history.
DAVID: You refuse to accept the idea that God uses evolution in everything He creates. You are describing His process. Just as you don't understand the necessity for planning and design for speciation.

If God exists, and since I believe that evolution happened, then of course he would have used evolution, and I suggest that what he created was a mechanism that provided a vast higgledy-piggledy bush of organisms extant and extinct. You refuse to accept the idea that God might have WANTED a higgledy-piggledy bush of organisms extant and extinct, instead of wanting only one species and going all round a billion mulberry bushes to get it. I understand the necessity for design for speciation, and suggest that cell communities (perhaps endowed by your God with their intelligence) do the designing. I do not accept that every step of speciation had to be planned 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled in advance.

dhw: The complex code as a case for design is the strongest one you have for the existence of a designer. I have never denied that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with your insistence that it was designed for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. It also produced the duckbilled platypus, the mosquito, dead dinosaurs, skull-shrinking shrews etc.
DAVID: Of course it did produce all those lesser results on the way to the pinnacle, the human brain. God uses evolution to reach His goals.

So God used the evolution of the duckbilled platypus to achieve his goal of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. No wonder you say his logic is different from ours.

DAVID: Environment is only one of many reasons for adaptations. Only very major changes related to mass extinctions are that important.
dhw: Environment encompasses climate, living conditions, predators, food shortage, pollution…so please tell us some of the many other reasons there are for adaptations. As for major changes, why should these not arise from local conditions and then spread further afield if successful? Localized changes may very well have been the trigger for tree-dwelling apes to descend to the ground, thereby causing the transition from pre-human to human. No mass extinction necessary.
DAVID: At the level of adaptation I agree with you. But at speciation I disagree. Reviving the whale issue: just because the water was there doesn't mean they should have jumped in and change to a fish like form. The issue is the impediment of the enormous form and physiologic changes required.

(No other reasons for adaptation, then?) As I keep saying, it is often difficult to draw a line between adaptation and speciation – the whale being a prime example. I very much doubt that pre-whales would have said to themselves: “The water is there so let’s jump in.” It seems more likely they would have said, “There ain’t enough food here on the land, but there’s a helluva lot in the water, so let’s go get it.” I find that more feasible than imagining God preprogramming their eight stages 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbling with one part of their anatomy and saying, “Now go into the water for no particular reason” and then pulling them out again (or diving in himself) eight times to do more fiddles.

dhw: As for the bush of hominins, many not in our line, doesn’t that make you wonder why, if your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, he produced a bush? Doesn’t the bush suggest a free-for-all? Or a God who just isn’t in control and can’t get what he wants?
DAVID: As before He prefers evolution to reach His goals. He gets what He wants, and yes, limitations are possible.
dhw: One moment he’s in total control, the next moment he’s not, he can do it (early Cambrian), he can’t do it (bipedalism, sapiens’ brain), and the irrationality of wanting one thing and producing billions of others is explained by the fact that you think his mind works that way, and human logic is irrelevant.
DAVID: The Cambrian explosion, bipedalism, the human brain are all part of the history of God's evolutionary process and show His abilities. The limits may be that He has to use evolution, not direct creation with stages of life, and creates one species after an other to reach His goal.

We know they are all parts of the history, and according to you he can create directly when he wants to (early Cambrian) but otherwise can’t when he wants to (humans).

13684 views

DAVID: You refuse to accept the idea that God uses evolution in everything He creates. You are describing His process. Just as you don't understand the necessity for planning and design for speciation.

dhw: If God exists, and since I believe that evolution happened, then of course he would have used evolution, and I suggest that what he created was a mechanism that provided a vast higgledy-piggledy bush of organisms extant and extinct. You refuse to accept the idea that God might have WANTED a higgledy-piggledy bush of organisms extant and extinct, instead of wanting only one species and going all round a billion mulberry bushes to get it.

Once again you have skipped over the issue of food supply. If evolution had to occur then everyone has to have food to survive and balance of nature does that. If God simply created us and nothing else, do we eat each other?

dhw: I understand the necessity for design for speciation, and suggest that cell communities (perhaps endowed by your God with their intelligence) do the designing. I do not accept that every step of speciation had to be planned 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled in advance.

Design is required to create new species. Sorry you can't see that.

DAVID: At the level of adaptation I agree with you. But at speciation I disagree. Reviving the whale issue: just because the water was there doesn't mean they should have jumped in and change to a fish like form. The issue is the impediment of the enormous form and physiologic changes required.

dhw: (No other reasons for adaptation, then?) As I keep saying, it is often difficult to draw a line between adaptation and speciation – the whale being a prime example.

I don't know why you can't see a difference in adaptation and speciation. Adaptation is a minor change in an existing form. A new species has great differences in form and function and requires design and planning to achieve it.

dhw:I very much doubt that pre-whales would have said to themselves: “The water is there so let’s jump in.” It seems more likely they would have said, “There ain’t enough food here on the land, but there’s a helluva lot in the water, so let’s go get it.”

How much swimming have you done? Haven't you found it hard work, as a mammal, to move around quickly which is required to catch a prey? (I've used swimming as a physical training method for years because of that fact.)

dhw:I find that more feasible than imagining God preprogramming their eight stages 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbling with one part of their anatomy and saying, “Now go into the water for no particular reason” and then pulling them out again (or diving in himself) eight times to do more fiddles.

You are just as confused as I am about whales.

DAVID: The Cambrian explosion, bipedalism, the human brain are all part of the history of God's evolutionary process and show His abilities. The limits may be that He has to use evolution, not direct creation with stages of life, and creates one species after an other to reach His goal.

dhw: We know they are all parts of the history, and according to you he can create directly when he wants to (early Cambrian) but otherwise can’t when he wants to (humans).

The Cambrian starts abruptly and fits the concept of God's direct creation. But that was the same as God starting original life. Evidence He creates new beginnings of evolution and then evolves subsequent forms. He started bipedalism and then proceeded with an evolution of hominin forms. Fits history exactly.

13664 views

dhw: You refuse to accept the idea that God might have WANTED a higgledy-piggledy bush of organisms extant and extinct, instead of wanting only one species and going all round a billion mulberry bushes to get it.
DAVID: Once again you have skipped over the issue of food supply. If evolution had to occur then everyone has to have food to survive and balance of nature does that. If God simply created us and nothing else, do we eat each other?

And yet again the answer is that food supply is necessary for ALL organisms. But that does not mean that ALL organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders that ever existed were designed to keep life going until – after about 3.7 thousand million years – God was finally able to produce Homo sapiens! Even today, I doubt if you would eat a weaverbird’s nest, or a wasp that laid its eggs on a spider’s back, or a skull-shrinking shrew. And if they and we disappeared, life would still go on with a new “balance of nature”.

dhw: I understand the necessity for design for speciation, and suggest that cell communities (perhaps endowed by your God with their intelligence) do the designing. I do not accept that every step of speciation had to be planned 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled in advance.
DAVID: Design is required to create new species. Sorry you can't see that.

“I understand the necessity for design for speciation” means I think design is required for speciation. Where we disagree is on the how and when. No, I do not see that the design for evefy single speciation has to be accomplished by a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or by divine dabbling BEFORE conditions demand or allow the major changes that lead to speciation. I propose that intelligent cell communities RESPOND to new conditions by redesigning themselves, either by adaptation or by speciation.

dhw: As I keep saying, it is often difficult to draw a line between adaptation and speciation – the whale being a prime example.
DAVID: I don't know why you can't see a difference in adaptation and speciation. Adaptation is a minor change in an existing form. A new species has great differences in form and function and requires design and planning to achieve it.

The difference is between minor and major changes, and the borderlines are not always clear (e.g. the whale). My hypothesis proposes that both are RESPONSES to new conditions: yes to design, and no to advance planning.

dhw: I very much doubt that pre-whales would have said to themselves: “The water is there so let’s jump in.” It seems more likely they would have said, “There ain’t enough food here on the land, but there’s a helluva lot in the water, so let’s go get it.”
DAVID: How much swimming have you done? Haven't you found it hard work, as a mammal, to move around quickly which is required to catch a prey? (I've used swimming as a physical training method for years because of that fact.)

Polar bears are mammals and catch their prey, but you have missed the point as usual. Pre-whales may well have found it hard work to catch their prey in water. But when they decided that a life on the ocean wave was better for them than starving on dry land, the evolutionary mechanism would have got to work. Stage by stage (eight counted so far) they became more and more suited to marine life. The process is called evolution.

dhw:I find that more feasible than imagining God preprogramming their eight stages 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbling with one part of their anatomy and saying, “Now go into the water for no particular reason” and then pulling them out again (or diving in himself) eight times to do more fiddles.
DAVID: You are just as confused as I am about whales.

I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?

DAVID: The Cambrian explosion, bipedalism, the human brain are all part of the history of God's evolutionary process and show His abilities. The limits may be that He has to use evolution, not direct creation with stages of life, and creates one species after an other to reach His goal.
dhw: We know they are all parts of the history, and according to you he can create directly when he wants to (early Cambrian) but otherwise can’t when he wants to (humans).
DAVID: The Cambrian starts abruptly and fits the concept of God's direct creation. But that was the same as God starting original life. Evidence He creates new beginnings of evolution and then evolves subsequent forms. He started bipedalism and then proceeded with an evolution of hominin forms. Fits history exactly.

Why “but” that was the same? If he could create directly then, what stopped him from creating directly later on? What is the explanation that “fits history exactly”? You have simply described history: new forms evolve into different forms. How does that explain why your God, who is able to create what he wants directly, created a billion forms, lifestyles and natural wonders that have no conceivable link to the production of Homo sapiens? Suggestion: he WANTED the higgledy-piggledy bush, and not just Homo sapiens. Is that not a feasible theistic explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush?

13655 views

DAVID: Once again you have skipped over the issue of food supply. If evolution had to occur then everyone has to have food to survive and balance of nature does that. If God simply created us and nothing else, do we eat each other?

dhw: And yet again the answer is that food supply is necessary for ALL organisms.... Even today, I doubt if you would eat a weaverbird’s nest, or a wasp that laid its eggs on a spider’s back, or a skull-shrinking shrew. And if they and we disappeared, life would still go on with a new “balance of nature”.

Your answer ignores the eco-niche of each area of balance. I eat in my own.

DAVID: Design is required to create new species. Sorry you can't see that.

dhw: “I understand the necessity for design for speciation” means I think design is required for speciation. Where we disagree is on the how and when. No, I do not see that the design for evefy single speciation has to be accomplished by a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or by divine dabbling BEFORE conditions demand or allow the major changes that lead to speciation. I propose that intelligent cell communities RESPOND to new conditions by redesigning themselves, either by adaptation or by speciation.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of 'design'. Design requires planning to cerate a working design for a new organism.

DAVID: I don't know why you can't see a difference in adaptation and speciation. Adaptation is a minor change in an existing form. A new species has great differences in form and function and requires design and planning to achieve it.

dhw: The difference is between minor and major changes, and the borderlines are not always clear (e.g. the whale). My hypothesis proposes that both are RESPONSES to new conditions: yes to design, and no to advance planning.

As above designing must involve advanced planning before design is created. And you are forgetting the huge gaps in the fossil record, which is especially seen in the whale series in which each step is so different from the past one.

DAVID: How much swimming have you done? Haven't you found it hard work, as a mammal, to move around quickly which is required to catch a prey? (I've used swimming as a physical training method for years because of that fact.)

dhw: Polar bears are mammals and catch their prey, but you have missed the point as usual. Pre-whales may well have found it hard work to catch their prey in water. But when they decided that a life on the ocean wave was better for them than starving on dry land, the evolutionary mechanism would have got to work. Stage by stage (eight counted so far) they became more and more suited to marine life. The process is called evolution.

Polar bears are still polar bears after 150,000 years, evolving from brown bears. And you know that mammals made their own decision to enter the water. Perhaps God made the decision for them by transforming them in stages.

dhw:I find that more feasible than imagining God preprogramming their eight stages 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbling with one part of their anatomy and saying, “Now go into the water for no particular reason” and then pulling them out again (or diving in himself) eight times to do more fiddles.
DAVID: You are just as confused as I am about whales.

dhw: I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?

The process is exactly what I propose. God-directed change.

DAVID: The Cambrian starts abruptly and fits the concept of God's direct creation. But that was the same as God starting original life. Evidence He creates new beginnings of evolution and then evolves subsequent forms. He started bipedalism and then proceeded with an evolution of hominin forms. Fits history exactly.

dhw: Why “but” that was the same? If he could create directly then, what stopped him from creating directly later on? What is the explanation that “fits history exactly”? You have simply described history: new forms evolve into different forms. How does that explain why your God, who is able to create what he wants directly, created a billion forms, lifestyles and natural wonders that have no conceivable link to the production of Homo sapiens? Suggestion: he WANTED the higgledy-piggledy bush, and not just Homo sapiens. Is that not a feasible theistic explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush?

Because history shows what history shows. God prefers starting stages and then evolving. Fits history perfectly. In the bush you are trying to interpret His mind. I just read history.

13672 views

DAVID: Once again you have skipped over the issue of food supply. If evolution had to occur then everyone has to have food to survive and balance of nature does that. If God simply created us and nothing else, do we eat each other?
dhw: And yet again the answer is that food supply is necessary for ALL organisms.... Even today, I doubt if you would eat a weaverbird’s nest, or a wasp that laid its eggs on a spider’s back, or a skull-shrinking shrew. And if they and we disappeared, life would still go on with a new “balance of nature”.
DAVID: Your answer ignores the eco-niche of each area of balance. I eat in my own.

So if God’s purpose was to produce you and the food you eat in your own eco-niche, why did he specially design the nest, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the skull-shrinking shrew and the duckbilled platypus etc.? Or are you going to tell me that life couldn’t have gone on without them?

DAVID: You seem to misunderstand the meaning of 'design'. Design requires planning to create a working design for a new organism.

So do you think humans designed umbrellas before rain fell on them, medicines before they got ill, warm clothes before they felt cold? We design things IN RESPONSE to need or to the opportunity for improvement. Carnivorous humans needed to kill animals. Then they designed their spears. My whale hypothesis: whales needed food, which they found in the water. Once they were in the water, they needed to make changes to their bodies. The cell communities designed the changes in response to that need. No planning in advance of the need. I suggest that organic design is a response to need or opportunity for improvement, just as it is for human design.

DAVID: ...you are forgetting the huge gaps in the fossil record, which is especially seen in the whale series in which each step is so different from the past one.

In my hypothesis, the cell communities are capable of designing saltations – as opposed to your God providing the first living cells with a programme to pass on for every saltation for every innovation throughout the history of evolution (or alternatively dabbling each one personally), just to keep life going till he can produce Homo sapiens.

DAVID: [..] And you know that mammals made their own decision to enter the water. Perhaps God made the decision for them by transforming them in stages.

I don’t “know” anything – it’s a hypothesis. You are constantly talking of purpose, but you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that organisms might have a purpose of their own; namely, survival and/or improvement. And if God exists, he may have given them the means to try and achieve that purpose.

DAVID: You are just as confused as I am about whales.
dhw: I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?
DAVID: The process is exactly what I propose. God-directed change.

Which you say leaves you confused. So what is confusing about the process I have proposed above?

dhw: Suggestion: he WANTED the higgledy-piggledy bush, and not just Homo sapiens. Is that not a feasible theistic explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush?
DAVID: Because history shows what history shows. God prefers starting stages and then evolving. Fits history perfectly. In the bush you are trying to interpret His mind. I just read history.

I thought your reading of history was based on what you believe to be God’s purpose (which is your attempt to read his mind): that he planned every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. But you are confused because you don’t know why he had to produce the eight stages of whale, or (in an earlier post which I don’t have time to look for now) why he had to produce the big universe if all he wanted was us, or whether he has limitations or not. But you are right: starting stages and evolution fit history perfectly. It’s just your theory of your God’s motive and method that doesn’t fit history and causes you so much confusion.

13646 views

DAVID: Your answer ignores the eco-niche of each area of balance. I eat in my own.

dhw: So if God’s purpose was to produce you and the food you eat in your own eco-niche, why did he specially design the nest, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the skull-shrinking shrew and the duckbilled platypus etc.? Or are you going to tell me that life couldn’t have gone on without them?

Each econiche has is own balance and all the econiches contributed to the overall balance of total nature.

DAVID: You seem to misunderstand the meaning of 'design'. Design requires planning to create a working design for a new organism.

dhw: My whale hypothesis: whales needed food, which they found in the water. Once they were in the water, they needed to make changes to their bodies. The cell communities designed the changes in response to that need. No planning in advance of the need. I suggest that organic design is a response to need or opportunity for improvement, just as it is for human design.

Left out of your hypothesis: the gap in fossil record. Each new whale series species is an extensive change in body form and function, nothing simple. All new parts must be coordinated before the new organism can function properly. It is impossible your cell communities had he ability to plan the designs needed.

DAVID: ...you are forgetting the huge gaps in the fossil record, which is especially seen in the whale series in which each step is so different from the past one.

dhw: In my hypothesis, the cell communities are capable of designing saltations – as opposed to your God providing the first living cells with a programme to pass on for every saltation for every innovation throughout the history of evolution (or alternatively dabbling each one personally), just to keep life going till he can produce Homo sapiens.

And I view it as logically impossible. All cell changes we know about are simple adaptations.

DAVID: [..] And you know that mammals made their own decision to enter the water. Perhaps God made the decision for them by transforming them in stages.

dhw: You are constantly talking of purpose, but you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that organisms might have a purpose of their own; namely, survival and/or improvement. And if God exists, he may have given them the means to try and achieve that purpose.

All life is homeostasis in action. All life's activity shows purpose, but that doesn't translate to speciation, much as you might wish it.

dhw: I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?

DAVID: The process is exactly what I propose. God-directed change.

dhw: Which you say leaves you confused. So what is confusing about the process I have proposed above?

It leaves out the mental activity required.

DAVID: Because history shows what history shows. God prefers starting stages and then evolving. Fits history perfectly. In the bush you are trying to interpret His mind. I just read history.

dhw: But you are confused because you don’t know why he had to produce the eight stages of whale, or (in an earlier post which I don’t have time to look for now) why he had to produce the big universe if all he wanted was us, or whether he has limitations or not. But you are right: starting stages and evolution fit history perfectly. It’s just your theory of your God’s motive and method that doesn’t fit history and causes you so much confusion.

I'm not confused. I question the need for such a design-requiring effort. I have a whale purpose theory expressed before. The whales are necessary for the oceans's balance of nature. Their decomposing dead bodies benefit ocean floor organisms. I've seen papers on the subject. Perhaps God's point is: look at what I can do with my powers, reversing the course of evolution from mammals on land to put them back in water where life came from. But that is a tongue-in-cheek view and I don't believe it.

13667 views

dhw: So if God’s purpose was to produce you and the food you eat in your own eco-niche, why did he specially design the nest, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back, the skull-shrinking shrew and the duckbilled platypus etc.? Or are you going to tell me that life couldn’t have gone on without them?
DAVID: Each econiche has is own balance and all the econiches contributed to the overall balance of total nature.

Which constantly changes. I agree. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

dhw: My whale hypothesis: whales needed food, which they found in the water. Once they were in the water, they needed to make changes to their bodies. The cell communities designed the changes in response to that need. No planning in advance of the need. I suggest that organic design is a response to need or opportunity for improvement, just as it is for human design.
DAVID: Left out of your hypothesis: the gap in fossil record.

Not left out. You quoted my answer in the very next exchange:

dhw: In my hypothesis, the cell communities are capable of designing saltations – as opposed to your God providing the first living cells with a programme to pass on for every saltation for every innovation throughout the history of evolution (or alternatively dabbling each one personally), just to keep life going till he can produce Homo sapiens.
DAVID: And I view it as logically impossible. All cell changes we know about are simple adaptations.

All the major changes are cell changes! The question is how they happen. My hypothesis is based on the fact that we know there is an autonomous mechanism capable of making minor changes. Nobody knows the mechanism for major changes, but the same autonomous mechanism is at least as “logical” as a 3.8-billion-year-old divine computer programme or a divine dabble for every single major change, plus lifestyle plus natural wonder.

dhw: You are constantly talking of purpose, but you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that organisms might have a purpose of their own; namely, survival and/or improvement. And if God exists, he may have given them the means to try and achieve that purpose.
DAVID: All life is homeostasis in action. All life's activity shows purpose, but that doesn't translate to speciation, much as you might wish it.

Nor does it translate to a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or divine dabbling all for the purpose of Homo sapiens’ brain, much as you might wish it. And the whale explanation you offer and reject below leaves you with no explanation at all, although you still refuse to consider mine.

dhw: I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?
DAVID: The process is exactly what I propose. God-directed change.
dhw: Which you say leaves you confused. So what is confusing about the process I have proposed above?
DAVID: It leaves out the mental activity required.

The whole hypothesis is based on the concept of cellular intelligence, as advocated by various experts in the field. Intelligence can be equated with mental activity. You may question whether that exists, but the concept could hardly be clearer, so why do you find it “confusing”?

DAVID: Because history shows what history shows. God prefers starting stages and then evolving. Fits history perfectly. In the bush you are trying to interpret His mind. I just read history.
dhw: But you are confused because you don’t know why he had to produce the eight stages of whale, or (in an earlier post which I don’t have time to look for now) why he had to produce the big universe if all he wanted was us, or whether he has limitations or not. But you are right: starting stages and evolution fit history perfectly. It’s just your theory of your God’s motive and method that doesn’t fit history and causes you so much confusion.
DAVID: I'm not confused.

You wrote: “You are just as confused as I am about whales.” So you are confused but you are not confused. Don’t you find that confusing?

DAVID: I question the need for such a design-requiring effort. I have a whale purpose theory expressed before. The whales are necessary for the ocean's balance of nature. Their decomposing dead bodies benefit ocean floor organisms. I've seen papers on the subject. Perhaps God's point is: look at what I can do with my powers, reversing the course of evolution from mammals on land to put them back in water where life came from. But that is a tongue-in-cheek view and I don't believe it.

We all know that organisms feed on other organisms. Once again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being to create the brain of Homo sapiens! Now the only alternative to your anthropocentric explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush is a show-off God – a hypothesis you yourself don’t believe in. So your existing hypothesis still leaves you just as confused as ever, but unwilling to consider a hypothesis which you keep agreeing DOES fit the history.
X

13695 views

DAVID: Each econiche has is own balance and all the econiches contributed to the overall balance of total nature.

dhw: Which constantly changes. I agree. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

It provides the food energy for evolution to reach the stage for the production of the brain.

DAVID: Left out of your hypothesis: the gap in fossil record.

Not left out. You quoted my answer in the very next exchange:

dhw: In my hypothesis, the cell communities are capable of designing saltations – as opposed to your God providing the first living cells with a programme to pass on for every saltation for every innovation throughout the history of evolution (or alternatively dabbling each one personally), just to keep life going till he can produce Homo sapiens.

DAVID: And I view it as logically impossible. All cell changes we know about are simple adaptations.

Cell communities do not have the mental capacity to cause speciation. That is the point of intelligent design.

dhw: All the major changes are cell changes! The question is how they happen. My hypothesis is based on the fact that we know there is an autonomous mechanism capable of making minor changes. Nobody knows the mechanism for major changes, but the same autonomous mechanism is at least as “logical” as a 3.8-billion-year-old divine computer programme or a divine dabble for every single major change, plus lifestyle plus natural wonder.

Answered above.

dhw: I know you are confused about whales. What is confusing about the process I have described above?
DAVID: The process is exactly what I propose. God-directed change.
dhw: Which you say leaves you confused. So what is confusing about the process I have proposed above?
DAVID: It leaves out the mental activity required.

dhw: The whole hypothesis is based on the concept of cellular intelligence, as advocated by various experts in the field. Intelligence can be equated with mental activity. You may question whether that exists, but the concept could hardly be clearer, so why do you find it “confusing”?

Cells are not intelligent enough to arrange for speciation. Your hypothesis is a minnow of an idea expanded into whale.

DAVID: I'm not confused.

You wrote: “You are just as confused as I am about whales.” So you are confused but you are not confused. Don’t you find that confusing?

DAVID: I question the need for such a design-requiring effort. I have a whale purpose theory expressed before. The whales are necessary for the ocean's balance of nature. Their decomposing dead bodies benefit ocean floor organisms. I've seen papers on the subject. Perhaps God's point is: look at what I can do with my powers, reversing the course of evolution from mammals on land to put them back in water where life came from. But that is a tongue-in-cheek view and I don't believe it.

dhw: We all know that organisms feed on other organisms. Once again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being to create the brain of Homo sapiens!

To supply the energy for life to proceed to the achievement of the brain.

13649 views

DAVID: Each econiche has is own balance and all the econiches contributed to the overall balance of total nature.

dhw: Which constantly changes. I agree. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s prime purpose being to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: It provides the food energy for evolution to reach the stage for the production of the brain.

I’m afraid I shall never understand why your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest and eight different stages of whale to provide food energy for evolution to reach the stage for the production of the brain.

dhw: In my hypothesis, the cell communities are capable of designing saltations – as opposed to your God providing the first living cells with a programme to pass on for every saltation for every innovation throughout the history of evolution (or alternatively dabbling each one personally), just to keep life going till he can produce Homo sapiens.

DAVID: Cell communities do not have the mental capacity to cause speciation. That is the point of intelligent design.
And later: Cells are not intelligent enough to arrange for speciation. Your hypothesis is a minnow of an idea expanded into whale.

Spoken with great authority, but I love the image! However, I still find my hypothesis more believable than one in which your God preprogrammes the first living cell to turn some of its descendants into minnows to turn into eight stages of whale so that they can provide food to keep life going until the programme produces various hominins and hominids and humans until it produces the brain of Homo sapiens and the duckbilled platypus.

13687 views

DAVID: Cell communities do not have the mental capacity to cause speciation. That is the point of intelligent design.
And later: Cells are not intelligent enough to arrange for speciation. Your hypothesis is a minnow of an idea expanded into whale.

dhw: Spoken with great authority, but I love the image! However, I still find my hypothesis more believable than one in which your God preprogrammes the first living cell to turn some of its descendants into minnows to turn into eight stages of whale so that they can provide food to keep life going until the programme produces various hominins and hominids and humans until it produces the brain of Homo sapiens and the duckbilled platypus.

You are out of sequence. The platypus appeared millions of years before hominins.

13602 views

DAVID: Cell communities do not have the mental capacity to cause speciation. That is the point of intelligent design.
And later: Cells are not intelligent enough to arrange for speciation. Your hypothesis is a minnow of an idea expanded into whale.

dhw: Spoken with great authority, but I love the image! However, I still find my hypothesis more believable than one in which your God preprogrammes the first living cell to turn some of its descendants into minnows to turn into eight stages of whale so that they can provide food to keep life going until the programme produces various hominins and hominids and humans until it produces the brain of Homo sapiens and the duckbilled platypus.

DAVID: You are out of sequence. The platypus appeared millions of years before hominins.

Fair comment. I just like to bring it in as an example of all the weird and wonderful things your God either dabbled personally or preprogrammed to be passed on by the very first living cells. I just don’t understand why they required just as much of his personal attention as Homo sapiens: “I gotta specially design eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest and the duckbilled platypus so life can go on until I specially design H.S. and his brain.” However, the next exchange seems to me to offer a much more promising approach:

DAVID’s comment (under "Universe too big"): It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!
dhw: Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.
DAVID: It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.

Yes, anything is possible. And what a wonderfully “humanized” picture of your God you are now presenting to us. "Wow, look at them there wonders that my autonomous evolutionary mechanism has just thrown up...another type o' pre-whale, the weaver's nest and what is THAT? A duckbilled platypus! What a great show! Can't wait to see how evolution turns out next." And even: "Humans at last! Can't wait to see how their civilizations turn out!"

13853 views

dhw: However, the next exchange seems to me to offer a much more promising approach:

DAVID’s comment (under "Universe too big"): It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!
dhw: Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.
DAVID: It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.

dhw: Yes, anything is possible. And what a wonderfully “humanized” picture of your God you are now presenting to us. "Wow, look at them there wonders that my autonomous evolutionary mechanism has just thrown up...another type o' pre-whale, the weaver's nest and what is THAT? A duckbilled platypus! What a great show! Can't wait to see how evolution turns out next." And even: "Humans at last! Can't wait to see how their civilizations turn out!"

Glad you like it. More than one Earth, each in a different galaxy is possible. Doesn't make God any more human, just an experimenter.

13576 views

DAVID: It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.

dhw: Yes, anything is possible. And what a wonderfully “humanized” picture of your God you are now presenting to us. "Wow, look at them there wonders that my autonomous evolutionary mechanism has just thrown up...another type o' pre-whale, the weaver's nest and what is THAT? A duckbilled platypus! What a great show! Can't wait to see how evolution turns out next." And even: "Humans at last! Can't wait to see how their civilizations turn out!"

DAVID: Glad you like it. More than one Earth, each in a different galaxy is possible. Doesn't make God any more human, just an experimenter.

A being who experiments with different things to see how they turn out sounds just as “human” to me as a being who invents a mechanism that produces different things so he can see how they turn out. But I’m not complaining. It’s good to see you at last considering these different possibilities. There was a time, I remember, when you vehemently dismissed the idea of God experimenting here on Earth, since you then thought he was in total control and knew exactly what he was doing all the time.

13612 views

DAVID: Glad you like it. More than one Earth, each in a different galaxy is possible. Doesn't make God any more human, just an experimenter.

dhw: A being who experiments with different things to see how they turn out sounds just as “human” to me as a being who invents a mechanism that produces different things so he can see how they turn out. But I’m not complaining. It’s good to see you at last considering these different possibilities. There was a time, I remember, when you vehemently dismissed the idea of God experimenting here on Earth, since you then thought he was in total control and knew exactly what he was doing all the time.

I haven't changed my view of God. He is in total control even if experimenting.

13687 views

DAVID: Glad you like it. More than one Earth, each in a different galaxy is possible. Doesn't make God any more human, just an experimenter.

dhw: A being who experiments with different things to see how they turn out sounds just as “human” to me as a being who invents a mechanism that produces different things so he can see how they turn out. But I’m not complaining. It’s good to see you at last considering these different possibilities. There was a time, I remember, when you vehemently dismissed the idea of God experimenting here on Earth, since you then thought he was in total control and knew exactly what he was doing all the time.

DAVID: I haven't changed my view of God. He is in total control even if experimenting.

Once more, I am delighted that you are willing to consider different “humanized” motives for your God’s actions. I am also delighted at the implications of your God experimenting. Experimenting with different things "to see how they turn out" would provide a good theistic explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and humans could then have come to mind late on during his experiments. Not preplanned at all. Alternatively, he could initially have wanted to produce a being that could think like him, but didn’t know how to do it. That is another motive for experimentation. You dismissed these theistic ideas before, but now that you are willing to see him as an experimenter, perhaps you will reconsider.

13678 views

DAVID: Glad you like it. More than one Earth, each in a different galaxy is possible. Doesn't make God any more human, just an experimenter.

dhw: A being who experiments with different things to see how they turn out sounds just as “human” to me as a being who invents a mechanism that produces different things so he can see how they turn out. But I’m not complaining. It’s good to see you at last considering these different possibilities. There was a time, I remember, when you vehemently dismissed the idea of God experimenting here on Earth, since you then thought he was in total control and knew exactly what he was doing all the time.

DAVID: I haven't changed my view of God. He is in total control even if experimenting.

dhw: Once more, I am delighted that you are willing to consider different “humanized” motives for your God’s actions. I am also delighted at the implications of your God experimenting. Experimenting with different things "to see how they turn out" would provide a good theistic explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and humans could then have come to mind late on during his experiments. Not preplanned at all. Alternatively, he could initially have wanted to produce a being that could think like him, but didn’t know how to do it. That is another motive for experimentation. You dismissed these theistic ideas before, but now that you are willing to see him as an experimenter, perhaps you will reconsider.

I don't see my suggestions as humanizing God. Setting up different free will human civilizations does not change my view, and also Adler's, that God might not be that interested in us as individuals (religious view) but to watch how different civilizations in different galaxies develop. Each chosen galaxy has to be specially prepared for life. I'm simply accepting the possibility that the universe is huge because our group of humans is not the only ones.

13618 views

DAVID: I haven't changed my view of God. He is in total control even if experimenting.

dhw: Once more, I am delighted that you are willing to consider different “humanized” motives for your God’s actions. I am also delighted at the implications of your God experimenting. Experimenting with different things "to see how they turn out" would provide a good theistic explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and humans could then have come to mind late on during his experiments. Not preplanned at all. Alternatively, he could initially have wanted to produce a being that could think like him, but didn’t know how to do it. That is another motive for experimentation. You dismissed these theistic ideas before, but now that you are willing to see him as an experimenter, perhaps you will reconsider.

DAVID: I don't see my suggestions as humanizing God. Setting up different free will human civilizations does not change my view, and also Adler's, that God might not be that interested in us as individuals (religious view) but to watch how different civilizations in different galaxies develop. Each chosen galaxy has to be specially prepared for life. I'm simply accepting the possibility that the universe is huge because our group of humans is not the only ones.

I did not say he was interested in individuals. You have offered us the hypothesis that he might be watching different civilizations “to see how they turn out”. That is exactly the same process as watching the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution to “see how it turns out”. Earlier on in our years of discussion you rejected the whole idea that he might be experimenting, and you continue to reject the idea of a “show” that he can watch. Now you are putting the two together, though why you think the show has to be confined to human beings even in other galaxies I really don’t know.

13645 views

dhw: I did not say he was interested in individuals. You have offered us the hypothesis that he might be watching different civilizations “to see how they turn out”. That is exactly the same process as watching the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution to “see how it turns out”. Earlier on in our years of discussion you rejected the whole idea that he might be experimenting, and you continue to reject the idea of a “show” that he can watch. Now you are putting the two together, though why you think the show has to be confined to human beings even in other galaxies I really don’t know.

Our difference is I see God as pure purpose, not needing a show (humanizing) for His entertainment. How do you know He needs entertainment?

13738 views

dhw: I did not say he was interested in individuals. You have offered us the hypothesis that he might be watching different civilizations “to see how they turn out”. That is exactly the same process as watching the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution to “see how it turns out”. Earlier on in our years of discussion you rejected the whole idea that he might be experimenting, and you continue to reject the idea of a “show” that he can watch. Now you are putting the two together, though why you think the show has to be confined to human beings even in other galaxies I really don’t know.

DAVID: Our difference is I see God as pure purpose, not needing a show (humanizing) for His entertainment. How do you know He needs entertainment?

What on earth or in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? Purpose must have some kind of defining quality! Seeing how things turn out is no more “pure” than watching a show. Of course I don’t “know” if he was bored with the prospect of eternal introspection (neither of us “knows” whether he even exists), any more than you “know” that his purpose for creating life was to create humans who would think about him and with whom he could have a relationship (you proposed these “purposes”), or that he built galaxies to house lots more humans to see how their civilizations would turn out. Your speculations are just as “impure” and just as humanizing as mine. And how could they be otherwise?

13728 views

dhw: I did not say he was interested in individuals. You have offered us the hypothesis that he might be watching different civilizations “to see how they turn out”. That is exactly the same process as watching the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution to “see how it turns out”. Earlier on in our years of discussion you rejected the whole idea that he might be experimenting, and you continue to reject the idea of a “show” that he can watch. Now you are putting the two together, though why you think the show has to be confined to human beings even in other galaxies I really don’t know.

DAVID: Our difference is I see God as pure purpose, not needing a show (humanizing) for His entertainment. How do you know He needs entertainment?

dhw: What on earth or in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? Purpose must have some kind of defining quality! Seeing how things turn out is no more “pure” than watching a show. Of course I don’t “know” if he was bored with the prospect of eternal introspection (neither of us “knows” whether he even exists), any more than you “know” that his purpose for creating life was to create humans who would think about him and with whom he could have a relationship (you proposed these “purposes”), or that he built galaxies to house lots more humans to see how their civilizations would turn out. Your speculations are just as “impure” and just as humanizing as mine. And how could they be otherwise?

I believe God is a personality, unlike ours, fully driven by purpose. I don't 'know'. I have developed faith based on a logical, for me, series of conclusions from scientific discoveries. Of course I think in human terms. Your faith for yourself is: "I cannot know much as I might wish to".

13681 views

DAVID: Our difference is I see God as pure purpose, not needing a show (humanizing) for His entertainment. How do you know He needs entertainment?

dhw: What on earth or in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? Purpose must have some kind of defining quality! Seeing how things turn out is no more “pure” than watching a show. Of course I don’t “know” if he was bored with the prospect of eternal introspection (neither of us “knows” whether he even exists), any more than you “know” that his purpose for creating life was to create humans who would think about him and with whom he could have a relationship (you proposed these “purposes”), or that he built galaxies to house lots more humans to see how their civilizations would turn out. Your speculations are just as “impure” and just as humanizing as mine. And how could they be otherwise?

DAVID: I believe God is a personality, unlike ours, fully driven by purpose. I don't 'know'. I have developed faith based on a logical, for me, series of conclusions from scientific discoveries. Of course I think in human terms. Your faith for yourself is: "I cannot know much as I might wish to".

But what is the purpose??? You say it was to produce humans with whom he could have a relationship, but he might have produced more humans elsewhere so he could see how their civilizations turned out. The faith you have logically developed from your knowledge of science is in the existence of a God. The faith you have developed in his purpose for creating life has nothing whatsoever to do with science. As for my “faith”, an acknowledgement of my ignorance can hardly be called faith, and nor can the wish to know more. Faith requires a positive belief in something. My agnosticism is the opposite: it is the inability to have a positive belief in any of the three hypotheses, unless you wish to describe as “faith” the belief that I can’t believe in any of the three hypotheses!

13637 views

DAVID: Our difference is I see God as pure purpose, not needing a show (humanizing) for His entertainment. How do you know He needs entertainment?

dhw: What on earth or in heaven’s name is “pure purpose”? Purpose must have some kind of defining quality! Seeing how things turn out is no more “pure” than watching a show. Of course I don’t “know” if he was bored with the prospect of eternal introspection (neither of us “knows” whether he even exists), any more than you “know” that his purpose for creating life was to create humans who would think about him and with whom he could have a relationship (you proposed these “purposes”), or that he built galaxies to house lots more humans to see how their civilizations would turn out. Your speculations are just as “impure” and just as humanizing as mine. And how could they be otherwise?

DAVID: I believe God is a personality, unlike ours, fully driven by purpose. I don't 'know'. I have developed faith based on a logical, for me, series of conclusions from scientific discoveries. Of course I think in human terms. Your faith for yourself is: "I cannot know much as I might wish to".

dhw: But what is the purpose??? You say it was to produce humans with whom he could have a relationship, but he might have produced more humans elsewhere so he could see how their civilizations turned out. The faith you have logically developed from your knowledge of science is in the existence of a God. The faith you have developed in his purpose for creating life has nothing whatsoever to do with science. As for my “faith”, an acknowledgement of my ignorance can hardly be called faith, and nor can the wish to know more. Faith requires a positive belief in something. My agnosticism is the opposite: it is the inability to have a positive belief in any of the three hypotheses, unless you wish to describe as “faith” the belief that I can’t believe in any of the three hypotheses!

I should have read this entry first. My answer is written:

Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 15:03 :

Your phrase, 'closer to the truth' is the key to your thinking. I view one of the three as THE truth. You imply there is possibly a fourth way or more and we can never know for sure, and you cannot except anything beyond absolute proof.

13582 views

DAVID: I believe God is a personality, unlike ours, fully driven by purpose. I don't 'know'. I have developed faith based on a logical, for me, series of conclusions from scientific discoveries. Of course I think in human terms. Your faith for yourself is: "I cannot know much as I might wish to".

dhw: But what is the purpose??? You say it was to produce humans with whom he could have a relationship, but he might have produced more humans elsewhere so he could see how their civilizations turned out. The faith you have logically developed from your knowledge of science is in the existence of a God. The faith you have developed in his purpose for creating life has nothing whatsoever to do with science. As for my “faith”, an acknowledgement of my ignorance can hardly be called faith, and nor can the wish to know more. Faith requires a positive belief in something. My agnosticism is the opposite: it is the inability to have a positive belief in any of the three hypotheses, unless you wish to describe as “faith” the belief that I can’t believe in any of the three hypotheses!

DAVID: I should have read this entry first. My answer is written:
Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 15:03 :
Your phrase, 'closer to the truth' is the key to your thinking. I view one of the three as THE truth. You imply there is possibly a fourth way or more and we can never know for sure, and you cannot except anything beyond absolute proof.

Answered on the fossils thread, but yours is NOT an answer to my comment on “purpose”, which has been a major point of disagreement between us. If God exists, I would also see him as full of purpose, and for years we have argued the toss about your contention that the purpose of the whole higgledy-piggledy bush, with all its allegedly specially designed innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, was to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of God or with science. It is a speculation that raises question after question, which you admit you cannot answer, and yet you refuse to consider an alternative which you agree fits in with the whole history.

13626 views

DAVID: I should have read this entry first. My answer is written:
Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 15:03 :
Your phrase, 'closer to the truth' is the key to your thinking. I view one of the three as THE truth. You imply there is possibly a fourth way or more and we can never know for sure, and you cannot except anything beyond absolute proof.

dhw: Answered on the fossils thread, but yours is NOT an answer to my comment on “purpose”, which has been a major point of disagreement between us. If God exists, I would also see him as full of purpose, and for years we have argued the toss about your contention that the purpose of the whole higgledy-piggledy bush, with all its allegedly specially designed innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, was to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of God or with science. It is a speculation that raises question after question, which you admit you cannot answer, and yet you refuse to consider an alternative which you agree fits in with the whole history.

Your approach turns God into a spectator of His creation which He enjoys, I assume. I avoid humanizing Him as much as I can considering I think as a human and He is a personality like no other personality, i.e., not a human personality.

13686 views

dhw: If God exists, I would also see him as full of purpose, and for years we have argued the toss about your contention that the purpose of the whole higgledy-piggledy bush, with all its allegedly specially designed innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, was to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of God or with science. It is a speculation that raises question after question, which you admit you cannot answer, and yet you refuse to consider an alternative which you agree fits in with the whole history.

DAVID: Your approach turns God into a spectator of His creation which He enjoys, I assume. I avoid humanizing Him as much as I can considering I think as a human and He is a personality like no other personality, i.e., not a human personality.

But you have acknowledged in the past that he and we may well share certain characteristics. You “avoid humanizing him” because although you believe he is full of purpose, you would rather not tell us what you think that purpose might be. However, when pressed, you speculate that he wants us to think about him, wants a relationship with us, watches us with interest (= God as spectator), and I recall that some time ago his creation of nasty things was a means of making us use the intelligence he has given us (also fits in nicely with the spectacle hypothesis). But looming over all these humanizing (and why not, if our consciousness is part of his?) speculations is your insistence that the purpose behind the whole history of life is US. As we keep seeing, this interpretation of evolution leads you into a labyrinth of anomalies which you cannot escape from, and yet you still refuse to consider an alternative THEISTIC interpretation which would give you a direct route out!

13577 views

dhw: If God exists, I would also see him as full of purpose, and for years we have argued the toss about your contention that the purpose of the whole higgledy-piggledy bush, with all its allegedly specially designed innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, was to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with the EXISTENCE of God or with science. It is a speculation that raises question after question, which you admit you cannot answer, and yet you refuse to consider an alternative which you agree fits in with the whole history.

DAVID: Your approach turns God into a spectator of His creation which He enjoys, I assume. I avoid humanizing Him as much as I can considering I think as a human and He is a personality like no other personality, i.e., not a human personality.

dhw: But you have acknowledged in the past that he and we may well share certain characteristics. You “avoid humanizing him” because although you believe he is full of purpose, you would rather not tell us what you think that purpose might be. However, when pressed, you speculate that he wants us to think about him, wants a relationship with us, watches us with interest (= God as spectator), and I recall that some time ago his creation of nasty things was a means of making us use the intelligence he has given us (also fits in nicely with the spectacle hypothesis). But looming over all these humanizing (and why not, if our consciousness is part of his?) speculations is your insistence that the purpose behind the whole history of life is US. As we keep seeing, this interpretation of evolution leads you into a labyrinth of anomalies which you cannot escape from, and yet you still refuse to consider an alternative THEISTIC interpretation which would give you a direct route out!

I'm perfectly content with my approach. I'm sorry that you see them as anomalies from your human point of view. We will remain apart. You refuse to see the problem in our existence. We are not required by an evolutionary process that is considered to be the result of challenges and stresses and opportunities. Throw out Darwin evolution theory completely, accept God as in control and your problems disappear.

13626 views

DAVID: Your approach turns God into a spectator of His creation which He enjoys, I assume. I avoid humanizing Him as much as I can considering I think as a human and He is a personality like no other personality, i.e., not a human personality.

dhw: But you have acknowledged in the past that he and we may well share certain characteristics. You “avoid humanizing him” because although you believe he is full of purpose, you would rather not tell us what you think that purpose might be. However, when pressed, you speculate that he wants us to think about him, wants a relationship with us, watches us with interest (= God as spectator), and I recall that some time ago his creation of nasty things was a means of making us use the intelligence he has given us (also fits in nicely with the spectacle hypothesis). But looming over all these humanizing (and why not, if our consciousness is part of his?) speculations is your insistence that the purpose behind the whole history of life is US. As we keep seeing, this interpretation of evolution leads you into a labyrinth of anomalies which you cannot escape from, and yet you still refuse to consider an alternative THEISTIC interpretation which would give you a direct route out!

DAVID: I'm perfectly content with my approach. I'm sorry that you see them as anomalies from your human point of view.

I hope you’re not telling me that your approach is from your God’s point of view! I shan’t go over the anomalies again, since you have so often agreed that you can’t explain them.

DAVID: We will remain apart. You refuse to see the problem in our existence. We are not required by an evolutionary process that is considered to be the result of challenges and stresses and opportunities. Throw out Darwin evolution theory completely, accept God as in control and your problems disappear.

You refuse to see that what you call the problem in our existence applies to every other organism that developed after bacteria: none of them were “required”. But all the changes that followed on from multicellularity, including those that led to humans, can be explained by a drive for survival and/or improvement. If you throw out Darwin completely, you have to reject the heart of his theory which is common descent, and until today you have always believed in it. Throw out your insistence that you know God’s anthropocentric purpose and that he preprogammed or personally dabbled every twig of the vast bush, including the weaverbird’s nest, eight stages of whale, and the duckbilled platypus, just so he could produce us, and then all the problems of your theistic evolutionary theory (the anomalies) will disappear. But you are right that my problem of ORIGINS would disappear if I accepted God. They would also disappear if I accepted chance or atheistic panpsychism.

13626 views

DAVID: I'm perfectly content with my approach. I'm sorry that you see them as anomalies from your human point of view.

dhw: I hope you’re not telling me that your approach is from your God’s point of view! I shan’t go over the anomalies again, since you have so often agreed that you can’t explain them.

DAVID: We will remain apart. You refuse to see the problem in our existence. We are not required by an evolutionary process that is considered to be the result of challenges and stresses and opportunities. Throw out Darwin evolution theory completely, accept God as in control and your problems disappear.

dhw: You refuse to see that what you call the problem in our existence applies to every other organism that developed after bacteria: none of them were “required”. But all the changes that followed on from multicellularity, including those that led to humans, can be explained by a drive for survival and/or improvement. If you throw out Darwin completely, you have to reject the heart of his theory which is common descent, and until today you have always believed in it. Throw out your insistence that you know God’s anthropocentric purpose and that he preprogammed or personally dabbled every twig of the vast bush, including the weaverbird’s nest, eight stages of whale, and the duckbilled platypus, just so he could produce us, and then all the problems of your theistic evolutionary theory (the anomalies) will disappear. But you are right that my problem of ORIGINS would disappear if I accepted God. They would also disappear if I accepted chance or atheistic panpsychism.

I have not changed from my contention that God prefers to evolve life's forms. That is common descent! What I throw out is Darwin's survival of the fittest, which implies a struggle for survival. That Darwin concept means improvements beyond the level of survival appear for no good reason for survival but appear anyway. Our brain is a prime example, multicellularity another. As I've told you before, your Darwin background is an impediment to your thinking.

13641 views

dhw: You refuse to see that what you call the problem in our existence applies to every other organism that developed after bacteria: none of them were “required”. But all the changes that followed on from multicellularity, including those that led to humans, can be explained by a drive for survival and/or improvement. If you throw out Darwin completely, you have to reject the heart of his theory which is common descent, and until today you have always believed in it. Throw out your insistence that you know God’s anthropocentric purpose and that he preprogammed or personally dabbled every twig of the vast bush, including the weaverbird’s nest, eight stages of whale, and the duckbilled platypus, just so he could produce us, and then all the problems of your theistic evolutionary theory (the anomalies) will disappear. But you are right that my problem of ORIGINS would disappear if I accepted God. They would also disappear if I accepted chance or atheistic panpsychism.

DAVID: I have not changed from my contention that God prefers to evolve life's forms. That is common descent! What I throw out is Darwin's survival of the fittest, which implies a struggle for survival. That Darwin concept means improvements beyond the level of survival appear for no good reason for survival but appear anyway. Our brain is a prime example, multicellularity another. As I've told you before, your Darwin background is an impediment to your thinking.

A strange response! You ask me to “throw out Darwin theory completely”, and when I refuse to throw out common descent, which lies at the heart of his theory, you say you mean survival of the fittest. Why bring Darwin into the discussion at all? You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin, and in any case you know perfectly well that I add improvement to survival, do not believe in Darwin’s gradualism or random mutations, and am a devoted follower of Margulis’s theory that evolution depends just as much on cooperation as on competition.

Meanwhile, anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution will agree with you that God prefers to evolve life’s forms through an evolutionary process. The discussion is for what purpose and how he uses the process (if he exists). Fulminating against Darwin may be a useful diversion from the anomalies that riddle your hypothesis, but it provides no evidence for your contention that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in order to keep life going so that the preprogrammed or dabbled brain of Homo sapiens could finally appear. And it is no answer to my alternative proposal, with which you can find no fault as an explanation of evolutionary history.

13586 views

DAVID: I have not changed from my contention that God prefers to evolve life's forms. That is common descent! What I throw out is Darwin's survival of the fittest, which implies a struggle for survival. That Darwin concept means improvements beyond the level of survival appear for no good reason for survival but appear anyway. Our brain is a prime example, multicellularity another. As I've told you before, your Darwin background is an impediment to your thinking.

dhw: A strange response! You ask me to “throw out Darwin theory completely”, and when I refuse to throw out common descent, which lies at the heart of his theory, you say you mean survival of the fittest. Why bring Darwin into the discussion at all? You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin, and in any case you know perfectly well that I add improvement to survival, do not believe in Darwin’s gradualism or random mutations, and am a devoted follower of Margulis’s theory that evolution depends just as much on cooperation as on competition.

Your response is strange. I did not ask you to throw out Darwin completely, only his insistence on the struggle to survive. Note the new thread on subterranean organisms who live easily in very difficult circumstances. By the way Margulis did not consider God in her atheistic approach.

dhw: Meanwhile, anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution will agree with you that God prefers to evolve life’s forms through an evolutionary process. The discussion is for what purpose and how he uses the process (if he exists). Fulminating against Darwin may be a useful diversion from the anomalies that riddle your hypothesis, but it provides no evidence for your contention that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in order to keep life going so that the preprogrammed or dabbled brain of Homo sapiens could finally appear. And it is no answer to my alternative proposal, with which you can find no fault as an explanation of evolutionary history.

I'm not fulminating against Darwin, just pointing out his errors, caused by theorizing at a time he did not have the knowledge we have now. Not his fault. And your alternative is God lite, without accepting God. An alternative God approach is still God.

13649 views

dhw: A strange response! You ask me to “throw out Darwin theory completely”, and when I refuse to throw out common descent, which lies at the heart of his theory, you say you mean survival of the fittest. Why bring Darwin into the discussion at all? You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin, and in any case you know perfectly well that I add improvement to survival, do not believe in Darwin’s gradualism or random mutations, and am a devoted follower of Margulis’s theory that evolution depends just as much on cooperation as on competition.

DAVID: Your response is strange. I did not ask you to throw out Darwin completely, only his insistence on the struggle to survive.

Thursday, 23 November at 15.50: “Throw out Darwin evolution theory completely, accept God as in control and your problems disappear.” You changed your tune when I pointed out to you on Friday 24 November at 13.42 that this would mean rejecting common descent.

dhw: Meanwhile, anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution will agree with you that God prefers to evolve life’s forms through an evolutionary process. The discussion is for what purpose and how he uses the process (if he exists). Fulminating against Darwin may be a useful diversion from the anomalies that riddle your hypothesis, but it provides no evidence for your contention that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in order to keep life going so that the preprogrammed or dabbled brain of Homo sapiens could finally appear. And it is no answer to my alternative proposal, with which you can find no fault as an explanation of evolutionary history.

DAVID: I'm not fulminating against Darwin, just pointing out his errors, caused by theorizing at a time he did not have the knowledge we have now. Not his fault. And your alternative is God lite, without accepting God. An alternative God approach is still God.

We have dealt with his “errors” over and over again, and they provide no evidence whatsoever for your own hypotheses concerning God’s purpose and methods. "God lite" is a meaningless expression. If God decided to create life with a mechanism that enabled organisms to find their own methods of survival and/or improvement (much as you believe he has done with humans and free will), as you quite rightly point out, he “is still God”. The question is which of our explanations of evolution fits the history. You have acknowledged that you cannot find any fault in mine. And on several occasions you have acknowledged that you do not know the answers when I have questioned yours.

13597 views

We have a special ability to see red/green along with other primates, with less ability at other colors, with no solid evidence as to why this is:

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-red-and-green-specialists-why-human-colour-vision-is-so-odd?u...

"It is we humans, and apes and monkeys, who are different. And, as we will see, there is something particularly unusual about our vision that requires an explanation.

***

"Colour vision works by capturing light at multiple different wavelengths, and then comparing between them to determine the wavelengths being reflected from an object (its colour). A blue colour will strongly stimulate a receptor at short wavelengths, and weakly stimulate a receptor at long wavelengths, while a red colour would do the opposite. By comparing between the relative stimulation of those shortwave (blue) and longwave (red) receptors, we are able to distinguish those colours.

"In order to best capture different wavelengths of light, cones should be evenly spaced across the spectrum of light visible to humans, which is about 400-700nm. When we look at the cone spacing of the bumblebee (fig. 1), which is also trichromatic, we can see that even spacing is indeed the case. Similarly, digital cameras’ sensors (fig. 2) need to be nicely spaced out to capture colours. This even cone/sensor spacing gives a good spectral coverage of the available wavelengths of light, and excellent chromatic coverage. But this isn’t exactly how our own vision works.

***

"Our own vision does not have this even spectral spacing (fig. 3). In humans and other catarrhines, the red and green cones largely overlap. This means that we prioritise distinguishing a few types of colours really well – specifically, red and green – at the expense of being able to see as many colours as we possibly might. This is peculiar. Why do we prioritise differentiating red from green?

"Several explanations have been proposed. Perhaps the simplest is that this is an example of what biologists call evolutionary constraint. The gene that encodes for our green receptor, and the gene that encodes for our red receptor, evolved via a gene duplication.

"Another explanation emphasises the evolutionary advantages of a close red-green cone arrangement. Since it makes us particularly good at distinguishing between greenish to reddish colours – and between different shades of pinks and reds – then we might be better at identifying ripening fruits, which typically change from green to red and orange colours as they ripen. There is an abundance of evidence that this effect is real, and marked. Trichromatic humans are much better at picking out ripening fruit from green foliage than dichromatic humans (usually so-called red-green colourblind individuals). More importantly, normal trichromatic humans are much better at this task than individuals experimentally given simulated even-spaced trichromacy. In New World monkeys, where some individuals are trichromatic and some dichromatic, trichromats detect ripening fruit much quicker than dichromats, and without sniffing it to the same extent. As fruit is a critical part of the diet of many primates, fruit-detection is a plausible selection pressure, not just for the evolution of trichromacy generally, but also for our specific, unusual form of trichromacy.

"A final explanation relates to social signalling. Many primate species use reddish colours, such as the bright red nose of the mandrill and the red chest patch of the gelada, in social communication. Similarly, humans indicate emotions through colour changes to our faces that relate to blood flow, being paler when we feel sick or worried, blushing when we are embarrassed, and so on. Perhaps detection of such cues and signals might be involved in the evolution of our unusual cone spacing?

***

"By comparing multiple types of trichromacy and dichromacy in this way, we found that human observers performed best at this task when they saw with normal human trichromatic vision – and they performed much better with their regular vision than with trichromacy with even cone spacing (that is, without red-green cone overlap). Our results were consistent with the social signalling hypothesis: the human visual system is the best of those tested at detecting social information from the faces of other primates.

***

"It is still not known exactly why humans have such strange colour vision. It could be due to foraging, social signalling, evolutionary constraint – or some other explanation. However, there are many tools to investigate the question, such as genetic sequencing of an individual’s colour vision, experimental simulation of different colour vision types combined with behavioural performance testing, and observations of wild primates that see different colours. There’s something strange about the way we see colours. We have prioritised distinguishing a few types of colours really well, at the expense of being able to see as many colours as we possibly might. One day, we hope to know why."

Comment: humans turn out to be special in a newly discovered way, color vision. Research tells us it may help in reading others emotions. Considering our intense social interactions that makes sense. Obviously, God made us very special.

13403 views

The cerebellum is different:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-brain-gain-computer-models-hint-at-why...

"The results show that although there was no difference in the overall size of Neandertals’ brains, significant differences may have characterized the dimensions of specific regions, particularly the cerebellum. “This was surprising since the cerebellum is traditionally considered important for motor-related functions, Ogihara says. “We initially expected that the frontal lobe would be different between the two species because it has been considered to be related to higher cognitive functions, but it was not the case.”

"The researchers, however, went further by analyzing correlations between brain scans and behavioral data in an existing database (from the Human Connectome Project). They found greater cerebellum volume is associated with abilities such as cognitive flexibility, attention, language processing and memory. “The paper gives the impression the cerebellum is intimately involved in a large number of higher cognitive functions, says evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford in England who was not involved in the work. “This isn’t strictly true—its function seems to be rather one of coordination between different brain units and cognitive processings—in effect, making sure computations are done in the right order. That role is almost certainly crucial to higher cognitive functions and allows us to do what we do,” he says. One reason for the importance of cerebellum volume, the authors suggest, is that unlike other regions it consists of a large array of identical processing units, so larger volumes logically equate to higher processing capacity.

***

"The findings do not conclusively prove what caused the Neandertals’ extinction but they do suggest brain differences probably contributed to their disappearance. “What we can say based on the present study is that innate differences in brain structure actually existed between the two species, possibly leading to differences in cognitive and social abilities,” Ogihara says. “Although the difference could be subtle, such a difference may become significant in terms of natural selection.”

"Dunbar has previously shown a relationship between brain size and social group size in primates, including human social networks. Those findings involved parts of the cortex, but similar effects may be at work here. “If [the cerebellum’s function was reduced in Neandertals, it confirms that their cognitive abilities weren’t quite as advanced as those of modern humans,” he says. “That of course doesn’t make them any less human, or shambling ape-men, but it does mean their social and cultural capacities—the traits that survival really hinges on, especially in tough times—wouldn’t have been quite as effective as those of modern humans, which may well explain why they went extinct and our lineage didn’t.'”

Comment: This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.

13149 views

The cerebellum is different:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-brain-gain-computer-models-hint-at-why...

"The results show that although there was no difference in the overall size of Neandertals’ brains, significant differences may have characterized the dimensions of specific regions, particularly the cerebellum. “This was surprising since the cerebellum is traditionally considered important for motor-related functions, Ogihara says. “We initially expected that the frontal lobe would be different between the two species because it has been considered to be related to higher cognitive functions, but it was not the case.”

"The researchers, however, went further by analyzing correlations between brain scans and behavioral data in an existing database (from the Human Connectome Project). They found greater cerebellum volume is associated with abilities such as cognitive flexibility, attention, language processing and memory. “The paper gives the impression the cerebellum is intimately involved in a large number of higher cognitive functions, says evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford in England who was not involved in the work. “This isn’t strictly true—its function seems to be rather one of coordination between different brain units and cognitive processings—in effect, making sure computations are done in the right order. That role is almost certainly crucial to higher cognitive functions and allows us to do what we do,” he says. One reason for the importance of cerebellum volume, the authors suggest, is that unlike other regions it consists of a large array of identical processing units, so larger volumes logically equate to higher processing capacity.

***

"The findings do not conclusively prove what caused the Neandertals’ extinction but they do suggest brain differences probably contributed to their disappearance. “What we can say based on the present study is that innate differences in brain structure actually existed between the two species, possibly leading to differences in cognitive and social abilities,” Ogihara says. “Although the difference could be subtle, such a difference may become significant in terms of natural selection.”

"Dunbar has previously shown a relationship between brain size and social group size in primates, including human social networks. Those findings involved parts of the cortex, but similar effects may be at work here. “If [the cerebellum’s function was reduced in Neandertals, it confirms that their cognitive abilities weren’t quite as advanced as those of modern humans,” he says. “That of course doesn’t make them any less human, or shambling ape-men, but it does mean their social and cultural capacities—the traits that survival really hinges on, especially in tough times—wouldn’t have been quite as effective as those of modern humans, which may well explain why they went extinct and our lineage didn’t.'”

Comment: This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.

Further comment: It is interesting that dhw has never commented on this post which makes the pint a species can only think with the brain it is given and that brain can limit conceptualzation by its s/s/c.

13240 views

DAVID’s comment: This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.

DAVID: Further comment: It is interesting that dhw has never commented on this post which makes the pint a species can only think with the brain it is given and that brain can limit conceptualization by its s/s/c.

I answered you on Saturday 28 April under “Big brain evolution: learning new tasks”: “Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.” You replied, and we then faffed around with your computer analogy.

13143 views

DAVID’s comment: This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.

DAVID: Further comment: It is interesting that dhw has never commented on this post which makes the pint a species can only think with the brain it is given and that brain can limit conceptualization by its s/s/c.

dhw: I answered you on Saturday 28 April under “Big brain evolution: learning new tasks”: “Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.” You replied, and we then faffed around with your computer analogy.

Thank you. I had forgotten the reply as it was tucked into a different thread. I have not forgotten I am I dualist. You simply refuse to accept the point that the s/s/c must work with the brain it is given in any given species. If that brain is wired differently than another brain in complexity, the capacity for complex thought will necessarily differ. It is obvious from artifacts produced by the brain of any given species. Any s/s/c uses the brain to produce thought. No s/s/c is separate from the brain it resides in. Separation is at death. And the point is obvious in the poor schizophrenic who does not want garbled thought, but must seek medication to fix his brain so his desired thought appears properly. Many mild schizophrenics can recognize their thinking is 'off'.

13143 views

DAVID: You simply refuse to accept the point that the s/s/c must work with the brain it is given in any given species. If that brain is wired differently than another brain in complexity, the capacity for complex thought will necessarily differ.

Exactly. And you have just presented the case for materialism: thought depends on the brain. I suggest we leave discussion of other species' "souls" (s/s/c) for another time. See also the quotes on IQ in my post under “A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE”.

DAVID: It is obvious from artifacts produced by the brain of any given species. Any s/s/c uses the brain to produce thought. No s/s/c is separate from the brain it resides in. Separation is at death. And the point is obvious in the poor schizophrenic who does not want garbled thought, but must seek medication to fix his brain so his desired thought appears properly. Many mild schizophrenics can recognize their thinking is 'off'.

If medication fixes the brain, and this leads to “proper” thought, you have clear evidence that the brain is the source of thought – and that is a major problem for dualists. The fact that immaterial thoughts and emotions can change the brain is a major problem for materialists (as are psychic experiences like NDEs, for those open-minded enough to take them seriously). That is the dichotomy you refuse to recognize and which I am trying to resolve.

13170 views

DAVID: You simply refuse to accept the point that the s/s/c must work with the brain it is given in any given species. If that brain is wired differently than another brain in complexity, the capacity for complex thought will necessarily differ.

dhw: Exactly. And you have just presented the case for materialism: thought depends on the brain. I suggest we leave discussion of other species' "souls" (s/s/c) for another time. See also the quotes on IQ in my post under “A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE”.

DAVID: It is obvious from artifacts produced by the brain of any given species. Any s/s/c uses the brain to produce thought. No s/s/c is separate from the brain it resides in. Separation is at death. And the point is obvious in the poor schizophrenic who does not want garbled thought, but must seek medication to fix his brain so his desired thought appears properly. Many mild schizophrenics can recognize their thinking is 'off'.

dhw: If medication fixes the brain, and this leads to “proper” thought, you have clear evidence that the brain is the source of thought – and that is a major problem for dualists. The fact that immaterial thoughts and emotions can change the brain is a major problem for materialists (as are psychic experiences like NDEs, for those open-minded enough to take them seriously). That is the dichotomy you refuse to recognize and which I am trying to resolve.

You have twisted the meaning of my statements. My version of the theory is the s/s/c cannot create thought without using the brain during life. The s/s/c is an immaterial mechanism, which through use of the material brain produces immaterial mentation. This leads to my position that only a more complex brain network can produce more complex thought. I've told you that my form of dualism is not yours. Yours comes across as if the s/s/c sits aside at a distance and instructs the brain what to do, as if they are not connected intimately. The s/s/c mechanism resides completely within the brain structure. The dichotomy is ours.

13198 views

The use of Eagle talons was common:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191101143959.htm

"Eagle talons are regarded as the first materials used to make jewellery by Neanderthals, a practice which spread around Southern Europe about 120,000 and 40,000 years ago. Now, for the first time, researchers found evidence of the ornamental uses of eagle talons in the Iberian Peninsula. An article published in the cover of the journal Science Advances talks about the findings, which took place in the site of the cave Foradada in Calafell.

***

"The interest in these findings lies in the fact that it is the most modern piece of the kind so far regarding the Neanderthal period and the first one found in the Iberian Peninsula. This circumstance widens the temporary and geographical limits that were estimated for this kind of Neanderthal ornaments. This would be "the last necklace made by the Neanderthals," according to Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo.

"'Neanderthals used eagle talons as symbolic elements, probably as necklace pendants, from the beginnings of the mid Palaeolithic," notes Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo. In particular, what researchers found in Cova Foradada are bone remains from Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila Adalberti), from more than 39,000 years ago, with some marks that show these were used to take the talons so as to make pendants. The found remains correspond to the left leg of a big eagle. By the looks of the marks, and analogy regarding remains from different prehistorical sites and ethnographic documentation, researchers determined that the animal was not manipulated for consumption but for symbolic reasons. Eagle talons are the oldest ornamental elements known in Europe, even older than seashells Homo sapiens sapiens perforated in northern Africa.

"The findings belong to the châtelperronian culture, typical from the last Neanderthals that lived in Europe, and coincided with the moment when this species got in touch with Homo sapiens sapiens, from Africa -and expanding from the Middle East. Actually, Juan Ignacio Morales, researcher in the program Juan de la Cierva affiliated at SERP and signer of the article, presents this use of eagle talons as ornaments could have been a cultural transmission from the Neanderthals to modern humans, who adopted this practice after reaching Europe.

"Cova Foradada covers the most meridional châtelperronian culture site in Europe. The discovery involved a change in the map of the territory where the step from Middle Palaeolithic to Upper Palaeolithic took place 40,000 years ago, and where interaction between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens probably took place."

Comment: more evidence the Neanderthals were more advanced than thought.

6881 views

Perhaps demographics and bad luck:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/did-bad-luck-kill-the-neanderthals?utm_source=...

"A new study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, suggests that simple fluctuations in the make-up of the population – and a dose of bad luck – were probably enough to push Neanderthals over the edge.

"'What we used to know or think we knew was that we were superior,” says Krist Vaesen from Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands.

"But evidence is stacking up showing that Neanderthals were every bit as sophisticated as our own forebears.

"Another theory suggests that although our ancestors weren’t superior, they were more numerous, arriving in a constant trickle from Africa.

"In any case, none of these external explanations are necessary to explain the Neanderthals’ demise, according to Vaesen and his colleagues.

“'One thing we know about the Neanderthal population is that it was very small,” he says. Estimates suggest there were only ever 5000 to 70,000 Neanderthals at any given time, spread across Eurasia in even smaller, isolated bands.

***

"Starting with populations of between 50 and 5000 individuals, Vaesen and colleagues ran computer simulations, adding in these effects to see how the hypothetical populations fared over a 10,000-year period.

"Inbreeding, though harmful, was not enough on its own to result in extinction, except in the smallest population.

"When low population density was factored in, leading to 25% or fewer females giving birth each year, populations starting with up to 1000 individuals were destined to fail.
Adding in changes to population make-up – factors that are down to pure chance – saw populations of all sizes go the way of the Dodo.

“'What it strongly suggests is that we need to take into account demography,” says Vaesen, rather than looking just at external factors. “And many models don't do that.”
Humans, Vaesen concedes, could have made things worse.

"It’s possible, he says, that “the mere presence of Homo sapiens in Europe and the Near East just made it much more difficult for Neanderthals to migrate among subpopulations,” thwarting any attempts by subpopulations to occasionally meet and mate.

"And luck – of the more favourable kind – could also have played a role in our own species prehistory, says Vaesen."

Comment: Neanderthals are getting smarter and smarter. Note David Raup book thinks extinction is primarily bad luck.

6777 views

Growing brain organoids with DNA Neanderthal genes vs human growth differs:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/neanderthal-inspired-minibrains-hint-what-makes...

"What is it about DNA that makes the human brain “human?” Seeking to understand how our complex brains evolved, researchers have now switched a single human gene out for its Neanderthal counterpart in brain tissue grown in a lab dish. Changes to the resulting organoid reveal the role this gene may have played in ancient—and modern—brain development.

“'This is amongst the first studies of its kind to investigate how specific changes in the DNA of modern humans influences brain development,” says Debra Silver, a developmental neurobiologist at Duke University who was not involved with the work.

***

"Neanderthals are archaic humans that lived from 500,000 years ago to about 11,700 years ago, interbreeding with our species, Homo sapiens, for much of that time. Their brains were about as big as ours, but anthropologists think they must have worked incredibly differently, because in those hundreds of thousands of years, Neanderthals never achieved the sophisticated technology and artistry humans have.

"To explore what differences might exist, neuroscientist Alysson Muotri at the University of California (UC), San Diego, and his team first compared the genomes of modern humans with those of Neanderthals and Denisovans—another archaic human—reconstructed from excavated bones. They found 61 genes for which modern humans all had one version and the archaic humans had another.

***

"His team then used the gene-editing tool CRISPR on stem cells derived from human skin cells to modify a gene, NOVA1, known to regulate the activity of other genes during early brain development. Switching out just one DNA base turned that gene into a Neanderthal NOVA1. Next, the researchers grew little clusters of brain cells called organoids, with and without the Neanderthal version, and compared them.

***

"Nonetheless, changing that one gene altered the organoid’s growth, appearance, and electrical activity, Muotri and his colleagues report today in Science. The modified organoid matured faster, yielding an uneven, complex surface instead of a smooth one. Its electrical activity revved up more quickly than that of its counterpart, and the connections between nerves, the synapses, depended on slightly different versions and interactions of key proteins. What’s more, the electrical impulses were not as synchronized as in the fully modern human organoid. “It looks almost like anything they could [test] showed a difference,” says Arnold Kriegstein, a developmental neurobiologist at the UC San Francisco School of Medicine.

"The results, which held up in tests using human stem cells derived from a different donor’s skin cells, “tell us their brains probably worked in a different way than [ours] do,” Muotri says.

"Researchers are excited but cautious about these results. “It is amazing that by changing a single amino acid in a single protein, one creates an effect that is visible even in how the organoids look in the microscope,” says Svante Pääbo, director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. But because organoids represent only the earliest stages of development, “it’s difficult to know how [the changes] would manifest in a more mature brain,” Kriegstein says."

Comment: Of course there had to be differences, but the key statement to me is that only 61 genes make the whole difference between us and Neanderthal/Denisovan brain structure. It didn't take much DNA change to create us. And I'd best repeat my form of dualism: these are the mechanical material brains that souls are given to use with the resulting differences in artifact production.

5513 views

QUOTE: Neanderthals are archaic humans that lived from 500,000 years ago to about 11,700 years ago, interbreeding with our species, Homo sapiens, for much of that time. Their brains were about as big as ours, but anthropologists think they must have worked incredibly differently, because in those hundreds of thousands of years, Neanderthals never achieved the sophisticated technology and artistry humans have.

I find this a bit confusing. Neanderthals WERE humans, and recent discoveries suggested that they WERE sophisticated, and since they interbred for much of that time, how can we attribute their sophistication to just one of the two species of humans? Have I misunderstood something here? But of course neither the Neanderthals nor the sapiens of that time achieved the sophisticated technology and artistry of modern humans.

DAVID: Of course there had to be differences, but the key statement to me is that only 61 genes make the whole difference between us and Neanderthal/Denisovan brain structure. It didn't take much DNA change to create us. And I'd best repeat my form of dualism: these are the mechanical material brains that souls are given to use with the resulting differences in artifact production.

Why on earth do you have to bring your form of dualism into it? The whole thrust of this article is that the different genes (changes to DNA) were the cause of the greater sophistication in technology and art. The Neanderthal brain, not the Neanderthal soul, “worked incredibly differently”. Your theory is presumably that your God stepped in to fiddle with 61 genes in anticipation of the sapiens soul coming up with new ideas. If there is such a thing as the soul, I propose that it was the soul that came up with the ideas, and the brain had to change in order to implement them. Do we really have to go over all this again?

5422 views

QUOTE: Neanderthals are archaic humans that lived from 500,000 years ago to about 11,700 years ago, interbreeding with our species, Homo sapiens, for much of that time. Their brains were about as big as ours, but anthropologists think they must have worked incredibly differently, because in those hundreds of thousands of years, Neanderthals never achieved the sophisticated technology and artistry humans have.

dhw: I find this a bit confusing. Neanderthals WERE humans, and recent discoveries suggested that they WERE sophisticated, and since they interbred for much of that time, how can we attribute their sophistication to just one of the two species of humans? Have I misunderstood something here? But of course neither the Neanderthals nor the sapiens of that time achieved the sophisticated technology and artistry of modern humans.

You are right. It is unfair to compare modern human achievements to Neanderthals of many thousands of years ago.

DAVID: Of course there had to be differences, but the key statement to me is that only 61 genes make the whole difference between us and Neanderthal/Denisovan brain structure. It didn't take much DNA change to create us. And I'd best repeat my form of dualism: these are the mechanical material brains that souls are given to use with the resulting differences in artifact production.

dhw: Why on earth do you have to bring your form of dualism into it? The whole thrust of this article is that the different genes (changes to DNA) were the cause of the greater sophistication in technology and art. The Neanderthal brain, not the Neanderthal soul, “worked incredibly differently”. Your theory is presumably that your God stepped in to fiddle with 61 genes in anticipation of the sapiens soul coming up with new ideas. If there is such a thing as the soul, I propose that it was the soul that came up with the ideas, and the brain had to change in order to implement them. Do we really have to go over all this again?

I did it because we are reviewing the material differences in brains but shouldn't ignore the
dualism inferences. Neanderthal dualism and human dualism must remain the same concepts. And from your response to it simply exposes our continuing differences. I didn't want the inference left that brains on their own created the differences in artifact production. I would remind you that Neanderthals died out well before we produced our current advanced civilization, but the article's inference is our brains were very different 315,000 years ago when we appeared, with those 61 genes, and long before our current productions. Sure looks like an anticipated-usage preparation.

5428 views

A new study says both types may have used the same tools:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210215092436.htm

"New analysis of a fossil tooth and stone tools from Shukbah Cave reveals Neanderthals used stone tool technologies thought to have been unique to modern humans.

***

"Although Homo sapiens and Neanderthals shared the use of a wide suite of stone tool technologies, Nubian Levallois technology has recently been argued to have been exclusively used by Homo sapiens. The argument has been made particularly in southwest Asia, where Nubian Levallois tools have been used to track human dispersals in the absence of fossils.

"'Illustrations of the stone tool collections from Shukbah hinted at the presence of Nubian Levallois technology so we revisited the collections to investigate further. In the end, we identified many more artefacts produced using the Nubian Levallois methods than we had anticipated," says Blinkhorn. "This is the first time they've been found in direct association with Neanderthal fossils, which suggests we can't make a simple link between this technology and Homo sapiens."

"'Southwest Asia is a dynamic region in terms of hominin demography, behaviour and environmental change, and may be particularly important to examine interactions between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens," adds Prof Simon Blockley, of Royal Holloway, University of London. "This study highlights the geographic range of Neanderthal populations and their behavioural flexibility, but also issues a timely note of caution that there are no straightforward links between particular hominins and specific stone tool technologies."

"'Up to now we have no direct evidence of a Neanderthal presence in Africa," said Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum. "But the southerly location of Shukbah, only about 400 km from Cairo, should remind us that they may have even dispersed into Africa at times.'"

Comment: Neanderthals are growing smarter in new archeological studies.

5445 views

A new review:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-types-of-tools-did-neanderthals-use-...

"From the origin of the species around 400,000 years ago to their disappearance around 40,000 years ago, the Neanderthals behaved in a somewhat solitary way, spending their time in small, itinerant tribes with 12 to 25 individuals. That said, some studies are starting to suggest that they also gathered in much more substantial groups, too.

"Never prone to staying in the same space, these tribes bounced between several sites according to the season, returning to the same settlements sporadically across centuries. But, these tribes weren’t completely cut off from their counterparts, occasionally coming across 10 to 20 other troops, with whom they shared similar social identities and skill sets,

"Almost from the start of the species, this centered around the creation of sophisticated stone “flakes” with flat faces, thin, sharp sides and a flair for cutting, carving and scraping.

"To form these flakes, the Neanderthals selected small chunks of stone, also called “cores,” and trimmed their sides until they took the shape of a tortoiseshell — flat on one side and spherical on the other. They then smashed the top of the trimmed stone with a single smash, spitting out flakes of a standard shape and size, which were then wielded as tools.

***

"Neanderthals employed these tools to slaughter animals, to work wood and other malleable materials, and to prepare and punch holes into hides, which were then tied together to create clothing. And though the species’ strong, skilled hands helped them manipulate these implements, the Neanderthals eventually hafted their tools to make them even easier to maneuver, setting them into handles and securing them with ties and adhesives, such as birch tar, which was formulated from the bark of birch trees.

"Today, archaeologists understand the uses of these tools thanks to their shape, size and pattern of wear and tear. In fact, the tools that they’ve found across Neanderthal sites all show a unique smattering of scratches. Tools used for shaping stone displayed a different type of damage than those used for molding other materials or slicing meat, for instance.

"But some scientists stress that many of the Neanderthals’ tools weren’t so well preserved. While archaeologists have found an abundance of stone tools, they’ve identified far fewer implements made out of other more fragile or flimsy materials, though their finds of wooden spears and bone lissoirs suggest that the Neanderthals manipulated these materials, too.

***

"...archaeologists are always finding surprising new traces of Neanderthal technologies, stressing the significance of further work within their field. Some studies suggest, for instance, that the Neanderthals did dabble in projectile weaponry, with their skeletons showing signs of throwing trauma and their spears being an appropriate shape and size for flying through the air.

"Some scientists also add that the Neanderthals were adept at twisting fibers together, too, fabricating the world’s first forms of string. In fact, early examples of cordage could count as an indication of a much more intensive fiber industry, potentially involving the production of fabrics, bags, baskets and nets."

Comment: not equal to us, but very bright.

2131 views

If you've got Neanderthal genes, Covid can be very dangerous:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-genes-from-neanderthals-predispose-peopl...

"One of the biggest lingering questions surrounding COVID-19 is why some people with the disease get sicker than others. While many factors are likely at play, numerous studies suggest a person’s genetics can predispose them to severe disease. Indeed, a genome-wide association study and a COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative dataset specifically point to a 50 kilobase-sized genomic segment on chromosome 3 as a major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19—a segment that, back in 2020, paleogenomicist Svante Pääbo and his collaborator Hugo Zeberg showed was inherited from Neanderthals some 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. However, the genetic variants on this segment—all strongly linked to each other.

***

"Now, Terence Capellini, a Harvard University human evolutionary biologist, and colleagues have systematically evaluated the more than 600 genetic variants in the region. Ultimately, they homed in on three variants that regulate two key chemokine receptor genes that play a role in mediating the cytokine storm that is often involved in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19. The results, published February 10 in eLife, shed new light on the interplay between the host genome and COVID-19 outcomes and help unravel the molecular mechanisms that underpin severe COVID-19.

“'From an evolutionary perspective, this work provides a beautiful example, all the way to the molecular level, of how a small part of our genome that was inherited from Neanderthals is impacting our health . . . to this day,” says Steven Reilly, a geneticist at the Yale School of Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the research. He adds that “the fact that this risk comes from DNA that originated in Neanderthals is very interesting and highlights how complex human ancestry is.'”

Comment: if it is also known Neanderthal genes help us with immunity.

2103 views

Studying bacterial DNA on teeth reveals a diet including grasses, barley, tubers, etc:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/neanderthals-carb-loaded-helping-grow-their-big...

"A new study of bacteria collected from Neanderthal teeth shows that our close cousins ate so many roots, nuts, or other starchy foods that they dramatically altered the type of bacteria in their mouths. The finding suggests our ancestors had adapted to eating lots of starch by at least 600,000 years ago—about the same time as they needed more sugars to fuel a big expansion of their brains.

***

"The starchy plants gathered by many living hunter-gatherers are an excellent source of glucose, however. To figure out whether oral bacteria track changes in diet or the environment, Warinner, Max Planck graduate student James Fellows Yates, and a large international team looked at the oral bacteria stuck to the teeth of Neanderthals, preagriculture modern humans that lived more than 10,000 years ago, chimps, gorillas, and howler monkeys. The researchers analyzed billions of DNA fragments from long-dead bacteria still preserved on the teeth of 124 individuals. One was a Neanderthal who lived 100,000 years ago at Pešturina Cave in Serbia, which produced the oldest oral microbiome genome reconstructed to date.

***

“'This pushes the importance of starch in the diet further back in time,” to when human brains were still expanding, Warinner says. Because the amylase enzyme is much more efficient at digesting cooked rather than raw starch, the finding also suggests cooking, too, was common by 600,000 years ago, Carmody says. Researchers have debated whether cooking became common when the big brain began to expand almost 2 million years ago or it spread later, during a second surge of growth.

"The study offers a new way to detect major shifts in diet, says geneticist Ran Blekhman of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. In the case of Neanderthals, it reveals how much they depended on plants.

“'We sometimes have given short shrift to the plant components of the diet,” says anthropological geneticist Anne Stone of Arizona State University, Tempe. “As we know from modern hunter-gatherers, it’s often the gathering that ends up providing a substantial portion of the calories.'”

Comment: Big brains require 20% of all daily calories. Seems we knew we had to be omnivores, without the benefit of nutrition classes.

5081 views

The complaint in this article is that not enough study is done of older ape fossils to find the true beginning of human/chimp divergence:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-05/amon-rmh050521.php

"In the 150 years since Charles Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa, the number of species in the human family tree has exploded, but so has the level of dispute concerning early human evolution. Fossil apes are often at the center of the debate, with some scientists dismissing their importance to the origins of the human lineage (the "hominins"), and others conferring them starring evolutionary roles. A new review out on May 7 in the journal Science looks at the major discoveries in hominin origins since Darwin's works and argues that fossil apes can inform us about essential aspects of ape and human evolution, including the nature of our last common ancestor.

***

"'When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it's just a big mess--there's no consensus whatsoever," said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. "People are working under completely different paradigms, and that's something that I don't see happening in other fields of science."

"There are two major approaches to resolving the human origins problem: "Top-down," which relies on analysis of living apes, especially chimpanzees; and "bottom-up," which puts importance on the larger tree of mostly extinct apes. For example, some scientists assume that hominins originated from a chimp-like knuckle-walking ancestor. Others argue that the human lineage originated from an ancestor more closely resembling, in some features, some of the strange Miocene apes.

***

"'In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time," Almécija said. "One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins--approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence--have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes."

"Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.

"'Living ape species are specialized species, relicts of a much larger group of now extinct apes. When we consider all evidence--that is, both living and fossil apes and hominins--it is clear that a human evolutionary story based on the few ape species currently alive is missing much of the bigger picture," said study co-author Ashley Hammond, an assistant curator in the Museum's Division of Anthropology.

"Kelsey Pugh, a Museum postdoctoral fellow and study co-author adds, "The unique and sometimes unexpected features and combinations of features observed among fossil apes, which often differ from those of living apes, are necessary to untangle which features hominins inherited from our ape ancestors and which are unique to our lineage."

"Living apes alone, the authors conclude, offer insufficient evidence. "Current disparate theories regarding ape and human evolution would be much more informed if, together with early hominins and living apes, Miocene apes were also included in the equation," says Almécija. "In other words, fossil apes are essential to reconstruct the 'starting point' from which humans and chimpanzees evolved.'"

Comment: The concept of starting in deeper time is very reasonable. The broad bush of branches evolution creates can be confusing if all stages are not carefully analyzed. I discussed a finding by Dr. Aaron Filler of a 21-million-year-old lumbar vertebrae in a primate, showing early changes toward upright posture, in The Atheist Delusion.

5141 views

Another article:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/were-different-from-neanderthals-because-...

"But, while several studies show that humans boast a similar sized brain to the Neanderthals, almost no research weighs in on whether we produce similar amounts of neurons to our closest cousins. That is, until now.

"According to a new study in Science, researchers identified a variation in one of the proteins in our brains that bolsters our brain progenitor cell counts. This suggests that our species makes more neurons during our development than the Neanderthals did during theirs around 130,000 to 40,000 years ago. Occurring primarily in the neocortex, our increased neural production brings scientists a step closer to understanding why our species is so distinct.

"Modern humans and Neanderthals have comparably sized brains, and strikingly similar neocortexes, which are the big areas of the brain that command complex functions such as sensory perception, attention and memory. But whether this similar size implies a similar production of neurons remains mysterious.

"Researchers are studying the variations in the proteins inside the brains of both modern humans and Neanderthals to solve this mystery.

"They are focusing on the protein TKTL1, which is present in the frontal lobes of the neocortexes of both modern humans and Neanderthals with only a single variation in their sequences of amino acid building blocks. To be specific, the only difference between the two is that the TKTL1 protein contains an occurrence of arginine in a particular spot of its modern human sequence and lysine in the same spot of its Neanderthal sequence.

"According to the researchers, even this slight variation in the amino acid sequence of the protein causes a substantial increase in the number of basal radial glial cells, a type of brain progenitor cell present in the frontal lobe in the modern human brain. Because these cells are in charge of producing new neurons, their increase, in turn, yields a much greater number of neural cells in the brains of modern humans.

***

"'We found that with the Neanderthal-type of amino acid in TKTL1, fewer basal radial glial cells were produced than with the modern human-type and, as a consequence, also fewer neurons," says Anneline Pinson, a study author and a researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, in a press release. "This shows us that even though we do not know how many neurons the Neanderthal brain had, we can assume that modern humans have more neurons in the frontal lobe of the brain, where TKTL1 activity is highest, than Neanderthals.'"

Comment: the study shows how neuron production differs, but still doesn't tell us about specialized network formation in both types of brains.

2358 views

The children and grandchildren of immigrants may show psychological problems:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167006-grandchildren-of-migrants-more-likely-to-g...

"Moving to a new country is a stressful experience, putting migrants at increased risk of anxiety disorders. But they aren’t the only ones who suffer: their children and grandchildren also experience more anxiety and higher rates of suicide than the general population.

"This might be down to the discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities, or to chemical markers of stress inherited through the generations.

***

"Pignon and his team compared the results of migrants with those from the native population. They also singled out responses from second and third-generation migrants: people whose parents and grandparents would be defined as migrants.

"After accounting for sex, age, income and education levels, Pignon’s team found that first, second and third-generation migrants were all more likely than the native population to experience anxiety disorders. Surprisingly, third-generation migrants have the highest rate of anxiety disorders, although it is unclear why. “The risk increased across the three migrant generations for social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder,” the team reports in its paper.

"Across the generations, migrants with anxiety disorders were also more likely to have psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder and addictive disorders, and had a higher rate of suicide attempts, compared with members of the native population with anxiety disorders.

"People who move from areas with poor living conditions – such as a lack of food, poor water quality or war – to healthier environments tend to improve pretty quickly, says Barry Bogin at Loughborough University, UK, who has studied Mayan migrants to the US. “The kids get taller, for example,” he says. “But then research suggests that status deteriorates in the second generation as people face bias, discrimination and maybe language difficulties.”

"Pignon and his team found, for example, that the migrants in their study tended to have a higher educational level, but a lower income, compared with the native population. “My grandparents came to the US from Eastern Europe after the war,” says Bogin. “I don’t speak those languages, but have I ever faced bias, even though I’m the third generation? Yes. It hasn’t affected my growth, but it probably has affected my psychology and attitudes.”

***

"The psychological impact of migration could be passed down through generations epigenetically, says Bogin. There is evidence that stress can trigger chemical changes that alter how genes make proteins, and that those changes can be passed to children and grandchildren.

"It is difficult to know whether the findings will apply to all migrants, says Jayaweera. “The health impact of migrant status can depend on the person’s background, and whether they come as an economic migrant, or to join family or seek asylum,” she says."

Comment: The results in grandchildren look to be multifactorial, based on this study. In our family on both sides the grandparents came for economic reasons and to escape discrimination. They carefully integrated fully into American society and culture, and spoke English without accent. There is no evidence in my cousins of any of these problems, and most have been very successful. However, epigenetics may well have played a role.

13207 views

We don't have much body ha=air and we have sweat glands, as another difference from animals:

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/sweating-may-be-why-we-became-the-dominant-species-on-...

"Millions of years ago, digestion consumed most of the calories we ate. Our brain takes 20 times more energy than any other organ in the body. So for our brain to develop, we needed a higher density food, and meat fit the bill.

"One theory of human evolution states that our ancestors began eating meat about 2 million years ago, which rapidly expanded the development of their brains. Since meat packed a lot of calories and fat, a diet including it over time allowed the brain to grow larger. But how did we get that meat?

"One way was eating carcasses. The human tapeworm evolved from the kind that infects dogs and hyenas research tells us, meaning at some point, we must’ve fed on the same carcasses as them, and came into contact with their saliva. But this wasn’t the only way.

"They must’ve taken part in hunting too. Yet, hominins didn’t begin using stones and sticks for hunting until about 200,000 years ago. So between 2.3 million and 200,000 years ago, how did they hunt? According to journalist and writer Christopher McDougall, author of the book Born to Run, we ran game animals to death in order to feast upon them.

"The ability to run long distances and sweat—so as not to overheat, allowed our ancestors to wear out quarry. Sweating was the key factor. Consider a gazelle running over long distances and being chased by our progenitors. The fact that they can sweat and the gazelle can’t means they can last far longer in the heat of the African Savannah.

"Game animals like the gazelle over time become overheated and have to stop to catch their breath, allowing early hunters to make short work of them, a strategy we call today persistence hunting. Some remote tribes still take part in it and there’s evidence that it was a strategy utilized all over the world in the distant past.

"Human sweat is actually a very efficient cooling system, arguably the most effective in the animal kingdom. After about five miles or so, a gazelle needs to stop, rest, and breathe, or risk damaging itself, even dying. Such an animal can only fully extend its diaphragm when not running, while walking upright freed our ancestors from such an issue.

"Research shows that several traits simultaneously evolved around the same time, about 1.89 million years ago. These were walking upright, hairless skin, sweating, and the ability to run great distances. One reason for all of these rapid changes might have been climate change. The Earth warmed over this same period, shifting the habitat from forest to open grassland, and allowing our ancestors to walk upright and even run in open space. It may have also forced them to hunt animals for food."

Comment: I don't buy that climate drove evolution but it must have played a role. But it is fascinating that only we sweat, while the others pant. Another amazing difference that isn't explained but any obvious need for that alteration in physiology driven by natural selection. More evidence for God directing our speciation.

13180 views

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/sweating-may-be-why-we-became-the-dominant-species-on-...

QUOTE: "Millions of years ago, digestion consumed most of the calories we ate. Our brain takes 20 times more energy than any other organ in the body. So for our brain to develop, we needed a higher density food, and meat fit the bill.
"One theory of human evolution states that our ancestors began eating meat about 2 million years ago, which rapidly expanded the development of their brains. Since meat packed a lot of calories and fat, a diet including it over time allowed the brain to grow larger. But how did we get that meat?"

If eating meat expands the brain, why didn’t meat-eating animal brains expand? Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that as brains expanded, we needed more energy, and so we turned to meat-eating? Why would brains have started expanding? Perhaps because at some stage, certain pre-humans underwent a dramatic change of lifestyle which resulted in new ways of thinking, which in turn resulted in the need for new forms of implementation and consequent additions to the existing structure of the brain. For instance, learning to live on land rather than in the trees might have been the starting point for new ideas and expansion. Then the need for a richer diet to supply the extra energy led to hunting, and the need to hunt led to the need for weapons, and so the thoughts and the means of implementing those thoughts underwent their sequential processes of expansion.

As for the sweat and hunting theory, perhaps you can enlighten me, David. Do we actually know that those distant ancestors hunted large animals (as opposed to eating already dead carcasses?) Is it not possible that initially they could have satisfied their dietary needs with smaller, easily catchable animals and insects? And it was only when some genius thought up the idea of weaponry that they actually went after the bigger stuff? Just asking.

David’s comment: I don't buy that climate drove evolution but it must have played a role. But it is fascinating that only we sweat, while the others pant. Another amazing difference that isn't explained but any obvious need for that alteration in physiology driven by natural selection. More evidence for God directing our speciation.

Since sweating is obviously an advantage, the sweat glands must take their place alongside all the other amazing innovations that distinguish multicellular organisms from our bacterial ancestors. Why hearts, lungs, livers, brains, sexual organs? More evidence perhaps of the inventive, possibly God-given intelligence of cell communities?

13279 views

Nature has a collection of papers on human evolution:-http://www.nature.com/collections/ffjxdjnlcq-This should keep you all busy, if you want to get up to date.-Though it seems you may have to pay to access them.

--
GPJ

15863 views

As more and more human fossils turn up, as judged by the shape of the skull, advanced an more archaic forms from the same time periods are popping up all over the place in Africa and Asia. The earliest human is 315,000 years old:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831750-200-origin-of-our-species-why-humans-we...

"In fact, if you were to travel back to the very beginnings of our species and select a random group of humans, they would look unlike anyone living today in Africa or elsewhere. What’s more, they would show extraordinary physical variation – greatly exceeding that in modern human populations. Far from becoming more diverse as we have adapted to life in different parts of the planet, Homo sapiens is more homogeneous today than our ancestors were.

"This is a real puzzle. It simply doesn’t fit with the long-held idea that we arose from a single population in a corner of East Africa. In fact, mounting evidence from fossils, archaeological remains and genetic analysis points in a new direction. Now researchers, including myself, are trying to work out what it all means: why our African forebears were so physically different from each other, and how our species lost the huge variety it once had.

***

"Humans alive today have a characteristic skull shape, including a rounded braincase, a smooth, high forehead, a small face and a prominent chin. However, these features don’t appear all together in any early member of our species. Instead, we see a wide variety of skulls that exhibit different mixes of modern features alongside archaic ones, such as large, robust faces, pronounced brow ridges and elongated braincases. This fuelled disagreements about which constellation of features should be used to distinguish early members of our species from now-extinct hominins.

***

"The ability to create and combine items that don’t occur together in nature in anticipation of a range of diverse tasks has long been seen as a reflection of advanced cognition. It is considered a hallmark of our species. But here’s the thing: abundant evidence makes it increasingly clear that the Middle Stone Age didn’t emerge in one location at the purported dawn of humanity. Instead, there was a wholesale, continent-wide shift to this new technology around 300,000 years ago.

***

"Perhaps other hominin species were living in Africa alongside us for far longer than anyone imagined. Alternatively, these strange-looking beings were humans, raising the possibility that some pre-200,000-year-old fossils with equally bizarre looks might also belong to our species. The idea that we should cast our net more widely when fishing for early humans gains support from another quarter. Advances in genetic analysis have revealed the first glimmerings of an older origin for H. sapiens, with the discovery that we and our sister species, the Neanderthals, shared a last common ancestor about half a million years ago. Such developments have led some to question the classification of a diverse array of early fossils from across Africa.

"Then, last year, came the discovery of new early H. sapiens fossils. They didn’t come from East Africa, nor were they less than 200,000 years old. Instead, they dated to a staggering 315,000 years ago and were found in the far north-west of the continent, in Morocco. “This find changes everything,” says Philipp Gunz of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who analysed the fossils. “These early individuals had modern faces and modern teeth, but elongated braincases. This suggests that features of brain shape, and perhaps even brain function, emerged within our species.”

***

" In an upcoming paper, we suggest that a diverse array of H. sapiens populations, displaying a mosaic of archaic and modern features, lived over an extensive geographic area from Morocco to South Africa between about 300,000 and 12,000 years ago.

***

"Instead, a messy beginning involving multiple populations, regions and environments is in. Although this scenario is more complex, it reconciles the genetic, fossil and archaeological evidence. It also explains the early, pan-African emergence of the Middle Stone Age as an outcome of becoming human.

***

"We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

***

"The homogenising effect on humanity was so pronounced that anthropologist Marta MirazÓn Lahr at the University of Cambridge has dubbed it the “Holocene filter”.

"Yet the truly astonishing revelation is that we were so diverse in the first place. As this new narrative is fleshed out, there are bound to be more surprises. "

Comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

13258 views

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

QUOTE: "The homogenising effect on humanity was so pronounced that anthropologist Marta MirazÓn Lahr at the University of Cambridge has dubbed it the “Holocene filter”.

DAVID’s comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

Wow, here we have a possible catalyst! All this time, you have been asking why it took so long for sapiens to use his new capacity. I pointed out that all pre-sapiens stages have involved long periods of stasis, and it was not until the new geniuses came along that the brain had to expand. But it didn’t occur to me that the sapiens stasis might have ended because of a change in the climate. So 12,000 years ago, new environmental conditions allowed a vast range of new possibilities for the sapiens brain to exploit. It also fits in perfectly with my evolutionary hypothesis that advances are caused by the drive for survival and the exploitation of new opportunities provided by environmental change. Many thanks for this vital piece of information!

13239 views

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

QUOTE: "The homogenising effect on humanity was so pronounced that anthropologist Marta MirazÓn Lahr at the University of Cambridge has dubbed it the “Holocene filter”.

DAVID’s comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

dhw: Wow, here we have a possible catalyst! All this time, you have been asking why it took so long for sapiens to use his new capacity. I pointed out that all pre-sapiens stages have involved long periods of stasis, and it was not until the new geniuses came along that the brain had to expand. But it didn’t occur to me that the sapiens stasis might have ended because of a change in the climate. So 12,000 years ago, new environmental conditions allowed a vast range of new possibilities for the sapiens brain to exploit. It also fits in perfectly with my evolutionary hypothesis that advances are caused by the drive for survival and the exploitation of new opportunities provided by environmental change. Many thanks for this vital piece of information!

We couldn't do much during an ice age. I've been saying we lived survival lives until until recently. Survival life is not civilized life. Camping out for several days, as I have done on river rafting trips, mimics survival living.

13241 views

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

QUOTE: "The homogenising effect on humanity was so pronounced that anthropologist Marta MirazÓn Lahr at the University of Cambridge has dubbed it the “Holocene filter”.

DAVID’s comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

dhw: Wow, here we have a possible catalyst! All this time, you have been asking why it took so long for sapiens to use his new capacity. I pointed out that all pre-sapiens stages have involved long periods of stasis, and it was not until the new geniuses came along that the brain had to expand. But it didn’t occur to me that the sapiens stasis might have ended because of a change in the climate. So 12,000 years ago, new environmental conditions allowed a vast range of new possibilities for the sapiens brain to exploit. It also fits in perfectly with my evolutionary hypothesis that advances are caused by the drive for survival and the exploitation of new opportunities provided by environmental change. Many thanks for this vital piece of information!
DAVID: We couldn't do much during an ice age. I've
been saying we lived survival lives until until recently. Survival life is not civilized life. […]

I know. And for months you have been asking why sapiens didn’t use his great brain for two or three hundred thousand years, until approx. 12,000 years ago. Now you have an answer: the climate changed. Rejoice!

13143 views

dhw: Wow, here we have a possible catalyst! All this time, you have been asking why it took so long for sapiens to use his new capacity. I pointed out that all pre-sapiens stages have involved long periods of stasis, and it was not until the new geniuses came along that the brain had to expand. But it didn’t occur to me that the sapiens stasis might have ended because of a change in the climate. So 12,000 years ago, new environmental conditions allowed a vast range of new possibilities for the sapiens brain to exploit. It also fits in perfectly with my evolutionary hypothesis that advances are caused by the drive for survival and the exploitation of new opportunities provided by environmental change. Many thanks for this vital piece of information!
DAVID: We couldn't do much during an ice age. I've
been saying we lived survival lives until until recently. Survival life is not civilized life. […]

dhw: I know. And for months you have been asking why sapiens didn’t use his great brain for two or three hundred thousand years, until approx. 12,000 years ago. Now you have an answer: the climate changed. Rejoice!

It wan't all ice for 315,000 years. The ice ages came and went. If the last pre-sapiens had concepts that demanded brain enlargement (your 'push' theory) they should have been able to use it during the 'nice' climate periods. We were given a bigger brain and had to learn how to use it. Your parents gave you a two-wheeler and you had to learn to balance on it. Same concept.

13144 views

DAVID: We couldn't do much during an ice age. I've been saying we lived survival lives until until recently. Survival life is not civilized life. […]

dhw: And for months you have been asking why sapiens didn’t use his great brain for two or three hundred thousand years, until approx. 12,000 years ago. Now you have an answer: the climate changed. Rejoice!

DAVID: It wan't all ice for 315,000 years. The ice ages came and went. If the last pre-sapiens had concepts that demanded brain enlargement (your 'push' theory) they should have been able to use it during the 'nice' climate periods. We were given a bigger brain and had to learn how to use it. Your parents gave you a two-wheeler and you had to learn to balance on it. Same concept.

Maybe they were quite happy as they were, or maybe the nice climate didn't last long enough, or maybe the geniuses weren't there at the time.

QUESTION: After the final brain expansion, why was there such a long period of stasis (i.e. why did we live survival lives until recently)? Answer:

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

Your comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

You quote the answer to the question you've been asking, comment approvingly on it, but when I point out that it answers the question you’ve been asking, you try to reject it!

13149 views

dhw: QUESTION: After the final brain expansion, why was there such a long period of stasis (i.e. why did we live survival lives until recently)? Answer:

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.

Your comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

You quote the answer to the question you've been asking, comment approvingly on it, but when I point out that it answers the question you’ve been asking, you try to reject it!

Because I have a different spin on the interpretation of the facts. Your underlying theory is that at any level of human evolution new thought drives the enlargement of the brain in the next species. I am emphasizing the long pause in use of the brain after it enlarged as as answer to your favorite theory. God speciates is our difference. Your two drives, from your Darwin background is survival and improvement. I agree about improvement and I call it complexity, but our brain was not needed for survival. That is obvious from the history of other primates. Survival is the tautology of Darwin theory.

13204 views

dhw: QUESTION: After the final brain expansion, why was there such a long period of stasis (i.e. why did we live survival lives until recently)? Answer:

QUOTE: We know that 12,000 years ago marks the beginning of a revolution for humanity. This is when Earth’s climate entered a warm and unusually stable period known as the Holocene, which persists to this day. It seems likely that people have always tried to control and alter their environment, but with climatic stability such experiments were finally able to take off. Farming was born. And this had big implications for human evolution.
Your comment: During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilized; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.

Dhw: You quote the answer to the question you've been asking, comment approvingly on it, but when I point out that it answers the question you’ve been asking, you try to reject it!

DAVID: Because I have a different spin on the interpretation of the facts. Your underlying theory is that at any level of human evolution new thought drives the enlargement of the brain in the next species. I am emphasizing the long pause in use of the brain after it enlarged as as answer to your favorite theory.

In my hypothesis it requires a new, major stimulus to produce each jump, and I have pointed out to you that there is a long period of stasis after every enlargement (= no new, major stimulus). I suggested that one jump may have been caused by the invention of tools and weapons. We have now been offered a reason (a lasting change of climate) for sapiens ending his own "long pause", but instead of enlargement (which I suggest was no longer practicable) the result was increased complexification.

DAVID: God speciates is our difference. Your two drives, from your Darwin background is survival and improvement. I agree about improvement and I call it complexity, but our brain was not needed for survival. That is obvious from the history of other primates. Survival is the tautology of Darwin theory.

Your question about the "long pause" has been answered, and so you change the subject! My proposal is that our brain was the result of the drive for improvement, and since you agree, why do you start moaning about Darwin again? You are discussing these issues with me.

13205 views

DAVID: Because I have a different spin on the interpretation of the facts. Your underlying theory is that at any level of human evolution new thought drives the enlargement of the brain in the next species. I am emphasizing the long pause in use of the brain after it enlarged as as answer to your favorite theory.

dhw: In my hypothesis it requires a new, major stimulus to produce each jump, and I have pointed out to you that there is a long period of stasis after every enlargement (= no new, major stimulus). I suggested that one jump may have been caused by the invention of tools and weapons. We have now been offered a reason (a lasting change of climate) for sapiens ending his own "long pause", but instead of enlargement (which I suggest was no longer practicable) the result was increased complexification.

DAVID: God speciates is our difference. Your two drives, from your Darwin background is survival and improvement. I agree about improvement and I call it complexity, but our brain was not needed for survival. That is obvious from the history of other primates. Survival is the tautology of Darwin theory.

dhw: Your question about the "long pause" has been answered, and so you change the subject! My proposal is that our brain was the result of the drive for improvement, and since you agree, why do you start moaning about Darwin again? You are discussing these issues with me.

I admire your tubular vision which excludes all but the facts you like as then your theory can be made to look better. Climate is not the be all and end all of our sudden civilization in the past 10,000 years. Glaciation started two million years ago and they came and went. They did not reach into Africa where the temperatures did dip but Neanderthals and early Homos thrived in their primitive ways. They existed before this last glacial period ( which we still in to a degree because of the polar ice caps) and could have civilized in a previous pause like this one, but they didn't. The long pauses at each stage of new brain size are compatible with having to learn to use the new size, opposite to your view. And one might ask why advances in thought occurred in colder climates, Europe and China, rather than at the point of life's origin a warmer area. Does cold stimulate thought? That was a point made to me as a college kid in a course we had on 'Cultural Heritage". My point is simple. Its not just climate, but as usual in discussion about evolution, multifactorial issues to be considered.

I keep pointing out the human brain is not necessary for survival. If that is the case, where is the need or push for your favorite idea "improvement"? Other than humans who can think, what organisms wonder how they can improve? None. And bacteria support my point. The only way this happens is if there is a built-in drive for complexity, and that did not occur as a natural event, any more than the arrival of life was a natural event. Speciation requires design. It is obvious there must be a designer.

13173 views

DAVID: I admire your tubular vision which excludes all but the facts you like as then your theory can be made to look better. Climate is not the be all and end all of our sudden civilization in the past 10,000 years.

You wanted an explanation for the “long pause”. The researchers say that 12,000 years ago marked the beginning of a revolution for humanity. You wrote: “During the past 12,000 years we really learned how to use our brains. We had been partially civilised; we had farmed food and lived above a survival existence which allowed us to really start thinking.” The suggestion, with which you appeared to agree, is that the “long pause” ended when a climate change offered new opportunities, and these triggered the revolution. Now you disagree.

DAVID: Glaciation started two million years ago and they came and went. They did not reach into Africa where the temperatures did dip but Neanderthals and early Homos thrived in their primitive ways. They existed before this last glacial period (which we still in to a degree because of the polar ice caps) and could have civilized in a previous pause like this one, but they didn't.

I would suggest that if organisms are thriving, they don’t need to change, and so it takes something special to trigger advances: e.g. a stroke of genius that makes life even better (tools, weapons), or a climate change that offers new opportunities but still needs individual geniuses to exploit the new potential for improvement.

DAVID: The long pauses at each stage of new brain size are compatible with having to learn to use the new size, opposite to your view.

If no advances are made, what is being learned? You only learn what already exists, so there is no need for expansion! Hence stasis. Advances come from innovations, and we know for a fact that the implementation of new concepts changes the brain (in my proposal that means pre-sapiens expansion and sapiens complexification). What is “opposite to my view”, and contradicts your dualism, is the argument that the implementing brain has to change BEFORE the thinking s/s/c can come up with new concepts.

DAVID: […] My point is simple. Its not just climate, but as usual in discussion about evolution, multifactorial issues to be considered.

I’m sure this is true, but as above, it is you who have constantly asked why there was a long period of stasis and then a sudden burst 12,000 years ago. You didn’t question the researchers’ proposed answer until you realized it fitted in with my hypothesis.

DAVID: I keep pointing out the human brain is not necessary for survival. If that is the case, where is the need or push for your favorite idea "improvement"? Other than humans who can think, what organisms wonder how they can improve? None. And bacteria support my point. The only way this happens is if there is a built-in drive for complexity, and that did not occur as a natural event, any more than the arrival of life was a natural event. Speciation requires design. It is obvious there must be a designer.

I keep pointing out that no multi-cellular organ or organism is necessary for survival since bacteria are so successful. My favourite idea is the push for survival and/or improvement, which includes improving chances of survival. I find this considerably more purposeful than complexity for the sake of complexity. As regards design, you have agreed that your God could just as easily have created the mechanism for organisms to design their own innovations instead of him preprogramming them all 3.8 billion years ago or popping in to do a dabble. You simply prefer the latter. (See also "THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE")

13156 views

DAVID: Glaciation started two million years ago and they came and went. They did not reach into Africa where the temperatures did dip but Neanderthals and early Homos thrived in their primitive ways. They existed before this last glacial period (which we still in to a degree because of the polar ice caps) and could have civilized in a previous pause like this one, but they didn't.

dhw: I would suggest that if organisms are thriving, they don’t need to change, and so it takes something special to trigger advances: e.g. a stroke of genius that makes life even better (tools, weapons), or a climate change that offers new opportunities but still needs individual geniuses to exploit the new potential for improvement.

Chimps are still thriving, but Lucy and her bunch came down from the trees. Your answer does not explain Lucy. The trees were not satisfying?

DAVID: The long pauses at each stage of new brain size are compatible with having to learn to use the new size, opposite to your view.

If no advances are made, what is being learned? You only learn what already exists, so there is no need for expansion! Hence stasis.

If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?

DAVID: […] My point is simple. Its not just climate, but as usual in discussion about evolution, multifactorial issues to be considered.

I’m sure this is true, but as above, it is you who have constantly asked why there was a long period of stasis and then a sudden burst 12,000 years ago. You didn’t question the researchers’ proposed answer until you realized it fitted in with my hypothesis.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. Of course climate was a major factor, but given some more reflection I noted that there were previous good climate periods that were not used, and I noted that the best civilized ideas came from those who migrated north to colder climes. So which climate is best for advanced thinking? It is funny that a new single point you seize upon is a be all and end all for your theory, when lots of other factors need to be considered. Multifactorial is the proper approach.

13185 views

dhw: I would suggest that if organisms are thriving, they don’t need to change, and so it takes something special to trigger advances: e.g. a stroke of genius that makes life even better (tools, weapons), or a climate change that offers new opportunities but still needs individual geniuses to exploit the new potential for improvement.

DAVID: Chimps are still thriving, but Lucy and her bunch came down from the trees. Your answer does not explain Lucy. The trees were not satisfying?

Changes take place in individuals. Lucy’s bunch came down from the trees – maybe there were problems where they lived. Other chimps didn’t have problems and stayed in the trees. Common descent does not mean that every single pre-species turns into the new species.

DAVID: The long pauses at each stage of new brain size are compatible with having to learn to use the new size, opposite to your view.

dhw: If no advances are made, what is being learned? You only learn what already exists, so there is no need for expansion! Hence stasis.

DAVID: If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?

The obvious answer is that the new size was caused by the need for more capacity. Once the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the new concept (now pre-sapiens could make his spear), there was no further need for change until the next major concept came along. The sapiens brain reached optimal size, and so when new concepts came along, it increased the efficiency of its complexification (so much so that it actually shrank).

DAVID: […] My point is simple. Its not just climate, but as usual in discussion about evolution, multifactorial issues to be considered.

dhw: I’m sure this is true, but as above, it is you who have constantly asked why there was a long period of stasis and then a sudden burst 12,000 years ago. […]

DAVID: Of course climate was a major factor, but given some more reflection I noted that there were previous good climate periods that were not used, and I noted that the best civilized ideas came from those who migrated north to colder climes. So which climate is best for advanced thinking? It is funny that a new single point you seize upon is a be all and end all for your theory, when lots of other factors need to be considered. Multifactorial is the proper approach.

It is not the be-all and end-all, and I agree with the reflections you came up with after initially agreeing with the reflections of the researchers. Your point all along has been that there were some 300,000 years of stasis, and then there was a sudden breakthrough. This coincides with a major change in climate. Maybe in earlier periods there were no geniuses around to realize the potential. Do please tell us your own explanation. Once the turning point had come 12,000 years ago, maybe the relatively colder climes created more problems than the warmer climes (e.g. how to keep warm): you need more sophisticated forms of dwelling, which is a not insignificant factor in the advance of civilisation.

13134 views

DAVID: If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?

dhw: The obvious answer is that the new size was caused by the need for more capacity. Once the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the new concept (now pre-sapiens could make his spear), there was no further need for change until the next major concept came along. The sapiens brain reached optimal size, and so when new concepts came along, it increased the efficiency of its complexification (so much so that it actually shrank).

That is your theory nad not lboviuos to me.

dhw: I’m sure this is true, but as above, it is you who have constantly asked why there was a long period of stasis and then a sudden burst 12,000 years ago. […]

DAVID: Of course climate was a major factor, but given some more reflection I noted that there were previous good climate periods that were not used, and I noted that the best civilized ideas came from those who migrated north to colder climes. So which climate is best for advanced thinking? It is funny that a new single point you seize upon is a be all and end all for your theory, when lots of other factors need to be considered. Multifactorial is the proper approach.

dhw: It is not the be-all and end-all, and I agree with the reflections you came up with after initially agreeing with the reflections of the researchers. Your point all along has been that there were some 300,000 years of stasis, and then there was a sudden breakthrough. This coincides with a major change in climate. Maybe in earlier periods there were no geniuses around to realize the potential. Do please tell us your own explanation. Once the turning point had come 12,000 years ago, maybe the relatively colder climes created more problems than the warmer climes (e.g. how to keep warm): you need more sophisticated forms of dwelling, which is a not insignificant factor in the advance of civilisation.

Your points are well taken. Sapiens from Africa did face the challenges of a colder climate, but at the time they moved north because they had an advanced brain which could use its s/s/c to solve the problems. It is noteworthy that the earlier hominins did not try the northward movement. I believe at all levels of hominin development there was a delay reaching a level thought/planing to create new artifacts.

13191 views

DAVID: If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?

dhw: The obvious answer is that the new size was caused by the need for more capacity. Once the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the new concept (now pre-sapiens could make his spear), there was no further need for change until the next major concept came along. The sapiens brain reached optimal size, and so when new concepts came along, it increased the efficiency of its complexification (so much so that it actually shrank).

DAVID: That is your theory and not obvious to me.

Then please give us your own explanation for the sapiens “gap” of 300,000 years, and the hundreds of thousands of years “gap” during which hominins’ brain size and way of life also remained static.

dhw: Your point all along has been that there were some 300,000 years of stasis, and then there was a sudden breakthrough. This coincides with a major change in climate. Maybe in earlier periods there were no geniuses around to realize the potential. Do please tell us your own explanation. Once the turning point had come 12,000 years ago, maybe the relatively colder climes created more problems than the warmer climes (e.g. how to keep warm): you need more sophisticated forms of dwelling, which is a not insignificant factor in the advance of civilisation.

DAVID: Your points are well taken. Sapiens from Africa did face the challenges of a colder climate, but at the time they moved north because they had an advanced brain which could use its s/s/c to solve the problems. It is noteworthy that the earlier hominins did not try the northward movement. I believe at all levels of hominin development there was a delay reaching a level thought/planing to create new artifacts.

We know there was a “delay” or “gap” at all levels, including sapiens. I have offered you an explanation above. Please point out any logical flaws in this hypothesis and give us your own explanation for the gaps at all levels.

13155 views

DAVID: If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?

dhw: The obvious answer is that the new size was caused by the need for more capacity. Once the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the new concept (now pre-sapiens could make his spear), there was no further need for change until the next major concept came along. The sapiens brain reached optimal size, and so when new concepts came along, it increased the efficiency of its complexification (so much so that it actually shrank).

DAVID: That is your theory and not obvious to me.

dhw: Then please give us your own explanation for the sapiens “gap” of 300,000 years, and the hundreds of thousands of years “gap” during which hominins’ brain size and way of life also remained static.

As before, God speciates and creates a 'next' species with more pre-frontal, frontal size and complexity. It then takes time to learn how to use the new size. The contemporary artifacts prove the point. Survival skills are limited in brain requirements, since the lifestyle is so simple. Only the current sapiens brain could have created our very complex civilization, which has erupted in the past few hundred years. And the brain shrunk by 150cc, when your proposal of a conceptual demand for explosion seams to ask for more results earlier.

dhw: Your point all along has been that there were some 300,000 years of stasis, and then there was a sudden breakthrough. This coincides with a major change in climate. Maybe in earlier periods there were no geniuses around to realize the potential. Do please tell us your own explanation. Once the turning point had come 12,000 years ago, maybe the relatively colder climes created more problems than the warmer climes (e.g. how to keep warm): you need more sophisticated forms of dwelling, which is a not insignificant factor in the advance of civilisation.

DAVID: Your points are well taken. Sapiens from Africa did face the challenges of a colder climate, but at the time they moved north because they had an advanced brain which could use its s/s/c to solve the problems. It is noteworthy that the earlier hominins did not try the northward movement. I believe at all levels of hominin development there was a delay reaching a level thought/planing to create new artifacts.

dhw: We know there was a “delay” or “gap” at all levels, including sapiens. I have offered you an explanation above. Please point out any logical flaws in this hypothesis and give us your own explanation for the gaps at all levels.

Second request for same answer as above. Remember God starts it. You seek a natural chance mechanism a 'la Darwin to explode brains. And you answer God might have doesn't get around my objection.

13130 views

DAVID: If a brain is built for more advanced thought by the s/s/c, why not start using it?
dhw: The obvious answer is that the new size was caused by the need for more capacity. Once the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the new concept (now pre-sapiens could make his spear), there was no further need for change until the next major concept came along. The sapiens brain reached optimal size, and so when new concepts came along, it increased the efficiency of its complexification (so much so that it actually shrank).
DAVID: That is your theory and not obvious to me.

dhw: Then please give us your own explanation for the sapiens “gap” of 300,000 years, and the hundreds of thousands of years “gap” during which hominins’ brain size and way of life also remained static.
DAVID: As before, God speciates and creates a 'next' species with more pre-frontal, frontal size and complexity. It then takes time to learn how to use the new size. The contemporary artifacts prove the point.

Please enlighten me. Did the artefacts appear when the new species appeared, or was there a sapiens-like “gap” BEFORE the artefacts appeared? If nothing new happens for hundreds of thousands of years after the arrival of the new brain, please tell us what uses of the new brain are being “learned”, and how do you think the “learning” takes place if it produces nothing?

DAVID: Survival skills are limited in brain requirements, since the lifestyle is so simple. Only the current sapiens brain could have created our very complex civilization, which has erupted in the past few hundred years. And the brain shrunk by 150cc, when your proposal of a conceptual demand for explosion seams to ask for more results earlier.

All agreed except that my proposal does no such thing. It EXPLAINS why there are long periods of stasis: new concept (e.g. spear) realized, no need for further expansion until next genius comes up with next major concept. Invention comes through special minds. But it may be triggered by opportunities offered by environmental change, as proposed in the article. I keep suggesting that shrinkage was due to the efficiency of complexification, and I thought you agreed.

dhw: We know there was a “delay” or “gap” at all levels, including sapiens. I have offered you an explanation above. Please point out any logical flaws in this hypothesis and give us your own explanation for the gaps at all levels.
DAVID: Second request for same answer as above. Remember God starts it. You seek a natural chance mechanism a 'la Darwin to explode brains. And you answer God might have doesn't get around my objection.

If there is a God, he will certainly have started it. But instead of starting it by dabbling with somebody’s brain, he could have started it by giving all brains the ability to complexify and/or expand in response to the activities of the s/s/c (regardless of its source). There is no chance mechanism if your God created it, this has nothing to do with Darwin, and it seems that the only “logical flaw” you can find is that my theistic hypothesis is not yours.

13190 views

DAVID: As before, God speciates and creates a 'next' species with more pre-frontal, frontal size and complexity. It then takes time to learn how to use the new size. The contemporary artifacts prove the point.

dhw: Please enlighten me. Did the artefacts appear when the new species appeared, or was there a sapiens-like “gap” BEFORE the artefacts appeared? If nothing new happens for hundreds of thousands of years after the arrival of the new brain, please tell us what uses of the new brain are being “learned”, and how do you think the “learning” takes place if it produces nothing?

I don't think the artifacts are in any way an immediate result of the enlarged frontal lobes. We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now. Sapiens took a long time to really use their new brain, and it must have been the same in past stages of evolution of hominins. In survival living, it must be one little improvement at a time invented by an unusually thoughtful person, as you have discussed as below.

DAVID: Survival skills are limited in brain requirements, since the lifestyle is so simple. Only the current sapiens brain could have created our very complex civilization, which has erupted in the past few hundred years. And the brain shrunk by 150cc, when your proposal of a conceptual demand for explosion seams to ask for more results earlier.

dhw: All agreed except that my proposal does no such thing. It EXPLAINS why there are long periods of stasis: new concept (e.g. spear) realized, no need for further expansion until next genius comes up with next major concept. Invention comes through special minds. But it may be triggered by opportunities offered by environmental change, as proposed in the article. I keep suggesting that shrinkage was due to the efficiency of complexification, and I thought you agreed.

I do agree to long periods of stasis but I suspect complexification can have occurred in past stages of hominin evolution. I absolutely disagree with your push concept of brain growth. It is pure Darwinism.

dhw: We know there was a “delay” or “gap” at all levels, including sapiens. I have offered you an explanation above. Please point out any logical flaws in this hypothesis and give us your own explanation for the gaps at all levels.
DAVID: Second request for same answer as above. Remember God starts it. You seek a natural chance mechanism a 'la Darwin to explode brains. And you answer God might have doesn't get around my objection.

dhw: If there is a God, he will certainly have started it. But instead of starting it by dabbling with somebody’s brain, he could have started it by giving all brains the ability to complexify and/or expand in response to the activities of the s/s/c (regardless of its source). There is no chance mechanism if your God created it, this has nothing to do with Darwin, and it seems that the only “logical flaw” you can find is that my theistic hypothesis is not yours.

Logical thought is a series of conclusions based on the initial starting points being accepted. I don't agree at all with your initial proposals as to why the brain grew. But if accepted you have proceeded logically. What is not theistic in your thinking is that a larger b rain demands a larger brain pan in a larger skull and changes in the mother's brain canal. The smaller brain cannot tell the other parts what to do, especially the mother's pelvis. Only God can orchestrate all the moving parts.

13220 views

Evidence of early Homos in the Philippines from one site in Luzon. Apparently early Homos could sail the seas:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/stone-tools-rhinoceros-luzon-philippines-an...

"Stone tools found in the Philippines predate the arrival of modern humans to the islands by roughly 600,000 years—but researchers aren’t sure who made them.

"The eye-popping artifacts, unveiled on Wednesday in Nature, were abandoned on a river floodplain on the island of Luzon beside the butchered carcass of a rhinoceros. The ancient toolmakers were clearly angling for a meal. Two of the rhino's limb bones are smashed in, as if someone was trying to harvest and eat the marrow inside. Cut marks left behind by stone blades crisscross the rhino's ribs and ankle, a clear sign that someone used tools to strip the carcass of meat.

"But the age of the remains makes them especially remarkable: The carved bones are most likely between 631,000 and 777,000 years old, with researchers' best estimate coming in around 709,000 years old. The research—partially funded by the National Geographic Society—pushes back occupation of the Philippines to before the known origin of our species, Homo sapiens. The next-earliest evidence of Philippine hominins comes from Luzon's Callao Cave, in the form of a 67,000-year-old foot bone.

***

"While the researchers don't know which archaic cousin of ours butchered the rhino, the find will likely cause a stir among people studying the human story in the South Pacific—especially those wondering how early hominins got to the Philippines in the first place.

***

"Several of the habitable islands across the South Pacific have long been hemmed off by swaths of open ocean, so it was thought that humans' ancient cousins couldn't have made it to them without knowing how to sail.

"But as the saying goes, life finds a way. In 2004, researchers unveiled Homo floresiensis, which lived on the isolated island of Flores for hundreds of thousands of years. In 2016, researchers also found stone tools on Sulawesi, an island north of Flores. As National Geographic reported at the time, the Sulawesi tools date to at least 118,000 years ago, or some 60,000 years before the first anatomically modern humans arrived.

“'It's really, really exciting—it's now becoming increasingly clear that ancient forms of hominins were able to make significant deep-sea crossings,” says Adam Brumm, a paleoanthropologist at Griffith University who studies H. floresiensis.

***

"To get an age range for the site, the team measured the sediments and the rhino's teeth to see how much radiation they had naturally absorbed over time. In addition, they measured the natural uranium content of one of the rhino's teeth, since that element decays like clockwork into thorium. In the mud around the rhino's bones, they also found a speck of melted glass from an asteroid impact dated to about 781,000 year ago.

***

"The list of possible toolmakers includes the Denisovans, a ghost lineage of hominins known from DNA and a handful of Siberian fossils. The leading candidate, though, is the early hominin Homo erectus, since it definitely made its way into southeast Asia. The Indonesian island of Java has H. erectus fossils that are more than 700,000 years old.

"Ingicco's team suggests that the butchers may have been Luzon's version of H. floresiensis, which may have descended from a population of H. erectus that ended up on Flores. Over millennia, the H. erectus there may have evolved to live efficiently on a predator-free island, shrinking in a process called island dwarfism.

***

"Whoever they were, the toolmakers' ancestors may have taken one of two migration routes into the Philippines, according to Ingicco's team: an west-to-east route from Borneo or Palawan, or a north-to-south route from China and Taiwan. But it's an open question how these hominins crossed open ocean.

"It's tempting to think that our extinct cousins used rudimentary boats: When news of the Callao Cave remains broke in 2010, some experts chalked up their presence to ancient seafarers. But the idea is still considered farfetched. Rhinos and elephant-like creatures also made it to Luzon, and they clearly didn't build boats."

Comment: our early ancestors got around over the seas, and I think it will come out, if it ever does, that they learned some sailing techniques with enough provisions on board to spend several days at it. It happened over the Pacific in more recent times.

13201 views

DAVID: As before, God speciates and creates a 'next' species with more pre-frontal, frontal size and complexity. It then takes time to learn how to use the new size. The contemporary artifacts prove the point.

dhw: Please enlighten me. Did the artefacts appear when the new species appeared, or was there a sapiens-like “gap” BEFORE the artefacts appeared? If nothing new happens for hundreds of thousands of years after the arrival of the new brain, please tell us what uses of the new brain are being “learned”, and how do you think the “learning” takes place if it produces nothing?

DAVID: I don't think the artifacts are in any way an immediate result of the enlarged frontal lobes. We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now. Sapiens took a long time to really use their new brain, and it must have been the same in past stages of evolution of hominins. In survival living, it must be one little improvement at a time invented by an unusually thoughtful person, as you have discussed as below.

If my hypothesis is correct, the artefacts would have appeared at the time when the new species appeared (it was their implementation that triggered the new sized brain). Unfortunately, your only evidence against this seems to be that you don’t think it’s right. In my hypothesis, once the spear had been made and the brain had expanded, pre-sapiens carried on using the “new brain” for a long time without any advances (like pre-sapiens), until the new concept caused the next expansion. See below for what we study now. I agree that little improvements would have followed on from the big improvements which caused the brain to expand. It’s the big improvements (innovations) which would have come from the geniuses.

DAVID: I do agree to long periods of stasis but I suspect complexification can have occurred in past stages of hominin evolution.

I expect so too. The jump would have occurred when complexification could no longer cope within the existing capacity.

DAVID: I absolutely disagree with your push concept of brain growth. It is pure Darwinism.

I know you disagree. I don’t know where Darwin comes into it, but even if he did, that is hardly an argument against it! Anyway, do please tell us where he proposes that cellular intelligence caused the brain to expand when the s/s/c came up with new concepts which required greater capacity for their implementation.

dhw: […] it seems that the only “logical flaw” you can find is that my theistic hypothesis is not yours.

DAVID: Logical thought is a series of conclusions based on the initial starting points being accepted. I don't agree at all with your initial proposals as to why the brain grew. But if accepted you have proceeded logically.

A nice observation, but what starting point are you talking about? The starting point of this discussion is that the brain of pre-sapiens expanded. Agreed? We want to know the cause. You say: “We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now.” I agree. Now we see that the brain responds to new concepts by changing (i.e. complexifying and even expanding within limits). Agreed? It is therefore logical to conclude that the pre-sapiens brain also responded to new concepts by changing. Please tell us what current studies support the hypothesis that the brain changes BEFORE it has the concepts that require brain change for their implementation. Reminder: the starting point is: what caused pre-sapiens' brain expansion?

13197 views

DAVID: I don't think the artifacts are in any way an immediate result of the enlarged frontal lobes. We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now. Sapiens took a long time to really use their new brain, and it must have been the same in past stages of evolution of hominins. In survival living, it must be one little improvement at a time invented by an unusually thoughtful person, as you have discussed as below.

dhw: If my hypothesis is correct, the artefacts would have appeared at the time when the new species appeared (it was their implementation that triggered the new sized brain). Unfortunately, your only evidence against this seems to be that you don’t think it’s right.

I don't think you are right for reasons I've given in the past that you constantly slide by. We have risen above animals in the way our brain works. In vision, hearing and general motor activity our brain operates just like apes. We do have better hand manipulation and shoulder movement. Those portions of the brain which we both have that control vision, hearing, general movement, etc., did not enlarge as hominin species advanced in thought ability. The advance in brain size were specifically almost entirely the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, which is where intelligence and emotions are specifically handled. The concept of the spear developed in a pfc complex enough to think of it. Making the spear was done by the other parts of the brain that are similar in size in apes and us. Implementation does not enlarge a brain. Ability to have more complex thought can only come from a more complex thinking area for the s/s/c to use.

DAVID: Logical thought is a series of conclusions based on the initial starting points being accepted. I don't agree at all with your initial proposals as to why the brain grew. But if accepted you have proceeded logically.

dhw: Please tell us what current studies support the hypothesis that the brain changes BEFORE it has the concepts that require brain change for their implementation. Reminder: the starting point is: what caused pre-sapiens' brain expansion?

The changes in the anatomy of the brain makes my approach quite clear. Both apes and we have all the parts of the brain that provide for survival living. The only difference is the huge frontal lobes our s/s/c thinks with. The implementation parts have been here all along and barely changed in six million years. You cannot deny the anatomic evidence. I think God speciates is why it all happened.

13161 views

dhw: If my hypothesis is correct, the artefacts would have appeared at the time when the new species appeared (it was their implementation that triggered the new sized brain). Unfortunately, your only evidence against this seems to be that you don’t think it’s right.
DAVID: I don't think you are right for reasons I've given in the past that you constantly slide by. We have risen above animals in the way our brain works. In vision, hearing and general motor activity our brain operates just like apes. We do have better hand manipulation and shoulder movement. Those portions of the brain which we both have that control vision, hearing, general movement, etc., did not enlarge as hominin species advanced in thought ability. The advance in brain size were specifically almost entirely the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, which is where intelligence and emotions are specifically handled.

All agreed until the last sentence concerning compartmentalization, which is thrown into question by the research you quoted under “fMRO: a very critical review again": “…you see activity in a brain region and assign it a specific function. But it’s completely wrong. Multiple functions are subsumed by multiple areas, which are handled by cognitive networks. It’s very complicated.” This is why I prefer to talk of the brain in general, but it may well be that the pfc is the control centre where conceptualization takes place and which sends out instructions to the rest of the brain. If so, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the dualist’s “soul” will expand its set of material controls as it sends out its new instructions, rather than its material controls expanding before it has even thought of any new instructions to send out.

DAVID: The concept of the spear developed in a pfc complex enough to think of it.

Once again you have the brain (pfc) doing the thinking. Pure materialism. (Fine with me, but you keep forgetting that you are a dualist.)

DAVID: Making the spear was done by the other parts of the brain that are similar in size in apes and us. Implementation does not enlarge a brain. Ability to have more complex thought can only come from a more complex thinking area for the s/s/c to use.

“Thinking area”? We’re talking of expansion here. Are you saying that your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness has to have more space in order to do more thinking? That simply makes no sense! If your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness does not have enough materials to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts, then it needs additional materials. Hence expansion.

DAVID: Logical thought is a series of conclusions based on the initial starting points being accepted. I don't agree at all with your initial proposals as to why the brain grew. But if accepted you have proceeded logically.

dhw: Please tell us what current studies support the hypothesis that the brain changes BEFORE it has the concepts that require brain change for their implementation. Reminder: the starting point is: what caused pre-sapiens' brain expansion?

DAVID: The changes in the anatomy of the brain makes my approach quite clear. Both apes and we have all the parts of the brain that provide for survival living. The only difference is the huge frontal lobes our s/s/c thinks with. The implementation parts have been here all along and barely changed in six million years. You cannot deny the anatomic evidence. I think God speciates is why it all happened.

I’m glad you’ve dropped the starting point argument. I’m sorry you have not been able to tell us of any current studies that support your hypothesis that the brain changes before it has the concepts that require it to change. I have offered my explanation for the pfc expansion. Your God could speciate by designing a brain that thinks for itself and is plastic enough to engineer its own changes.

13197 views

dhw:The advance in brain size were specifically almost entirely the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, which is where intelligence and emotions are specifically handled. [/i]

dhw: All agreed until the last sentence concerning compartmentalization, which is thrown into question by the research you quoted under “fMRO: a very critical review again": “…you see activity in a brain region and assign it a specific function. But it’s completely wrong. Multiple functions are subsumed by multiple areas, which are handled by cognitive networks. It’s very complicated.” This is why I prefer to talk of the brain in general, but it may well be that the pfc is the control centre where conceptualization takes place and which sends out instructions to the rest of the brain.

You are totally confused about the brain. Yes, the whole brain is operating all the time, but definite areas as consigned to where the s/s/c does its work, and the thinking area to create concepts is the pfc, nothing else. The pfc does extract known memory facts from the hippocampus and elsewhre in doing the collating of its thoughts, but those thoughts are in the pfc.

dhw: If so, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the dualist’s “soul” will expand its set of material controls as it sends out its new instructions, rather than its material controls expanding before it has even thought of any new instructions to send out.

A concept from thin air. The soul drives the the enlargement of the brain? Enlarges the skull and changes the mother's pelvis? I didn't know souls had that power, being immaterial.

DAVID: The concept of the spear developed in a pfc complex enough to think of it.

dhw: Once again you have the brain (pfc) doing the thinking. Pure materialism. (Fine with me, but you keep forgetting that you are a dualist.)

I never forget. I assume you always remember that I have shown the s/s/c has consigned areas of the brain in which to work.

DAVID: Making the spear was done by the other parts of the brain that are similar in size in apes and us. Implementation does not enlarge a brain. Ability to have more complex thought can only come from a more complex thinking area for the s/s/c to use.

dhw: “Thinking area”? We’re talking of expansion here. Are you saying that your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness has to have more space in order to do more thinking? That simply makes no sense! If your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness does not have enough materials to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts, then it needs additional materials. Hence expansion.

Your response makes no sense in light of my statement. The brain has a thinking area for the s/s/c, the pfc and frontal cortex. That portion enlarged and thinking became much more complex.Implementation is performed by other parts of the brain that did not enlarge in the steps from Lucy to us.

dhw: I’m glad you’ve dropped the starting point argument. I’m sorry you have not been able to tell us of any current studies that support your hypothesis that the brain changes before it has the concepts that require it to change. I have offered my explanation for the pfc expansion. Your God could speciate by designing a brain that thinks for itself and is plastic enough to engineer its own changes.

Your request for studies into enlargement of the brain have no basis of facts in which to work. All we've got is fossils to measure. As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of eh human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

13194 views

dhw: I’m glad you’ve dropped the starting point argument. I’m sorry you have not been able to tell us of any current studies that support your hypothesis that the brain changes before it has the concepts that require it to change. I have offered my explanation for the pfc expansion. Your God could speciate by designing a brain that thinks for itself and is plastic enough to engineer its own changes.

David: Your request for studies into enlargement of the brain have no basis of facts in which to work. All we've got is fossils to measure. As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of eh human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

I've found a theoretical study about how human brain growth starts:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504103802.htm

"The superior size and complexity of the human brain compared to other mammals may actually originate from fewer initial starting materials, new research has suggested.

"A team from the University of Oxford and Cardiff University have used mathematical models to re-enact the complex process of brain development that occurs as initialising cells, otherwise known as progenitor cells, start to grow and begin to differentiate into more specialist cells at various points in time.

"By applying this experimentally realistic model to mice, monkeys and humans, all of which use roughly the same type of raw materials to develop a brain, the team identified the different brain development strategies that separates each of the three mammals.

"In particular, the equations looked at the ability of progenitor cells to divide either into more progenitor cells or into neurons. The equations were then linked to real-life experimental data from mice, monkeys and humans and used to predict the original population of progenitor cells before the brains started to develop.

"The results showed that the human brain may develop from fewer raw materials compared to both mice and monkeys, which is surprising given that a human brain is much more complex than that of a mouse.

"Indeed, the cerebral cortex in the human brain, which is accountable for high cognitive functions such as language, memory and movement, contains approximately 16 billion neurons -- the cerebral cortex of a mouse contains around 14 million neurons. (my bold)

"Similarly, the brain of a mouse weighs around 400 mg whereas a human brain weighs roughly 1,500,000 mg.

"Interestingly when comparing the brain of a monkey to a mouse, the results showed that the monkey brain is developed from more initial cells, leading to the creation of a larger brain.

"The team have proposed that as the human brain has been formed and sculpted through more than 500 million years of evolution, it has been able to develop more strategic ways of creating complex structures with fewer cells.

***

"Dr Noemi Picco, from the University of Oxford, said: "To produce a larger brain we can either stretch development over a longer period of time or adopt an altogether different developmental program to produce neurons more efficiently within the time available.

"'It seems plausible that humans adopted the first solution as our gestational period is much longer than a mouse's, rather than starting off with more raw material."

"'While this argument is only speculative, this research produced an alternative testable hypothesis, setting the basis for future experimental studies.'"

Comment: this study does not help us decide our differences, but it certainly demonstrates how different our brain start is compared to other animals. My bolded portion above is discussing the entire cortex, not confined to the thinking frontal cortex where most of the s/s/c is interlocked.

13183 views

dhw: “fMRO: a very critical review again": “…you see activity in a brain region and assign it a specific function. But it’s completely wrong. Multiple functions are subsumed by multiple areas, which are handled by cognitive networks. It’s very complicated.” This is why I prefer to talk of the brain in general, but it may well be that the pfc is the control centre where conceptualization takes place and which sends out instructions to the rest of the brain.

DAVID: You are totally confused about the brain. Yes, the whole brain is operating all the time, but definite areas as consigned to where the s/s/c does its work, and the thinking area to create concepts is the pfc, nothing else. The pfc does extract known memory facts from the hippocampus and elsewhre in doing the collating of its thoughts, but those thoughts are in the pfc.

I am totally ignorant about the brain, and therefore rely on what the specialists tell me. If specialists disagree, yes, I am confused. You wrote: “The fMRI follows muscle movement and other application areas fairly easily but thought may be in frontal areas and is influenced by other areas controlling emotions, which are harder to define.” I like your “may be”. When you say emotions are harder to define, you raise the whole question of definition. Where exactly is the border between thought, emotion, memory etc.? Are the “cognitive networks” confined to the pfc? But none of this makes any difference to the following:

dhw: If so [i.e. the pfc is the control centre], it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the dualist’s “soul” will expand its set of material controls as it sends out its new instructions, rather than its material controls expanding before it has even thought of any new instructions to send out.
DAVID: A concept from thin air. The soul drives the enlargement of the brain? Enlarges the skull and changes the mother's pelvis? I didn't know souls had that power, being immaterial.

You want to read and write, so your soul drives your hand to handle the pen and your brain to make the new connections. Do you think your God expands the taxi-driver’s hippocampus and the musician’s auditory cortex before they can take up their professions? If your soul can change the brain cells, why can’t it get other cell communities to change as well? Why does your God have to preprogramme or dabble every change?

DAVID: The concept of the spear developed in a pfc complex enough to think of it.
dhw: Once again you have the brain (pfc) doing the thinking. Pure materialism. (Fine with me, but you keep forgetting that you are a dualist.)
DAVID: I never forget. I assume you always remember that I have shown the s/s/c has consigned areas of the brain in which to work.

Then there is no disagreement. Of course concepts develop in the area of the brain where concepts develop.

DAVID: Ability to have more complex thought can only come from a more complex thinking area for the s/s/c to use.
dhw: “[…] Are you saying that your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness has to have more space in order to do more thinking? That simply makes no sense! If your immaterial piece of God’s consciousness does not have enough materials to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts, then it needs additional materials. Hence expansion.
DAVID: Your response makes no sense in light of my statement. The brain has a thinking area for the s/s/c, the pfc and frontal cortex. That portion enlarged and thinking became much more complex. Implementation is performed by other parts of the brain that did not enlarge in the steps from Lucy to us.

But did the portion enlarge BEFORE thought could become more complex, or BECAUSE thought became more complex? As above, if the dualist’s soul is sitting in the pfc, the more messages it has to send out, the more material connections (producing the “cognitive networks”) it has to make. This means either complexification or, if the brain runs out of space, expansion, which leads us to:

DAVID: Your request for studies into enlargement of the brain have no basis of facts in which to work. All we've got is fossils to measure.

It was you who said we must “interpret past evolution by studying what we see now”. What we see now is brain changes CAUSED by and not PRECEDING the implementation of new concepts.

DAVID (addendum): I've found a theoretical study about how human brain growth starts:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504103802.htm
DAVID: this study does not help us decide our differences, but it certainly demonstrates how different our brain start is compared to other animals.

Agreed. It doesn’t help us at all! The wonderful article on porpoises is probably more to the point, as it touches on the question of borderlines between thought and emotion.

DAVID: As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of eh human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

If your God exists, then of course he was/is in charge, in the sense that he set up the mechanism for evolution, and could always interfere if he felt like it. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

13237 views

dhw: I am totally ignorant about the brain, and therefore rely on what the specialists tell me. If specialists disagree, yes, I am confused. You wrote: “The fMRI follows muscle movement and other application areas fairly easily but thought may be in frontal areas and is influenced by other areas controlling emotions, which are harder to define.” I like your “may be”. When you say emotions are harder to define, you raise the whole question of definition. Where exactly is the border between thought, emotion, memory etc.? Are the “cognitive networks” confined to the pfc? But none of this makes any difference to the following:

My 'maybe' covers your question about the borderlines of the areas. But cognition, thought, is generally only in the pfc.

dhw: If your soul can change the brain cells, why can’t it get other cell communities to change as well? Why does your God have to preprogramme or dabble every change?

We need God to control the many interlocking mutations that have to take place to make these advances: Enlarge the brain, the skull and change the mother's pelvic outlet.

dhw: But did the portion enlarge BEFORE thought could become more complex, or BECAUSE thought became more complex? As above, if the dualist’s soul is sitting in the pfc, the more messages it has to send out, the more material connections (producing the “cognitive networks”) it has to make. This means either complexification or, if the brain runs out of space, expansion, which leads us to:

DAVID: Your request for studies into enlargement of the brain have no basis of facts in which to work. All we've got is fossils to measure.

dhw: It was you who said we must “interpret past evolution by studying what we see now”. What we see now is brain changes CAUSED by and not PRECEDING the implementation of new concepts.

The sapiens evidence is very specific: areas can enlarge through use (taxi drivers) but overall the sapiens brain has shrunk 150 cc since it appeared, despite enormous use more recently. Hard to refute this obvious fact. Wide spread complexification from conceptual thought shrinks the brain.

DAVID (addendum): I've found a theoretical study about how human brain growth starts:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504103802.htm

DAVID: this study does not help us decide our differences, but it certainly demonstrates how different our brain start is compared to other animals.

dhw: Agreed. It doesn’t help us at all! The wonderful article on porpoises is probably more to the point, as it touches on the question of borderlines between thought and emotion.

DAVID: As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of the human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

dhw: If your God exists, then of course he was/is in charge, in the sense that he set up the mechanism for evolution, and could always interfere if he felt like it. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

Enlarging the brain is a complex task, since it involves skull and mother's pelvis.

13230 views

dhw: You wrote: “The fMRI follows muscle movement and other application areas fairly easily but thought may be in frontal areas and is influenced by other areas controlling emotions, which are harder to define.” I like your “may be”. When you say emotions are harder to define, you raise the whole question of definition. Where exactly is the border between thought, emotion, memory etc.? Are the “cognitive networks” confined to the pfc?

DAVID: My 'maybe' covers your question about the borderlines of the areas. But cognition, thought, is generally only in the pfc.

“Generally” leaves a nice margin. It still makes no difference to the argument that the “soul” must expand its set of controls as it sends out new instructions, which would explain the expansion of the pfc. I notice you have ignored this suggestion.

dhw: If your soul can change the brain cells, why can’t it get other cell communities to change as well? Why does your God have to preprogramme or dabble every change?

DAVID: We need God to control the many interlocking mutations that have to take place to make these advances: Enlarge the brain, the skull and change the mother's pelvic outlet.

Any major change in any organism entails cooperation between the different cell communities that make up the whole body. Since you believe in common descent, you now seem to be telling us that God has to engineer every single major physical change in every single organism that descended from the first cells. And you refuse to contemplate the possibility that your God might have designed cells in such a way that they were able to engineer all the different changes themselves – an explanation which explains the whole higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, including the changes to all brains, skulls and pelvic outlets.

dhw: As above, if the dualist’s soul is sitting in the pfc, the more messages it has to send out, the more material connections (producing the “cognitive networks”) it has to make. This means either complexification or, if the brain runs out of space, expansion, which leads us to:

DAVID: Your request for studies into enlargement of the brain have no basis of facts in which to work. All we've got is fossils to measure.

dhw: It was you who said we must “interpret past evolution by studying what we see now”. What we see now is brain changes CAUSED by and not PRECEDING the implementation of new concepts.

DAVID: The sapiens evidence is very specific: areas can enlarge through use (taxi drivers) but overall the sapiens brain has shrunk 150 cc since it appeared, despite enormous use more recently. Hard to refute this obvious fact. Wide spread complexification from conceptual thought shrinks the brain.

We have been over this a hundred times. There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s. If areas can enlarge through use, then the pfc can have enlarged through use. With that in mind, I would therefore change your last sentence to: the enhanced efficiency of complexification has shrunk the brain. In any case, both statements confirm that the brain changes through use, but there is no evidence that it changes to anticipate new uses. Or are you now turning your own enlargement hypothesis on its head and telling us that your God shrunk sapiens' brain in advance so that it would complexify more efficiently and thus allow more complex thought?

DAVID: As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of the human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

dhw: If your God exists, then of course he was/is in charge, in the sense that he set up the mechanism for evolution, and could always interfere if he felt like it. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

DAVID: Enlarging the brain is a complex task, since it involves skull and mother's pelvis.

Agreed. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

13175 views

DAVID: My 'maybe' covers your question about the borderlines of the areas. But cognition, thought, is generally only in the pfc.

dhw: “Generally” leaves a nice margin. It still makes no difference to the argument that the “soul” must expand its set of controls as it sends out new instructions, which would explain the expansion of the pfc. I notice you have ignored this suggestion.

The 'generally' covers the fact that the pfc must reach into the hippocampus and other areas for memory facts while studying a problem. The soul uses implementation areas already existing in other areas of the brain before the pfc enlarged. I keep telling you about the fact that enlargement is in a thought area, not an implementation region which all other primates have as we do, and that fact doesn't seem to be receptive to you.

dhw: And you refuse to contemplate the possibility that your God might have designed cells in such a way that they were able to engineer all the different changes themselves – an explanation which explains the whole higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, including the changes to all brains, skulls and pelvic outlets.

Why do you persistently forget I always have agreed God could have invented a mechanism for organisms to advance their own evolution with guidelines.

dhw: It was you who said we must “interpret past evolution by studying what we see now”. What we see now is brain changes CAUSED by and not PRECEDING the implementation of new concepts.

DAVID: The sapiens evidence is very specific: areas can enlarge through use (taxi drivers) but overall the sapiens brain has shrunk 150 cc since it appeared, despite enormous use more recently. Hard to refute this obvious fact. Wide spread complexification from conceptual thought shrinks the brain.

dhw: We have been over this a hundred times. There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s.

This is your unproven concept. No facts involved.

DAVID: As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of the human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.

dhw: If your God exists, then of course he was/is in charge, in the sense that he set up the mechanism for evolution, and could always interfere if he felt like it. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

From my concept that only a bigger computer can do more complex tasks

DAVID: Enlarging the brain is a complex task, since it involves skull and mother's pelvis.

dhw: Agreed. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?

Your answer question is a non sequitur. I am discussing the complexity of this species change, to create a larger front of the brain: new skull and different mother's pelvis.

13144 views

DAVID: My 'maybe' covers your question about the borderlines of the areas. But cognition, thought, is generally only in the pfc.

dhw: “Generally” leaves a nice margin. It still makes no difference to the argument that the “soul” must expand its set of controls as it sends out new instructions, which would explain the expansion of the pfc. I notice you have ignored this suggestion.

DAVID: The 'generally' covers the fact that the pfc must reach into the hippocampus and other areas for memory facts while studying a problem. The soul uses implementation areas already existing in other areas of the brain before the pfc enlarged. I keep telling you about the fact that enlargement is in a thought area, not an implementation region which all other primates have as we do, and that fact doesn't seem to be receptive to you.

I’m quite happy to accept that the enlargement is in a “thought area”, but you don’t seem to be receptive to the fact that new thoughts will require new connections to the rest of the brain if they are to be implemented. Those connections will have to begin in the “thought area”. Hence expansion.

dhw: And you refuse to contemplate the possibility that your God might have designed cells in such a way that they were able to engineer all the different changes themselves – an explanation which explains the whole higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, including the changes to all brains, skulls and pelvic outlets.

DAVID: Why do you persistently forget I always have agreed God could have invented a mechanism for organisms to advance their own evolution with guidelines.

Because whenever I pin you down to the nature of these “guidelines”, they turn out to be divine programming or dabbling, which removes the whole concept of autonomy.

dhw: It was you who said we must “interpret past evolution by studying what we see now”. What we see now is brain changes CAUSED by and not PRECEDING the implementation of new concepts.

DAVID: The sapiens evidence is very specific: areas can enlarge through use (taxi drivers) but overall the sapiens brain has shrunk 150 cc since it appeared, despite enormous use more recently. Hard to refute this obvious fact. Wide spread complexification from conceptual thought shrinks the brain.

dhw: We have been over this a hundred times. There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s.
DAVID: This is your unproven concept. No facts involved.

Of course. Nobody’s hypothesis has been proven – and that includes your own. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. However, that doesn’t in any way negate the logic of my argument. And I notice you have ignored the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

DAVID: As for what God did, I feel He was/is in charge of what evolution did/does. His work is the best explanation for the arrival of the human brain. Your theory simply accepts that.
dhw: If your God exists, then of course he was/is in charge, in the sense that he set up the mechanism for evolution, and could always interfere if he felt like it. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?
DAVID: From my concept that only a bigger computer can do more complex tasks.

Agreed. The s/s/c (software) thinks the tasks, and the brain (computer) “does” them.

DAVID: Enlarging the brain is a complex task, since it involves skull and mother's pelvis.
dhw: Agreed. How does that come to mean that the brain had to expand before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts?
DAVID: Your answer question is a non sequitur. I am discussing the complexity of this species change, to create a larger front of the brain: new skull and different mother's pelvis.

That is a fact, and I am not disputing it, so why do you keep bringing it up? In any case, I answered it in the same post: “any major change in any organism entails cooperation between the different cell communities that make up the whole body. Since you believe in common descent, you now seem to be telling us that God has to engineer every single major physical change in every single organism that descended from the first cells.”

13229 views

DAVID: The 'generally' covers the fact that the pfc must reach into the hippocampus and other areas for memory facts while studying a problem. The soul uses implementation areas already existing in other areas of the brain before the pfc enlarged. I keep telling you about the fact that enlargement is in a thought area, not an implementation region which all other primates have as we do, and that fact doesn't seem to be receptive to you.

dhw: I’m quite happy to accept that the enlargement is in a “thought area”, but you don’t seem to be receptive to the fact that new thoughts will require new connections to the rest of the brain if they are to be implemented. Those connections will have to begin in the “thought area”. Hence expansion.

Almost all the expansion is frontal cortex compared to ape brains. The implementation areas are not much changed.

Because whenever I pin you down to the nature of these “guidelines”, they turn out to be divine programming or dabbling, which removes the whole concept of autonomy.

God runs evolution in my view. You know that. Why are you surprised? Guidelines allow some latitude in the changes. I didn't say 'strict' guidelines.

dhw: We have been over this a hundred times. There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s.

DAVID: This is your unproven concept. No facts involved.

dhw: Of course. Nobody’s hypothesis has been proven – and that includes your own. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. However, that doesn’t in any way negate the logic of my argument. And I notice you have ignored the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

Shrinkage is evidence only in sapiens brains which are highly complex to begin with. But I've proposed shrinkage might have occurred in earlier forms, as a degree of brain plasticity present in earlier hominins, which process we inherited. Shrinkage negates your point that the pressure of thinking new concepts forces enlargement of brain and skull.

DAVID: From my concept that only a bigger computer can do more complex tasks.

dhw: Agreed. The s/s/c (software) thinks the tasks, and the brain (computer) “does” them.

My point assumes the s/s/c must use the brain networks to think during life.

DAVID: Your answer question is a non sequitur. I am discussing the complexity of this species change, to create a larger front of the brain: new skull and different mother's pelvis.

dhw: That is a fact, and I am not disputing it, so why do you keep bringing it up? In any case, I answered it in the same post: “any major change in any organism entails cooperation between the different cell communities that make up the whole body. Since you believe in common descent, you now seem to be telling us that God has to engineer every single major physical change in every single organism that descended from the first cells.”

I keep bringing it up because the speciation is so complex, and God has to do it. It is not 'now' that I have God running evolution. It is an 'always' concept of mine, and you know it. And yes, He might have given them an IM with guidelines of the type I have explained, not so strict as to allow some mild variations.

13168 views

We may have appeared as early as 315,000 years ago but at 67,000 years ago we were still living in caves, using stone tools and showing some early aesthetics by making some jewelry:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509081956.htm

" The Panga ya Saidi sequence after 67,000, however, has a mix of technologies, and no radical break of behavior can be detected at any time, arguing against the cognitive or cultural 'revolutions' theorized by some archaeologists. Moreover, no notable break in human occupation occurs during the Toba volcanic super-eruption of 74,000 years ago, supporting views that the so-called 'volcanic winter' did not lead to the near-extinction of human populations, though hints of increased occupation intensity from 60,000 years ago suggests that populations were increasing in size.

***

"The deep archaeological sequence of Panga ya Saidi cave has produced a remarkable new cultural record indicative of cultural complexity over the long term. Among the recovered items are worked and incised bones, ostrich eggshell beads, marine shell beads, and worked ochre. Panga ya Saidi has produced the oldest bead in Kenya, dating to ~65,000 years ago. At about 33,000 years ago, beads were most commonly made of shells acquired from the coast. While this demonstrates contact with the coast, there is no evidence for the regular exploitation of marine resources for subsistence purposes. Ostrich eggshell beads become more common after 25,000 years ago, and after 10,000 years ago, there is again a shift to coastal shell use. In the layers dating to between ~48,000 to 25,000 years ago, carved bone, carved tusk, a decorated bone tube, a small bone point, and modified pieces of ochre were found. Though indicative of behavioral complexity and symbolism, their intermittent appearance in the cave sequence argues against a model for a behavioral or cognitive revolution at any specific point in time.

***

"'The East African coastal hinterland and its forests and have been long considered to be marginal to human evolution so the discovery of Panga ya Saidi cave will certainly change archaeologists' views and perceptions."

"Group Leader of the Stable Isotopes Lab Dr. Patrick Roberts adds, "Occupation in a tropical forest-grassland environment adds to our knowledge that our species lived in a variety of habitats in Africa.'"

Comment: More evidence of little use of our big brain for a very long time after its arrival.My interpretation is it took time to learn to use it

13249 views

DAVID’s comment: More evidence of little use of our big brain for a very long time after its arrival.My interpretation is it took time to learn to use it.

To repeat: As with all stages of human evolution, there were long periods of stasis once the brain had expanded. Not a matter of “learning to use the new brain”. What is being learned if there has been no progress? It needs geniuses to come up with new ideas, or major changes in the environment to either necessitate new ways of thinking or provide new opportunities.

13152 views

DAVID’s comment: More evidence of little use of our big brain for a very long time after its arrival.My interpretation is it took time to learn to use it.

dhw: To repeat: As with all stages of human evolution, there were long periods of stasis once the brain had expanded. Not a matter of “learning to use the new brain”. What is being learned if there has been no progress? It needs geniuses to come up with new ideas, or major changes in the environment to either necessitate new ways of thinking or provide new opportunities.

At each stage, whether in small groups like hunter-gatherer, or larger settlements as farming appeared, humans learned to depend upon each other and different people took different cooperative roles to play. But it still took 305,000 years for this to happen, and all the while before farming, the brain sat in survival mode. Then the use of the brain exploded in exponential terms. It was waiting there for us to use. There is no evidence of prior conceptual pressure causing enlargement, for the new concepts from habilis to sapiens were not very different 315,000 years ago. Habilis survival, sapiens survival. No evidence of thinking pressure to enlarge.

13118 views

DAVID’s comment: More evidence of little use of our big brain for a very long time after its arrival.My interpretation is it took time to learn to use it.

dhw: To repeat: As with all stages of human evolution, there were long periods of stasis once the brain had expanded. Not a matter of “learning to use the new brain”. What is being learned if there has been no progress? It needs geniuses to come up with new ideas, or major changes in the environment to either necessitate new ways of thinking or provide new opportunities.

DAVID: At each stage, whether in small groups like hunter-gatherer, or larger settlements as farming appeared, humans learned to depend upon each other and different people took different cooperative roles to play. But it still took 305,000 years for this to happen, and all the while before farming, the brain sat in survival mode.

I really don’t think it took 305,000 years for humans to depend on each other and take different roles! It took a long time for sapiens to make the leap which led to civilisation as we know it. Each stage of brain enlargement brought with it leaps that were major at the time, no matter how minor they may seem to you now: use of tools, weapons, fire, cooking, clothes etc., generally connected with improving the chances of survival and then followed by long periods of stasis. Whatever leap caused the final brain enlargement followed the same pattern. Then, as you say:

DAVID: Then the use of the brain exploded in exponential terms. It was waiting there for us to use.

Yes, it needed the geniuses, or the major climate change 12000 years ago to which you drew our attention, to spark the explosion.

DAVID: There is no evidence of prior conceptual pressure causing enlargement, for the new concepts from habilis to sapiens were not very different 315,000 years ago. Habilis survival, sapiens survival. No evidence of thinking pressure to enlarge.

See above for concepts. Enlargement happened! You keep telling us that your God did it (what is your evidence?) because otherwise pre-sapiens couldn't think up his new concepts, so I don’t know why you are now belittling the new concepts. I propose that implementation of the new concepts caused the expansion, just as the sapiens brain changes through complexification and limited expansion as a result of implementing new concepts.

13179 views

DAVID’s comment: More evidence of little use of our big brain for a very long time after its arrival.My interpretation is it took time to learn to use it.

dhw: To repeat: As with all stages of human evolution, there were long periods of stasis once the brain had expanded. Not a matter of “learning to use the new brain”. What is being learned if there has been no progress? It needs geniuses to come up with new ideas, or major changes in the environment to either necessitate new ways of thinking or provide new opportunities.

DAVID: At each stage, whether in small groups like hunter-gatherer, or larger settlements as farming appeared, humans learned to depend upon each other and different people took different cooperative roles to play. But it still took 305,000 years for this to happen, and all the while before farming, the brain sat in survival mode.

dhw: I really don’t think it took 305,000 years for humans to depend on each other and take different roles! It took a long time for sapiens to make the leap which led to civilisation as we know it. Each stage of brain enlargement brought with it leaps that were major at the time, no matter how minor they may seem to you now: use of tools, weapons, fire, cooking, clothes etc., generally connected with improving the chances of survival and then followed by long periods of stasis. Whatever leap caused the final brain enlargement followed the same pattern. Then, as you say:

DAVID: Then the use of the brain exploded in exponential terms. It was waiting there for us to use.

Yes, it needed the geniuses, or the major climate change 12000 years ago to which you drew our attention, to spark the explosion.

DAVID: There is no evidence of prior conceptual pressure causing enlargement, for the new concepts from habilis to sapiens were not very different 315,000 years ago. Habilis survival, sapiens survival. No evidence of thinking pressure to enlarge.

dhw; See above for concepts. Enlargement happened! You keep telling us that your God did it (what is your evidence?) because otherwise pre-sapiens couldn't think up his new concepts, so I don’t know why you are now belittling the new concepts. I propose that implementation of the new concepts caused the expansion, just as the sapiens brain changes through complexification and limited expansion as a result of implementing new concepts.

Of course enlargement happened. We will agree to disagree as to how.

13174 views

dhw: I’m quite happy to accept that the enlargement is in a “thought area”, but you don’t seem to be receptive to the fact that new thoughts will require new connections to the rest of the brain if they are to be implemented. Those connections will have to begin in the “thought area”. Hence expansion.
DAVID: Almost all the expansion is frontal cortex compared to ape brains. The implementation areas are not much changed.

Yes. So please comment on the explanation I have offered above.

DAVID: Why do you persistently forget I always have agreed God could have invented a mechanism for organisms to advance their own evolution with guidelines.
Dhw: Because whenever I pin you down to the nature of these “guidelines”, they turn out to be divine programming or dabbling, which removes the whole concept of autonomy.
DAVID: God runs evolution in my view. You know that. Why are you surprised? Guidelines allow some latitude in the changes. I didn't say 'strict' guidelines.

And later you talk of it allowing “some mild variations”. Where do you draw the line? You even refuse to accept the possibility that the weaverbird can design its own nest, and the monarch butterfly can work out its own lifestyle and migration. In your latest post on fungus farming by ants, you assume that they “learned to work out a way of farming as an instinct. Of course, perhaps God helped.” Why as an “instinct”? Why couldn’t they have worked it all out by using their autonomous intelligence to experiment and learn? In my theistic hypothesis, your God has designed an IM which is capable of producing all these natural wonders autonomously, as well as the major changes. That is why I persistently “forget” your version of an IM.

dhw: There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s.
DAVID: This is your unproven concept. No facts involved.
dhw: Of course. Nobody’s hypothesis has been proven – and that includes your own. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. However, that doesn’t in any way negate the logic of my argument. And I notice you have ignored the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

DAVID: Shrinkage is evidence only in sapiens brains which are highly complex to begin with. But I've proposed shrinkage might have occurred in earlier forms, as a degree of brain plasticity present in earlier hominins, which process we inherited. Shrinkage negates your point that the pressure of thinking new concepts forces enlargement of brain and skull.

You hypothesize that it might have shrunk (no evidence for that at all), and then claim that your hypothesis negates the need for expansion! Shrinkage is irrelevant, because the brain did expand, and our question is why! You say it was because the brain needed extra materials before it could THINK of new concepts (= materialism). A dualist would argue that it needed extra materials to implement the new concepts provided by the thinking soul. And yet you claim to be a dualist. Lastly, you are still ignoring the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

DAVID: From my concept that only a bigger computer can do more complex tasks.
dhw: Agreed. The s/s/c (software) thinks the tasks, and the brain (computer) “does” them.
DAVID: My point assumes the s/s/c must use the brain networks to think during life.

I know. Your logic is that the software cannot contain a programme until the hardware is able to implement the programme contained in the software. Perhaps you would now like to dispense with your favourite analogy?

DAVID: I am discussing the complexity of this species change, to create a larger front of the brain: new skull and different mother's pelvis.
dhw: That is a fact, and I am not disputing it, so why do you keep bringing it up? In any case, I answered it in the same post: “any major change in any organism entails cooperation between the different cell communities that make up the whole body. Since you believe in common descent, you now seem to be telling us that God has to engineer every single major physical change in every single organism that descended from the first cells.”
DAVID: I keep bringing it up because the speciation is so complex, and God has to do it. It is not 'now' that I have God running evolution. It is an 'always' concept of mine, and you know it.

And that is the point at issue between us, as described above. I propose (theistic version) that your God might have given organisms an autonomous inventive mechanism to engineer speciation. Your version of an IM does not even go as far as allowing the weaverbird to design its own nest. So do you think your God was incapable of designing my version of the IM?

13208 views

dhw: I’m quite happy to accept that the enlargement is in a “thought area”, but you don’t seem to be receptive to the fact that new thoughts will require new connections to the rest of the brain if they are to be implemented. Those connections will have to begin in the “thought area”. Hence expansion.
DAVID: Almost all the expansion is frontal cortex compared to ape brains. The implementation areas are not much changed.

dhw: Yes. So please comment on the explanation I have offered above.

The apes have the same implementation areas we have with the same connections. You can't get around that the major area of enlargement is frontal lobe, but of course, there is some enlargement elsewhere.

dhw: There had to be a limit to expansion, or sapiens would have finished with a head the size of an elephant’s.
DAVID: This is your unproven concept. No facts involved.
dhw: Of course. Nobody’s hypothesis has been proven – and that includes your own. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss. However, that doesn’t in any way negate the logic of my argument. And I notice you have ignored the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

DAVID: Shrinkage is evidence only in sapiens brains which are highly complex to begin with. But I've proposed shrinkage might have occurred in earlier forms, as a degree of brain plasticity present in earlier hominins, which process we inherited. Shrinkage negates your point that the pressure of thinking new concepts forces enlargement of brain and skull.

dhw: You hypothesize that it might have shrunk (no evidence for that at all), and then claim that your hypothesis negates the need for expansion! Shrinkage is irrelevant, because the brain did expand, and our question is why! You say it was because the brain needed extra materials before it could THINK of new concepts (= materialism). A dualist would argue that it needed extra materials to implement the new concepts provided by the thinking soul. And yet you claim to be a dualist. Lastly, you are still ignoring the point that even your own shrinkage hypothesis now has new thoughts changing the brain instead of God changing the brain before the s/s/c can have new thoughts.

We know God gave the brain plasticity; therefore the brain could shrink on its own as it pruned unnecessary areas. My form of dualism is not the one you constantly define. I believe the immaterial soul must use the brain networks to think in life. I have every right to my interpretation of a dualistic philosophy.

DAVID: I am discussing the complexity of this species change, to create a larger front of the brain: new skull and different mother's pelvis.

dhw: That is a fact, and I am not disputing it, so why do you keep bringing it up? In any case, I answered it in the same post: “any major change in any organism entails cooperation between the different cell communities that make up the whole body. Since you believe in common descent, you now seem to be telling us that God has to engineer every single major physical change in every single organism that descended from the first cells.”

DAVID: I keep bringing it up because the speciation is so complex, and God has to do it. It is not 'now' that I have God running evolution. It is an 'always' concept of mine, and you know it.

dhw: And that is the point at issue between us, as described above. I propose (theistic version) that your God might have given organisms an autonomous inventive mechanism to engineer speciation. Your version of an IM does not even go as far as allowing the weaverbird to design its own nest. So do you think your God was incapable of designing my version of the IM?

Of course He could have created an IM, but I'll repeat my view: I see His goal as humans and God was going to steer evolution to that point by maintaining some steering controls. I frankly think major evolution is over, and only variations will appear as responses to environmental or other stresses.

13161 views

It requires around 100 muscles and several parts of a coordinated brain to control it all:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180601134731.htm

"When we speak, we engage nearly 100 muscles, continuously moving our lips, jaw, tongue, and throat to shape our breath into the fluent sequences of sounds that form our words and sentences. A new study reveals how these complex articulatory movements are coordinated in the brain.

***

"The new research reveals that the brain's speech centers are organized more according to the physical needs of the vocal tract as it produces speech than by how the speech sounds (its "phonetics"). Linguists divide speech into abstract units of sound called "phonemes" and consider the /k/ sound in "keep" the same as the /k/ in "coop." But in reality, your mouth forms the sound differently in these two words to prepare for the different vowels that follow, and this physical distinction now appears to be more important to the brain regions responsible for producing speech than the theoretical sameness of the phoneme.

***

"In the new study, Chartier and Anumanchipalli asked five volunteers awaiting surgery, with ECoG electrodes placed over a region of ventral sensorimotor cortex that is a key center of speech production, to read aloud a collection of 460 natural sentences. The sentences were expressly constructed to encapsulate nearly all the possible articulatory contexts in American English. This comprehensiveness was crucial to capture the complete range of "coarticulation," the blending of phonemes that is essential to natural speech.

"'Without coarticulation, our speech would be blocky and segmented to the point where we couldn't really understand it," said Chartier.

***

"The experiments revealed that a remarkable diversity of different movements were encoded by neurons surrounding individual electrodes. The researchers found there were four emergent groups of neurons that appeared to be responsible for coordinating movements of muscles of the lips, tongue, and throat into the four main configurations of the vocal tract used in American English. The researchers also identified neural populations associated with specific classes of phonetic phenomena, including separate clusters for consonants and vowels of different types, but their analysis suggested that these phonetic groupings were more of a byproduct of more natural groupings based on different types of muscle movement.

"Regarding coarticulation, the researchers discovered that our brains' speech centers coordinate different muscle movement patterns based on the context of what's being said, and the order in which different sounds occur. For example, the jaw opens more to say the word "tap" than to say the word "has" -- despite having the same vowel sound (/ae/), the mouth has to get ready to close to make the /z/ sound in "has." The researchers found that neurons in the ventral sensorimotor cortex were highly attuned to this and other co-articulatory features of English, suggesting that the brain cells are tuned to produce fluid, context-dependent speech as opposed to reading out discrete speech segments in serial order.

"'During speech production, there is clearly another layer of neural processing that happens, which enables the speaker to merge phonemes together into something the listener can understand," said Anumanchipalli.

***

"'This study highlights why we need to take into account vocal tract movements and not just linguistic features like phonemes when studying speech production," Chartier said. He thinks that this work paves the way not only for additional studies that tackle the sensorimotor aspect of speech production, but could also pay practical dividends.

"'We know now that the sensorimotor cortex encodes vocal tract movements, so we can use that knowledge to decode cortical activity and translate that via a speech prosthetic," said Chartier."

Comment: All the hoopla about possible ape or monkey speech pals beside these findings. Like our consciousness our speech mechanism is amazingly complex and was developed from an enlarged brain ready to learn about 50+ thousand years ago , after our arrival 315,000 years ago. Earlier in our evolution our palate started to arch and our larynx began dropping, both to the advanced positions they have today. Why did that happen unless the future was planned for by a designer?

13114 views

DAVID’s comment: All the hoopla about possible ape or monkey speech pals beside these findings. Like our consciousness our speech mechanism is amazingly complex and was developed from an enlarged brain ready to learn about 50+ thousand years ago , after our arrival 315,000 years ago. Earlier in our evolution our palate started to arch and our larynx began dropping, both to the advanced positions they have today. Why did that happen unless the future was planned for by a designer?

Perhaps it happened because as humans learned more, they found they needed more sounds to convey what they were learning. A dualist who believes in a thinking soul would argue that it is the soul and not the brain that “learns”, and the soul instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts, and the brain passes the message on to the rest of the body. Just as we know that new thoughts can make changes to the brain, the demands of the dualist’s soul would also result in changes to the rest of the body (as opposed to your God having preprogrammed the changes 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to do a bit of one-to-one fiddling). The same process would apply to the materialistic section of my theory of intelligence, in which the cell communities of the brain engender thought and also implement and express thought through their connections to the rest of the body. We know for a fact that cell communities adapt to changing demands. We don’t know to what extent they are capable of doing this, but I would say that an arching palate and a dropping larynx are not major innovations – they are adaptations to the need for a wider variety of sounds.

13111 views

DAVID’s comment: All the hoopla about possible ape or monkey speech pals beside these findings. Like our consciousness our speech mechanism is amazingly complex and was developed from an enlarged brain ready to learn about 50+ thousand years ago , after our arrival 315,000 years ago. Earlier in our evolution our palate started to arch and our larynx began dropping, both to the advanced positions they have today. Why did that happen unless the future was planned for by a designer?

dhw: Perhaps it happened because as humans learned more, they found they needed more sounds to convey what they were learning. A dualist who believes in a thinking soul would argue that it is the soul and not the brain that “learns”, and the soul instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts, and the brain passes the message on to the rest of the body. Just as we know that new thoughts can make changes to the brain, the demands of the dualist’s soul would also result in changes to the rest of the body (as opposed to your God having preprogrammed the changes 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to do a bit of one-to-one fiddling). The same process would apply to the materialistic section of my theory of intelligence, in which the cell communities of the brain engender thought and also implement and express thought through their connections to the rest of the body. We know for a fact that cell communities adapt to changing demands. We don’t know to what extent they are capable of doing this, but I would say that an arching palate and a dropping larynx are not major innovations – they are adaptations to the need for a wider variety of sounds.

The Bible for me is the book : "The Ape That Spoke" by John McCrone, in which he describes the massive changes in anatomy and all the muscles involved to produced today's clipped speech of words at high speed. How many mutations do you think are needed to drop the larynx and invent the epiglottis at the same time to provide the necessary prevention for choking? Both changes occurred simultaneously in the fossil found, not a chance occurrence. I've described all this in the past.

13080 views

A toddler from 3.3 million years ago had a climbing big toe:

https://www.livescience.com/62984-hominin-foot-fossil.html?utm_source=lsa-newsletter&am...

"More than 3 million years ago, our adult human ancestors were walking on two feet and didn't have the option of a fashionable baby sling to carry their kids around in. Instead, Australopithecus afarensis toddlers had a special grasping toe that helped them hold on to their mothers and escape into the trees, reports a study published today.

"'The evidence comes from DIK-1-1 — a relatively complete 3.3 million-year-old skeleton of a 2.5- to 3-year-old female Australopithecus afarensis discovered in Dikika, Ethiopia. The skeleton, nicknamed Selam — after the word for peace in Ethiopia's official language of Amharic – includes the oldest and most complete foot bones of this species ever found.

***

"The structure of the ankle and general anatomy of the foot is the same as a modern human's, with a distinct difference: The big toe is curved, similar to a chimpanzee's. But unlike the chimp's big toe, Selam's is in line with her other toes, similar to toes on a human foot.

***

"'It's a very exciting discovery," said Will Harcourt-Smith, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was not involved in the study and was a reviewer of the paper. "It's really special and really allows us to learn something more about this creature."

"Selam's foot was later discovered in 2002 and is about 2 inches (5.5 centimeters) long — that's a little shorter than a sticky note. The structure of the ankle and general anatomy of the foot is the same as a modern human's, with a distinct difference: The big toe is curved, similar to a chimpanzee's. But unlike the chimp's big toe, Selam's is in line with her other toes, similar to toes on a human foot.

***

"'So, it's human-like in not sticking out to the side, but it had much more mobility and could probably wiggle and grab on to stuff. Not [as well as] a chimp, but certainly more than a human could," said Jeremy DeSilva, a paleoanthropologist at Dartmouth College in New Hamphshire and lead author of the study.

The anatomy of Selam's heel was also surprising, he said. Lucy and other adult A. afarensis fossils had robust heel bones that are similar to those that humans are born with, and they're suitable for walking upright. But Selam's heel was relatively small and delicate. "So that suggests [A. afarensis] grew their heels very differently than we do," DeSilva told Live Science. "Even though we have the same anatomy they had, we got it differently."

"Selam's curved toe suggests that A. afarensis infants and toddlers were grasping their mother's body while being carried and were also climbing trees for food or protection, especially at night. That's an inference based on the fact there is no evidence of fire or construction for another million years in Africa, said DeSilva. "We also have fossils of very large predators," he said. "I can't image how they would have survived if they didn't go into the trees at night."

"But they still weren't great climbers, explained Carol Ward, an anatomist and paleoanthropologist at the University of Missouri who was not involved in this study, but is analyzing Selam's spine and ribs. "Even if a baby could have fit more things between its first and second toe, it would not have had the grasping capability like an ape," Ward told Live Science in an email. She said Selam's foot is clearly adapted for walking on two feet and shows "how important life on the ground was for these animals, and that effective climbing was much less important."

"Although Selam's foot is relatively complete, there could be missing cartilage pieces that rotted away over time. "That makes it a little hard to say everything you might want to about how the joints work," Harcourt-Smith told Live Science. For example, the researchers "argue that the arch is low and perhaps flat in this individual, and I think they're probably correct, but it has to be taken with a bit of salt," he said."

Comment: This fossil is closer to the 'missing link' fossil that must have preceded the appearance of the first true hominin.

13062 views

Wild cereals had to harvested by hunter-gatherers to do this:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-archaeologists-bread-predates-agriculture-years.html

"At an archaeological site in northeastern Jordan, researchers have discovered the charred remains of a flatbread baked by hunter-gatherers 14,400 years ago. It is the oldest direct evidence of bread found to date, predating the advent of agriculture by at least 4,000 years. The findings suggest that bread production based on wild cereals may have encouraged hunter-gatherers to cultivate cereals, and thus contributed to the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic period.

***

"'The presence of hundreds of charred food remains in the fireplaces from Shubayqa 1 is an exceptional find, and it has given us the chance to characterize 14,000-year-old food practices. The 24 remains analysed in this study show that wild ancestors of domesticated cereals such as barley, einkorn, and oat had been ground, sieved and kneaded prior to cooking. The remains are very similar to unleavened flatbreads identified at several Neolithic and Roman sites in Europe and Turkey. So we now know that bread-like products were produced long before the development of farming. The next step is to evaluate if the production and consumption of bread influenced the emergence of plant cultivation and domestication at all," said University of Copenhagen archaeobotanist Amaia Arranz Otaegui, who is the first author of the study.

***

"'Natufian hunter-gatherers are of particular interest to us because they lived through a transitional period when people became more sedentary and their diet began to change. Flint sickle blades as well as ground stone tools found at Natufian sites in the Levant have long led archaeologists to suspect that people had begun to exploit plants in a different and perhaps more effective way. But the flat bread found at Shubayqa 1 is the earliest evidence of bread making recovered so far, and it shows that baking was invented before we had plant cultivation. So this evidence confirms some of our ideas. Indeed, it may be that the early and extremely time-consuming production of bread based on wild cereals may have been one of the key driving forces behind the later agricultural revolution where wild cereals were cultivated to provide more convenient sources of food."

***

"'Bread involves labour intensive processing which includes dehusking, grinding of cereals and kneading and baking. That it was produced before farming methods suggests it was seen as special, and the desire to make more of this special food probably contributed to the decision to begin to cultivate cereals. All of this relies on new methodological developments that allow us to identify the remains of bread from very small charred fragments using high magnification," said Professor Dorian Fuller (UCL Institute of Archaeology)."

Comment: We civilized a little bit at a time.

12947 views

Wild cereals had to harvested by hunter-gatherers to do this:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-archaeologists-bread-predates-agriculture-years.html

"At an archaeological site in northeastern Jordan, researchers have discovered the charred remains of a flatbread baked by hunter-gatherers 14,400 years ago. It is the oldest direct evidence of bread found to date, predating the advent of agriculture by at least 4,000 years. The findings suggest that bread production based on wild cereals may have encouraged hunter-gatherers to cultivate cereals, and thus contributed to the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic period.

***

"'The presence of hundreds of charred food remains in the fireplaces from Shubayqa 1 is an exceptional find, and it has given us the chance to characterize 14,000-year-old food practices. The 24 remains analysed in this study show that wild ancestors of domesticated cereals such as barley, einkorn, and oat had been ground, sieved and kneaded prior to cooking. The remains are very similar to unleavened flatbreads identified at several Neolithic and Roman sites in Europe and Turkey. So we now know that bread-like products were produced long before the development of farming. The next step is to evaluate if the production and consumption of bread influenced the emergence of plant cultivation and domestication at all," said University of Copenhagen archaeobotanist Amaia Arranz Otaegui, who is the first author of the study.

***

"'Natufian hunter-gatherers are of particular interest to us because they lived through a transitional period when people became more sedentary and their diet began to change. Flint sickle blades as well as ground stone tools found at Natufian sites in the Levant have long led archaeologists to suspect that people had begun to exploit plants in a different and perhaps more effective way. But the flat bread found at Shubayqa 1 is the earliest evidence of bread making recovered so far, and it shows that baking was invented before we had plant cultivation. So this evidence confirms some of our ideas. Indeed, it may be that the early and extremely time-consuming production of bread based on wild cereals may have been one of the key driving forces behind the later agricultural revolution where wild cereals were cultivated to provide more convenient sources of food."

***

"'Bread involves labour intensive processing which includes dehusking, grinding of cereals and kneading and baking. That it was produced before farming methods suggests it was seen as special, and the desire to make more of this special food probably contributed to the decision to begin to cultivate cereals. All of this relies on new methodological developments that allow us to identify the remains of bread from very small charred fragments using high magnification," said Professor Dorian Fuller (UCL Institute of Archaeology)."

David: Comment: We civilized a little bit at a time.

I always hate this imagery of ancient humans as knuckle dragging idiots. I mean, the process of baking requires more than just work.

How does a person make the logical leap between crunchy hard crap on the end of grass to "If I add milk and other stuff, smoosh it around just so, and throw it into a fire for a little while I'll get something tasty."

That does not sound like the thought process of a knuckle dragging idiot. It requires a LOT of abstract thought, really. I can see them husking and soaking grains in milk or water to soften them, but how to go from that to bread? Food fight? Maybe someone was playing around, smooshed up some in their hand while their mother yelled at them to stop playing with their food so they tossed the smooshed up bit on a rock next to a fire. I mean, I can see it happening as an odd random seeming chain of events, but really, it seems to me that they were more intelligent and had more knowledge than we give them credit for. Hence the reason archaeologist are continuously 'surprised' by what early humans knew.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

12911 views

DAVID: We civilized a little bit at a time.

TONY: I always hate this imagery of ancient humans as knuckle dragging idiots.

A rare instance in which the three of us agree! And I would go a lot further back in time to those pre-sapiens who invented tools, mastered the use of fire, and had their own ways of running their societies.

12894 views

Wild cereals had to harvested by hunter-gatherers to do this:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-archaeologists-bread-predates-agriculture-years.html

Tony: I always hate this imagery of ancient humans as knuckle dragging idiots. I mean, the process of baking requires more than just work.

How does a person make the logical leap between crunchy hard crap on the end of grass to "If I add milk and other stuff, smoosh it around just so, and throw it into a fire for a little while I'll get something tasty."

That does not sound like the thought process of a knuckle dragging idiot. It requires a LOT of abstract thought, really. I can see them husking and soaking grains in milk or water to soften them, but how to go from that to bread? Food fight? Maybe someone was playing around, smooshed up some in their hand while their mother yelled at them to stop playing with their food so they tossed the smooshed up bit on a rock next to a fire. I mean, I can see it happening as an odd random seeming chain of events, but really, it seems to me that they were more intelligent and had more knowledge than we give them credit for. Hence the reason archaeologist are continuously 'surprised' by what early humans knew.

It also implies they discussed this process with a fairly sophisticated language which is supposed to have developed in the past 50,000 years.

12926 views

A FoxP2 gene was thought to be the primary cause 200,000 years ago. It isn't:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05859-7?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...

"The evolution of human language was once thought to have hinged on changes to a single gene that were so beneficial that they raced through ancient human populations. But an analysis now suggests that this gene, FOXP2, did not undergo changes in Homo sapiens’ recent history after all — and that previous findings might simply have been false signals.

“The situation’s a lot more complicated than the very clean story that has been making it into textbooks all this time,” says Elizabeth Atkinson, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

***

"Despite such questions, the 2002 study has never been repeated. It was based on the genomes of only 20 individuals, including just a handful of people of African ancestry, says Atkinson: most came from Europe, Asia and other regions. She and her team have now re-examined the gene’s evolutionary history using a larger data set and a more diverse population.

"They found that the signal that had looked like a selective sweep in the 2002 study was probably a statistical artefact caused by lumping Africans together with Eurasians and other populations. With more — and more varied — genomes to study, the team was able to look for a selective sweep in FOXP2, separately, in Africans and non-Africans — but found no evidence in either.

“'It’s good that it is now clear there is actually no sweep signal at FOXP2,” says evolutionary geneticist Wolfgang Enard of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany, who was a co-author of the 2002 study.

"Even if there was no recent evolution of FOXP2, there is still plenty of evidence that the gene is involved in language, says Simon Fisher, director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and a coauthor of the 2002 study. Mutations in FOXP2 cause language disorders in humans, and in mice the gene is important for vocalizations and movement — both functions that are crucial to human speech.

"Language is complicated, and was never going to be explained by a single mutation in modern humans, Fisher adds. “We need to embrace more-complex accounts that involve changes of multiple genes. In that sense, FOXP2 was only ever going to be one piece of a complex puzzle.'”

Comment: Considering the complex anatomic changes required, many genes have to be involved.

12823 views

Stronger evidence of interbreeding between sapiens, Denisovans, and Neanderthal is rep;ored:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2177634-prehistoric-girl-had-parents-belonging-to-...

"In prehistory, members of our species interbred with at least two other ancient humans: the Neanderthals and the mysterious Denisovans, who are known only from fragments of bone and teeth discovered in Denisova cave, Russia. Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred too, and Denisovans carried genes from unidentified hominins.

"These interbreeding events were thought to be rare. “The likelihood of actually finding a [first-generation] hybrid has always been considered infinitesimally low,” says Katerina Harvati-Papatheodorou at the University of Tübingen, Germany.

***

"A few years ago, archaeologists found a 90,000-year-old bone fragment in Denisova cave. Samantha Brown, then at the University of Oxford, discovered that it came from a hominin by examining the proteins preserved inside it. Her team nicknamed the hominin “Denny”. Based on the structure of the bone, Denny died at about 13 years of age.

"Slon and her colleagues have now examined Denny’s DNA, discovering that Denny was female – and that she had astonishing parentage. Her DNA was almost 50:50 Neanderthal and Denisovan, arranged in a tell‑tale way. Our DNA comes in paired strands called chromosomes, one from each parent. In Denny’s case, each pair had one Neanderthal and one Denisovan chromosome, with very little mixing. She was the daughter of parents from different species.

"Denny’s mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers, is Neanderthal. Therefore, her mother was Neanderthal and her father Denisovan.

***

"Only 23 ancient hominins have had their genomes sequenced. Yet Denny is not the first with recent shared ancestry. There is also “Oase 1”, a member of our species who lived 37,000 years ago in what is now Romania. They had a Neanderthal ancestor just four to six generations earlier.

"If interbreeding were rare, we should not have found these individuals so easily, says Svante Pääbo, also of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “It suggests that these groups, when they met, mixed quite freely with each other.”

This doesn’t mean Neanderthals and Denisovans were constantly interbreeding. Their genomes show they were “quite distinct populations”, says Pääbo. They controlled separate territories – the Neanderthals in Europe, the Denisovans in east Asia – and occasionally met at the boundaries. He says the Denisova cave was “a unique area where they met, and then they had no prejudices against each other”.

“'The evidence is growing that interbreeding among different human lineages was more common than previously thought,” agrees Harvati-Papatheodorou. They had good reason. “Human groups were very small and vulnerable to drastic mortality,” she says. Interbreeding may have been a good way to find a mate.

"Pääbo argues that when modern humans expanded from Africa into Europe and Asia, they often interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. This could be why these groups vanished. “Neanderthals and Denisovans may not have become violently extinct, but may have become absorbed into modern human populations.'”

Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

12463 views

David Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

I.E. They are the same damn species... by definition.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

12350 views

David Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

Tony: spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

I.E. They are the same damn species... by definition.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

Good point. Based on DNA at least the ae a very different variety.

12389 views

David Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

Tony: spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

I.E. They are the same damn species... by definition.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

David: Good point. Based on DNA at least the ae a very different variety.

Going to toss on my biblical hat for a moment and say, if the Bible's explanation for neanderthal origins are true, then the original neanderthal was literally brother to a human. It also indicates an immediate geographic situation, and population separation for some time after, then foretells a mingling of the two later.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

12381 views

David Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

Tony: spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

I.E. They are the same damn species... by definition.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

David: Good point. Based on DNA at least they are a very different variety.

Tony: Going to toss on my biblical hat for a moment and say, if the Bible's explanation for neanderthal origins are true, then the original neanderthal was literally brother to a human. It also indicates an immediate geographic situation, and population separation for some time after, then foretells a mingling of the two later.

I think they are a form of human; they certainly had aesthetics ,but perhaps not as bright as we are. Can you see a direct reference in the Bible?

12344 views

David Comment: Since early homo forms did not seem to understand how to build shelters they lived in caves, a great source for fossils. Interbreeding does not seem rare based on what has been found.

Tony: spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

I.E. They are the same damn species... by definition.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

David: Good point. Based on DNA at least they are a very different variety.

Tony: Going to toss on my biblical hat for a moment and say, if the Bible's explanation for neanderthal origins are true, then the original neanderthal was literally brother to a human. It also indicates an immediate geographic situation, and population separation for some time after, then foretells a mingling of the two later.

David: I think they are a form of human; they certainly had aesthetics ,but perhaps not as bright as we are. Can you see a direct reference in the Bible?

Genesis 25:24-25, particularly verse 25.

24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.

In chapter 26:34 Esau takes to normal wives.
In 27:11

Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “But my brother Esau is a hairy man while I have smooth skin. "

In 27:16 She also covered his hands and the smooth part of his neck with the goatskins.
How hairy would Esau had to be in order for them to need goatskins to replicate the feel of him?

In 27:39-40

His father Isaac answered him,

“Your dwelling will be
away from the earth’s richness,
away from the dew of heaven above.

Perhaps a reference to cave dwelling.

40 You will live by the sword
and you will serve your brother.
But when you grow restless,
you will throw his yoke
from off your neck.”

A hunter/warrior society. He bred with Hittites while is brother was instructed to look elsewhere. So there would have been some genetic separation in the immediately following generation, most tellingly, the mitochondrial DNA that comes from the mother.

I acknowledge this as sketch evidence at best, but it is the closest I have ever seen to a historical record of Hairy Man

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

12398 views

Tony: Going to toss on my biblical hat for a moment and say, if the Bible's explanation for neanderthal origins are true, then the original neanderthal was literally brother to a human. It also indicates an immediate geographic situation, and population separation for some time after, then foretells a mingling of the two later.

David: I think they are a form of human; they certainly had aesthetics ,but perhaps not as bright as we are. Can you see a direct reference in the Bible?

Tony: Genesis 25:24-25, particularly verse 25.

24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.

In chapter 26:34 Esau takes to normal wives.
In 27:11

Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “But my brother Esau is a hairy man while I have smooth skin. "

In 27:16 She also covered his hands and the smooth part of his neck with the goatskins.
How hairy would Esau had to be in order for them to need goatskins to replicate the feel of him?

In 27:39-40

His father Isaac answered him,

“Your dwelling will be
away from the earth’s richness,
away from the dew of heaven above.

Perhaps a reference to cave dwelling.

40 You will live by the sword
and you will serve your brother.
But when you grow restless,
you will throw his yoke
from off your neck.”

A hunter/warrior society. He bred with Hittites while is brother was instructed to look elsewhere. So there would have been some genetic separation in the immediately following generation, most tellingly, the mitochondrial DNA that comes from the mother.

I acknowledge this as sketch evidence at best, but it is the closest I have ever seen to a historical record of Hairy Man

I knew the Esau Jacob story as a kid in Sunday School. It does offer a fit.

12439 views

It turns out the muscle attachments indicate fine control:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2180724-neanderthals-had-dexterous-hands-that-coul...

"Neanderthals could hold objects between finger and thumb, just like we would hold a pen, because their hands were more nimble than anyone thought.

"The finding helps explain the many skilful tasks Neanderthals have been shown to have performed, like making tools, painting on cave walls, carving patterns into bird bones and threading sea shells onto string to make jewellery. These activities were hard to explain if they were clumsy.

"Neanderthal hand bones were much chunkier than ours, implying a lack of fine control. Previous studies of the bones mostly suggested Neanderthals could not perform a “precision grip” with finger and thumb, and instead had to use a “power grip” using their whole fist – the way small children sometimes hold crayons.

"To find out how they used their hands, Katerina Harvati of the University of Tübingen in Germany and her colleagues studied “entheses”: the points on the bones where muscles were attached.

"Each enthesis is a raised area of bone. “To the touch it feels like a smooth bump on the surface of the bone,” says Harvati. Her team has developed a 3D scanning method that accurately measures their surface area. A precision grip uses a different set of muscles to a power grip, and those muscles that get used more develop larger entheses. Harvati’s team previously showed this by studying modern humans who had worked different jobs.

"The team examined the hand entheses of six Neanderthals and six early modern humans. The Neanderthals spent most of their time using precision grips, while the early modern humans used both precision and power grips.

“'Our study reconciles the archaeological with the anatomical fossil evidence,” says Harvati.

“'It was previously proposed that Neanderthals relied on force for their manual activities,” but this perception “was at odds with mounting archaeological evidence for sophisticated cultural behaviour of Neanderthals”.

"The fact the Neanderthals only used precision grips “suggests that the nature of their activities did not substantially differ across individuals”, says Harvati. While each Neanderthal probably performed a mix of tasks, these tasks were likely similar. In contrast, the modern humans seemed to have had a division of labour. The sample “comprised some individuals with habitual precision grips, and some with habitual power grips.'”

Comment: Gradually reasonable studies are showing that Neanderthals were very similar to us.

11561 views

They did not develop from chimp feet:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/what-makes-the-human-foot...

"in 1995, scientists proposed that the anatomy of the ankle joint and heel (the hindfoot) existed before the anatomy of the human forefoot as it pertains to bipedalism. This was based on the discovery of “Little Foot,” an almost complete Australopithecus fossil skeleton recovered from Sterkfontein, South Africa dating to 3.3 million years ago, which exhibited similar hindfoot traits. Scientists believed that the foot of Australopithecus was adapted for bipedalism but it also allowed this early human ancestor to take refuge in the trees if needed. In piecing together these discoveries, it became clear that the evolutionary story of the human foot wouldn’t be explained linearly. The human foot evolved independently of other developments within human evolution and at different rates between species.

***

"One of the things we can say with certainty is that the modern human foot did not evolve from the chimpanzee foot. As reasonable as it may seem to draw comparisons between the two, the clear divergence between the genera from a last common ancestor (LCA) means that hominins and panins evolved feet to suit their needs. A major difference between the two stems from flexibility. The former’s foot is adapted for a stiff push-off which is necessary for bipedal locomotion. The latter’s feet maintains greater flexibility overall and grasping abilities that enable climbing trees as well quadrupedalism on the ground.

***

"Following the transition from Australopithecus to Homo, toes decreased in length and curvature, the ankle and corresponding musculature reduced in size, and full foot arches emerged. The big toe shifted to align with the other toes rather than curving inward enabling a more efficient push-off for bipedalism. There are some exceptions to these developments. In Homo naledi, for example, the toes are more curved than they are in the Homo genus overall. And Homo floriensis has an elongated forefoot, which most closely resembles that of bonobos. These kinds of variations aren’t unusual; the heel bones of modern great apes vary between species. These cases illustrate a diversity in foot evolution and locomotion, which with time may offer greater contextual clues about the lives of these groups.

"The story of the human foot is still unfolding. It is unique because it is best suited to our style of bipedal locomotion. The variations that scientists have found in foot bones for australopiths suggest there was variation in how they walked even among themselves, which is true of humans today: we have different stride lengths and different ways of coming down on our feet. Some have a more forceful step than others, to say nothing of how the feet of dancers are changed with years of training."

Comment: There is no doubt in my mind humans were especially designed. we can add feet to the big brain and other differences.

10711 views

quote: "It is unique because it is best suited to our style of bipedal locomotion. The variations that scientists have found in foot bones for australopiths suggest there was variation in how they walked even among themselves, which is true of humans today: we have different stride lengths and different ways of coming down on our feet. Some have a more forceful step than others, to say nothing of how the feet of dancers are changed with years of training."

DAVID’s comment: There is no doubt in my mind humans were especially designed. we can add feet to the big brain and other differences.

The article makes it clear that different pre-sapiens adapted in their different ways to bipedalism. Why would your God have specially designed the different foot variations if, as you believe so fervently, his purpose was to design the brain of Homo sapiens? The fact that dancers’ feet change with training should be enough to tell you that feet change according to use, not according to your God doing special designs.

10656 views

quote: "It is unique because it is best suited to our style of bipedal locomotion. The variations that scientists have found in foot bones for australopiths suggest there was variation in how they walked even among themselves, which is true of humans today: we have different stride lengths and different ways of coming down on our feet. Some have a more forceful step than others, to say nothing of how the feet of dancers are changed with years of training."

DAVID’s comment: There is no doubt in my mind humans were especially designed. we can add feet to the big brain and other differences.

dhw: The article makes it clear that different pre-sapiens adapted in their different ways to bipedalism. Why would your God have specially designed the different foot variations if, as you believe so fervently, his purpose was to design the brain of Homo sapiens? The fact that dancers’ feet change with training should be enough to tell you that feet change according to use, not according to your God doing special designs.

'
You have to have fully designed feet for bipedalism before those feet adapt for shoes and dancing. Just as pointed out to you yesterday: 'fully designed organs have to appear before natural selection can act on them" (paraphrased). (Sunday, October 07, 2018, 20:27)

10660 views

DAVID’s comment: There is no doubt in my mind humans were especially designed. we can add feet to the big brain and other differences.

dhw: The article makes it clear that different pre-sapiens adapted in their different ways to bipedalism. Why would your God have specially designed the different foot variations if, as you believe so fervently, his purpose was to design the brain of Homo sapiens? The fact that dancers’ feet change with training should be enough to tell you that feet change according to use, not according to your God doing special designs.

DAVID: You have to have fully designed feet for bipedalism before those feet adapt for shoes and dancing. Just as pointed out to you yesterday: 'fully designed organs have to appear before natural selection can act on them" (paraphrased). (Sunday, October 07, 2018, 20:27)

I am not disputing that organs and organisms must exist before natural selection works on them. I am disputing the argument that your God designed different variations of bipedal feet. It is clear that use is what determines change. Different hominins walked in different ways, and so there were differences in their feet. The article itself proposes the same process: “These cases illustrate a diversity in foot evolution and locomotion, which with time may offer greater contextual clues about the lives of these groups.” The assumption is that the way of life causes the diversity – organs responding to use, not God intervening in anticipation of use. And I would apply this principle to bipedalism itself (along with other changes that had to accompany it) just as I would apply it to whales' fins.

10559 views

DAVID’s comment: There is no doubt in my mind humans were especially designed. we can add feet to the big brain and other differences.

dhw: The article makes it clear that different pre-sapiens adapted in their different ways to bipedalism. Why would your God have specially designed the different foot variations if, as you believe so fervently, his purpose was to design the brain of Homo sapiens? The fact that dancers’ feet change with training should be enough to tell you that feet change according to use, not according to your God doing special designs.

DAVID: You have to have fully designed feet for bipedalism before those feet adapt for shoes and dancing. Just as pointed out to you yesterday: 'fully designed organs have to appear before natural selection can act on them" (paraphrased). (Sunday, October 07, 2018, 20:27)

dhw: I am not disputing that organs and organisms must exist before natural selection works on them. I am disputing the argument that your God designed different variations of bipedal feet. It is clear that use is what determines change. Different hominins walked in different ways, and so there were differences in their feet. The article itself proposes the same process: “These cases illustrate a diversity in foot evolution and locomotion, which with time may offer greater contextual clues about the lives of these groups.” The assumption is that the way of life causes the diversity – organs responding to use, not God intervening in anticipation of use. And I would apply this principle to bipedalism itself (along with other changes that had to accompany it) just as I would apply it to whales' fins.

Bipedalism requires just one general way of walking or running. Hominins were able to run down prey who literally became to hot to continue. They can't sweat and we can. Remember the article I found has at its basis a Darwinist view of evolution. Part of creating humans had to do with changing many parts. My bold above illustrates our complete gulf of disagreement. Your view: a raparian animal since water is near and waded in it will grow fins by magic. Yes, magical thought.

10570 views

dhw: I am not disputing that organs and organisms must exist before natural selection works on them. I am disputing the argument that your God designed different variations of bipedal feet. It is clear that use is what determines change. Different hominins walked in different ways, and so there were differences in their feet. The article itself proposes the same process: “These cases illustrate a diversity in foot evolution and locomotion, which with time may offer greater contextual clues about the lives of these groups.” The assumption is that the way of life causes the diversity – organs responding to use, not God intervening in anticipation of use. And I would apply this principle to bipedalism itself (along with other changes that had to accompany it) just as I would apply it to whales' fins.

DAVID: Bipedalism requires just one general way of walking or running. Hominins were able to run down prey who literally became to hot to continue. They can't sweat and we can. Remember the article I found has at its basis a Darwinist view of evolution. Part of creating humans had to do with changing many parts. My bold above illustrates our complete gulf of disagreement. Your view: a raparian animal since water is near and waded in it will grow fins by magic. Yes, magical thought.

Any major innovation, not just human, will require “changing many parts”, as the whole body must adjust to flying, life on land, life in the water, life in the trees, life on the ground etc. Adaptation is a proven fact, and it is not done by magic. There are material mechanisms that make the changes, but those we know of are minor. What we don’t know is the potential range or speed of change that these mechanisms are capable of. That is why speciation remains a mystery. Here the hypothesis is that feet will change when organisms use them to walk on two legs because they find it advantageous to do so, and legs will become fins when organisms use them to swim, because they find it advantageous to move from land to water. Why do you consider that more “magical” than an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, eternal mind presumably using its powers of psychokinesis to fiddle (and keep fiddling) with the anatomy of individual hominins and pre-whales in order to prepare them for a descent from the trees or a leap into the water?

10567 views

dhw: I am not disputing that organs and organisms must exist before natural selection works on them. I am disputing the argument that your God designed different variations of bipedal feet. It is clear that use is what determines change. Different hominins walked in different ways, and so there were differences in their feet. The article itself proposes the same process: “These cases illustrate a diversity in foot evolution and locomotion, which with time may offer greater contextual clues about the lives of these groups.” The assumption is that the way of life causes the diversity – organs responding to use, not God intervening in anticipation of use. And I would apply this principle to bipedalism itself (along with other changes that had to accompany it) just as I would apply it to whales' fins.

DAVID: Bipedalism requires just one general way of walking or running. Hominins were able to run down prey who literally became to hot to continue. They can't sweat and we can. Remember the article I found has at its basis a Darwinist view of evolution. Part of creating humans had to do with changing many parts. My bold above illustrates our complete gulf of disagreement. Your view: a raparian animal since water is near and waded in it will grow fins by magic. Yes, magical thought.

dhw: Any major innovation, not just human, will require “changing many parts”, as the whole body must adjust to flying, life on land, life in the water, life in the trees, life on the ground etc. Adaptation is a proven fact, and it is not done by magic. There are material mechanisms that make the changes, but those we know of are minor. What we don’t know is the potential range or speed of change that these mechanisms are capable of. That is why speciation remains a mystery. Here the hypothesis is that feet will change when organisms use them to walk on two legs because they find it advantageous to do so, and legs will become fins when organisms use them to swim, because they find it advantageous to move from land to water. Why do you consider that more “magical” than an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, eternal mind presumably using its powers of psychokinesis to fiddle (and keep fiddling) with the anatomy of individual hominins and pre-whales in order to prepare them for a descent from the trees or a leap into the water?

The innovations that MUSt appear from a desired new use require complex designs to achieve those changes. Only a designer mind fits the requirement for the necessary complex new designs.

10511 views

DAVID: Your view: a raparian animal since water is near and waded in it will grow fins by magic. Yes, magical thought.

dhw: Here the hypothesis is that feet will change when organisms use them to walk on two legs because they find it advantageous to do so, and legs will become fins when organisms use them to swim, because they find it advantageous to move from land to water. Why do you consider that more “magical” than an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, eternal mind presumably using its powers of psychokinesis to fiddle (and keep fiddling) with the anatomy of individual hominins and pre-whales in order to prepare them for a descent from the trees or a leap into the water?

DAVID: The innovations that MUSt appear from a desired new use require complex designs to achieve those changes. Only a designer mind fits the requirement for the necessary complex new designs.

My apologies in advance for all the repetitions, but they are the only way I can respond to your own repetition. Millions of designer minds also fit the requirement, just as we see with ants building whole cities and devising complex social institutions. Every bird, fish, animal (including ourselves) is a colony whose cells and cell communities cooperate to create the whole. (See my earlier post on “emergence”). And when conditions change, those cell communities change. Not all. Some die. Some adapt. We know for a fact that the cell communities make minor changes to themselves. But it is possible that some adaptations may lead to major anatomical changes involving the whole body (e.g. for life on the ground or life in the water). We simply do not know the extent to which the cells can innovate. Nor, of course, do we know the source of the mechanisms that enable them to adapt. We are discussing evolution here, not the origin of life and its mechanisms for reproduction and variation. But if, for argument’s sake, we ignore atheistic chance and accept the existence of your designer God, here is the choice between two forms of theistic “magic”: 1) your God devises a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder that he does not personally create, using his powers of psychokinesis to rearrange the cell communities of the individual organisms he wishes to prepare for conditions which haven’t yet arisen. 2) Your God invents autonomous mechanisms which enable some organisms to drive evolution through their own adaptations and innovations, generally in response to changing conditions. So once again, please explain why you consider 2) to be more “magical” than 1).

10482 views

DAVID: The innovations that MUSt appear from a desired new use require complex designs to achieve those changes. Only a designer mind fits the requirement for the necessary complex new designs.

dhw: My apologies in advance for all the repetitions, but they are the only way I can respond to your own repetition. Millions of designer minds also fit the requirement, just as we see with ants building whole cities and devising complex social institutions. Every bird, fish, animal (including ourselves) is a colony whose cells and cell communities cooperate to create the whole. (See my earlier post on “emergence”).

The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis! The whole is created by a wondrous DNA embryology system, a code unmatched by our feeble attempts at software coding which creates those cooperating cells in a homeostatic mechanism of life. You are looking at finished products, not how they are developed.

dhw: And when conditions change, those cell communities change. Not all. Some die. Some adapt. We know for a fact that the cell communities make minor changes to themselves. But it is possible that some adaptations may lead to major anatomical changes involving the whole body (e.g. for life on the ground or life in the water).

A giant leap of faith. The gap between minor adaptations of an existing species and the major gaps in the whale species as a example make this wishful thinking. Speciation requires major design changes not adaptations. Your point is pure Darwin once again.

dhw: We simply do not know the extent to which the cells can innovate.

Yes we do. Minor adaptations are all we ever see or can create in lab experiments of gene change research using CRISPR..

dhw: Nor, of course, do we know the source of the mechanisms that enable them to adapt. We are discussing evolution here, not the origin of life and its mechanisms for reproduction and variation. But if, for argument’s sake, we ignore atheistic chance and accept the existence of your designer God, here is the choice between two forms of theistic “magic”: 1) your God devises a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder that he does not personally create, using his powers of psychokinesis to rearrange the cell communities of the individual organisms he wishes to prepare for conditions which haven’t yet arisen. 2) Your God invents autonomous mechanisms which enable some organisms to drive evolution through their own adaptations and innovations, generally in response to changing conditions. So once again, please explain why you consider 2) to be more “magical” than 1).

You've ignored the possibilities for God's control: 1) a 4.1 byo basic program for total innovation control on auto pilot; 2) God watches, steps in to adjust (dabble); 3) God gives the organisms an inventive mechanism with specific guidelines, another form of auto pilot; 4) a Tony-like approach of constant creation of more and more complex organisms. All are equally God-possible, one not better than the others. You constantly insist on exact guesses, which underlies your agnostic bent for proof, when logic and then faith are necessary. You admit to the complexity of the life designs on exhibit, but then deny it requires a designing mind for such intricate results. At least you admit such a mind is possible as you balance on your uncomfortable fence.

10470 views

Our feet are designed for walking and running, especially long-distance running as previously described. Because we sweat ( another part of the special human design) and animals can't, we can run them down for the kill when they overheat and are forced to rest. All of this presented previously . Now a metabolic arrangement for the intense energy consumption required for this marathoning is discovered. We are especially designed in so many ways to improve our survival:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181011143151.htm

"In a University of California, Irvine-led study, researchers found evidence that mast cells, an important group of immune cells typically associated with allergies, actually enable the body to survive fasting or intense exercise.

"Typically found in the lungs and nose, mast cells are best known for their role in the body's allergic response. During an allergy attack, mast cells release a chemical called histamine into the bloodstream, which causes sneezing, runny nose, and other symptoms related to allergies. Drugs used to treat allergies block the annoying consequences of mast cell activity.

"In this new study, led by Daniele Piomelli, PhD, professor of anatomy and neurobiology at UCI School of Medicine, and director of the UCI Center for the Study of Cannabis, researchers found that fasting causes the release of histamine from a select group of mast cells present in the gut, not those in the lungs or the nose. The histamine released from the gut travels to the liver where it triggers the formation of a fat-derived molecule called oleoylethanolamide (OEA).

"Until now, researchers thought that OEA's main role was to block hunger. This new study indicates that histamine-triggered OEA formation in the liver stimulates ketogenesis, the conversion of fatty acids released from fat stores into chemicals called ketone bodies. Ketone bodies are vital to survival, because they keep the brain and muscles active during a prolonged fast or intense physical exercise.

"'Without mast cells, histamine or OEA, we could not survive a marathon or a day-long hike without snacks, or any long period of time without food," said Piomelli. "What's fascinating to me is that a cell that was supposed to be the 'bad guy' in allergies, is the same one that allows us to survive prolonged lack of food or major physical effort.'"

Comment: When hominins became bipedal running down animals became a way of getting food. The anatomy of our feet and this metabolic arrangement had to occur. Not by chance.

10471 views

QUOTE: "'Without mast cells, histamine or OEA, we could not survive a marathon or a day-long hike without snacks, or any long period of time without food," said Piomelli. "What's fascinating to me is that a cell that was supposed to be the 'bad guy' in allergies, is the same one that allows us to survive prolonged lack of food or major physical effort.'"

DAVID: When hominins became bipedal running down animals became a way of getting food. The anatomy of our feet and this metabolic arrangement had to occur. Not by chance.

Yes, it’s amazing how cells and cell communities seem to be able to change their structure and their use in order to cope with changing demands, like the need to run on two feet, or the need to survive prolonged lack of food. Definitely not by chance. Of course it is possible than an unknown power preprogrammed bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine or OEA 4.1 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with the anatomy of a few individual hominins before they even started running after animals. Or maybe (if he exists) he simply invented a mechanism that enabled the cell communities of which all organisms are composed to change their own structures and functions. But for some reason you don’t seem to think that he would want to create such a mechanism, because although apparently we mustn’t guess what he wants because that would mean humanizing him, you happen to know what he wants (i.e. “total innovation control” via auto-piloting or dabbling).

10395 views

QUOTE: "'Without mast cells, histamine or OEA, we could not survive a marathon or a day-long hike without snacks, or any long period of time without food," said Piomelli. "What's fascinating to me is that a cell that was supposed to be the 'bad guy' in allergies, is the same one that allows us to survive prolonged lack of food or major physical effort.'"

DAVID: When hominins became bipedal running down animals became a way of getting food. The anatomy of our feet and this metabolic arrangement had to occur. Not by chance.

dhw: Yes, it’s amazing how cells and cell communities seem to be able to change their structure and their use in order to cope with changing demands, like the need to run on two feet, or the need to survive prolonged lack of food. Definitely not by chance. Of course it is possible than an unknown power preprogrammed bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine or OEA 4.1 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with the anatomy of a few individual hominins before they even started running after animals. Or maybe (if he exists) he simply invented a mechanism that enabled the cell communities of which all organisms are composed to change their own structures and functions. But for some reason you don’t seem to think that he would want to create such a mechanism, because although apparently we mustn’t guess what he wants because that would mean humanizing him, you happen to know what he wants (i.e. “total innovation control” via auto-piloting or dabbling).

I'll drop back to Adler: humanizing God is superstition, not real religion. You constantly view Him through a human lens, and we cannot appreciate His level of thought. You totally left religious thought and practice when young. You are looking at religious thought from the outside. According to Adler, who was a philosophical adviser to the Catholic Church, there are religious guidelines which help in thinking about God and the limits of how we might imagine his thoughts. You don't recognize them. Adler spends a chapter on the subject.

10397 views

QUOTE: "'Without mast cells, histamine or OEA, we could not survive a marathon or a day-long hike without snacks, or any long period of time without food," said Piomelli. "What's fascinating to me is that a cell that was supposed to be the 'bad guy' in allergies, is the same one that allows us to survive prolonged lack of food or major physical effort.'"

DAVID: When hominins became bipedal running down animals became a way of getting food. The anatomy of our feet and this metabolic arrangement had to occur. Not by chance.

dhw: Yes, it’s amazing how cells and cell communities seem to be able to change their structure and their use in order to cope with changing demands, like the need to run on two feet, or the need to survive prolonged lack of food. Definitely not by chance. Of course it is possible than an unknown power preprogrammed bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine or OEA 4.1 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with the anatomy of a few individual hominins before they even started running after animals. Or maybe (if he exists) he simply invented a mechanism that enabled the cell communities of which all organisms are composed to change their own structures and functions. But for some reason you don’t seem to think that he would want to create such a mechanism, because although apparently we mustn’t guess what he wants because that would mean humanizing him, you happen to know what he wants (i.e. “total innovation control” via auto-piloting or dabbling).

DAVID: I'll drop back to Adler: humanizing God is superstition, not real religion. You constantly view Him through a human lens, and we cannot appreciate His level of thought. You totally left religious thought and practice when young. You are looking at religious thought from the outside. According to Adler, who was a philosophical adviser to the Catholic Church, there are religious guidelines which help in thinking about God and the limits of how we might imagine his thoughts. You don't recognize them. Adler spends a chapter on the subject.

Since you, Adler and I are human, and since nobody can know the mind of God (if he exists), I’m afraid I do not accept Adler’s or your authority on how one can and can’t think about God. Sorry. In any case, Adler’s views on how to think about God are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion here, which is the question of whether your God preprogrammed or dabbled bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine and OEA before hungry humans started running after animals, or alternatively gave their cell communities the autonomous ability to change their own structures and functions in response to the needs of the time. But I can understand your desire to change the subject.

10331 views

dhw: Yes, it’s amazing how cells and cell communities seem to be able to change their structure and their use in order to cope with changing demands, like the need to run on two feet, or the need to survive prolonged lack of food. Definitely not by chance. Of course it is possible than an unknown power preprogrammed bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine or OEA 4.1 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with the anatomy of a few individual hominins before they even started running after animals. Or maybe (if he exists) he simply invented a mechanism that enabled the cell communities of which all organisms are composed to change their own structures and functions. But for some reason you don’t seem to think that he would want to create such a mechanism, because although apparently we mustn’t guess what he wants because that would mean humanizing him, you happen to know what he wants (i.e. “total innovation control” via auto-piloting or dabbling).

DAVID: I'll drop back to Adler: humanizing God is superstition, not real religion. You constantly view Him through a human lens, and we cannot appreciate His level of thought. You totally left religious thought and practice when young. You are looking at religious thought from the outside. According to Adler, who was a philosophical adviser to the Catholic Church, there are religious guidelines which help in thinking about God and the limits of how we might imagine his thoughts. You don't recognize them. Adler spends a chapter on the subject.

dhw: Since you, Adler and I are human, and since nobody can know the mind of God (if he exists), I’m afraid I do not accept Adler’s or your authority on how one can and can’t think about God. Sorry. In any case, Adler’s views on how to think about God are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion here, which is the question of whether your God preprogrammed or dabbled bipedal feet and mast cells, histamine and OEA before hungry humans started running after animals, or alternatively gave their cell communities the autonomous ability to change their own structures and functions in response to the needs of the time. But I can understand your desire to change the subject.

I complain about your humanizing of God and you jump back to reviewing my current thoughts as to how God might have managed evolution. You're right. We don't know. The many gaps in the fossil record, not just the Cambrian, just get more obvious as we find more fossils. The gaps in design require a designer. Simple logic.

10309 views

DAVID: The innovations that MUSt appear from a desired new use require complex designs to achieve those changes. Only a designer mind fits the requirement for the necessary complex new designs.

dhw: My apologies in advance for all the repetitions, but they are the only way I can respond to your own repetition. Millions of designer minds also fit the requirement, just as we see with ants building whole cities and devising complex social institutions. Every bird, fish, animal (including ourselves) is a colony whose cells and cell communities cooperate to create the whole. (See my earlier post on “emergence”).

DAVID: The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis! The whole is created by a wondrous DNA embryology system, a code unmatched by our feeble attempts at software coding which creates those cooperating cells in a homeostatic mechanism of life. You are looking at finished products, not how they are developed.

I am saying that they are developed through the cooperation of cells. You’re talking as if DNA were somehow separate from the cells! You can hardly deny that your whole body consists of cooperating communities of cells. How do you think your preprogramming or dabbling God changes organisms (through innovations) if he doesn’t do it through changing the structures of the cell communities and the way in which they cooperate?

dhw: …We know for a fact that the cell communities make minor changes to themselves. But it is possible that some adaptations may lead to major anatomical changes involving the whole body (e.g. for life on the ground or life in the water).

DAVID: A giant leap of faith. The gap between minor adaptations of an existing species and the major gaps in the whale species as a example make this wishful thinking. Speciation requires major design changes not adaptations. Your point is pure Darwin once again.

You are simply repeating my own reservations, and I have only said it is possible. Yes, it requires a leap of faith to believe it, which is why I offer it as a hypotheses, not a belief, but it is hardly more “giant” than (a) the leap of faith required to believe in your God, and (b) the leap of faith required to believe in the scenario you describe below.

dhw: We simply do not know the extent to which the cells can innovate.

DAVID: Yes we do. Minor adaptations are all we ever see or can create in lab experiments of gene change research using CRISPR.

So you think research is now over, do you? Although amazingly you expect research one day to discover the divine, now 4.1-billion-year old (it suddenly got older) computer programme that led to speciation.

dhw: …here is the choice between two forms of theistic “magic”: 1) your God devises a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder that he does not personally create, using his powers of psychokinesis to rearrange the cell communities of the individual organisms he wishes to prepare for conditions which haven’t yet arisen. 2) Your God invents autonomous mechanisms which enable some organisms to drive evolution through their own adaptations and innovations, generally in response to changing conditions. So once again, please explain why you consider 2) to be more “magical” than 1).

DAVID: You've ignored the possibilities for God's control: 1) a 4.1 byo basic program for total innovation control on auto pilot; 2) God watches, steps in to adjust (dabble); 3) God gives the organisms an inventive mechanism with specific guidelines, another form of auto pilot; 4) a Tony-like approach of constant creation of more and more complex organisms.

I haven’t ignored them. You’ve just quoted them (now in bold) and repeated them. And the alternative to constant creation by a computer programme, and/or dabbling, and/or an inventive mechanism which is automatic and not autonomous, is constant creation by an inventive mechanism which is not automatic but is autonomous.

DAVID: All are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

DAVID: You constantly insist on exact guesses, which underlies your agnostic bent for proof, when logic and then faith are necessary.

And there was you, moaning that belief in the logic of an autonomous inventive mechanism required a giant leap of faith! I do not insist on anything. I propose a hypothesis to explain how evolution works and which seems to me considerably more logical than your own, which has your God preprogramming or dabbling billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct just because he wants minds to “try and understand how God did it”.

DAVID: You admit to the complexity of the life designs on exhibit, but then deny it requires a designing mind for such intricate results. At least you admit such a mind is possible as you balance on your uncomfortable fence.

Yes, I admit it is possible, so you can hardly say I deny it, but I offer you an alternative (still theistic) way in which that mind might have engineered the complexity of life so that evolution could proceed. Once more, why is my way more “magical” than your way? (See also the next post)

10351 views

DAVID: The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis! The whole is created by a wondrous DNA embryology system, a code unmatched by our feeble attempts at software coding which creates those cooperating cells in a homeostatic mechanism of life. You are looking at finished products, not how they are developed.

dhw: I am saying that they are developed through the cooperation of cells. You’re talking as if DNA were somehow separate from the cells! You can hardly deny that your whole body consists of cooperating communities of cells. How do you think your preprogramming or dabbling God changes organisms (through innovations) if he doesn’t do it through changing the structures of the cell communities and the way in which they cooperate?

So you hop to the theistic side of your fence. Of course cells are designed to cooperate.

dhw: We simply do not know the extent to which the cells can innovate.

DAVID: Yes we do. Minor adaptations are all we ever see or can create in lab experiments of gene change research using CRISPR.

dhw: So you think research is now over, do you? Although amazingly you expect research one day to discover the divine, now 4.1-billion-year old (it suddenly got older) computer programme that led to speciation.

What are you smoking? Research is not over and shows changes as genes are manipulated.

dhw: …here is the choice between two forms of theistic “magic”: 1) your God devises a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder that he does not personally create, using his powers of psychokinesis to rearrange the cell communities of the individual organisms he wishes to prepare for conditions which haven’t yet arisen. 2) Your God invents autonomous mechanisms which enable some organisms to drive evolution through their own adaptations and innovations, generally in response to changing conditions. So once again, please explain why you consider 2) to be more “magical” than 1).

DAVID: You've ignored the possibilities for God's control: 1) a 4.1 byo basic program for total innovation control on auto pilot; 2) God watches, steps in to adjust (dabble); 3) God gives the organisms an inventive mechanism with specific guidelines, another form of auto pilot; 4) a Tony-like approach of constant creation of more and more complex organisms.

dhw: I haven’t ignored them. You’ve just quoted them (now in bold) and repeated them. And the alternative to constant creation by a computer programme, and/or dabbling, and/or an inventive mechanism which is automatic and not autonomous, is constant creation by an inventive mechanism which is not automatic but is autonomous.

DAVID: All are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

dhw: But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

Not ignored: all possible thru God.

DAVID: You constantly insist on exact guesses, which underlies your agnostic bent for proof, when logic and then faith are necessary.

dhw: And there was you, moaning that belief in the logic of an autonomous inventive mechanism required a giant leap of faith! I do not insist on anything. I propose a hypothesis to explain how evolution works and which seems to me considerably more logical than your own, which has your God preprogramming or dabbling billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct just because he wants minds to “try and understand how God did it”.

All you have said parenthetically is "God is illogical". Cells do not have the design capacity you wish on them.

DAVID: You admit to the complexity of the life designs on exhibit, but then deny it requires a designing mind for such intricate results. At least you admit such a mind is possible as you balance on your uncomfortable fence.

dhw: Yes, I admit it is possible, so you can hardly say I deny it, but I offer you an alternative (still theistic) way in which that mind might have engineered the complexity of life so that evolution could proceed. Once more, why is my way more “magical” than your way? (See also the next post)

Cell committees have never been shown to have that degree of design capacity as a designing mind does have as we know by looking at human design endeavors. The experts you quote for cell intelligence are simply describing how the cells run their lives with seeming intelligence. None of them ever discusses designing cells. Your magical thinking is your way of avoiding as acceptance of theism.

10355 views

DAVID: The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis! […] You are looking at finished products, not how they are developed.

dhw: I am saying that they are developed through the cooperation of cells. You’re talking as if DNA were somehow separate from the cells! You can hardly deny that your whole body consists of cooperating communities of cells. How do you think your preprogramming or dabbling God changes organisms (through innovations) if he doesn’t do it through changing the structures of the cell communities and the way in which they cooperate?

DAVID: So you hop to the theistic side of your fence. Of course cells are designed to cooperate.

The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

dhw: We simply do not know the extent to which the cells can innovate.

DAVID: Yes we do. Minor adaptations are all we ever see or can create in lab experiments of gene change research using CRISPR.

dhw: So you think research is now over, do you? Although amazingly you expect research one day to discover the divine, now 4.1-billion-year old (it suddenly got older) computer programme that led to speciation.

DAVID: What are you smoking? Research is not over and shows changes as genes are manipulated.

You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

DAVID: All [the hypotheses] are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

dhw: But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

DAVID: Not ignored: all possible thru God.

Thank you. Now that you agree to the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence as a theistic hypothesis, please tell me why my hypothesis is more “magical” than yours.

DAVID: You constantly insist on exact guesses, which underlies your agnostic bent for proof, when logic and then faith are necessary.

dhw: And there was you, moaning that belief in the logic of an autonomous inventive mechanism required a giant leap of faith! I do not insist on anything. I propose a hypothesis to explain how evolution works and which seems to me considerably more logical than your own, which has your God preprogramming or dabbling billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct just because he wants minds to “try and understand how God did it”.

DAVID: All you have said parenthetically is "God is illogical". Cells do not have the design capacity you wish on them.

A moment ago you agreed that all the hypotheses are “possible thru God”, which must include mine. Please explain why your God’s hypothetical creation of an autonomous mechanism for innovation would make him illogical.

DAVID: Cell committees have never been shown to have that degree of design capacity as a designing mind does have as we know by looking at human design endeavors. The experts you quote for cell intelligence are simply describing how the cells run their lives with seeming intelligence. None of them ever discusses designing cells. Your magical thinking is your way of avoiding as acceptance of theism.

My thinking explicitly states over and over again that the hypothesis allows for God as the inventor. I also explicitly state that it is a hypothesis precisely because the design capacity is hypothetical, just as your computer programme, your dabbling and your God are hypothetical. Nobody knows whether God exists, and nobody knows what mechanism is responsible for the innovations that cause speciation. So once again, why do you insist that my hypothesis is more “magical” than your hypotheses?

10273 views

DAVID: So you hop to the theistic side of your fence. Of course cells are designed to cooperate.

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

DAVID: What are you smoking? Research is not over and shows changes as genes are manipulated.

dhw: You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

Of course it will.

DAVID: All [the hypotheses] are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

dhw: But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

DAVID: Not ignored: all possible thru God.

dhw: Thank you. Now that you agree to the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence as a theistic hypothesis, please tell me why my hypothesis is more “magical” than yours.

Your thesis about cellular intelligence extrapolates from the simple intelligent responses cells make to stimuli to being able to design new complex forms. I find that jump as an illogical jump.

DAVID: You constantly insist on exact guesses, which underlies your agnostic bent for proof, when logic and then faith are necessary.

dhw: And there was you, moaning that belief in the logic of an autonomous inventive mechanism required a giant leap of faith! I do not insist on anything. I propose a hypothesis to explain how evolution works and which seems to me considerably more logical than your own, which has your God preprogramming or dabbling billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct just because he wants minds to “try and understand how God did it”.

DAVID: All you have said parenthetically is "God is illogical". Cells do not have the design capacity you wish on them.

dhw: A moment ago you agreed that all the hypotheses are “possible thru God”, which must include mine. Please explain why your God’s hypothetical creation of an autonomous mechanism for innovation would make him illogical.

I did not say God is an illogical result of studying his works. His cells don't have the capacity you wish they have. That is you illogical jump re' cells abilities for design.

DAVID: Cell committees have never been shown to have that degree of design capacity as a designing mind does have as we know by looking at human design endeavors. The experts you quote for cell intelligence are simply describing how the cells run their lives with seeming intelligence. None of them ever discusses designing cells. Your magical thinking is your way of avoiding as acceptance of theism.

dhw: My thinking explicitly states over and over again that the hypothesis allows for God as the inventor. I also explicitly state that it is a hypothesis precisely because the design capacity is hypothetical, just as your computer programme, your dabbling and your God are hypothetical. Nobody knows whether God exists, and nobody knows what mechanism is responsible for the innovations that cause speciation. So once again, why do you insist that my hypothesis is more “magical” than your hypotheses?

What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

10338 views

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

DAVID: I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

Thank you for withdrawing your assertion that “the whole is not created by cooperating cells”. We are therefore left with the alternatives I offered above.

dhw: You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

DAVID: Of course it will.

So it’s goodbye to the argument that cells cannot invent because current research has not shown that they can. NB Nor has it shown that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the original cells with a computer programme for every undabbled innovation.

DAVID: All [the hypotheses] are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

dhw: But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

DAVID: Not ignored: all possible thru God.

dhw: Thank you. Now that you agree to the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence as a theistic hypothesis, please tell me why my hypothesis is more “magical” than yours.

DAVID: Your thesis about cellular intelligence extrapolates from the simple intelligent responses cells make to stimuli to being able to design new complex forms. I find that jump as an illogical jump.

Hypothesis, not thesis. Nothing to do with logic! If cells are capable of autonomously changing their own structure and function on a minor scale (adaptation), it is not illogical to speculate that under certain conditions that scale may become major, e.g. legs to fins, climbing feet to running feet. Why is this less “logical” and more “magical” than an unknown mind preprogramming or dabbling fins and running feet before they need to swim or run?

DAVID: What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

What you have seen according to “my” experts is not pure automaticity, because they are convinced that cells are intelligent. Inventiveness is the purely hypothetical factor in my hypothesis. One moment you accept the possibility “thru God”, “one not better than the others”, and then you reject it on the grounds that you know more about cells than “my” experts, and prefer the unproven hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every invention. You have every right to do so, but that does not make your hypothesis more “logical” or less “magical” than mine.

10272 views

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

DAVID: I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your assertion that “the whole is not created by cooperating cells”. We are therefore left with the alternatives I offered above.

I haven't withdrawn anything. The whole is obviously created with cooperating cells. Without the cells built to cooperate, the whole won't work. Perhaps you didn't understand my comment above.

dhw: You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

DAVID: Of course it will.

dhw: So it’s goodbye to the argument that cells cannot invent because current research has not shown that they can.

All I agreed to is research will learn more, but there is no current evidence that the cells are any more than intelligently designed factories to automatically produce proteins on command.

DAVID: All [the hypotheses] are equally God-possible, one not better than the others.

dhw: But you have completely ignored my own hypothesis, and have not explained why you think yours are less “magical” than mine – the question I asked you on Thursday.

DAVID: Not ignored: all possible thru God.

dhw: Thank you. Now that you agree to the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence as a theistic hypothesis, please tell me why my hypothesis is more “magical” than yours.

DAVID: Your thesis about cellular intelligence extrapolates from the simple intelligent responses cells make to stimuli to being able to design new complex forms. I find that jump as an illogical jump.

dhw: Hypothesis, not thesis. Nothing to do with logic! If cells are capable of autonomously changing their own structure and function on a minor scale (adaptation), it is not illogical to speculate that under certain conditions that scale may become major, e.g. legs to fins, climbing feet to running feet. Why is this less “logical” and more “magical” than an unknown mind preprogramming or dabbling fins and running feet before they need to swim or run?

Quite a stretch from minor adaptation to major alterations requiring a mind to design the complex alterations. I don't consider it an hypothesis, but pure fantasy.

DAVID: What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

dhw: What you have seen according to “my” experts is not pure automaticity, because they are convinced that cells are intelligent. Inventiveness is the purely hypothetical factor in my hypothesis. One moment you accept the possibility “thru God”, “one not better than the others”, and then you reject it on the grounds that you know more about cells than “my” experts, and prefer the unproven hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every invention. You have every right to do so, but that does not make your hypothesis more “logical” or less “magical” than mine.

Sorry but I still consider it as pure magic. Design requires mental analysis for design. Shapiro is the most recent of your experts at work: all he shows is that bacteria can manipulate their DNA for minor adaptations. It is interest that the ID folks love to quite him to support their views!

10292 views

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

DAVID: I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your assertion that “the whole is not created by cooperating cells”. We are therefore left with the alternatives I offered above.

DAVID: I haven't withdrawn anything. The whole is obviously created with cooperating cells. Without the cells built to cooperate, the whole won't work. Perhaps you didn't understand my comment above.

You wrote on 12 October at 15.50: “The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis!” Now you agree that the whole is obviously created by cooperating cells. (My hypothesis has always explicitly allowed for their being designed). Thank you. Let’s move on.

dhw: You claimed that we know the extent to which cells can innovate because research only shows minor adaptations. My point is that research is not over. So maybe new research will reveal more than we know now.

DAVID: Of course it will.

dhw: So it’s goodbye to the argument that cells cannot invent because current research has not shown that they can.

DAVID: All I agreed to is research will learn more, but there is no current evidence that the cells are any more than intelligently designed factories to automatically produce proteins on command.

I know there is no current evidence, any more than there is current evidence for your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme. That is why it is only a hypothesis.

DAVID: What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

dhw: What you have seen according to “my” experts is not pure automaticity, because they are convinced that cells are intelligent. Inventiveness is the purely hypothetical factor in my hypothesis. One moment you accept the possibility “thru God”, “one not better than the others”, and then you reject it on the grounds that you know more about cells than “my” experts, and prefer the unproven hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every invention. You have every right to do so, but that does not make your hypothesis more “logical” or less “magical” than mine.

DAVID: Sorry but I still consider it as pure magic. Design requires mental analysis for design. Shapiro is the most recent of your experts at work: all he shows is that bacteria can manipulate their DNA for minor adaptations. It is interest that the ID folks love to quite him to support their views!

So if your God designed unproven inventive cellular intelligence it would be “pure magic”, whereas if your God designed an unproven computer programme and/or personally dabbled (unproven) every innovation in the history of life, that would be what? Pure science?

See under “Immunity: gene control” concerning Shapiro (and McClintock).

10172 views

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your assertion that “the whole is not created by cooperating cells”. We are therefore left with the alternatives I offered above.

DAVID: I haven't withdrawn anything. The whole is obviously created with cooperating cells. Without the cells built to cooperate, the whole won't work. Perhaps you didn't understand my comment above.

dhw: You wrote on 12 October at 15.50: “The whole is not created by cooperating cells. What a gross mistake in analysis!” Now you agree that the whole is obviously created by cooperating cells. (My hypothesis has always explicitly allowed for their being designed). Thank you. Let’s move on.

Please, my meaning is that a whole organism is created with necessarily cooperating cells in order to live and survive. 'With' is not 'by '. The whole is a result of cooperating cells. Cells cannot create newly designed biologic forms which is the personal hypothesis you keep trying to defend.

DAVID: What I seen in the biochemistry of cell reactions is pure automaticity, not inventivity. Nothing hypothetical about cell capacities. Just because you hypothetise it doesn't mean it is remotely possible.

dhw: What you have seen according to “my” experts is not pure automaticity, because they are convinced that cells are intelligent. Inventiveness is the purely hypothetical factor in my hypothesis. One moment you accept the possibility “thru God”, “one not better than the others”, and then you reject it on the grounds that you know more about cells than “my” experts, and prefer the unproven hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every invention. You have every right to do so, but that does not make your hypothesis more “logical” or less “magical” than mine.

DAVID: Sorry but I still consider it as pure magic. Design requires mental analysis for design. Shapiro is the most recent of your experts at work: all he shows is that bacteria can manipulate their DNA for minor adaptations. It is interest that the ID folks love to quite him to support their views!

dhw: So if your God designed unproven inventive cellular intelligence it would be “pure magic”, whereas if your God designed an unproven computer programme and/or personally dabbled (unproven) every innovation in the history of life, that would be what? Pure science?

I've not invented a 'magical' God the cencept has been around long before I arrived. Based on the designs I see in biology, He is a necessary being.

10171 views

DAVID: Please, my meaning is that a whole organism is created with necessarily cooperating cells in order to live and survive. 'With' is not 'by '. The whole is a result of cooperating cells. Cells cannot create newly designed biologic forms which is the personal hypothesis you keep trying to defend.

Here is the relevant exchange:

dhw: The (theistic) choice here is between your God preprogramming/dabbling the cooperation that enabled them to evolve, or your God giving them the wherewithal to organize their own cooperation, so please don’t tell me the whole is not created by cooperating cells.

DAVID: I would offer a slightly different concept: the whole is created by cells that are designed to cooperate.

You then changed your own “by” to “with”, but it makes no difference. You are now simply reiterating your blanket refusal to consider the possibility that your God might have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism with which organisms organize their own cooperation, even though later you agreed that all the hypotheses were possible “thru God”. Please let’s move on.

DAVID: Sorry but I still consider it [cellular intelligence] as pure magic.

dhw: So if your God designed unproven inventive cellular intelligence it would be “pure magic”, whereas if your God designed an unproven computer programme and/or personally dabbled (unproven) every innovation in the history of life, that would be what? Pure science?

DAVID: I've not invented a 'magical' God the concept has been around long before I arrived. Based on the designs I see in biology, He is a necessary being.

I did not say you invented God! You dismiss as “pure magic” the hypothesis that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, so I asked how you would describe your God’s hypothetical computer programme or dabbling of every innovation in the history of life. Once more: why is my hypothesis more “magical” than yours?

DAVID (under “Immunity: gene controls"): What cannot be avoided is logic about cells. Either they are intelligently designed to have intelligent responses to stress and stimuli or somehow or other they have their own form of intelligence and use it. Either Shapiro or I am correct, as only those two presumptions are operational. My choice is obvious. "Guiding intelligence" can certainly be implanted intelligent instructions for proper automatic responses to the few stimuli bacteria receive.

My point was to stop you from summarizing Shapiro’s work and coupling it with your own conclusion, which is diametrically opposed to his. This can be summed up as: “cells are intelligent agents that direct their own development”. You are absolutely right that these are the only two options, and I find it astonishing that you are not even prepared to consider the opinions of Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler, all of whom spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

10208 views

DAVID: I've not invented a 'magical' God the concept has been around long before I arrived. Based on the designs I see in biology, He is a necessary being.

dhw: I did not say you invented God! You dismiss as “pure magic” the hypothesis that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, so I asked how you would describe your God’s hypothetical computer programme or dabbling of every innovation in the history of life. Once more: why is my hypothesis more “magical” than yours?

DAVID (under “Immunity: gene controls"): What cannot be avoided is logic about cells. Either they are intelligently designed to have intelligent responses to stress and stimuli or somehow or other they have their own form of intelligence and use it. Either Shapiro or I am correct, as only those two presumptions are operational. My choice is obvious. "Guiding intelligence" can certainly be implanted intelligent instructions for proper automatic responses to the few stimuli bacteria receive.

dhw: My point was to stop you from summarizing Shapiro’s work and coupling it with your own conclusion, which is diametrically opposed to his. This can be summed up as: “cells are intelligent agents that direct their own development”. You are absolutely right that these are the only two options, and I find it astonishing that you are not even prepared to consider the opinions of Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler, all of whom spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

It may surprise you but I have studied biology of cells and especially humans all of my life! The point is neither you nor I know how speciation occurred, but I have a view, expressed many times, that the complexities of biological design require a designing mind. You have extrapolated cells intelligent responses to stimuli to a massive ability to construct new forms of life, while the cells I know have no concept of design. Design requires knowing in advance how a newly conceptualized living form will adequately handle its role in life in the future. And I agree with you and your cohort of biologists. Single cells act with intelligent responses to stimuli, but no more than that. They follow intelligent instructions.

10192 views

We don't make as many basic proteins as some animals, but with modifications to the molecules we create a massive number of special ones:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/proteins-wear-clothes-and-understanding-their-fashio...

"Humans produce 20,418 proteins, and convert them into one million variations. It's important to understand why, say Pedro Beltran-Alvarez and John Greenman, from the UK's University of Hull.

"We humans are top of the evolutionary tree, the most complex organisms that have ever lived on Earth in five billion years. Right? One way we might actually prove our biological complexity is to look at the number of different proteins that our bodies can produce for building all our different types of cells and the other things they need.

"This number is approximately 20,418 in humans. We are clearly more complex than chickens (18,346), flies (13,931) and bacteria, some of which can produce only a few hundred different proteins. But here is the humbling news: some crustaceans can make up to 30,000 proteins and a red cabbage has nearly 60,000 different proteins.

"Scientists have managed to come up with an explanation for this apparent conundrum and save our dignity as a species. One of the features that make us more complex than a cabbage is what’s called post-translational modifications of proteins, the way proteins can change after they are copied from our DNA. If we take these into account, then the total number of different proteins in human cells is an estimated one million.

***

"Just like humans, the proteins in our bodies are born without any clothing. But before getting to work and socialising with other proteins, most of them undergo the equivalent of getting dressed. These items of protein clothing can change the “naked” protein’s structure, function and how it interacts with other proteins. So protein clothing contributes hugely to the complexity of our bodies.

"The analogy works in different ways. Just as there is only one place where you can (comfortably) wear a left-hand glove and your reading glasses will not work if you put them on your feet, proteins can only wear their modifications at specific sites on their structure for them to work.

"Protein modifications can also be reversed. Just as we can take off a jacket if we’re too hot, proteins can have some items of clothing, such as phosphate groups, removed in a fraction of a second. But other modifications are very stable. For example, if methyl or lipidic groups are added to proteins they are like “tattoos” that are very difficult to remove.

"Again like us, proteins can wear many different items of clothing at the same time. In some cases, these different modifications can interact with each other and also affect what other changes can be made to the protein."

Comment: the article goes on to explain how protein analysis and modification can help us fight cancer and diseases. I've presented it to make the point that our genome with 20,000+ genes has many complex tricks to make us so special and so different/distant from our primate relatives

9983 views

DAVID (under “Immunity: gene controls"): What cannot be avoided is logic about cells. Either they are intelligently designed to have intelligent responses to stress and stimuli or somehow or other they have their own form of intelligence and use it. Either Shapiro or I am correct, as only those two presumptions are operational. My choice is obvious. "Guiding intelligence" can certainly be implanted intelligent instructions for proper automatic responses to the few stimuli bacteria receive.

dhw: My point was to stop you from summarizing Shapiro’s work and coupling it with your own conclusion, which is diametrically opposed to his. This can be summed up as: “cells are intelligent agents that direct their own development”. You are absolutely right that these are the only two options, and I find it astonishing that you are not even prepared to consider the opinions of Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler, all of whom spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

DAVID: It may surprise you but I have studied biology of cells and especially humans all of my life! The point is neither you nor I know how speciation occurred, but I have a view, expressed many times, that the complexities of biological design require a designing mind. You have extrapolated cells intelligent responses to stimuli to a massive ability to construct new forms of life, while the cells I know have no concept of design. Design requires knowing in advance how a newly conceptualized living form will adequately handle its role in life in the future. And I agree with you and your cohort of biologists. Single cells act with intelligent responses to stimuli, but no more than that. They follow intelligent instructions.

You do not agree with my cohort of biologists who say that cells are intelligent in their own right. But I have agreed a thousand times that cellular intelligence as an explanation of innovation is a HYPOTHESIS without proof. What I dislike is the double standards by which you insist on proof for my hypothesis (not a belief), whereas your hypothesis of (and belief in) sourceless consciousness (your God) and your hypothesis of divine design or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life apparently do not require proof. Faith is all you need.

DAVID (under “Single-cell decision making”: Diatoms divide to reproduce but under circumstances of poor food supply they turn to sexual reproduction. They can make decisions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016154241.htm

QUOTE: "'It is striking that even unicellular organisms that obviously lack a nervous system can process different stimuli and even evaluate their individual needs. Our study showed that diatoms can adapt their behavior flexibly to environmental changes. They also responded differently depending on their need to sexually mate.

"The scientist would now like to find out how the single-cell organisms perceive, process and evaluate chemical signals. "Our goal is to identify the corresponding receptors and signal processing pathways, but this will be a very complex endeavor given the fact that we know so little about these important micoralagae," says Georg Pohnert." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. These scientists are looking to receptors and pathways, which in my opinion will be automatic, to explain the decision making.

Yes, that is your opinion. Scientists also try to identify the receptors and pathways used by human intelligence, but you do not believe they explain our decision-making.

9822 views

dhw: My point was to stop you from summarizing Shapiro’s work and coupling it with your own conclusion, which is diametrically opposed to his. This can be summed up as: “cells are intelligent agents that direct their own development”. You are absolutely right that these are the only two options, and I find it astonishing that you are not even prepared to consider the opinions of Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler, all of whom spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

DAVID: It may surprise you but I have studied biology of cells and especially humans all of my life! The point is neither you nor I know how speciation occurred, but I have a view, expressed many times, that the complexities of biological design require a designing mind. You have extrapolated cells intelligent responses to stimuli to a massive ability to construct new forms of life, while the cells I know have no concept of design. Design requires knowing in advance how a newly conceptualized living form will adequately handle its role in life in the future. And I agree with you and your cohort of biologists. Single cells act with intelligent responses to stimuli, but no more than that. They follow intelligent instructions.

dhw: You do not agree with my cohort of biologists who say that cells are intelligent in their own right. But I have agreed a thousand times that cellular intelligence as an explanation of innovation is a HYPOTHESIS without proof. What I dislike is the double standards by which you insist on proof for my hypothesis (not a belief), whereas your hypothesis of (and belief in) sourceless consciousness (your God) and your hypothesis of divine design or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life apparently do not require proof. Faith is all you need.

My knowledge of the biology of cells is all I need to support my view. Faith is a result, not a cause of statements.

DAVID (under “Single-cell decision making”: Diatoms divide to reproduce but under circumstances of poor food supply they turn to sexual reproduction. They can make decisions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181016154241.htm

QUOTE: "'It is striking that even unicellular organisms that obviously lack a nervous system can process different stimuli and even evaluate their individual needs. Our study showed that diatoms can adapt their behavior flexibly to environmental changes. They also responded differently depending on their need to sexually mate.

"The scientist would now like to find out how the single-cell organisms perceive, process and evaluate chemical signals. "Our goal is to identify the corresponding receptors and signal processing pathways, but this will be a very complex endeavor given the fact that we know so little about these important micoralagae," says Georg Pohnert." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. These scientists are looking to receptors and pathways, which in my opinion will be automatic, to explain the decision making.

dhw: Yes, that is your opinion. Scientists also try to identify the receptors and pathways used by human intelligence, but you do not believe they explain our decision-making.

Why skip from single cells to brain functions? Two very different levels of biologic function from single cell to whole organ.

9927 views

dhw: You do not agree with my cohort of biologists who say that cells are intelligent in their own right. But I have agreed a thousand times that cellular intelligence as an explanation of innovation is a HYPOTHESIS without proof. What I dislike is the double standards by which you insist on proof for my hypothesis (not a belief), whereas your hypothesis of (and belief in) sourceless consciousness (your God) and your hypothesis of divine design or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life apparently do not require proof. Faith is all you need.

DAVID: My knowledge of the biology of cells is all I need to support my view. Faith is a result, not a cause of statements.

And “my” cohort of biologists’ knowledge of the biology of cells is all they need to support their view. Please tell me what “statements” provide proof to support your faith in the existence of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

DAVID: These scientists are looking to receptors and pathways, which in my opinion will be automatic, to explain the decision making.

dhw: Yes, that is your opinion. Scientists also try to identify the receptors and pathways used by human intelligence, but you do not believe they explain our decision-making.

DAVID: Why skip from single cells to brain functions? Two very different levels of biologic function from single cell to whole organ.

Of course they are different levels, but trying to find receptors and pathways will not prove absence of autonomous decision-making intelligence in single cells or in humans.

9748 views

dhw: You do not agree with my cohort of biologists who say that cells are intelligent in their own right. But I have agreed a thousand times that cellular intelligence as an explanation of innovation is a HYPOTHESIS without proof. What I dislike is the double standards by which you insist on proof for my hypothesis (not a belief), whereas your hypothesis of (and belief in) sourceless consciousness (your God) and your hypothesis of divine design or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life apparently do not require proof. Faith is all you need.

DAVID: My knowledge of the biology of cells is all I need to support my view. Faith is a result, not a cause of statements.

dhw: And “my” cohort of biologists’ knowledge of the biology of cells is all they need to support their view. Please tell me what “statements” provide proof to support your faith in the existence of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

Th evidence for design which is unavoidable in the study of life's biology supports the concept of a designing God. Your cohorts makes an educated guess from what they see cells do, and all they see is automatic responses to stimuli, and alter DNA which also may be a programmed response.

DAVID: These scientists are looking to receptors and pathways, which in my opinion will be automatic, to explain the decision making.

dhw: Yes, that is your opinion. Scientists also try to identify the receptors and pathways used by human intelligence, but you do not believe they explain our decision-making.

DAVID: Why skip from single cells to brain functions? Two very different levels of biologic function from single cell to whole organ.

dhw: Of course they are different levels, but trying to find receptors and pathways will not prove absence of autonomous decision-making intelligence in single cells or in humans.

Pathways of response can be shown to be cascades of response by molecules automatically acting, as in the blood clotting cascade (which has been fully understood) and directly refutes your belief. From start to stop clotting is automatic, but looks intelligent if simply reviewed from an outside observation, which is what cellular research does. When the cells are finally fully understood, as clotting is, all the cell does will be revealed as fully automatic.

9776 views

DAVID: My knowledge of the biology of cells is all I need to support my view. Faith is a result, not a cause of statements.

dhw: And “my” cohort of biologists’ knowledge of the biology of cells is all they need to support their view. Please tell me what “statements” provide proof to support your faith in the existence of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

DAVID: The evidence for design which is unavoidable in the study of life's biology supports the concept of a designing God. Your cohorts makes an educated guess from what they see cells do, and all they see is automatic responses to stimuli, and alter DNA which also may be a programmed response.

No, they see decision-making, and I like your “may be”, which concedes that the changes may NOT be the result of your God’s 3.8-billion-year old computer programme. i.e. they may be the result of the intelligent decision-making which my cohorts extrapolate from their lifetime spent studying the behaviour of cells.

DAVID: These scientists are looking to receptors and pathways, which in my opinion will be automatic, to explain the decision making.

dhw: Yes, that is your opinion. Scientists also try to identify the receptors and pathways used by human intelligence, but you do not believe they explain our decision-making.
DAVID: Why skip from single cells to brain functions? Two very different levels of biologic function from single cell to whole organ.

dhw: Of course they are different levels, but trying to find receptors and pathways will not prove absence of autonomous decision-making intelligence in single cells or in humans.

DAVID: Pathways of response can be shown to be cascades of response by molecules automatically acting, as in the blood clotting cascade (which has been fully understood) and directly refutes your belief. From start to stop clotting is automatic, but looks intelligent if simply reviewed from an outside observation, which is what cellular research does. When the cells are finally fully understood, as clotting is, all the cell does will be revealed as fully automatic.

As usual, you focus on automatic responses and completely ignore the decision-making, which is the whole point of our discussion! As far as you are concerned, humans make decisions (autonomous intelligence), but your God preprogrammed all the decisions of cells 3.8 billion years ago (or he pops in to give them special tuition whenever there’s a new problem).

9772 views

Africa may be the origin but ancient homo forms are turning up in China, suggesting H. erectus was there very early:

https://kopitiambot.com/2018/07/12/asia-cradle-of-humankind-new-fossil-finds-are-rewrit...

"At the time, the Peking Man remains were the oldest known fossils belonging to human ancestors. Their discovery in the 1920s and 30s caused a sensation, triggering declarations that the cradle of humanity had been found.

"The last decade has seen the discovery of new Asian fossils, among others by Chinese palaeoanthropologists with a renewed interest in their heritage. As key moments in our past are rewritten, the spotlight is once more turning to the East.

The first Peking Man remains were found in 1923, nearly 50km outside Beijing. Alongside the broad-nosed individuals with thick brows were burned animal bones, suggesting an early human ancestor capable of controlling fire.

***

"At the time, the Peking Man remains were the oldest known fossils belonging to human ancestors. Their discovery in the 1920s and 30s caused a sensation, triggering declarations that the cradle of humanity had been found. But just a few decades later, all eyes had turned to Africa. A slew of discoveries there left little doubt that it was our true ancestral home. As far as human evolution was concerned, Asia was out of the picture.

"Not any more. The last decade has seen the discovery of new Asian fossils, among others by Chinese palaeoanthropologists with a renewed interest in their heritage. As key moments in our past are rewritten, the spotlight is once more turning to the East.

"The first Peking Man remains were found in 1923, nearly 50km outside Beijing. Alongside the broad-nosed individuals with thick brows were burned animal bones, suggesting an early human ancestor capable of controlling fire.

***

"Dali Man, a 260,000-year-old skull found 14 years earlier in the central province of Shaanxi, had a similar mix of features, typical of “transitional forms”, that cannot be ascribed to any well-defined species. Although the Yunxian and Dali Man fossils are particularly fine examples, many more have been found in east Asia.

"Then, in 2009, Chinese scientists announced the discovery of a 110,000-year-old jawbone in the southern province of Guangxi. Though relatively primitive, it displayed a prominent human-like chin. The team classified it as Homo sapiens, which would mean that our species was in Asia a good 50,000 years before we previously thought.

***

"The tide began to turn in 2015, when 47 teeth were found inside a cave in Daoxian, in Hunan province, also in southern China. Teeth are one of the best ways to distinguish between hominin species, and these were distinctly human – belonging to our own species – not to mention very old. According to Wu Liu at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and his colleagues, they had been lying around for 80,000 to 120,000 years.

"For Wu, the mounting evidence could only mean one thing: “Early modern humans were in southern China at least 100,000 years ago.”

***

"There seems little doubt that our direct ancestors ventured east out of Africa far earlier than the standard narrative allows.

"This is a huge change to the standard view. But it does not explain those weird transitional fossils from China that display a mix of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens features. Being hundreds of thousands of years old, they predate even the earlier exodus out of Africa. The most radical suggestion is that they are evidence that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens in east Asia.

"The idea that we evolved from a number of separate populations was once regarded as maverick, but has become more respectable.

***

"A more likely explanation for the transitional fossils is that Asia, like Africa, was once home to various human groups that exchanged genes. Along with Homo erectus, genetic studies have revealed a number of hominins whose identity is still a mystery. Later, there was the diminutive “hobbit”, Homo floresiensis, found on the Indonesian island of Flores from 100,000 years ago, preceded by an ancestral species going back 700,000 years.

***

"If these various species interbred, they should have left behind hybrids scattered across Asia. Indeed, the surprisingly rich variety among east Asian fossils suggests hybridisation was widespread, says María Martinón-Torres, director of the National Research Centre on Human Evolution, in Burgos, Spain.

"Martinón-Torres and her colleagues have also shown that hominins in Africa and Eurasia did evolve relatively independently for a long time. When they examined 5,000 fossil teeth spanning 2.5 million years, they found that each continent had its own distinct type of teeth – strong evidence that Eurasia was a centre of speciation in its own right.

***

"The truth is, the story of our evolution is still being rewritten and we cannot be sure how it will turn out. What is certain is that Asia can no longer be sidelined. It is possible that the species we evolved from made its own migration into Africa before giving rise to us. Our ancestors then left Africa at least 100,000 years ago and travelled the breadth of Eurasia for millennia."

Comment: Interesting

9212 views

A study of male sperm indicates how it is done:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dads-stresses-get-passed-along-to-offspr...

"A stressed-out and traumatized father can leave scars in his children. New research suggests this happens because sperm “learn” paternal experiences via a mysterious mode of intercellular communication in which small blebs break off one cell and fuse with another.

"Carrying proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, these particles ejected from a cell act like a postal system that extends to all parts of the body, releasing little packages known as extracellular vesicles. Their contents seem carefully chosen. “The cargo inside the vesicle determines not just where it came from but where it’s going and what it’s doing when it gets there,” says Tracy Bale.

***

"Striking evidence that harsh conditions affect a man’s children came from crop failures and war ravaging Europe more than a century ago. In those unplanned human experiments, prolonged famine appeared to set off a host of health changes in future generations, including higher cholesterol levels and increased rates of obesity and diabetes.

***

"The big question is how information about the paternal environment reaches the womb in the first place. After all, Morgan says, the “dad is only in there for one night, perhaps just a few hours.” Could his sperm carry memories of prior trauma? The idea seemed reasonable yet controversial. Because DNA is packed so tightly in the nucleus of a sperm cell, “the thought that [the cell] would respond to anything in the environment really boggled people’s minds,” says Jennifer Chan, a former PhD student in Bale’s lab who’s now a postdoc at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

"Rather, there must be some other kind of cell whose DNA does react to environmental changes—and that cell, she reasoned, could then relay that information to sperm cells to transmit at fertilization. She focused on a population of cells that interact with developing sperm by releasing molecules that help sperm grow and mature. They also secrete extracellular vesicles—and Chan showed it is these vesicles whose contents fuse with sperm cells, instilling memories of dad’s prior stress.

***

"The pups from nonstressed zygotes developed normally. Pups from stress-exposed zygotes, however, showed the same abnormal stress response as those whose dads had experienced stress before mating. That showed extracellular vesicles act as the conduit for transmitting paternal stress signals to the offspring, Chan says.

***

"As a first step toward translating the findings to people, Morgan is collaborating with University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Neill Epperson to track protein and RNA changes in human sperm samples. At the neuroscience meeting, Morgan presented data from a six-month study of 20 undergraduate and graduate students. Each month the participants came in and gave a sperm donation. They also completed a same-day survey asking how stressed they were feeling. Preliminary data suggests just several months after a student reports stress, his sperm shows changes in “small noncoding RNAs”—RNA molecules that do not get translated to protein but instead control which genes get turned on or off."

Comment: What happens in mice probably translates to humans. Historical evidence strongly suggests this. Epigenetic effects.

9248 views

Stone tools and butchering marks found in Western Sahara as old as the sites in the Rift Valley where Hominins like Lucy were thought to have started:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181129142407.htm

"A new study breaks with the paradigm that the cradle of humankind lies in East Africa, based on the archaeological remains found at sites in the region of Ain Hanech (Algeria), the oldest currently known in the north of Africa. New research shows that ancestral hominins actually made stone tools in North Africa that are near contemporary with the earliest known stone tools in East Africa dated to 2.6 million years.

***

"Two decades of field and laboratory research directed by Dr. Sahnouni have shown that ancestral hominins actually made stone tools in North Africa that are near contemporary with the earliest known stone tools in East Africa dated to 2.6 million years.

"These are stone artifacts and animal bones bearing marks of cutting by stone tools, with an estimated chronology of 2.4 and 1.9 million years, respectively, found at two levels at the sites of Ain Boucherit (within the Ain Hanech study area), which were dated using Paleomagnetism, Electron Spin Resonance (ESR), and the Biochronology of large mammals excavated together with the archaeological materials.

***

"The artifacts of Ain Boucherit were manufactured of locally available limestone and flint and include faces worked into choppers, polyhedra and subspheroids, as well as sharp-edged cutting tools used to process animal carcasses. These artifacts are typical of the Oldowan stone technology known from 2.6-1.9 million-year-old sites in East Africa, although those from Ain Boucherit show subtle variations.

"'The lithic industry of Ain Boucherit, which is technologically similar to that of Gona and Olduvai, shows that our ancestors ventured into all corners of Africa, not just East Africa. The evidence from Algeria changes the earlier view that East Africa was the cradle of Humankind. Actually, the whole of Africa was the cradle of humankind," states Sahnouni, leader of the Ain Hanech project.

***

"Isabel Cáceres, taphonomist at the IPHES, has commented that "the effective use of sharp-edged tools at Ain Boucherit suggests that our ancestors were not mere scavengers. It is not clear at this moment whether they hunted, but the evidence clearly shows that they were successfully competing with carnivores and enjoyed first access to animal carcasses."

"At this moment, the most important question is who made the stone tools discovered in Algeria. Hominin remains have still not been found in North Africa which are contemporary with the earliest stone artifacts. As a matter of fact, nor have any hominins yet been documented in direct association with the first stone tools known from East Africa.

"Nevertheless, a recent discovery in Ethiopia has shown the presence of early Homo dated to 2.8 million years, most likely the best candidate also for the materials from East and North Africa.

"Scientists thought for a long time that the hominins and their material culture originated in the Great Rift Valley in East Africa. Surprisingly, the earliest known hominin, dated to 7.0 million years, and the 3.3 million years Australopithecus bahrelghazali, have been discovered in Chad, in the Sahara, 3000 km from the rift valleys in the east of Africa.

"As Sileshi Semaw, scientist at the CENIEH and a co-author of this paper, explains that the hominins contemporary with Lucy (3.2 million years), were probably roamed over the Sahara, and their descendants might have been responsible for leaving these archaeological puzzles now discovered in Algeria, that are near contemporaries of those of East Africa."

Comment: At that ancient time the Sahara was not a desert, so bipedalism would allow for distant wandering.

8182 views

Our DNA shows more than Neanderthal and Denisovan:

https://epeak.info/2018/10/10/traces-of-thriller-historic-people-discovered-lurking-in-...

"Prehistoric people had been sexual adventurers, mating with Neanderthals and Denisovans, however DNA research reveal dalliances with populations we by no means knew existed.

"WE LEARN about our ancestors in some ways. Bones inform us what they regarded like. Tooth reveal their eating regimen. Instruments, pots, artwork and different artefacts maintain tales about their tradition. Then, a decade in the past, the primary historic genome was sequenced, opening a complete new window on our previous – one which promised extra intimate insights. The breakthrough famously revealed that Neanderthals bought very cosy with people.

"Since then, geneticists have been probing increasingly fossils for proof of previous cross-species dalliances. The research haven’t upset. However in an intriguing twist, they’ve began to kick up one thing surprising: hidden inside genomes are indicators of ancestors that we by no means knew existed. Geneticists name them “ghosts”. We now have no bodily file of those historic hominins – no bones, no instruments, no archaeological stays in anyway.

"But the genetic code that they left inside fossils of different hominins, and in dwelling people too, is providing profound and unprecedented insights into how our species got here to be, and what the world was like on the time. The concept that every of our cells would possibly comprise fragments of genetic code from extinct species has been round for effectively over a decade.

" Then, in 2008, Svante Pääbo and his group on the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, pulled off the grasp stroke of teasing DNA out of millennia-old Neanderthal bones in portions nice sufficient to sequence. This offered an apparent option to discover out if Homo sapiens had bred with Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis): you might merely look throughout the genomes of dwelling folks for DNA sequences with …"

Comment: Prehistoric sex between hominin types was rampant.

10399 views

The Neanderthal rib cage was attached a little differently to a straighter thoracic spine, with a larger diaphragm implied by the rib anatomy:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-reconstructs-neandertal-ribcage-clues-ancient.html

"An international team of scientists has completed the first 3-D virtual reconstruction of the ribcage of the most complete Neandertal skeleton unearthed to date, potentially shedding new light on how this ancient human moved and breathed.

***

"Using CT scans of fossils from an approximately 60,000-year-old male skeleton known as Kebara 2, researchers were able to create a 3-D model of the chest—one that is different from the longstanding image of the barrel-chested, hunched-over "caveman." The conclusions point to what may have been an upright individual with greater lung capacity and a straighter spine than today's modern human.

***

"The reconstruction of the thorax, coupled with the team's earlier finding, shows ribs that connect to the spine in an inward direction, forcing the chest cavity outward and allowing the spine to tilt slightly back, with little of the lumbar curve that is part of the modern human skeletal structure. "The differences between a Neandertal and modern human thorax are striking," said Markus Bastir, senior research scientist at the Laboratory of Virtual Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History in Spain.

"'The Neandertal spine is located more inside the thorax, which provides more stability," said Gomez-Olivencia. "Also, the thorax is wider in its lower part." This shape of the rib cage suggests a larger diaphragm and thus, greater lung capacity.

"'The wide lower thorax of Neandertals and the horizontal orientation of the ribs suggest that Neandertals relied more on their diaphragm for breathing," said senior author Ella Been of Ono Academic College. "Modern humans, on the other hand, rely both on the diaphragm and on the expansion of the rib cage for breathing. Here we see how new technologies in the study of fossil remains is providing new information to understand extinct species."

"What that means for how Kebara 2 lived is ripe for further research, Kramer said. How did Neandertals breathe, and for what physical demands might they have needed powerful lungs? What does that tell us about how they moved, and the environment in which they lived? Did any of these physical traits make them more or less adaptive to climate change?

"Reconstructing the thorax was an exercise in starting from scratch, deliberately trying to avoid being influenced by past theories of how Neandertals looked or lived, Kramer said."

Comment: It is not surprising to find anatomic differences between the species.

9546 views

Blood pressure must be exactly controlled as we change posture. You stand up suddenly but don't faint:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-year-mystery-blood-pressure.html

"The baroreceptor reflex is a fascinating medical phenomenon. The reflex is controlled by specialized neurons that react in just a fraction of a second to keep blood pressure fairly consistent.

"For example, when you stand up, your blood pressure normally drops—rapidly. Yet you don't faint thanks to baroreceptors, which tell your heart rate to increase and push more blood to your brain.'

"A new Scripps Research study pinpoints the two proteins that sense blood pressure and help control the baroreceptor reflex, according to research published recently in Science. The research is the first to reveal exactly how "mechnotransduction," or the sensing of changes in pressure, works in these cells.

"Tight regulation of blood pressure is essential for health," says Wei-Zheng Zeng, Ph.D., a postdoctoral associate at Scripps Research and first author of the study. "Blood pressure is acutely sensed by baroreceptor neurons, but the mechanism of how baroreceptors sense blood pressure remained a mystery for more than 100 years."

"The two proteins—PIEZO1 and PIEZO2—were originally discovered in the lab of study senior author Ardem Patapoutian, Ph.D., a Scripps Research professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. In just the past few years, it's become clear PIEZOs do a lot of work. The Patapoutian lab has shown PIEZOs are responsible for sensing pressure in the lungs, different kinds of pain and soft touch. PIEZO1 even helps red blood cells keep their shape.

"The scientists focused on PIEZOs as possible players in the baroreceptor reflex because the genes for PIEZO1 and 2 are expressed in sensory neurons responsible for the reflex. Indeed, in the recent experiments with a mouse model, the scientists found that both PIEZOs are necessary for maintaining blood pressure through the reflex."

Comment: This reflex has to go back to early organisms which quickly changed posture. If not present outmaneuvers they tried might have been fatal. Only design fits.

9489 views

QUOTE: “What that means for how Kebara 2 lived is ripe for further research, Kramer said. How did Neandertals breathe, and for what physical demands might they have needed powerful lungs? What does that tell us about how they moved, and the environment in which they lived? Did any of these physical traits make them more or less adaptive to climate change?”

DAVID: It is not surprising to find anatomic differences between the species.

As you insist that your God stepped in to expand the brain and the skull and the birth canal of pre-humans, I’m a little surprised that you are not surprised by all the anatomical differences between species. Do you think your God stepped in to expand Neanderthal lungs, or could the cell communities themselves have responded to the needs of the time? And if your God’s purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, why bother with Neanderthals and their lungs in the first place (especially bearing in mind that they and sapiens were contemporaries)? Could it be that the various species and their anatomical differences simply evolved independently, responding to different environments or even responding differently to the same environments, without any divine dabbling?

9492 views

QUOTE: “What that means for how Kebara 2 lived is ripe for further research, Kramer said. How did Neandertals breathe, and for what physical demands might they have needed powerful lungs? What does that tell us about how they moved, and the environment in which they lived? Did any of these physical traits make them more or less adaptive to climate change?”

DAVID: It is not surprising to find anatomic differences between the species.

dhw: As you insist that your God stepped in to expand the brain and the skull and the birth canal of pre-humans, I’m a little surprised that you are not surprised by all the anatomical differences between species. Do you think your God stepped in to expand Neanderthal lungs, or could the cell communities themselves have responded to the needs of the time? And if your God’s purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, why bother with Neanderthals and their lungs in the first place (especially bearing in mind that they and sapiens were contemporaries)? Could it be that the various species and their anatomical differences simply evolved independently, responding to different environments or even responding differently to the same environments, without any divine dabbling?

And just as possibly God had several approaches going on at the same time to explain the hobbits, the Denisovans, the Neanderthals and us.

9463 views

DAVID: It is not surprising to find anatomic differences between the species.

dhw: As you insist that your God stepped in to expand the brain and the skull and the birth canal of pre-humans, I’m a little surprised that you are not surprised by all the anatomical differences between species. Do you think your God stepped in to expand Neanderthal lungs, or could the cell communities themselves have responded to the needs of the time? And if your God’s purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, why bother with Neanderthals and their lungs in the first place (especially bearing in mind that they and sapiens were contemporaries)? Could it be that the various species and their anatomical differences simply evolved independently, responding to different environments or even responding differently to the same environments, without any divine dabbling?

DAVID: And just as possibly God had several approaches going on at the same time to explain the hobbits, the Denisovans, the Neanderthals and us.

So 1) Do you think he popped in to expand their lungs? And 2) Why bother with several approaches if, as you insist, his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

9385 views

DAVID: It is not surprising to find anatomic differences between the species.

dhw: As you insist that your God stepped in to expand the brain and the skull and the birth canal of pre-humans, I’m a little surprised that you are not surprised by all the anatomical differences between species. Do you think your God stepped in to expand Neanderthal lungs, or could the cell communities themselves have responded to the needs of the time? And if your God’s purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, why bother with Neanderthals and their lungs in the first place (especially bearing in mind that they and sapiens were contemporaries)? Could it be that the various species and their anatomical differences simply evolved independently, responding to different environments or even responding differently to the same environments, without any divine dabbling?

DAVID: And just as possibly God had several approaches going on at the same time to explain the hobbits, the Denisovans, the Neanderthals and us.

dhw: So 1) Do you think he popped in to expand their lungs? And 2) Why bother with several approaches if, as you insist, his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

You always attempt to minimize my theory about the appearance of humans by simply referring to one organ. The entire human body is a major reconstruction of the basic ape form. Please recognize that major point! The Neanderthal phenotype is different than ours and only one of several types of humans that appeared most like under God's guidance. I don't know if God preferred one over the other when He started the evolution of each type.

9364 views

Dhw: Could it be that the various species and their anatomical differences simply evolved independently, responding to different environments or even responding differently to the same environments, without any divine dabbling?

DAVID: And just as possibly God had several approaches going on at the same time to explain the hobbits, the Denisovans, the Neanderthals and us.

dhw: So 1) Do you think he popped in to expand their lungs? And 2) Why bother with several approaches if, as you insist, his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: You always attempt to minimize my theory about the appearance of humans by simply referring to one organ. The entire human body is a major reconstruction of the basic ape form. Please recognize that major point!

Of course it is a major reconstruction. But since you made a special point about one organ – the birth canal - and the need for your God to fiddle with it in order to accommodate the bigger fetus and its skull, I’m simply asking if you think your God also fiddled with Neanderthal’s bigger lungs. Do please answer.

DAVID: The Neanderthal phenotype is different than ours and only one of several types of humans that appeared most like under God's guidance. I don't know if God preferred one over the other when He started the evolution of each type.

I know it’s different, and I know there were other forms of human, and I’m asking why you believe he “started the evolution” of these different types though you keep telling us that his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID (under spiders’ webs): God's purpose is much grander than brains. The entire human organism is an amazing advance over the apes.

OK, so your God’s purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens. So why do you think he specially designed thousands of spiders’ webs and all the other species of human?

We’d better get rid of one stock spidery response while we’re at it:

DAVID: Spiders have no relation to human brains other than they are part of the necessary balance of nature.

Necessary for what? “Balance of nature” means no more than the fact that all life forms have to be balanced or they die, and all econiches are balanced until their balance changes to a different balance. As you say, nothing to do with human brains, or do you really believe your God had to design 50,000 webs (not to mention my old friend the weaverbird's nest) or we wouldn't exist?

9386 views

dhw: So 1) Do you think he popped in to expand their lungs? And 2) Why bother with several approaches if, as you insist, his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: You always attempt to minimize my theory about the appearance of humans by simply referring to one organ. The entire human body is a major reconstruction of the basic ape form. Please recognize that major point!

dhw: Of course it is a major reconstruction. But since you made a special point about one organ – the birth canal - and the need for your God to fiddle with it in order to accommodate the bigger fetus and its skull, I’m simply asking if you think your God also fiddled with Neanderthal’s bigger lungs. Do please answer.

The birth canal presents a paradox for natural evolution, a MAJOR point. Answered below:

DAVID: The Neanderthal phenotype is different than ours and only one of several types of humans that appeared most like under God's guidance. I don't know if God preferred one over the other when He started the evolution of each type.

dhw: I know it’s different, and I know there were other forms of human, and I’m asking why you believe he “started the evolution” of these different types though you keep telling us that his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

Again, just a brain. The brain is part of a very different organism, the whole human. By sticking with just a brain, you are making an obvious attempt to belittle the whole concept of amazing humans.

DAVID (under spiders’ webs): God's purpose is much grander than brains. The entire human organism is an amazing advance over the apes.

dhw: OK, so your God’s purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens. So why do you think he specially designed thousands of spiders’ webs and all the other species of human?

dhw: We’d better get rid of one stock spidery response while we’re at it:

DAVID: Spiders have no relation to human brains other than they are part of the necessary balance of nature.

dhw: Necessary for what? “Balance of nature” means no more than the fact that all life forms have to be balanced or they die, and all econiches are balanced until their balance changes to a different balance. As you say, nothing to do with human brains, or do you really believe your God had to design 50,000 webs (not to mention my old friend the weaverbird's nest) or we wouldn't exist?

You've just admitted econiches are necessary. They are a requirement of maintenance of life. The diversity of forms create the niches. We don't disagree. Each niche requires a different web. So?

9363 views

dhw: So 1) Do you think he popped in to expand their lungs? And 2) Why bother with several approaches if, as you insist, his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: You always attempt to minimize my theory about the appearance of humans by simply referring to one organ. The entire human body is a major reconstruction of the basic ape form. Please recognize that major point!

dhw: Of course it is a major reconstruction. But since you made a special point about one organ – the birth canal - and the need for your God to fiddle with it in order to accommodate the bigger fetus and its skull, I’m simply asking if you think your God also fiddled with Neanderthal’s bigger lungs. Do please answer.

DAVID: The birth canal presents a paradox for natural evolution, a MAJOR point.

According to you every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder requires special design by your God. I don’t know why you’re so reluctant to tell us whether he also stepped in to dabble with Neanderthal lungs.

DAVID: The Neanderthal phenotype is different than ours and only one of several types of humans that appeared most like under God's guidance. I don't know if God preferred one over the other when He started the evolution of each type.

dhw: I know it’s different, and I know there were other forms of human, and I’m asking why you believe he “started the evolution” of these different types though you keep telling us that his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: Again, just a brain. The brain is part of a very different organism, the whole human. By sticking with just a brain, you are making an obvious attempt to belittle the whole concept of amazing humans.

No belittling. I am making an obvious attempt to get the answer to a puzzle. Please tell us why, if your God’s prime purpose was to produce the amazing body and brain of Homo sapiens, you think he “started the evolution” of all the other types of human.

DAVID (re spiders’ webs): You've just admitted econiches are necessary. They are a requirement of maintenance of life. The diversity of forms create the niches. We don't disagree. Each niche requires a different web. So?

We agree that every form of life requires an econiche, but as conditions change, so the econiche changes, some forms die out and others flourish. “Balance of nature” therefore does not explain why your God had to design 50,000 spider webs.

Two questions: 1) If your God’s purpose was to produce the amazing brain and body of Homo sapiens, why did he need to specially design 50,000 different spider webs and other species of human? 2) Do you not believe it is possible that the spiders autonomously designed their own webs in accordance with what they needed in order to preserve their place in their own econiche?

9491 views

DAVID: You always attempt to minimize my theory about the appearance of humans by simply referring to one organ. The entire human body is a major reconstruction of the basic ape form. Please recognize that major point!

dhw: Of course it is a major reconstruction. But since you made a special point about one organ – the birth canal - and the need for your God to fiddle with it in order to accommodate the bigger fetus and its skull, I’m simply asking if you think your God also fiddled with Neanderthal’s bigger lungs. Do please answer.

DAVID: The birth canal presents a paradox for natural evolution, a MAJOR point.

dhw: According to you every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder requires special design by your God. I don’t know why you’re so reluctant to tell us whether he also stepped in to dabble with Neanderthal lungs.

I'm not reluctant, just surprised that you try to talk around the problem of the development of the human birth canal by discussing Neanderthal lungs. You know, full well, I think God guides evolution in all spheres, and had several experimental human forms at the same time in evolution.

dhw: I know it’s different, and I know there were other forms of human, and I’m asking why you believe he “started the evolution” of these different types though you keep telling us that his purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: Again, just a brain. The brain is part of a very different organism, the whole human. By sticking with just a brain, you are making an obvious attempt to belittle the whole concept of amazing humans.

dhw: No belittling. I am making an obvious attempt to get the answer to a puzzle. Please tell us why, if your God’s prime purpose was to produce the amazing body and brain of Homo sapiens, you think he “started the evolution” of all the other types of human.

Glad you backed off 'just a brain '. As above God may have been trying out different forms of Homo species. That is what the evidence suggests. I can't read God's mind.

DAVID (re spiders’ webs): You've just admitted econiches are necessary. They are a requirement of maintenance of life. The diversity of forms create the niches. We don't disagree. Each niche requires a different web. So?

dhw: We agree that every form of life requires an econiche, but as conditions change, so the econiche changes, some forms die out and others flourish. “Balance of nature” therefore does not explain why your God had to design 50,000 spider webs.

It is explained by 50,000 econiches.

dhw: Two questions: 1) If your God’s purpose was to produce the amazing brain and body of Homo sapiens, why did he need to specially design 50,000 different spider webs and other species of human?

The webs were for 50,000 niches. H. sapiens were the final result, after other designed homo species tried to survive.

dhw> 2) Do you not believe it is possible that the spiders autonomously designed their own webs in accordance with what they needed in order to preserve their place in their own econiche?

The spiders did not design their own webs or especially, the organs that produced the webs.

9348 views

dhw: According to you every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder requires special design by your God. I don’t know why you’re so reluctant to tell us whether he also stepped in to dabble with Neanderthal lungs.

DAVID: I'm not reluctant, just surprised that you try to talk around the problem of the development of the human birth canal by discussing Neanderthal lungs. You know, full well, I think God guides evolution in all spheres, and had several experimental human forms at the same time in evolution.

I have responded directly to the problem of the birth canal on the thread called “birth canal”. It was you who raised the subject of Neanderthal lungs – look at the heading of this thread! – and so I asked you a simple question which for some reason you refused to answer. But I take it now that you do believe your God specially designed the big lungs since he “guides” evolution in ALL spheres, so I asked why he did that if his prime purpose was to create the brain and body of Homo sapiens. Thank you for your answer: your God was apparently experimenting. This clearly means that he didn’t know what he wanted, or he didn’t know how to get what he wanted. We have discussed it before, but I’m happy to re-open this field of speculation. See below.

dhw: I am making an obvious attempt to get the answer to a puzzle. Please tell us why, if your God’s prime purpose was to produce the amazing body and brain of Homo sapiens, you think he “started the evolution” of all the other types of human.

DAVID: As above God may have been trying out different forms of Homo species. That is what the evidence suggests. I can't read God's mind.

I agree that your view of God (if he exists) as an experimenter who either doesn’t know what he wants, or does know but can’t work out how to get it, is a logical deduction. But it is equally logical to suggest that your God (if he exists), does know what he wants and does know how to get it, and what he wants is the ever changing spectacle of different life forms, as suggested by the whole history of evolution.

DAVID (re spiders’ webs): You've just admitted econiches are necessary. They are a requirement of maintenance of life. The diversity of forms create the niches. We don't disagree. Each niche requires a different web. So?

dhw: We agree that every form of life requires an econiche, but as conditions change, so the econiche changes, some forms die out and others flourish. “Balance of nature” therefore does not explain why your God had to design 50,000 spider webs.

DAVID: It is explained by 50,000 econiches.

Ah well, we now have your God specially preprogramming or dabbling every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, including 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches. As you have agreed, this has nothing to do with your belief that his purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens, so what do you think was his purpose in specially designing 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches?

9297 views

DAVID: I'm not reluctant, just surprised that you try to talk around the problem of the development of the human birth canal by discussing Neanderthal lungs. You know, full well, I think God guides evolution in all spheres, and had several experimental human forms at the same time in evolution.

dhw:I have responded directly to the problem of the birth canal on the thread called “birth canal”. It was you who raised the subject of Neanderthal lungs – look at the heading of this thread! – and so I asked you a simple question which for some reason you refused to answer. But I take it now that you do believe your God specially designed the big lungs since he “guides” evolution in ALL spheres, so I asked why he did that if his prime purpose was to create the brain and body of Homo sapiens. Thank you for your answer: your God was apparently experimenting. This clearly means that he didn’t know what he wanted, or he didn’t know how to get what he wanted. We have discussed it before, but I’m happy to re-open this field of speculation. See below.

I didn't raise the question of Neanderthal lungs to confuse you: I was presenting a new finding about Neanderthal evolution as I viewed the literature, as my job to support this website, which I take seriously. As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see. If God is so powerful that He could make a universe uniquely suited for life and then start life, it might seem He could have just produced H. sapiens right off the bat, but He didn't. He chose to evolve organisms and we are stuck with that observation, and have no way of questioning His motives in that choice, although you love to try and find human reasoning in Him.

dhw: I am making an obvious attempt to get the answer to a puzzle. Please tell us why, if your God’s prime purpose was to produce the amazing body and brain of Homo sapiens, you think he “started the evolution” of all the other types of human.

DAVID: As above God may have been trying out different forms of Homo species. That is what the evidence suggests. I can't read God's mind.

dhw; I agree that your view of God (if he exists) as an experimenter who either doesn’t know what he wants, or does know but can’t work out how to get it, is a logical deduction. But it is equally logical to suggest that your God (if he exists), does know what he wants and does know how to get it, and what he wants is the ever changing spectacle of different life forms, as suggested by the whole history of evolution.

Ah, back to the obvious requirement for diversity so a balance of nature can support ongoing life. I agree that your point does explain why God used diversity evolved from evolution.

DAVID (re spiders’ webs): You've just admitted econiches are necessary. They are a requirement of maintenance of life. The diversity of forms create the niches. We don't disagree. Each niche requires a different web. So?

dhw: We agree that every form of life requires an econiche, but as conditions change, so the econiche changes, some forms die out and others flourish. “Balance of nature” therefore does not explain why your God had to design 50,000 spider webs.

DAVID: It is explained by 50,000 econiches.

dhw: Ah well, we now have your God specially preprogramming or dabbling every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, including 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches. As you have agreed, this has nothing to do with your belief that his purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens, so what do you think was his purpose in specially designing 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches?

Same old answer which you surely expect: reqired diverse balance of nature to support the energy needs of continuing life.

9381 views

dhw: Thank you for your answer: your God was apparently experimenting. This clearly means that he didn’t know what he wanted, or he didn’t know how to get what he wanted. We have discussed it before, but I’m happy to re-open this field of speculation. See below.

DAVID: As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see.

If your God exists, I am happy with this. The result that we see is an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct, which suggests to me that your God wanted an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct.

DAVID: If God is so powerful that He could make a universe uniquely suited for life and then start life, it might seem He could have just produced H. sapiens right off the bat, but He didn't. He chose to evolve organisms and we are stuck with that observation, and have no way of questioning His motives in that choice, although you love to try and find human reasoning in Him.

As usual, if your hypothesis makes no sense to you, you insist that it is correct and we are “stuck” with it. No, we are not. It is just you who are “stuck”. It is perfectly possible that your God has reasons that make perfect sense, as you admit below! You yourself offered experimentation as an explanation for all the different species of human!

dhw: I agree that your view of God (if he exists) as an experimenter who either doesn’t know what he wants, or does know but can’t work out how to get it, is a logical deduction. But it is equally logical to suggest that your God (if he exists), does know what he wants and does know how to get it, and what he wants is the ever changing spectacle of different life forms, as suggested by the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: I agree that your point does explain why God used diversity evolved from evolution.

So why must we “stick” to your inexplicable and unreasonable hypothesis?

dhw: Ah well, we now have your God specially preprogramming or dabbling every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, including 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches. As you have agreed, this has nothing to do with your belief that his purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens, so what do you think was his purpose in specially designing 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches?

DAVID: Same old answer which you surely expect: reqired diverse balance of nature to support the energy needs of continuing life.

Let me really stick my neck out. I truly believe that life would have continued even if there were not 50,000 different types of spider web. And I truly believe that H. sapiens would have evolved and would continue to exist if there were only a dozen webs, or no spiders at all, or even..wait for it...no weaverbird’s nest! Are you shocked?

9274 views

dhw: Thank you for your answer: your God was apparently experimenting. This clearly means that he didn’t know what he wanted, or he didn’t know how to get what he wanted. We have discussed it before, but I’m happy to re-open this field of speculation. See below.

DAVID: As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see.

dhw: If your God exists, I am happy with this. The result that we see is an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct, which suggests to me that your God wanted an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct.

As before, purposefully useful for balance of nature.

DAVID: If God is so powerful that He could make a universe uniquely suited for life and then start life, it might seem He could have just produced H. sapiens right off the bat, but He didn't. He chose to evolve organisms and we are stuck with that observation, and have no way of questioning His motives in that choice, although you love to try and find human reasoning in Him.

dhw: As usual, if your hypothesis makes no sense to you, you insist that it is correct and we are “stuck” with it. No, we are not. It is just you who are “stuck”. It is perfectly possible that your God has reasons that make perfect sense, as you admit below! You yourself offered experimentation as an explanation for all the different species of human!

My hypothesis makes perfect sense. It is obvious God chose to use evolution to create the organisms he wanted to appear. I can only guess at God's motives when you ask about them, and not be in any way sure of the answer.

dhw: I agree that your view of God (if he exists) as an experimenter who either doesn’t know what he wants, or does know but can’t work out how to get it, is a logical deduction. But it is equally logical to suggest that your God (if he exists), does know what he wants and does know how to get it, and what he wants is the ever changing spectacle of different life forms, as suggested by the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: I agree that your point does explain why God used diversity evolved from evolution.

dhw: So why must we “stick” to your inexplicable and unreasonable hypothesis?

Because diversity supplies the balance of nature necessary for the survival of life, a point repeated over and over.

dhw: Ah well, we now have your God specially preprogramming or dabbling every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, including 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches. As you have agreed, this has nothing to do with your belief that his purpose was to produce the brain and body of Homo sapiens, so what do you think was his purpose in specially designing 50,000 different webs for 50,000 different econiches?

DAVID: Same old answer which you surely expect: required diverse balance of nature to support the energy needs of continuing life.

dhw: Let me really stick my neck out. I truly believe that life would have continued even if there were not 50,000 different types of spider web. And I truly believe that H. sapiens would have evolved and would continue to exist if there were only a dozen webs, or no spiders at all, or even..wait for it...no weaverbird’s nest! Are you shocked?

No. Not shocked. The operation of an evolutionary system allows experimentation in many directions. We have only one result to study, but I can imagine others leading to H. sapiens, with different diverse organisms in a different sets of balances of nature.

9320 views

DAVID: As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see.

dhw: If your God exists, I am happy with this. The result that we see is an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct, which suggests to me that your God wanted an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct.

DAVID: As before, purposefully useful for balance of nature.

As before, the balance of nature constantly changes as life forms come and go. How can an ever changing balance of nature be useful for balance of nature?

DAVID: If God is so powerful that He could make a universe uniquely suited for life and then start life, it might seem He could have just produced H. sapiens right off the bat, but He didn't. He chose to evolve organisms and we are stuck with that observation, and have no way of questioning His motives in that choice, although you love to try and find human reasoning in Him.

dhw: As usual, if your hypothesis makes no sense to you, you insist that it is correct and we are “stuck” with it. No, we are not. It is just you who are “stuck”. It is perfectly possible that your God has reasons that make perfect sense, as you admit below! You yourself offered experimentation as an explanation for all the different species of human!

DAVID: My hypothesis makes perfect sense. It is obvious God chose to use evolution to create the organisms he wanted to appear. I can only guess at God's motives when you ask about them, and not be in any way sure of the answer.

If God exists, the only thing that is obvious is that he created life and the mechanisms for evolution. There is nothing obvious about the hypothesis that he specially designed the lungs of the now extinct Neanderthal or 50,000 types of spider web in order to “balance nature” (though nature constantly changes its balance) so that he could fulfil his purpose of producing the brain and body of Homo sapiens. None of us can be sure of any answers – including the existence of your God. That is why all these discussions are taking place, in which we try to test the reasonableness of all the hypotheses.

dhw: I agree that your view of God (if he exists) as an experimenter who either doesn’t know what he wants, or does know but can’t work out how to get it, is a logical deduction. But it is equally logical to suggest that your God (if he exists), does know what he wants and does know how to get it, and what he wants is the ever changing spectacle of different life forms, as suggested by the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: I agree that your point does explain why God used diversity evolved from evolution.

dhw: So why must we “stick” to your inexplicable and unreasonable hypothesis?

DAVID: Because diversity supplies the balance of nature necessary for the survival of life, a point repeated over and over.

Life only exists through life forms, and most life forms do not survive. Balance is essential for all life forms and econiches to survive, and when there is imbalance, life forms die and econiches change their balance. Why does this mean we must stick to your belief that your God specially designed 50,000 types of web in order to produce 50,000 differently balanced econiches in order to produce H. sapiens?

dhw: Let me really stick my neck out. I truly believe that life would have continued even if there were not 50,000 different types of spider web. And I truly believe that H. sapiens would have evolved and would continue to exist if there were only a dozen webs, or no spiders at all, or even..wait for it...no weaverbird’s nest! Are you shocked?

DAVID: No. Not shocked. The operation of an evolutionary system allows experimentation in many directions. We have only one result to study, but I can imagine others leading to H. sapiens, with different diverse organisms in a different sets of balances of nature.

What are you saying now? Experimentation implies either that you want a particular result and don’t know how to get it, or you are trying out new things to see what they will lead to. Your last remark suggests that your God specially designed 50,000 different spider webs in the hope that they would somehow lead to his longed-for H. sapiens. (The alternative would be that he designed them to see what would happen as a result.) And you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that spiders, using their possibly God-given intelligence, simply designed their own webs to give themselves the best chance of catching their prey.

9282 views

DAVID: As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see.

dhw: If your God exists, I am happy with this. The result that we see is an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct, which suggests to me that your God wanted an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct.

DAVID: As before, purposefully useful for balance of nature.

dhw: As before, the balance of nature constantly changes as life forms come and go. How can an ever changing balance of nature be useful for balance of nature?

Balance of nature is not useful for itself, which I view as a strange off the point comment. Any presently existing balance of nature supplies energy for on -going evolution which takes time to create new forms.

dhw: Let me really stick my neck out. I truly believe that life would have continued even if there were not 50,000 different types of spider web. And I truly believe that H. sapiens would have evolved and would continue to exist if there were only a dozen webs, or no spiders at all, or even..wait for it...no weaverbird’s nest! Are you shocked?

DAVID: No. Not shocked. The operation of an evolutionary system allows experimentation in many directions. We have only one result to study, but I can imagine others leading to H. sapiens, with different diverse organisms in a different sets of balances of nature.

dhw: What are you saying now? Experimentation implies either that you want a particular result and don’t know how to get it, or you are trying out new things to see what they will lead to. Your last remark suggests that your God specially designed 50,000 different spider webs in the hope that they would somehow lead to his longed-for H. sapiens. (The alternative would be that he designed them to see what would happen as a result.) And you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that spiders, using their possibly God-given intelligence, simply designed their own webs to give themselves the best chance of catching their prey.

Why can't I 'absolutely refuse' to believe tiny spider brains can design for the future? All I have said is God may have tried out different approaches on his way to Humans. I have no idea how rigidly He followed a direct plan or a more fluid one.

9338 views

DAVID: As for God knowing what He wants, you've forgotten that God used evolution to produce all the results we see.

dhw: If your God exists, I am happy with this. The result that we see is an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct, which suggests to me that your God wanted an ever changing spectacle of life forms extant and extinct.

DAVID: As before, purposefully useful for balance of nature.

dhw: As before, the balance of nature constantly changes as life forms come and go. How can an ever changing balance of nature be useful for balance of nature?

DAVID: Balance of nature is not useful for itself, which I view as a strange off the point comment. Any presently existing balance of nature supplies energy for on -going evolution which takes time to create new forms.

The ever changing spectacle is an ever changing balance, it is not “useful for” balance. All you are telling us is that life requires energy, and evolution has gone on for a long time. That does not explain why your God specially designed 50,000 webs and Neanderthal lungs when his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

DAVID: The operation of an evolutionary system allows experimentation in many directions. We have only one result to study, but I can imagine others leading to H. sapiens, with different diverse organisms in a different sets of balances of nature.

dhw: What are you saying now? Experimentation implies either that you want a particular result and don’t know how to get it, or you are trying out new things to see what they will lead to. Your last remark suggests that your God specially designed 50,000 different spider webs in the hope that they would somehow lead to his longed-for H. sapiens. (The alternative would be that he designed them to see what would happen as a result.) And you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that spiders, using their possibly God-given intelligence, simply designed their own webs to give themselves the best chance of catching their prey.

DAVID: Why can't I 'absolutely refuse' to believe tiny spider brains can design for the future?

You can of course believe or refuse to believe whatever you like or don’t like. I am just surprised that you can believe your God designed 50,000 webs in the hope that they would lead to H. sapiens, whereas you can’t believe that he might have given spiders the ability to design their own webs in order to catch their prey.

DAVID: All I have said is God may have tried out different approaches on his way to Humans. I have no idea how rigidly He followed a direct plan or a more fluid one.

If he tried out different approaches, either he didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it. I don’t know how a direct plan would result in billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, including 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs, and I really don’t see how they would result even from a fluid plan to produce H. sapiens. Perhaps it would be best if you followed the principle you keep trying to impose on me, and abandoned all your attempts to read your God’s mind, which would save you the trouble of saddling him with a purpose which you can only link to life’s history by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

9289 views

DAVID: Balance of nature is not useful for itself, which I view as a strange off the point comment. Any presently existing balance of nature supplies energy for on -going evolution which takes time to create new forms.

dhw: The ever changing spectacle is an ever changing balance, it is not “useful for” balance. All you are telling us is that life requires energy, and evolution has gone on for a long time. That does not explain why your God specially designed 50,000 webs and Neanderthal lungs when his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

Ignored as usual my point: balance supplies the necessary energy for life to take time to evolve. Having a spectacle is a good human view of evolution. You don't know it was God's intent to view spectacles. He needed to feed life as it evolved and diverse forms do just that.

DAVID: All I have said is God may have tried out different approaches on his way to Humans. I have no idea how rigidly He followed a direct plan or a more fluid one.

dhw: If he tried out different approaches, either he didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it. I don’t know how a direct plan would result in billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, including 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs, and I really don’t see how they would result even from a fluid plan to produce H. sapiens. Perhaps it would be best if you followed the principle you keep trying to impose on me, and abandoned all your attempts to read your God’s mind, which would save you the trouble of saddling him with a purpose which you can only link to life’s history by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

I only try to interpret God's mind because you are constantly doing it at your human level of thought. Of course there was no direct plan. God obviously used 3.5+ billion of years of evolution to get to this point. The issue, no matter how much you twist and misinterpret it, is diversity of living forms produces balances of nature that produce the energy for evolution to take so much time.

9261 views

DAVID: Balance of nature is not useful for itself, which I view as a strange off the point comment. Any presently existing balance of nature supplies energy for on -going evolution which takes time to create new forms.

dhw: The ever changing spectacle is an ever changing balance, it is not “useful for” balance. All you are telling us is that life requires energy, and evolution has gone on for a long time. That does not explain why your God specially designed 50,000 webs and Neanderthal lungs when his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

DAVID: Ignored as usual my point: balance supplies the necessary energy for life to take time to evolve. Having a spectacle is a good human view of evolution. You don't know it was God's intent to view spectacles. He needed to feed life as it evolved and diverse forms do just that.

Nobody knows your God’s intentions, but obviously evolution has so far lasted from the time life began up to the present (that is “time”), and we all know that living forms need energy to survive. Nothing whatsoever to do with designing 50,000 webs in the hope of producing Homo sapiens.

DAVID: All I have said is God may have tried out different approaches on his way to Humans. I have no idea how rigidly He followed a direct plan or a more fluid one.

dhw: If he tried out different approaches, either he didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it. I don’t know how a direct plan would result in billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, including 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs, and I really don’t see how they would result even from a fluid plan to produce H. sapiens. Perhaps it would be best if you followed the principle you keep trying to impose on me, and abandoned all your attempts to read your God’s mind, which would save you the trouble of saddling him with a purpose which you can only link to life’s history by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: I only try to interpret God's mind because you are constantly doing it at your human level of thought. Of course there was no direct plan.

So why did you say above that you had no idea how rigidly he followed a direct plan or a more fluid one? As for interpretation, you constantly talk of God’s purpose (which requires interpreting his mind), identify it as being the production of H. sapiens (as if that wasn’t human thought!), and then complain if I suggest an alternative.

DAVID: God obviously used 3.5+ billion of years of evolution to get to this point. The issue, no matter how much you twist and misinterpret it, is diversity of living forms produces balances of nature that produce the energy for evolution to take so much time.

There is no issue whatsoever (apart from the figure) over the fact that evolution has taken x billion years to get to this point (see above). And there is no issue over the fact that living organisms need energy, and the balance of nature changes as conditions change, and this has led to diversity, with billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders coming and going. However, I’m afraid that by continually stating the obvious, you do not provide any evidence for your theory that your God designed 50,000 webs and the Neanderthal’s lungs, not to mention the weaverbird’s nest, in order to provide the energy to enable evolution to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

9271 views

DAVID: Ignored as usual my point: balance supplies the necessary energy for life to take time to evolve. Having a spectacle is a good human view of evolution. You don't know it was God's intent to view spectacles. He needed to feed life as it evolved and diverse forms do just that.

dhw: Nobody knows your God’s intentions, but obviously evolution has so far lasted from the time life began up to the present (that is “time”), and we all know that living forms need energy to survive. Nothing whatsoever to do with designing 50,000 webs in the hope of producing Homo sapiens.

No 'hope in producing' involved. God knew full well what He wanted, but He chose not to do it directly, but to evolve it. Webs don't equal humans, as in your belittling statement without logic, but are part of the progress.

DAVID: All I have said is God may have tried out different approaches on his way to Humans. I have no idea how rigidly He followed a direct plan or a more fluid one.

dhw: If he tried out different approaches, either he didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it. I don’t know how a direct plan would result in billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, including 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs, and I really don’t see how they would result even from a fluid plan to produce H. sapiens. Perhaps it would be best if you followed the principle you keep trying to impose on me, and abandoned all your attempts to read your God’s mind, which would save you the trouble of saddling him with a purpose which you can only link to life’s history by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: I only try to interpret God's mind because you are constantly doing it at your human level of thought. Of course there was no direct plan.

dhw: So why did you say above that you had no idea how rigidly he followed a direct plan or a more fluid one? As for interpretation, you constantly talk of God’s purpose (which requires interpreting his mind), identify it as being the production of H. sapiens (as if that wasn’t human thought!), and then complain if I suggest an alternative.

All I try to do is look at the very real result of human beings against all odds. All I can assume, if I conclude that God chose evolution as His method, which is obvious in that evolution happened, without entering His mind, which I cannot, His purpose was humans. All logical without knowing God's logic, which I cannot.

DAVID: God obviously used 3.5+ billion of years of evolution to get to this point. The issue, no matter how much you twist and misinterpret it, is diversity of living forms produces balances of nature that produce the energy for evolution to take so much time.

dhw: There is no issue whatsoever (apart from the figure) over the fact that evolution has taken x billion years to get to this point (see above). And there is no issue over the fact that living organisms need energy, and the balance of nature changes as conditions change, and this has led to diversity, with billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders coming and going. However, I’m afraid that by continually stating the obvious, you do not provide any evidence for your theory that your God designed 50,000 webs and the Neanderthal’s lungs, not to mention the weaverbird’s nest, in order to provide the energy to enable evolution to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

The energy was provided. That is fact. How would you have provided it? By a different diversity or the one we see? Either way it would have provided the energy needed. The lungs, nests and webs are side issues you create, while agreeing design is necessary .

9206 views

DAVID: Ignored as usual my point: balance supplies the necessary energy for life to take time to evolve. Having a spectacle is a good human view of evolution. You don't know it was God's intent to view spectacles. He needed to feed life as it evolved and diverse forms do just that.

dhw: Nobody knows your God’s intentions, but obviously evolution has so far lasted from the time life began up to the present (that is “time”), and we all know that living forms need energy to survive. Nothing whatsoever to do with designing 50,000 webs in the hope of producing Homo sapiens.

DAVID: No 'hope in producing' involved. God knew full well what He wanted, but He chose not to do it directly, but to evolve it. Webs don't equal humans, as in your belittling statement without logic, but are part of the progress.

I didn’t say webs equalled humans! What is without logic is the notion that your God wanted H. sapiens and chose to specially design 50,000 webs, large Neanderthal lungs and the weaverbird’s nest as part of the progress towards producing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I only try to interpret God's mind because you are constantly doing it at your human level of thought. Of course there was no direct plan.

dhw: So why did you say above that you had “no idea how rigidly he followed a direct plan or a more fluid one”? As for interpretation, you constantly talk of God’s purpose (which requires interpreting his mind), identify it as being the production of H. sapiens (as if that wasn’t human thought!), and then complain if I suggest an alternative.

DAVID: All I try to do is look at the very real result of human beings against all odds.

The evolution of the whale, the elephant, the duckbilled platypus and the weaverbird’s nest is also against all odds.

DAVID: All I can assume, if I conclude that God chose evolution as His method, which is obvious in that evolution happened, without entering His mind, which I cannot, His purpose was humans. All logical without knowing God's logic, which I cannot.

If God exists, clearly he chose evolution as his method – but his method to do what? You admit that you cannot understand the logic of his personally, individually dabbling or preprogramming the 50,000 webs (plus a billion other natural wonders extant and extinct) if humans were his purpose, but you refuse to consider the possibility that he might have had a different purpose and might have given spiders the intelligence to weave their own webs.

DAVID: The energy was provided. That is fact. How would you have provided it? By a different diversity or the one we see? Either way it would have provided the energy needed. The lungs, nests and webs are side issues you create, while agreeing design is necessary.

Same problem. The energy needed for what? Energy is necessary for all life forms, but that does not mean that all life forms were created for the purpose of producing H. sapiens! Yes, I believe that lungs, nests and webs must be designed, and I accept the possibility that in my hypothesis the ability of organisms to do their own designing may have been given to them by your God. I do not accept that your God personally designed them all as part of the progress towards H. sapiens, and I do not accept that an illogical explanation is more likely to be true than a logical explanation, just because we don’t know how God thinks.

9156 views

DAVID: No 'hope in producing' involved. God knew full well what He wanted, but He chose not to do it directly, but to evolve it. Webs don't equal humans, as in your belittling statement without logic, but are part of the progress.

dhw: I didn’t say webs equalled humans! What is without logic is the notion that your God wanted H. sapiens and chose to specially design 50,000 webs, large Neanderthal lungs and the weaverbird’s nest as part of the progress towards producing H. sapiens.

We agree life needs energy. The diversity in life and in your esamples supplies that. Nothing more.

DAVID: All I can assume, if I conclude that God chose evolution as His method, which is obvious in that evolution happened, without entering His mind, which I cannot, His purpose was humans. All logical without knowing God's logic, which I cannot.

dhw: If God exists, clearly he chose evolution as his method – but his method to do what? You admit that you cannot understand the logic of his personally, individually dabbling or preprogramming the 50,000 webs (plus a billion other natural wonders extant and extinct) if humans were his purpose, but you refuse to consider the possibility that he might have had a different purpose and might have given spiders the intelligence to weave their own webs.

How do you know what His purpose was? I look at the evidence and the most complex result of evolution is humans, so as I think God ran the process of evolution that was the result He desired. No mind reading, just looking at the current result for a conclusion.

DAVID: The energy was provided. That is fact. How would you have provided it? By a different diversity or the one we see? Either way it would have provided the energy needed. The lungs, nests and webs are side issues you create, while agreeing design is necessary.

dhw: Same problem. The energy needed for what? Energy is necessary for all life forms, but that does not mean that all life forms were created for the purpose of producing H. sapiens! Yes, I believe that lungs, nests and webs must be designed, and I accept the possibility that in my hypothesis the ability of organisms to do their own designing may have been given to them by your God. I do not accept that your God personally designed them all as part of the progress towards H. sapiens, and I do not accept that an illogical explanation is more likely to be true than a logical explanation, just because we don’t know how God thinks.

The illogical conclusion is in your mind, not mine. The variety supplies the energy for a long living evolutionary process.

9128 views

As you have skipped the post on Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, I am transferring this comment to "Neanderthal":

dhw: Sorry, but your polemic does not lend any credibility to your own hypothesis, whose illogicality you admit by claiming that your God’s logic must be different from ours.

DAVID: How do you logically know God's logic is like ours. I believe in Him but I don't know I know His form of logic must be like mine. You must know Him better than I do.

dhw: Neither of us “knows” if your God even exists, let alone how he thinks. However, in the past you have quite rightly argued that the only way we can guess how he thinks is by studying his works. We have both studied his works, and by your own admission, your hypothesis is illogical, while mine is logical. But you reject mine and cling to yours. Why is it more logical for you to believe in your illogical hypothesis than to even consider the possibility that my logical hypothesis might be correct?

DAVID: I have constantly considered my thoughts as perfectly logical. I have never said I was illogical, unless you have misinterpreted what I write, which you sometimes do. You have constantly told me I am illogical to the point now where you believe I said it about myself. What are you smoking? I view your initial concepts as totally unreasonable, but have agreed your logic following the false starts have logic. So?

You cannot find any logical reason why your God chose to specially design billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce H. sapiens. One moment you have “no idea how rigidly he followed a direct plan or a more fluid one”, and the next moment, in the same post, “of course there was no direct plan”. One moment you have him experimenting, and the next moment he knows exactly what he is doing. Over and over again, in defending your hypothesis, you say your God’s logic is different from human logic, and we shouldn’t try to read God’s mind. That is not a claim that your hypothesis is logical! But over and over again you fall back on obvious truths such as evolution takes time, life requires energy, the balance of nature has to be balanced if it is to be balanced, econiches have to be balanced, econiches depend on a food chain (hence the articles about top predators), and somehow all this explains why your God specially designed Neanderthal lungs, 50,000 types of spider web and the weaverbird’s nest in order to progress to the production of H. sapiens. No it doesn’t.

DAVID : We agree life needs energy. The diversity in life and in your esamples supplies that. Nothing more.

Thank you. So now please explain the logic behind your hypothesis that God specially designed them all, though his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. The rest of your post follows the same track, exemplified by the final exchange:

Dhw: I do not accept that an illogical explanation is more likely to be true than a logical explanation, just because we don’t know how God thinks.

DAVID: The illogical conclusion is in your mind, not mine. The variety supplies the energy for a long living evolutionary process.

Yes, all varieties of life need energy to go on living. That does not explain why your God had to specially design every variety of life, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extant if – as you never cease to remind us – his purpose was to produce H. sapiens.

xxxx

Thank you for the rest of today’s posts, which offer a fascinating variety of discoveries. (As you can imagine, I’m particularly impressed by the tool-making orang-utans!) I don’t have time to respond to these articles, but in any case, possible points of controversy (e.g. concerning cells or why your God personally designed all the different varieties of pre-sapiens) will lead us to the same points of disagreement.

9183 views

I don't understand your comment about Shapiro. I find my answer on Nov. 9th. We disagree about how to interpret him, and he deserves interpretation from the standpoint of biochemistry some of which is shown by my entry of yesterday about research into the automatic physical chemistry of the cell. The workings of the single cell are showing what I expected the research to show before it was accomplished as in my book from 2004.

DAVID: I have constantly considered my thoughts as perfectly logical. I have never said I was illogical, unless you have misinterpreted what I write, which you sometimes do. You have constantly told me I am illogical to the point now where you believe I said it about myself. What are you smoking? I view your initial concepts as totally unreasonable, but have agreed your logic following the false starts have logic. So?

dhw: You cannot find any logical reason why your God chose to specially design billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce H. sapiens. One moment you have “no idea how rigidly he followed a direct plan or a more fluid one”, and the next moment, in the same post, “of course there was no direct plan”. One moment you have him experimenting, and the next moment he knows exactly what he is doing. Over and over again, in defending your hypothesis, you say your God’s logic is different from human logic, and we shouldn’t try to read God’s mind. That is not a claim that your hypothesis is logical! But over and over again you fall back on obvious truths such as evolution takes time, life requires energy, the balance of nature has to be balanced if it is to be balanced, econiches have to be balanced, econiches depend on a food chain (hence the articles about top predators), and somehow all this explains why your God specially designed Neanderthal lungs, 50,000 types of spider web and the weaverbird’s nest in order to progress to the production of H. sapiens. No it doesn’t.

DAVID : We agree life needs energy. The diversity in life and in your examples supplies that. Nothing more.

dhw: Thank you. So now please explain the logic behind your hypothesis that God specially designed them all, though his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. The rest of your post follows the same track, exemplified by the final exchange:

dhw: I do not accept that an illogical explanation is more likely to be true than a logical explanation, just because we don’t know how God thinks.

DAVID: The illogical conclusion is in your mind, not mine. The variety supplies the energy for a long living evolutionary process.

dhw: Yes, all varieties of life need energy to go on living. That does not explain why your God had to specially design every variety of life, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extant if – as you never cease to remind us – his purpose was to produce H. sapiens.

How does life get from single cells to humans? What we accept is common descent over a very long time. And the evidence is single celled eventually became humans. And my conclusion is that it could not have happened by chance. There is no obvious reason to have advanced beyond bacteria or beyond apes. So I have logically concluded there is a drive for complexity, which I have ascribed to God. The only step in this series of thoughts is I have added God, which requires faith. As for designs in life, there are many examples
I have presented that cannot be explained by chance stepwise development. How do you know what God decided to design and what He did not design? I come the point of view that evolution was guided and designed and you don't.

xxxx

dhw: Thank you for the rest of today’s posts, which offer a fascinating variety of discoveries. (As you can imagine, I’m particularly impressed by the tool-making orang-utans!) I don’t have time to respond to these articles, but in any case, possible points of controversy (e.g. concerning cells or why your God personally designed all the different varieties of pre-sapiens) will lead us to the same points of disagreement.

Of course we disagree and there are few points of joining bridges between us.

9158 views

DAVID: I don't understand your comment about Shapiro. I find my answer on Nov. 9th. We disagree about how to interpret him, and he deserves interpretation from the standpoint of biochemistry some of which is shown by my entry of yesterday about research into the automatic physical chemistry of the cell. The workings of the single cell are showing what I expected the research to show before it was accomplished as in my book from 2004.

The exchange ended on 8 November. You had challenged me to name a scientist who agreed with my conclusions. I did:
QUOTE: "The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."
QUOTE: “Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.”

DAVID: I've carefully read all of this a long time ago, based on his bacterial studies, and have integrated it into my thinking and arguments.

dhw: If you have carefully read that living organisms have the capacity to alter their own heredity, that evolutionary change is an active cell process, and that rejection of cellular intelligence is “large organisms chauvinism”, then you have not integrated it into your thinking and arguments but have categorically rejected it.

You are, of course, free to reject the concept of cellular intelligence – even though you agree that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct – and to reject its possible link to the advancement of evolution. But you certainly don’t integrate either hypothesis into your illogical argument that your God’s purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and so he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

DAVID: How does life get from single cells to humans? What we accept is common descent over a very long time. And the evidence is single celled eventually became humans. And my conclusion is that it could not have happened by chance. There is no obvious reason to have advanced beyond bacteria or beyond apes. So I have logically concluded there is a drive for complexity, which I have ascribed to God. The only step in this series of thoughts is I have added God, which requires faith.

There is nothing illogical about any of this. We have long since agreed that chance is an unlikely explanation of evolution, and we have long since agreed that your God may be the initiator of the process. But you have carefully left out the huge step which is so illogical that you have to claim your God’s logic is different from ours: namely (apologies for the repetition), that his purpose was TO CREATE HUMANS, but he specially designed 50,000 different spider webs plus billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct in order to provide energy for life – whether human or non-human.

DAVID: As for designs in life, there are many examples.

Indeed there are billions. Your belief (apologies for the repetition) appears to be that your God designed every single one, although his purpose was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have presented that cannot be explained by chance stepwise development. How do you know what God decided to design and what He did not design? I come the point of view that evolution was guided and designed and you don't.

As regards humans, you have just agreed that Lucy was a transitional form, so please distinguish between “chance” and stepwise. Transitions are steps. Organisms which adapt themselves to new environments have to make changes which are not by chance. You have your God (apologies for the repetition) changing the organisms before they confront new conditions, whereas I suggest (theistic version) that he provided them with the mechanism to change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. Neither of us “knows” what your God decided to design, but you insist (apologies for the repetition) that your illogical hypothesis – God’s purpose was to create humans, and he specially designed 50,000 spider webs – is correct, and you dismiss mine: God gave spiders the intelligence to design their own webs.

9100 views

DAVID: I've carefully read all of this a long time ago, based on his bacterial studies, and have integrated it into my thinking and arguments.

dhw: If you have carefully read that living organisms have the capacity to alter their own heredity, that evolutionary change is an active cell process, and that rejection of cellular intelligence is “large organisms chauvinism”, then you have not integrated it into your thinking and arguments but have categorically rejected it.

dhw: You are, of course, free to reject the concept of cellular intelligence – even though you agree that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct – and to reject its possible link to the advancement of evolution. But you certainly don’t integrate either hypothesis into your illogical argument that your God’s purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and so he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

What is illogical to you is logical to me. Labeling it constantly as illogical is simply name-calling with no reference other than your mind is set against my logic.

DAVID: How does life get from single cells to humans? What we accept is common descent over a very long time. And the evidence is single celled eventually became humans. And my conclusion is that it could not have happened by chance. There is no obvious reason to have advanced beyond bacteria or beyond apes. So I have logically concluded there is a drive for complexity, which I have ascribed to God. The only step in this series of thoughts is I have added God, which requires faith.

dhw: There is nothing illogical about any of this. We have long since agreed that chance is an unlikely explanation of evolution, and we have long since agreed that your God may be the initiator of the process. But you have carefully left out the huge step which is so illogical that you have to claim your God’s logic is different from ours: namely (apologies for the repetition), that his purpose was TO CREATE HUMANS, but he specially designed 50,000 different spider webs plus billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct in order to provide energy for life – whether human or non-human.

Again, blithely skipping over the need for balance of nature which supplies the energy for life to last and evolve over 3.5+ billion years of time.

DAVID: As for designs in life, there are many examples.

Indeed there are billions. Your belief (apologies for the repetition) appears to be that your God designed every single one, although his purpose was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have presented that cannot be explained by chance stepwise development. How do you know what God decided to design and what He did not design? I come the point of view that evolution was guided and designed and you don't.

dhw: As regards humans, you have just agreed that Lucy was a transitional form, so please distinguish between “chance” and stepwise. Transitions are steps. Organisms which adapt themselves to new environments have to make changes which are not by chance. You have your God (apologies for the repetition) changing the organisms before they confront new conditions, whereas I suggest (theistic version) that he provided them with the mechanism to change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. Neither of us “knows” what your God decided to design, but you insist (apologies for the repetition) that your illogical hypothesis – God’s purpose was to create humans, and he specially designed 50,000 spider webs – is correct, and you dismiss mine: God gave spiders the intelligence to design their own webs.

Keep repeating 'illogical'. That goes nowhere. Lucy, as a transitional form, is not the tiny step you are trying to imply. That giant step requires a transformed pelvis that allows bipedal walking. Her feet are very different but can still grip to some degree. Her shoulders are changed but still allows a degree of swinging from branch to branch. She is a giant step with a transformed pelvis for bipedal posture for walking that requires a very different way of giving birth. We have discussed the obstetrical dilemma present in studying the evolution of humans.

If we never find a way to fill the gaps, we are left with personal judgment as to how they happened. They require design in anticipation of use. That requires a designing mind. That is always my point. Therefore that mind has to exist and be active. Your excuse that God might have to give organisms the ability to self design simply is a statement that God is required even if secondhand. Note, either way God is required! How can you avoid this conclusion? In this way the chasm awaits. It doesn't take a big jump.

8989 views

dhw: You are, of course, free to reject the concept of cellular intelligence – even though you agree that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct – and to reject its possible link to the advancement of evolution. But you certainly don’t integrate either hypothesis into your illogical argument that your God’s purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and so he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

DAVID: What is illogical to you is logical to me. Labeling it constantly as illogical is simply name-calling with no reference other than your mind is set against my logic.

Please give me your logical explanation for your God’s special design of 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs (plus every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct) as a means of fulfilling his purpose to create H. sapiens. And please don’t tell me that without life there can be no life (see our next exchange). And while you’re at it, please tell me why you keep insisting that your God’s logic is different from ours, if you consider your explanation to be logical.

DAVID: Again, blithely skipping over the need for balance of nature which supplies the energy for life to last and evolve over 3.5+ billion years of time.

The “balance of nature” is constantly changing, and all forms of life need and supply energy! That would be true even if there had never been a single human being on Earth, and so the level of this logic is that if there was no life, there would be no life. This argument offers no logical explanation for your God specially designing 50,000 spiders’ webs, Neanderthal lungs etc. etc. although his purpose was to create H. sapiens. So what IS your logical explanation?

dhw: As regards humans, you have just agreed that Lucy was a transitional form, so please distinguish between “chance” and stepwise. Transitions are steps. Organisms which adapt themselves to new environments have to make changes which are not by chance. You have your God (apologies for the repetition) changing the organisms before they confront new conditions, whereas I suggest (theistic version) that he provided them with the mechanism to change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. […]

DAVID: Lucy, as a transitional form, is not the tiny step you are trying to imply. That giant step requires a transformed pelvis that allows bipedal walking. Her feet are very different but can still grip to some degree. Her shoulders are changed but still allows a degree of swinging from branch to branch. She is a giant step with a transformed pelvis for bipedal posture for walking that requires a very different way of giving birth. We have discussed the obstetrical dilemma present in studying the evolution of humans.

Where have I said it was a “tiny” step? Lucy exemplifies the transition from tree life to life on the ground. Yes, we have discussed the anatomical changes, and you have agreed that exercise changes the brain and the body. All major anatomical changes, human or otherwise, are part of the “dilemma” of speciation, and nobody has yet solved the mystery, which is why discussion continues.

DAVID: If we never find a way to fill the gaps, we are left with personal judgment as to how they happened. They require design in anticipation of use.

This is why atheists seize on the “God of the gaps” argument. No, the gaps do not “require” design in anticipation of use. They require an understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, which nobody knows but which - with or without God - I suggest (and I don’t think I am alone) work IN RESPONSE to needs and opportunities and not in advance of them.

DAVID: That requires a designing mind. That is always my point. Therefore that mind has to exist and be active. Your excuse that God might have to give organisms the ability to self design simply is a statement that God is required even if secondhand. Note, either way God is required! How can you avoid this conclusion? In this way the chasm awaits. It doesn't take a big jump.

It is not an excuse, and it is not secondhand. It is a “design” hypothesis which even you have recognized provides a perfect fit with the history of life as we know it. And of course my hypothesis must include the POSSIBILITY of your God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist (see my post under “God of the Gaps”). But you continuously conflate two separate arguments. What would appear to require advance planning is the MECHANISM for life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation. Therein lies the strength of the design = God argument. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with why or how your God may have “designed” evolution itself. My theistic hypothesis on this subject offers a coherent and logical interpretation of his purpose and method that is different from your own long-held and seemingly entrenched opinion (purpose = humans, method = design every innovation etc. himself). I can therefore quite understand why you lash out against my desire for logic, but you can hardly expect me to leap across this particular chasm in your reasoning.

8951 views

dhw: Please give me your logical explanation for your God’s special design of 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs (plus every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct) as a means of fulfilling his purpose to create H. sapiens. And please don’t tell me that without life there can be no life (see our next exchange). And while you’re at it, please tell me why you keep insisting that your God’s logic is different from ours, if you consider your explanation to be logical.

For the first part of your paragraph we are back to battling over the importance of balance of nature. Each econiche is complex, delicate and necessary. As for the rest, mine is a human logic. God has not explained His logic to me.

dhw: The “balance of nature” is constantly changing, and all forms of life need and supply energy! That would be true even if there had never been a single human being on Earth, and so the level of this logic is that if there was no life, there would be no life. This argument offers no logical explanation for your God specially designing 50,000 spiders’ webs, Neanderthal lungs etc. etc. although his purpose was to create H. sapiens. So what IS your logical explanation?

Repeat: Each econiche is complex, delicate and necessary. I don't think you have ever understood how delicately balanced they are even though I've taken care to produce cleara articles.

DAVID: Lucy, as a transitional form, is not the tiny step you are trying to imply. That giant step requires a transformed pelvis that allows bipedal walking. Her feet are very different but can still grip to some degree. Her shoulders are changed but still allows a degree of swinging from branch to branch. She is a giant step with a transformed pelvis for bipedal posture for walking that requires a very different way of giving birth. We have discussed the obstetrical dilemma present in studying the evolution of humans.

dhw: Where have I said it was a “tiny” step? Lucy exemplifies the transition from tree life to life on the ground. Yes, we have discussed the anatomical changes, and you have agreed that exercise changes the brain and the body. All major anatomical changes, human or otherwise, are part of the “dilemma” of speciation, and nobody has yet solved the mystery, which is why discussion continues.

Again blithely skipping over the huge gap in form which requires design. Discussed in the other thread

DAVID: If we never find a way to fill the gaps, we are left with personal judgment as to how they happened. They require design in anticipation of use.

dhw: This is why atheists seize on the “God of the gaps” argument. No, the gaps do not “require” design in anticipation of use. They require an understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, which nobody knows but which - with or without God - I suggest (and I don’t think I am alone) work IN RESPONSE to needs and opportunities and not in advance of them.'

This is pure Darwinism: much variety in form within a species so the most adapted survive and gradually make a new species. Does not explain punctuated equilibrium which you have accepted. The gaps exist and are best explained by design.

****

DAVID: That requires a designing mind. That is always my point. Therefore that mind has to exist and be active. Your excuse that God might have to give organisms the ability to self design simply is a statement that God is required even if secondhand. Note, either way God is required! How can you avoid this conclusion? In this way the chasm awaits. It doesn't take a big jump.

dhw: It is not an excuse, and it is not secondhand. It is a “design” hypothesis which even you have recognized provides a perfect fit with the history of life as we know it. And of course my hypothesis must include the POSSIBILITY of your God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist (see my post under “God of the Gaps”). But you continuously conflate two separate arguments. What would appear to require advance planning is the MECHANISM for life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation. Therein lies the strength of the design = God argument. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with why or how your God may have “designed” evolution itself. My theistic hypothesis on this subject offers a coherent and logical interpretation of his purpose and method that is different from your own long-held and seemingly entrenched opinion (purpose = humans, method = design every innovation etc. himself). I can therefore quite understand why you lash out against my desire for logic, but you can hardly expect me to leap across this particular chasm in your reasoning.

You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation. The mechanism of life exists. Cells know what to do. So if we start with Lucy, we have huge bodily changes to explain: bony changes in form, shifted muscle attachments, and the pelvic/birth problem added to it. The whales are more difficult to explain because of the additional physiological problems of a mammal living in water. This cannot happen by chance. Design is required. I am convinced God designed the start of life. You are totally illogical, because chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic doesn't make any sense. Only minds design.

8988 views

dhw: […] please tell me why you keep insisting that your God’s logic is different from ours, if you consider your explanation to be logical.

DAVID: […] mine is a human logic. God has not explained His logic to me.

So do you or do you not find it logical that your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs and Neanderthal lungs etc. etc. , although his purpose was to produce H. sapiens?

dhw: The “balance of nature” is constantly changing, and all forms of life need and supply energy! That would be true even if there had never been a single human being on Earth, and so the level of this logic is that if there was no life, there would be no life.

DAVID: Repeat: Each econiche is complex, delicate and necessary. I don't think you have ever understood how delicately balanced they are even though I've taken care to produce clear articles.

Yes, each econiche is complex and delicate, but necessary for WHAT? For whatever species happen to exist at the time, and it survives as long as it survives, and then it gives way to a different balance, a different econiche. Nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that your God specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder although his purpose was to create H. sapiens! That is the yawning gap in your logic, and that is why you constantly reply that your God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: If we never find a way to fill the gaps, we are left with personal judgment as to how they happened. They require design in anticipation of use.

dhw: […]. No, the gaps do not “require” design in anticipation of use. They require an understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, which nobody knows but which - with or without God - I suggest (and I don’t think I am alone) work IN RESPONSE to needs and opportunities and not in advance of them.

DAVID: This is pure Darwinism: much variety in form within a species so the most adapted survive and gradually make a new species. Does not explain punctuated equilibrium which you have accepted. The gaps exist and are best explained by design.

Since I reject Darwin's gradualism and accept saltation, of course I accept punctuated equilibrium, but NOBODY can explain how speciation, innovation, saltation etc. work. I agree that they require design, and maybe as you say below “cells know what to do” (bolded) – i.e. they use their possibly God-given intelligence to respond to changing conditions, as opposed to your God having programmed or dabbled every change before those conditions even exist.

DAVID: Your excuse that God might have to give organisms the ability to self design simply is a statement that God is required even if secondhand. Note, either way God is required! How can you avoid this conclusion? […]

dhw: […] of course my hypothesis must include the POSSIBILITY of your God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist […]. But you continuously conflate two separate arguments. What would appear to require advance planning is the MECHANISM for life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation. Therein lies the strength of the design = God argument. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with why or how your God may have “designed” evolution itself. My theistic hypothesis on this subject offers a coherent and logical interpretation of his purpose and method that is different from your own long-held and seemingly entrenched opinion (purpose = humans, method = design every innovation etc. himself). I can therefore quite understand why you lash out against my desire for logic […]

DAVID: You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation.

Yet again: I propose that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before those conditions exist (advanced planning), and it hardly needs to be said that speciation involves phenotype changes!

DAVID: The mechanism of life exists. Cells know what to do.

Yes, the mechanism of life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation exists, and I propose that it may be cellular intelligence which may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: So if we start with Lucy, we have huge bodily changes to explain: bony changes in form, shifted muscle attachments, and the pelvic/birth problem added to it. The whales are more difficult to explain because of the additional physiological problems of a mammal living in water. This cannot happen by chance. Design is required.

Dealt with over and over again, and please stop erecting the straw man of chance, which I have never advocated.

DAVID: I am convinced God designed the start of life. You are totally illogical, because chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic doesn't make any sense. Only minds design.

Yet again: the theistic version of my hypothesis is precisely that: your God may have designed the START of life, and I cannot believe in the chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic, and that is a major reason why I am not an atheist. And yet again you are using your belief in God’s existence (through the perfectly logical design argument) to dodge having to defend your illogical version of how and why your God designed evolution, i.e. by specially designing every single innovation etc., extant and extinct, although his purpose was to produce H. sapiens.

8924 views

Since we simply go round and round I've limited my response to this section:

DAVID: You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation.

dhw: Yet again: I propose that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before those conditions exist (advanced planning), and it hardly needs to be said that speciation involves phenotype changes!

Blithely skipping again that fact that phenotypic changes require huge alterations of body parts, and require design.

DAVID: So if we start with Lucy, we have huge bodily changes to explain: bony changes in form, shifted muscle attachments, and the pelvic/birth problem added to it. The whales are more difficult to explain because of the additional physiological problems of a mammal living in water. This cannot happen by chance. Design is required.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again, and please stop erecting the straw man of chance, which I have never advocated.

The point is design, not chance, is all I stated. If you reject chance you are forced to accept design.

DAVID: I am convinced God designed the start of life. You are totally illogical, because chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic doesn't make any sense. Only minds design.

dhw: Yet again: the theistic version of my hypothesis is precisely that: your God may have designed the START of life, and I cannot believe in the chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic, and that is a major reason why I am not an atheist. And yet again you are using your belief in God’s existence (through the perfectly logical design argument) to dodge having to defend your illogical version of how and why your God designed evolution, i.e. by specially designing every single innovation etc., extant and extinct, although his purpose was to produce H. sapiens.

Repeating the word illogical answers nothing. Many others and I see logic.

8897 views

DAVID: Since we simply go round and round I've limited my response to this section:

DAVID: You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation.

dhw: Yet again: I propose that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before those conditions exist (advanced planning), and it hardly needs to be said that speciation involves phenotype changes!

DAVID: Blithely skipping again that fact that phenotypic changes require huge alterations of body parts, and require design.

Dealt with over and over again, as under “birth canal”. Of course speciation involves alterations of body parts, small or huge. And design does not have to mean your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every change in advance of the conditions that require or allow change. We go round and round because you keep repeating the same points and ignoring my responses to them.

DAVID: So if we start with Lucy, we have huge bodily changes to explain: bony changes in form, shifted muscle attachments, and the pelvic/birth problem added to it. The whales are more difficult to explain because of the additional physiological problems of a mammal living in water. This cannot happen by chance. Design is required.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again, and please stop erecting the straw man of chance, which I have never advocated.

DAVID: The point is design, not chance, is all I stated. If you reject chance you are forced to accept design.

But (yet again) I am not forced to accept that design is carried out in advance of the conditions for which the changes are made. And I am not forced to accept that your God does all the designing by preprogramming or personally dabbling every change. And I am not forced to accept that he does all this designing in order to fulfil the purpose of producing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I am convinced God designed the start of life. You are totally illogical, because chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic doesn't make any sense. Only minds design.

dhw: Yet again: the theistic version of my hypothesis is precisely that: your God may have designed the START of life, and I cannot believe in the chance development of life and consciousness from the inorganic, and that is a major reason why I am not an atheist. And yet again you are using your belief in God’s existence (through the perfectly logical design argument) to dodge having to defend your illogical version of how and why your God designed evolution, i.e. by specially designing every single innovation etc., extant and extinct, although his purpose was to produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: Repeating the word illogical answers nothing. Many others and I see logic.

First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation!

8924 views

DAVID: You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation.

dhw: Yet again: I propose that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before those conditions exist (advanced planning), and it hardly needs to be said that speciation involves phenotype changes!

DAVID: Blithely skipping again that fact that phenotypic changes require huge alterations of body parts, and require design.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again, as under “birth canal”. Of course speciation involves alterations of body parts, small or huge. And design does not have to mean your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every change in advance of the conditions that require or allow change. We go round and round because you keep repeating the same points and ignoring my responses to them.

I've not ignored your responses. You understand that changes are required to create new species. You never respond to my point that the gaps in species forms require very large anatomic, and with whales, complex physiological changes that require planning. Somehow, under your ideas, organisms change to fit the new requirements, but you never recognize the obvious need for design and planning. Tiny modifications are minor adaptations to to small alterations, not covering the gaps. My belief is a planning mind is required, therefore I state God does it. you cannot find belief in God so you scramble around, and I find n one of our proposed alternatives credible

DAVID: So if we start with Lucy, we have huge bodily changes to explain: bony changes in form, shifted muscle attachments, and the pelvic/birth problem added to it. The whales are more difficult to explain because of the additional physiological problems of a mammal living in water. This cannot happen by chance. Design is required.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again, and please stop erecting the straw man of chance, which I have never advocated.

DAVID: The point is design, not chance, is all I stated. If you reject chance you are forced to accept design.

dhw: But (yet again) I am not forced to accept that design is carried out in advance of the conditions for which the changes are made. And I am not forced to accept that your God does all the designing by preprogramming or personally dabbling every change. And I am not forced to accept that he does all this designing in order to fulfil the purpose of producing H. sapiens.

You are an agnostic. Of course no one can force any concept on you. I see the need for advance design and have found my solution.

DAVID: Repeating the word illogical answers nothing. Many others and I see logic.

dhw: First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation!

My logical explanations remain the same. Design is required to cover the gaps in form and physiology. You don't deny evolution is punctuated, but your response is always that somehow organisms change. It is a non-answer faced with the need for design.

8905 views

DAVID: You do not understand advanced planning by leaving out phenotype changes in speciation.

dhw: Yet again: I propose that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before those conditions exist (advanced planning), and it hardly needs to be said that speciation involves phenotype changes!

DAVID: Blithely skipping again that fact that phenotypic changes require huge alterations of body parts, and require design.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again, as under “birth canal”. Of course speciation involves alterations of body parts, small or huge. And design does not have to mean your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every change in advance of the conditions that require or allow change. We go round and round because you keep repeating the same points and ignoring my responses to them.

DAVID: I've not ignored your responses. You understand that changes are required to create new species. You never respond to my point that the gaps in species forms require very large anatomic, and with whales, complex physiological changes that require planning. Somehow, under your ideas, organisms change to fit the new requirements, but you never recognize the obvious need for design and planning. Tiny modifications are minor adaptations to to small alterations, not covering the gaps. My belief is a planning mind is required, therefore I state God does it. you cannot find belief in God so you scramble around, and I find n one of our proposed alternatives credible.

Only an idiot would fail to acknowledge that speciation requires change, and that in many cases those changes are large. Yet again I must repeat that although I recognize the obvious need for design, I do not recognize the need for advance PLANNING, even if your God is the maker of life and evolution. In concrete terms, I find it well nigh impossible to believe that your God fiddled around with the anatomies of pre-whales before they left the land and pre-humans before they left the trees. This also raises the unanswered/unanswerable question of the degree to which you think your God controlled every environmental change. My agnosticism (neither belief nor disbelief in God) has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. It seems to me perfectly feasible that your God (if he exists) would have created the MECHANISM whereby organisms would RESPOND to changing conditions. We know for a fact that they do this through minor adaptations, as you say, but (yet again let me repeat) since nobody knows how speciation works, my proposal that this mechanism might also produce major changes is a hypothesis, because there is no more evidence for it than there is for your own hypothesis. And you have heard all this before!

dhw: First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation!

DAVID: My logical explanations remain the same. Design is required to cover the gaps in form and physiology. You don't deny evolution is punctuated, but your response is always that somehow organisms change. It is a non-answer faced with the need for design.

Once again, I accept the need for design, but the question is WHAT is designed? Since nobody knows how speciation happens, everybody’s response has to be that “somehow organisms change”. You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single change before the necessary conditions even came into being. I suggest that if he exists, he designed the MECHANISM for change, but not every individual change. That is not a non-answer, it is a hypothesis. But all of this sees you yet again dodging the whole issue I have raised above, which I have now bolded just in case you should miss it. And you talk of non-answers!

8764 views

dhw: First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation!

DAVID: My logical explanations remain the same. Design is required to cover the gaps in form and physiology. You don't deny evolution is punctuated, but your response is always that somehow organisms change. It is a non-answer faced with the need for design.

dhw: Once again, I accept the need for design, but the question is WHAT is designed? Since nobody knows how speciation happens, everybody’s response has to be that “somehow organisms change”. You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single change before the necessary conditions even came into being. I suggest that if he exists, he designed the MECHANISM for change, but not every individual change. That is not a non-answer, it is a hypothesis. But all of this sees you yet again dodging the whole issue I have raised above, which I have now bolded just in case you should miss it. And you talk of non-answers!

We've gone round and round. You recognize the need for design, but refuse to recognize the enormity of the required changes we see after a gap in the fossil record such as the one Lucy presents. Yes, she is transitional, but the word glosses over the magnitude of change. Bit by bit adaptations will not cover this gap. You need to fully accept the punctuations for what they are, a requirement for prior design. Your resort to God designing a mechanism for the organisms to advance simply admits god is needed. This is the logic you cannot accept. I don't see how this aspect of our disagreement can go further in discussion. We both have our individual point of view.

8766 views

dhw: First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation![/b]

DAVID: My logical explanations remain the same. Design is required to cover the gaps in form and physiology. You don't deny evolution is punctuated, but your response is always that somehow organisms change. It is a non-answer faced with the need for design.

dhw: Once again, I accept the need for design, but the question is WHAT is designed? Since nobody knows how speciation happens, everybody’s response has to be that “somehow organisms change”. You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single change before the necessary conditions even came into being. I suggest that if he exists, he designed the MECHANISM for change, but not every individual change. That is not a non-answer, it is a hypothesis. But all of this sees you yet again dodging the whole issue I have raised above, which I have now bolded just in case you should miss it. And you talk of non-answers!

DAVID: We've gone round and round. You recognize the need for design, but refuse to recognize the enormity of the required changes we see after a gap in the fossil record such as the one Lucy presents. Yes, she is transitional, but the word glosses over the magnitude of change. Bit by bit adaptations will not cover this gap. You need to fully accept the punctuations for what they are, a requirement for prior design. Your resort to God designing a mechanism for the organisms to advance simply admits god is needed. This is the logic you cannot accept. I don't see how this aspect of our disagreement can go further in discussion. We both have our individual point of view.

There are two separate issues being discussed here. 1) I accept the magnitude of change. I do not accept that the changes must have taken place in anticipation of new conditions. I also point out that nobody has yet explained how these changes took place, and that is why we only have HYPOTHESES like yours and mine. I accept your objection to mine. I offer you a theistic version of mine, because it relates to the mechanisms of evolution and not to the existence of God. I agree that we can go no further, and so if you refrain from repeating your unproven hypothesis that your God must have designed everything in advance of changing conditions, I will refrain from repeating my unproven hypothesis that there is a mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that enabled organisms to design themselves in response to changing conditions.

Meanwhile, yet again you have resolutely ignored issue 2) (bolded above), which is the one on which I challenge your logic. However, since you have repeatedly accepted that this part of your hypothesis cannot be explained by human logic (i.e. is illogical according to your human mind), I will refrain from pointing out its illogicality until the next time you repeat it.

8776 views

dhw: First you accuse me of being illogical by erecting a straw man (you know perfectly well that I do NOT believe in a chance origin of life and consciousness), and then you dodge the issue (yet again) of why your God would personally design every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct if his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. In fairness, however, you did offer “experimentation” as a logical explanation, but when I pointed out that this meant either your God didn’t know what he wanted, or he knew what he wanted but didn’t know how to get it, you dismissed the idea and scurried back to your God’s logic being different from ours. If you refuse to accept a logical explanation, and cannot come up with another logical explanation that you find acceptable, then you can hardly blame me for attacking your logic, or for pointing out that if your God’s logic is different from “ours”, that is an acknowledgement that you can’t find a logical explanation![/b]

Meanwhile, yet again you have resolutely ignored issue 2) (bolded above), which is the one on which I challenge your logic. However, since you have repeatedly accepted that this part of your hypothesis cannot be explained by human logic (i.e. is illogical according to your human mind), I will refrain from pointing out its illogicality until the next time you repeat it.

I feel I have answered you. My theory is as before, that God uses evolution to produce the life He wants to produce. It is based on the pattern of evolution I see. I do not accept survival of the fittest as a driving force. And therefore I think environmental changes result in minor adaptations and not jumps in species. Since humans are a species above and beyond any other organism produced they, therefore, are an obvious goal. At many points the jumps (gaps) in form and physiology require prior design, so they can be produced fully functional at that new level. I fully believe all of this, and I can understand why you don't. Until you accept God in the way I do you will not. I reached all of these conclusions logically for me, and now I have faith. I do not try to enter God's mind to explain why it works this way, but it all is logical to me. I do not think I have to enter His mind. I don't see how you can attack this as illogical since I view your views as lacking logic. Your analysis of God's thoughts lead to nowhere since they are unproven hypotheses and certainly are not a solution to our questions, simply raising more questions. I've questioned and I've stopped and accepted, Deyanu.

8679 views

dhw: Meanwhile, yet again you have resolutely ignored issue 2) (bolded above), which is the one on which I challenge your logic.

DAVID: I feel I have answered you. My theory is as before, that God uses evolution to produce the life He wants to produce. It is based on the pattern of evolution I see.

If your God exists, and since you and I both believe that evolution happened, of course he used evolution to produce the life he wanted to produce. But according to you “His purpose was humans” and so the life he wanted to produce was that of H. sapiens but he also specially produced 50,000 spider webs, Neanderthal lungs, and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution. When challenged on the logic of this, and when I suggest that maybe spiders designed their own webs and maybe they and Neanderthal lungs and the weaverbird's nest and humans were only part of your God's purpose, you tell us that God’s logic must be different from ours, which means you don’t understand the logic either. That is the nub of the matter.

DAVID: I do not accept survival of the fittest as a driving force.

That has nothing to do with the illogicality of the above.

DAVID: And therefore I think environmental changes result in minor adaptations and not jumps in species.

Hardly a “therefore”, but fair comment as an attack on my hypothesis concerning speciation. Nothing whatsoever to do with the illogical argument above.

DAVID: Since humans are a species above and beyond any other organism produced they, therefore, are an obvious goal.

If he wants to produce 50,000 spider webs etc., then 50,000 spider webs etc. are what he wants to produce, and this does not square with your constantly repeated statement that “His purpose was humans”.

DAVID: At many points the jumps (gaps) in form and physiology require prior design, so they can be produced fully functional at that new level. I fully believe all of this, and I can understand why you don't.

That was issue 1) and has nothing to do with issue 2).

DAVID: Until you accept God in the way I do you will not. I reached all of these conclusions logically for me, and now I have faith. I do not try to enter God's mind to explain why it works this way, but it all is logical to me. I do not think I have to enter His mind.

Any attempt to interpret purpose means trying to entering the mind of the doer. You keep telling us that “His purpose was humans”, but you can’t explain how this ties in with your belief that he specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. although “it all is logical” to you. I’m sorry, but if you can’t explain your own logic, you might as well say that this is what you believe and you couldn’t care less about logic. The whole point of this forum is to discuss and test the logic behind all the hypotheses concerning all the unanswered questions. Your arguments in favour of design are, in my opinion, impeccably logical, which is why you scurry back to them when I challenge the logic of your views on purpose and method.

DAVID: I don't see how you can attack this as illogical since I view your views as lacking logic.

Even if all my views were illogical, that would not mean your own view was logical.

DAVID: Your analysis of God's thoughts lead to nowhere since they are unproven hypotheses and certainly are not a solution to our questions, simply raising more questions. I've questioned and I've stopped and accepted, Deyanu.

All our hypotheses concerning the thoughts, purposes, methods and indeed existence of God are unproven. If they were proven, there would be nothing to discuss. It is true that our discussions, like so many of the related discoveries of modern science, seem only to raise more questions. That seems to be the nature of the beast. You yourself have clearly never stopped asking questions, and have even written two brilliant books on all these matters. You only want to stop when I challenge the logic of certain fixed ideas you have accepted – and before you scurry back to design, let me repeat that I do NOT challenge the logic of that particular hypothesis. But if you've really had enough, we can leave it at that - at least till the next time you tell us that your God specially designed xyz and his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens. ;-)

8651 views

dhw: Meanwhile, yet again you have resolutely ignored issue 2) (bolded above), which is the one on which I challenge your logic.

DAVID: I feel I have answered you. My theory is as before, that God uses evolution to produce the life He wants to produce. It is based on the pattern of evolution I see.

dhw: If your God exists, and since you and I both believe that evolution happened, of course he used evolution to produce the life he wanted to produce. But according to you “His purpose was humans” and so the life he wanted to produce was that of H. sapiens but he also specially produced 50,000 spider webs, Neanderthal lungs, and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution. When challenged on the logic of this, and when I suggest that maybe spiders designed their own webs and maybe they and Neanderthal lungs and the weaverbird's nest and humans were only part of your God's purpose, you tell us that God’s logic must be different from ours, which means you don’t understand the logic either. That is the nub of the matter.

None of what I believe is illogical to me. My view is God logically produced the diversity of life to create an amazing number of different delicate econiches to feed life as it evolved. That involved all the designed items to which you refer. I accept the way God did it and don't challenge his logic. I fully understand your desire to dig into His brain, but His logic does not matter to me. On the other hand, what I observe is logical to me.

DAVID: Since humans are a species above and beyond any other organism produced they, therefore, are an obvious goal.

dhw: If he wants to produce 50,000 spider webs etc., then 50,000 spider webs etc. are what he wants to produce, and this does not square with your constantly repeated statement that “His purpose was humans”.

That is an illogical comment. There is no jump from spiders to humans. All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what a evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.

DAVID: At many points the jumps (gaps) in form and physiology require prior design, so they can be produced fully functional at that new level. I fully believe all of this, and I can understand why you don't.

dhw: That was issue 1) and has nothing to do with issue 2).

DAVID: Until you accept God in the way I do you will not. I reached all of these conclusions logically for me, and now I have faith. I do not try to enter God's mind to explain why it works this way, but it all is logical to me. I do not think I have to enter His mind.

dhw: Any attempt to interpret purpose means trying to entering the mind of the doer. You keep telling us that “His purpose was humans”, but you can’t explain how this ties in with your belief that he specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. although “it all is logical” to you. I’m sorry, but if you can’t explain your own logic, you might as well say that this is what you believe and you couldn’t care less about logic. The whole point of this forum is to discuss and test the logic behind all the hypotheses concerning all the unanswered questions. Your arguments in favour of design are, in my opinion, impeccably logical, which is why you scurry back to them when I challenge the logic of your views on purpose and method.

I've explained my view over and over. As for entering God's mind, I have only identified a purpose, not the thought process that reached that goal. Note I cannot know his logic, but that does not make me illogical.

DAVID: I don't see how you can attack this as illogical since I view your views as lacking logic.

dhw: Even if all my views were illogical, that would not mean your own view was logical.

Your view is my faith is based on illogical thoughts, but you have no faith. I arrived at belief through study and logic.

DAVID: Your analysis of God's thoughts lead to nowhere since they are unproven hypotheses and certainly are not a solution to our questions, simply raising more questions. I've questioned and I've stopped and accepted, Deyanu.

dhw: All our hypotheses concerning the thoughts, purposes, methods and indeed existence of God are unproven. If they were proven, there would be nothing to discuss. It is true that our discussions, like so many of the related discoveries of modern science, seem only to raise more questions. That seems to be the nature of the beast. You yourself have clearly never stopped asking questions, and have even written two brilliant books on all these matters. You only want to stop when I challenge the logic of certain fixed ideas you have accepted – and before you scurry back to design, let me repeat that I do NOT challenge the logic of that particular hypothesis. But if you've really had enough, we can leave it at that - at least till the next time you tell us that your God specially designed xyz and his purpose was to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

If you recognized my logic you would not be agnostic. You illogically accept design, but cannot understand the logic that there must be a mind doing the design.

8552 views

dhw: If your God exists, and since you and I both believe that evolution happened, of course he used evolution to produce the life he wanted to produce. But according to you “His purpose was humans” and so the life he wanted to produce was that of H. sapiens but he also specially produced 50,000 spider webs, Neanderthal lungs, and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution. When challenged on the logic of this, and when I suggest that maybe spiders designed their own webs and maybe they and Neanderthal lungs and the weaverbird's nest and humans were only part of your God's purpose, you tell us that God’s logic must be different from ours, which means you don’t understand the logic either. That is the nub of the matter.

DAVID: None of what I believe is illogical to me. My view is God logically produced the diversity of life to create an amazing number of different delicate econiches to feed life as it evolved.

Nothing illogical here. You think your God designed every single organism, lifestyle etc., which resulted in diversity and life continuing. But no mention of his purpose being to produce the brain and body of H. sapiens.

DAVID: Since humans are a species above and beyond any other organism produced they, therefore, are an obvious goal.

dhw: If he wants to produce 50,000 spider webs etc., then 50,000 spider webs etc. are what he wants to produce, and this does not square with your constantly repeated statement that “His purpose was humans”.

DAVID: That is an illogical comment. There is no jump from spiders to humans. All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what a evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.

Who says there is a jump? In what way are 50,000 spider webs “stepping stones” to humans? That is the illogical part of your hypothesis. He designed what he thought was necessary for WHAT? Do you really and truly believe that 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones to the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens?

dhw: Your arguments in favour of design are, in my opinion, impeccably logical, which is why you scurry back to them when I challenge the logic of your views on purpose and method.

DAVID: I've explained my view over and over. As for entering God's mind, I have only identified a purpose, not the thought process that reached that goal. Note I cannot know his logic, but that does not make me illogical.

Until you can explain how 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones for the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens, I don’t see how you can possibly claim that your combined hypotheses concerning purpose and method are logical.

DAVID: If you recognized my logic you would not be agnostic. You illogically accept design, but cannot understand the logic that there must be a mind doing the design.

My criticism of your illogical interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method has nothing to do with my agnosticism, and my alternative hypothesis allows for your God. However, I have always recognized the logic of your design argument, which is a major reason for my inability to accept atheism. I have explained a hundred times that I am equally unable to believe in an infinite, eternal, sourceless, hidden form of consciousness that knows everything etc. I am wrong one way or the other, but I’m afraid that does not mean you are right any more than it means Dawkins is right, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method is right!

8594 views

dhw: If he wants to produce 50,000 spider webs etc., then 50,000 spider webs etc. are what he wants to produce, and this does not square with your constantly repeated statement that “His purpose was humans”.

DAVID: That is an illogical comment. There is no jump from spiders to humans. All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what a evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.

dhw: Who says there is a jump? In what way are 50,000 spider webs “stepping stones” to humans? That is the illogical part of your hypothesis. He designed what he thought was necessary for WHAT? Do you really and truly believe that 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones to the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens?

You are again skipping over my insistence that econiches of natural balance for life to have the energy by eating at all times to continue the prolonged process of evolution to be able to continue until humans are produced. You clearly know that life requires a constant input of energy. God's designs set up the energy supply in the delicate econiches.>

DAVID: I've explained my view over and over. As for entering God's mind, I have only identified a purpose, not the thought process that reached that goal. Note I cannot know his logic, but that does not make me illogical.

dhw: Until you can explain how 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones for the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens, I don’t see how you can possibly claim that your combined hypotheses concerning purpose and method are logical.

Explained over and over many times as stated above.

DAVID: If you recognized my logic you would not be agnostic. You illogically accept design, but cannot understand the logic that there must be a mind doing the design.

dhw: My criticism of your illogical interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method has nothing to do with my agnosticism, and my alternative hypothesis allows for your God. However, I have always recognized the logic of your design argument, which is a major reason for my inability to accept atheism. I have explained a hundred times that I am equally unable to believe in an infinite, eternal, sourceless, hidden form of consciousness that knows everything etc. I am wrong one way or the other, but I’m afraid that does not mean you are right any more than it means Dawkins is right, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method is right!

Written like a true agnosiic. but you carefully didn't answer the point that design comes from very complex mental processes, therefore a mind, which for me must exist. You simply cannot accept that thought and I understand it, but it leaves you with nothing but non-belief
and no answers. I see the answer for me and we are both uncomfortable in the other's position.

8626 views

dhw: If he wants to produce 50,000 spider webs etc., then 50,000 spider webs etc. are what he wants to produce, and this does not square with your constantly repeated statement that “His purpose was humans”.

DAVID: That is an illogical comment. There is no jump from spiders to humans. All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what a evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.

dhw: Who says there is a jump? In what way are 50,000 spider webs “stepping stones” to humans? That is the illogical part of your hypothesis. He designed what he thought was necessary for WHAT? Do you really and truly believe that 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones to the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens?

DAVID: You are again skipping over my insistence that econiches of natural balance for life to have the energy by eating at all times to continue the prolonged process of evolution to be able to continue until humans are produced. You clearly know that life requires a constant input of energy. God's designs set up the energy supply in the delicate econiches.

I have repeatedly accepted the obvious fact that all life requires energy. But that does not mean your God had to design 50,000 spider webs to enable life to continue “until humans are produced”. Life and any kind of econiche would have required energy whether humans were produced or not. So please explain why your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs as “stepping stones” to humans. There is absolutely no logical link, and you know it, because that is why you repeatedly come up with the mantra that God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: You illogically accept design, but cannot understand the logic that there must be a mind doing the design.

dhw: […] I have always recognized the logic of your design argument, which is a major reason for my inability to accept atheism. I have explained a hundred times that I am equally unable to believe in an infinite, eternal, sourceless, hidden form of consciousness that knows everything etc. I am wrong one way or the other, but I’m afraid that does not mean you are right any more than it means Dawkins is right, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method is right!

DAVID: Written like a true agnosiic. but you carefully didn't answer the point that design comes from very complex mental processes, therefore a mind, which for me must exist. You simply cannot accept that thought and I understand it, but it leaves you with nothing but non-belief and no answers. I see the answer for me and we are both uncomfortable in the other's position.

I carefully pointed out that I do accept the logic of your design argument (bolded). And I carefully explained the reasons for my non-belief, which of course leaves me with non-belief and no answers. And none of this provides the slightest support for your fixed belief in your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution. Let me once again quote your wise words from the James thread: "Fixed religious beliefs do not help in ascertaining accurate history."

8525 views

dhw: In what way are 50,000 spider webs “stepping stones” to humans? That is the illogical part of your hypothesis. He designed what he thought was necessary for WHAT? Do you really and truly believe that 50,000 spider webs were necessary stepping stones to the production of the brain and body of H. sapiens?[/i]

DAVID: You are again skipping over my insistence that econiches of natural balance for life to have the energy by eating at all times to continue the prolonged process of evolution to be able to continue until humans are produced. You clearly know that life requires a constant input of energy. God's designs set up the energy supply in the delicate econiches.

dhw: I have repeatedly accepted the obvious fact that all life requires energy. But that does not mean your God had to design 50,000 spider webs to enable life to continue “until humans are produced”. Life and any kind of econiche would have required energy whether humans were produced or not. So please explain why your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs as “stepping stones” to humans. There is absolutely no logical link, and you know it, because that is why you repeatedly come up with the mantra that God’s logic is different from ours.

You keep deliberately skipping over the composition of econiches which are delicately balanced to provide food for all. The spider webs are part of that balance, nothing more. The link is in the energy supply and you know it.

DAVID: You illogically accept design, but cannot understand the logic that there must be a mind doing the design.

dhw: […] I have always recognized the logic of your design argument, which is a major reason for my inability to accept atheism. I have explained a hundred times that I am equally unable to believe in an infinite, eternal, sourceless, hidden form of consciousness that knows everything etc. I am wrong one way or the other, but I’m afraid that does not mean you are right any more than it means Dawkins is right, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that your interpretation of your God’s evolutionary purpose and method is right!

DAVID: Written like a true agnostic. but you carefully didn't answer the point that design comes from very complex mental processes, therefore a mind, which for me must exist. You simply cannot accept that thought and I understand it, but it leaves you with nothing but non-belief and no answers. I see the answer for me and we are both uncomfortable in the other's position.

dhw: I carefully pointed out that I do accept the logic of your design argument (bolded). And I carefully explained the reasons for my non-belief, which of course leaves me with non-belief and no answers. And none of this provides the slightest support for your fixed belief in your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution. Let me once again quote your wise words from the James thread: "Fixed religious beliefs do not help in ascertaining accurate history."

We each have a reasonable belief or non-belief system of thought. That is as far as we an get

8526 views

DAVID: You keep deliberately skipping over the composition of econiches which are delicately balanced to provide food for all. The spider webs are part of that balance, nothing more. The link is in the energy supply and you know it.

The link to what? All econiches supply food for all until they do not supply food for all, and then the econiche changes into another econiche. Every form of life is part of every econiche. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that 50,000 spider webs were specially designed as “stepping stones” to humans! There is no link, and you know it, which is why you keep telling us that your God’s logic is not ours.

8459 views

DAVID: You keep deliberately skipping over the composition of econiches which are delicately balanced to provide food for all. The spider webs are part of that balance, nothing more. The link is in the energy supply and you know it.

dhw: The link to what? All econiches supply food for all until they do not supply food for all, and then the econiche changes into another econiche. Every form of life is part of every econiche. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that 50,000 spider webs were specially designed as “stepping stones” to humans! There is no link, and you know it, which is why you keep telling us that your God’s logic is not ours.

I'll repeat the link: to evolve humans took 3.5+ billion years. The econiches provided the food supply for life to have energy for all those years. Food supply is required. Each niche is in delicate balance, as I have shown with many articles. The webs solve a requirement for that balance in specific niches. It does not require God's logic to understand the point. I've not invented anything illogical. Humans are an illogical supreme endpoint, but here we are. I can see purpose. Your position doesn't allow for a recognition of purpose.

8490 views

DAVID: You keep deliberately skipping over the composition of econiches which are delicately balanced to provide food for all. The spider webs are part of that balance, nothing more. The link is in the energy supply and you know it.

dhw: The link to what? All econiches supply food for all until they do not supply food for all, and then the econiche changes into another econiche. Every form of life is part of every econiche. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that 50,000 spider webs were specially designed as “stepping stones” to humans! There is no link, and you know it, which is why you keep telling us that your God’s logic is not ours.

DAVID: I'll repeat the link: to evolve humans took 3.5+ billion years. The econiches provided the food supply for life to have energy for all those years.

Two separate statements without a link! Econiches have provided food for all forms of life from the beginning to the present. That does not mean that every econiche was specially designed as a “stepping stone” (your delightful metaphor) to the production of humans.

DAVID: Food supply is required. Each niche is in delicate balance, as I have shown with many articles. The webs solve a requirement for that balance in specific niches. It does not require God's logic to understand the point.

Of course not. It is perfectly logical to say that every form of life extant and extinct lives/lived in a delicately balanced econiche, and spider webs are part of the balance of their particular niches. And if every spider was wiped out, there would be a different balance and a different econiche. How does that make 50,000 spider webs a “stepping stone” to humans?

DAVID: I've not invented anything illogical. Humans are an illogical supreme endpoint, but here we are. I can see purpose. Your position doesn't allow for a recognition of purpose.

I hope that by "illogical" you are now agreeing that there is no logic in regarding 50,000 spider webs or other unrelated forms of life, lifestyle or natural wonder extant or extant as “stepping stones” to humans. Whether we are an endpoint of any kind is something that will only become apparent in the next few billion years, which you and I won’t be around to see. And finally, you keep emphasizing (theistic) purpose, but the moment I challenge your idea of (theistic) purpose and suggest a different (theistic) purpose, you complain (a) that I don't see purpose, or (b) that my (theistic) purpose – which you agree fits in logically with the history of life - requires reading God’s mind, whereas your (theistic) purpose – which leads to an illogical endpoint – requires your God’s mind to have a different logic from ours. Your reading of God’s mind apparently extends to the fixed belief that by human standards it is illogical.

8469 views

DAVID: I'll repeat the link: to evolve humans took 3.5+ billion years. The econiches provided the food supply for life to have energy for all those years.

dhw: Two separate statements without a link! Econiches have provided food for all forms of life from the beginning to the present. That does not mean that every econiche was specially designed as a “stepping stone” (your delightful metaphor) to the production of humans.

You h ave not followed the logic based on all my reports on the delicacy of the balance in niches. If a top predator is removed the niche is in trouble. The spider may be a top predator.

DAVID: Food supply is required. Each niche is in delicate balance, as I have shown with many articles. The webs solve a requirement for that balance in specific niches. It does not require God's logic to understand the point.

dhw: Of course not. It is perfectly logical to say that every form of life extant and extinct lives/lived in a delicately balanced econiche, and spider webs are part of the balance of their particular niches. And if every spider was wiped out, there would be a different balance and a different econiche. How does that make 50,000 spider webs a “stepping stone” to humans?

Spiders are part of a balanced niche. Spiders were evolved into a large family as part of the diversity of the bush of life which creates the niches so all eat.

DAVID: I've not invented anything illogical. Humans are an illogical supreme endpoint, but here we are. I can see purpose. Your position doesn't allow for a recognition of purpose.

dhw: I hope that by "illogical" you are now agreeing that there is no logic in regarding 50,000 spider webs or other unrelated forms of life, lifestyle or natural wonder extant or extant as “stepping stones” to humans. Whether we are an endpoint of any kind is something that will only become apparent in the next few billion years, which you and I won’t be around to see. And finally, you keep emphasizing (theistic) purpose, but the moment I challenge your idea of (theistic) purpose and suggest a different (theistic) purpose, you complain (a) that I don't see purpose, or (b) that my (theistic) purpose – which you agree fits in logically with the history of life - requires reading God’s mind, whereas your (theistic) purpose – which leads to an illogical endpoint – requires your God’s mind to have a different logic from ours. Your reading of God’s mind apparently extends to the fixed belief that by human standards it is illogical.

Your hope is hopeless. We remain apart. Remember I see God when you don't. I see purpose when you don't. Your theistic purposes never seem to fit mine. Your logic is not mine. For example you can see design like I do, but the logical next step that a mind must exist, is not acceptable to you, simply because you cannot accept an eternal mind. Anything else obviously illogical.

8396 views

DAVID: I'll repeat the link: to evolve humans took 3.5+ billion years. The econiches provided the food supply for life to have energy for all those years.

dhw: Two separate statements without a link! Econiches have provided food for all forms of life from the beginning to the present. That does not mean that every econiche was specially designed as a “stepping stone” (your delightful metaphor) to the production of humans.

DAVID: You have not followed the logic based on all my reports on the delicacy of the balance in niches. If a top predator is removed the niche is in trouble. The spider may be a top predator.

I have followed, repeated and totally accept the logic of the delicate balance of econiches and top predators. You resolutely refuse to acknowledge that this has no link whatsoever to your argument that 50,000 spider webs are “stepping stones” to humans.

DAVID: Spiders are part of a balanced niche. Spiders were evolved into a large family as part of the diversity of the bush of life which creates the niches so all eat.

All eat until all don’t eat, econiches are balanced until they are not balanced, and then econiches change. Nothing whatsoever to do with spiders as “stepping stones” to humans.

DAVID: I've not invented anything illogical. Humans are an illogical supreme endpoint, but here we are. I can see purpose. Your position doesn't allow for a recognition of purpose.

dhw: I hope that by "illogical" you are now agreeing that there is no logic in regarding 50,000 spider webs or other unrelated forms of life, lifestyle or natural wonder extant or extant as “stepping stones” to humans. Whether we are an endpoint of any kind is something that will only become apparent in the next few billion years, which you and I won’t be around to see. And finally, you keep emphasizing (theistic) purpose, but the moment I challenge your idea of (theistic) purpose and suggest a different (theistic) purpose, you complain (a) that I don't see purpose, or (b) that my (theistic) purpose – which you agree fits in logically with the history of life - requires reading God’s mind, whereas your (theistic) purpose – which leads to an illogical endpoint – requires your God’s mind to have a different logic from ours. Your reading of God’s mind apparently extends to the fixed belief that by human standards it is illogical.

DAVID: Your hope is hopeless. We remain apart. Remember I see God when you don't. I see purpose when you don't. Your theistic purposes never seem to fit mine.

My hypothesis allows for God. It does not allow for an illogical God. If your God exists, of course he has purpose, and you are quite right that my theistic purpose does not fit yours. That does not mean I don’t see God and I don’t see purpose. It simply means that I am offering a logical view of his purpose as an alternative to your own illogical view (he designed 50,000 spider webs as stepping stones to humans).

DAVID: Your logic is not mine.

You have offered no logical explanation for how the design of 50,000 spider webs provides a stepping stone to "illogical endpoint humans", so you are quite right, my logic in this case is not yours.

DAVID: For example you can see design like I do, but the logical next step that a mind must exist, is not acceptable to you, simply because you cannot accept an eternal mind.

Agreed, apart from the equally nebulous possibility that it is not “a mind” but billions of evolving minds (my atheistic panpsychist hypothesis). I am the logical ass starving between two identical bags of hay. But I’m afraid this does not make your anthropocentric view of 50,000 spider webs logical, and it does negate the logic of your God designing the mechanisms of evolution (as opposed to designing every individual life form, life style and natural wonder extant and extinct) to produce the ever changing spectacle of life’s history as we know it, though always allowing for the occasional dabble if he feels like it (Chixculub perhaps). Sometimes I accept your logic (design). At other times I reject it (50,000 spider webs as stepping stones to humans). Quoting the times I accept it does not provide any defence for arguments which make it necessary for your God to have a different (and inexplicable) logic from ours!

8499 views

DAVID: You have not followed the logic based on all my reports on the delicacy of the balance in niches. If a top predator is removed the niche is in trouble. The spider may be a top predator.

dhw: I have followed, repeated and totally accept the logic of the delicate balance of econiches and top predators. You resolutely refuse to acknowledge that this has no link whatsoever to your argument that 50,000 spider webs are “stepping stones” to humans.

The spiders are part of the diversity of life for the formation of econiches which allow everyone who continues to evolve to eat and have the ability to have the energy to do that. The spiders are one tiny part of the millions of stepping stones to humans in the diversity of life that evolves to humans. Be sticking to one example you are obviously missing the whole point of the concept of God's use of evolution to evolve humans and distorting my concept for your purpose of debate.

DAVID: I've not invented anything illogical. Humans are an illogical supreme endpoint, but here we are. I can see purpose. Your position doesn't allow for a recognition of purpose.

dhw: I hope that by "illogical" you are now agreeing that there is no logic in regarding 50,000 spider webs or other unrelated forms of life, lifestyle or natural wonder extant or extant as “stepping stones” to humans. Whether we are an endpoint of any kind is something that will only become apparent in the next few billion years, which you and I won’t be around to see. And finally, you keep emphasizing (theistic) purpose, but the moment I challenge your idea of (theistic) purpose and suggest a different (theistic) purpose, you complain (a) that I don't see purpose, or (b) that my (theistic) purpose – which you agree fits in logically with the history of life - requires reading God’s mind, whereas your (theistic) purpose – which leads to an illogical endpoint – requires your God’s mind to have a different logic from ours. Your reading of God’s mind apparently extends to the fixed belief that by human standards it is illogical.

I don't see recognizing humans as an endpoint is at all illogical. If we use Darwin's view of adaptation for survival, humans shouldn't be here at all. The apes they left behind were doing fine and never needed a change to continue for 6-8 million years as we developed. Leaving Darwin behind, we see punctuated equilibrium with giant gaps in form and function, and those gaps logically require design. You logically remain agnostic because you can see the design, and then your logic stops by not accepting a mind must exist to do the design.

DAVID: We remain apart. Remember I see God when you don't. I see purpose when you don't. Your theistic purposes never seem to fit mine.

dhw: My hypothesis allows for God. It does not allow for an illogical God. If your God exists, of course he has purpose, and you are quite right that my theistic purpose does not fit yours. That does not mean I don’t see God and I don’t see purpose. It simply means that I am offering a logical view of his purpose as an alternative to your own illogical view (he designed 50,000 spider webs as stepping stones to humans).

I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

DAVID: For example you can see design like I do, but the logical next step that a mind must exist, is not acceptable to you, simply because you cannot accept an eternal mind.

dhw: Agreed, apart from the equally nebulous possibility that it is not “a mind” but billions of evolving minds (my atheistic panpsychist hypothesis). I am the logical ass starving between two identical bags of hay. But I’m afraid this does not make your anthropocentric view of 50,000 spider webs logical, and it does negate the logic of your God designing the mechanisms of evolution (as opposed to designing every individual life form, life style and natural wonder extant and extinct) to produce the ever changing spectacle of life’s history as we know it, though always allowing for the occasional dabble if he feels like it (Chixculub perhaps). Sometimes I accept your logic (design). At other times I reject it (50,000 spider webs as stepping stones to humans). Quoting the times I accept it does not provide any defence for arguments which make it necessary for your God to have a different (and inexplicable) logic from ours!

You have summarized why we remain very apart. The spiders are a tiny part of the diversity of life required to provide the energy for evolution to take 3.6-8 billion years. I am convinced God designed evolution until we arrived. As for humans as the endpoint, have you considered we are in charge of the Earth now, and any further evolution is subject to how we allow it. There are very concerned philosophical articles on the subject.

8417 views

DAVID: The spiders are part of the diversity of life for the formation of econiches which allow everyone who continues to evolve to eat and have the ability to have the energy to do that.

Of course they are part of the diversity of life, but the econiches only allow everyone to eat until they do not allow everyone to eat, and then the econiches change. That does not make them stepping stones to humans.

DAVID: The spiders are one tiny part of the millions of stepping stones to humans in the diversity of life that evolves to humans. Be sticking to one example you are obviously missing the whole point of the concept of God's use of evolution to evolve humans and distorting my concept for your purpose of debate.

I have offered you example after example. You cannot explain how spiders’ webs, monarch butterflies, camouflaged fish, the weaverbird’s nest and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder extinct and extant in the history of life provide(d) stepping stones to humans! It is the concept that God used all of these in order to evolve humans that is illogical, which is why you say your God’s logic is different from ours. This is not for the purpose of debate but for the purpose of putting together a coherent explanation for the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: I don't see recognizing humans as an endpoint is at all illogical. If we use Darwin's view of adaptation for survival, humans shouldn't be here at all. The apes they left behind were doing fine and never needed a change to continue for 6-8 million years as we developed.

We have dealt with this over and over again. Since bacteria have been so successful, there was no need for ANY other life form to evolve. If you believe in common descent, then you believe that at some time one group of apes split off from the rest of the apes. The group that split off may well have done so because their conditions changed. The rest stayed as they were. Why is that so hard to envisage?

DAVID: Leaving Darwin behind, we see punctuated equilibrium with giant gaps in form and function, and those gaps logically require design. You logically remain agnostic because you can see the design, and then your logic stops by not accepting a mind must exist to do the design.

Agreed over and over again. I am the logical ass starving between two identical bags of hay. Why do you keep harping on about this – do you think it makes your hypothesis logical?

DAVID: We remain apart. Remember I see God when you don't. I see purpose when you don't. Your theistic purposes never seem to fit mine.

dhw: My hypothesis allows for God. It does not allow for an illogical God. If your God exists, of course he has purpose, and you are quite right that my theistic purpose does not fit yours. That does not mean I don’t see God and I don’t see purpose. It simply means that I am offering a logical view of his purpose as an alternative to your own illogical view (he designed 50,000 spider webs as stepping stones to humans).

DAVID: I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

Then let me yet again repeat my theistic hypothesis: that a single mind (your God) needs something to keep itself occupied. It therefore creates the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution as an ever changing spectacle, which it watches unfolding in different ways (diversity), perhaps occasionally dabbling when it feels like doing so. Although you don’t like it, that is a logical purposeful activity, which you have repeatedly agreed fits in with the history of life as we know it.
[…]

DAVID: I am convinced God designed evolution until we arrived. As for humans as the endpoint, have you considered we are in charge of the Earth now, and any further evolution is subject to how we allow it. There are very concerned philosophical articles on the subject.

Yes, you are convinced of your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, but since you can find no logical explanation, you tell us that God’s logic is different from ours. Nobody has a clue where evolution will lead us over the next few billion years, so it is impossible to talk of an “endpoint”. To a certain extent we are in charge, but as things stand we are still helpless when Nature exerts its powers (tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions), not to mention the sort of catastrophe that could come to us from outer space. As for us, I think you’ll find that even non-philosophers are very concerned about what humans are doing to the environment, to our fellow animals, and to ourselves. I don’t know why you think this means your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. as stepping stones to humans.

8362 views

DAVID: The spiders are part of the diversity of life for the formation of econiches which allow everyone who continues to evolve to eat and have the ability to have the energy to do that.

dhw: Of course they are part of the diversity of life, but the econiches only allow everyone to eat until they do not allow everyone to eat, and then the econiches change. That does not make them stepping stones to humans.

As usual ignoring the length of time required for evolution to reach the goal of humans. Of course econiches change, but they still continuously provide energy which evolving life requires.

DAVID: The spiders are one tiny part of the millions of stepping stones to humans in the diversity of life that evolves to humans. Be sticking to one example you are obviously missing the whole point of the concept of God's use of evolution to evolve humans and distorting my concept for your purpose of debate.

dhw: I have offered you example after example. You cannot explain how spiders’ webs, monarch butterflies, camouflaged fish, the weaverbird’s nest and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder extinct and extant in the history of life provide(d) stepping stones to humans! It is the concept that God used all of these in order to evolve humans that is illogical, which is why you say your God’s logic is different from ours. This is not for the purpose of debate but for the purpose of putting together a coherent explanation for the history of life as we know it.

All the examples simply show the diversity of life that creates the econiches. The diversity did not create humans, evolution did as controlled by God. How you twist the reasoning!

DAVID: I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

dhw: Then let me yet again repeat my theistic hypothesis: that a single mind (your God) needs something to keep itself occupied. It therefore creates the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution as an ever changing spectacle, which it watches unfolding in different ways (diversity), perhaps occasionally dabbling when it feels like doing so. Although you don’t like it, that is a logical purposeful activity, which you have repeatedly agreed fits in with the history of life as we know it.

Again, you dredge up the psychological concept of 'pass timing' applied to all humans. Find an activity for your mind when it has nothing to do and perhaps you are getting bored. I've never agreed to that mechanism behind God's action. What I have agreed to is God acted to create life in the way you describe, not his possible motives for self-entertainment as the impetus.

DAVID: I am convinced God designed evolution until we arrived. As for humans as the endpoint, have you considered we are in charge of the Earth now, and any further evolution is subject to how we allow it. There are very concerned philosophical articles on the subject.

dhw: Yes, you are convinced of your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, but since you can find no logical explanation, you tell us that God’s logic is different from ours. Nobody has a clue where evolution will lead us over the next few billion years, so it is impossible to talk of an “endpoint”. To a certain extent we are in charge, but as things stand we are still helpless when Nature exerts its powers (tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions), not to mention the sort of catastrophe that could come to us from outer space. As for us, I think you’ll find that even non-philosophers are very concerned about what humans are doing to the environment, to our fellow animals, and to ourselves. I don’t know why you think this means your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. as stepping stones to humans.

Your usual convoluted non-answer to the point that only evolution controlled by humans is what the future will see. Yes there are natural events that create dangers. we are studying asteroids to learn how to control them. We are studying volcanoes to have the proper warnings. God gave us the brain power to solve these problems. And the stepping
stones to humans are life's complexity, as explained by food supply, another subject you talk around. Remember I think God manages a controlled evolution. You are still partial Darwinist, while disavowing a portion of his theory, as in your hypothesis that some how minor adaptation shows organisms can perform major adaptations in major changes in environmental living conditions. That is pure Darwin wishful thinking.

8331 views

DAVID: The spiders are part of the diversity of life for the formation of econiches which allow everyone who continues to evolve to eat and have the ability to have the energy to do that.

dhw: Of course they are part of the diversity of life, but the econiches only allow everyone to eat until they do not allow everyone to eat, and then the econiches change. That does not make them stepping stones to humans.

DAVID: As usual ignoring the length of time required for evolution to reach the goal of humans. Of course econiches change, but they still continuously provide energy which evolving life requires.

Yes, yes, every econiche requires and provides energy. The fact that it took 3+ billion years for humans to appear does not mean that every econiche, innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct was a stepping stone to humans!

DAVID: All the examples simply show the diversity of life that creates the econiches.

Exactly. You need diversity for any econiche. Nothing to do with "stepping stones to humans".

DAVID: The diversity did not create humans, evolution did as controlled by God. How you twist the reasoning!

No twisting. You tell us your God specially designed 50,000 spiders’ webs, the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale as stepping stones to his goal of producing humans, but you can’t explain why he stepped this way, and so you say your God’s logic is different from ours!

DAVID: I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

dhw: Then let me yet again repeat my theistic hypothesis: that a single mind (your God) needs something to keep itself occupied. It therefore creates the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution as an ever changing spectacle, which it watches unfolding in different ways (diversity), perhaps occasionally dabbling when it feels like doing so. Although you don’t like it, that is a logical purposeful activity, which you have repeatedly agreed fits in with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID; Again, you dredge up the psychological concept of 'pass timing' applied to all humans. […] I've never agreed to that mechanism behind God's action. What I have agreed to is God acted to create life in the way you describe, not his possible motives for self-entertainment as the impetus.

And yet again you ignore the context of my response. You said I had never presented a logical purposeful activity of God (now bolded). I answered you, and so your response is to tell me you don’t believe it.

DAVID: I am convinced God designed evolution until we arrived. As for humans as the endpoint, have you considered we are in charge of the Earth now, and any further evolution is subject to how we allow it. There are very concerned philosophical articles on the subject.

dhw: […] Nobody has a clue where evolution will lead us over the next few billion years, so it is impossible to talk of an “endpoint”. To a certain extent we are in charge, but as things stand we are still helpless when Nature exerts its powers (tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions), not to mention the sort of catastrophe that could come to us from outer space. As for us, I think you’ll find that even non-philosophers are very concerned about what humans are doing to the environment, to our fellow animals, and to ourselves. I don’t know why you think this means your God specially designed 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. as stepping stones to humans.

DAVID: Your usual convoluted non-answer to the point that only evolution controlled by humans is what the future will see. Yes there are natural events that create dangers. we are studying asteroids to learn how to control them. We are studying volcanoes to have the proper warnings. God gave us the brain power to solve these problems.

Nothing convoluted, and hardly a non-answer. I agree that we are changing evolution, but so can Nature: we haven’t solved the problems yet, and natural disasters – e.g. some major change in the sun – could end life altogether!

DAVID: And the stepping stones to humans are life's complexity, as explained by food supply, another subject you talk around.

All life needs food, and changing food supply explains why econiches change. All life is complex. That does not mean that all life is a stepping stone to humans!

DAVID: Remember I think God manages a controlled evolution. You are still partial Darwinist, while disavowing a portion of his theory, as in your hypothesis that some how minor adaptation shows organisms can perform major adaptations in major changes in environmental living conditions. That is pure Darwin wishful thinking.

The fact that you are convinced God manages a controlled evolution, with every innovation etc. preprogrammed or dabbled in advance of changing conditions and with humans as its goal, does not provide a single reason why the rest of us should believe you. Why do you mention Darwin, other than to divert attention from your illogical "stepping stones"? Yes, I am a “partial Darwinist”. So what? The concept of cellular intelligence as a driving force is neither pure Darwin nor wishful thinking. It is a hypothetical explanation of evolution based on research Darwin knew nothing about.

8350 views

dhw: Yes, yes, every econiche requires and provides energy. The fact that it took 3+ billion years for humans to appear does not mean that every econiche, innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct was a stepping stone to humans!

You are trying to portray my use of the word 'steppingstone' to mean that each animal in each niche leads to humans. That is not what I have stated. They simply supply energy, while the evolutionary lines that lead to humans progresses through time. That line represents the only steppingstones as you refer to them.

DAVID: I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

dhw: Then let me yet again repeat my theistic hypothesis: that a single mind (your God) needs something to keep itself occupied. It therefore creates the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution as an ever changing spectacle, which it watches unfolding in different ways (diversity), perhaps occasionally dabbling when it feels like doing so. Although you don’t like it, that is a logical purposeful activity, which you have repeatedly agreed fits in with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID; Again, you dredge up the psychological concept of 'pass timing' applied to all humans. […] I've never agreed to that mechanism behind God's action. What I have agreed to is God acted to create life in the way you describe, not his possible motives for self-entertainment as the impetus.

dhw: And yet again you ignore the context of my response. You said I had never presented a logical purposeful activity of God (now bolded). I answered you, and so your response is to tell me you don’t believe it.

It is not that I don't believe: I've pointed out to you that you have introduced a human purpose for God to follow. You have discussed around the point. God is not human. I don't know that He needs entertainment and set up some for himself. I was referring to serious purpose but didn't make that clear.

DAVID: Remember I think God manages a controlled evolution. You are still partial Darwinist, while disavowing a portion of his theory, as in your hypothesis that some how minor adaptation shows organisms can perform major adaptations in major changes in environmental living conditions. That is pure Darwin wishful thinking.

dhw: The fact that you are convinced God manages a controlled evolution, with every innovation etc. preprogrammed or dabbled in advance of changing conditions and with humans as its goal, does not provide a single reason why the rest of us should believe you. Why do you mention Darwin, other than to divert attention from your illogical "stepping stones"? Yes, I am a “partial Darwinist”. So what? The concept of cellular intelligence as a driving force is neither pure Darwin nor wishful thinking. It is a hypothetical explanation of evolution based on research Darwin knew nothing about.

Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory behind the evolutionary mechanism he envisioned, that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water. All your theory is based on is cellular adaptability to changing stimuli, but the cells/organisms are not really a different form or species.

8431 views

dhw: Yes, yes, every econiche requires and provides energy. The fact that it took 3+ billion years for humans to appear does not mean that every econiche, innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct was a stepping stone to humans!

DAVID: You are trying to portray my use of the word 'steppingstone' to mean that each animal in each niche leads to humans. That is not what I have stated. They simply supply energy, while the evolutionary lines that lead to humans progresses through time. That line represents the only steppingstones as you refer to them.

You stated (17 November): “All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.” (My bold) But if you really meant to say that all econiches provide energy, and humans descended in steps from a particular line of organisms and the process took time, then we are in complete agreement, though I have no idea why you would wish to make two such obvious and unrelated statements.

DAVID: I have yet to see you present a logical purposeful activity of God.

dhw: Then let me yet again repeat my theistic hypothesis: that a single mind (your God) needs something to keep itself occupied. […] Although you don’t like it, that is a logical purposeful activity, which you have repeatedly agreed fits in with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID; Again, you dredge up the psychological concept of 'pass timing' applied to all humans. […] I've never agreed to that mechanism behind God's action. What I have agreed to is God acted to create life in the way you describe, not his possible motives for self-entertainment as the impetus.

dhw: [..] You said I had never presented a logical purposeful activity of God (now bolded). I answered you, and so your response is to tell me you don’t believe it.

DAVID: It is not that I don't believe: I've pointed out to you that you have introduced a human purpose for God to follow. You have discussed around the point. God is not human. I don't know that He needs entertainment and set up some for himself. I was referring to serious purpose but didn't make that clear.

Perhaps you should have written: “I have never seen you present a logical purposeful activity of God that I consider to be serious.” I have offered you a perfectly logical purpose which fits in with the history of life as we know it. Indeed in unguarded moments you have even suggested that your hidden God watches us with interest. But of course God is not human, and we don’t even “know” if he exists, let alone what his purpose might be. We have been over all this umpteen times. I do not accept your definition of “a logical purposeful activity” as an activity you consider to be “serious”, and in any case I personally consider the purpose I have proposed as something extremely serious, though I would prefer to use a less flippant term than "entertainment". "Occupation" perhaps, as in something to occupy his mind.

DAVID: You are still partial Darwinist, while disavowing a portion of his theory.[…] That is pure Darwin wishful thinking.

dhw: Yes, I am a “partial Darwinist”. So what? The concept of cellular intelligence as a driving force is neither pure Darwin nor wishful thinking. It is a hypothetical explanation of evolution based on research Darwin knew nothing about.

DAVID: Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory behind the evolutionary mechanism he envisioned, that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water.

How the heck do you know that? Hypothesis: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, so some mammals took to water. Is that less logical than God’s purpose was humans, and so he gave some land-dwelling mammals fins to enable them to enter the water? Survivability is pure common sense. All organisms fight to survive, and if conditions change, either they adapt or they die. My hypothesis goes one step further: adaptation in order to survive may extend to innovation in order to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: All your theory is based on is cellular adaptability to changing stimuli, but the cells/organisms are not really a different form or species.

Cells are the components of all organisms. The way in which cell communities are structured determines the nature of the organism. But yes, of course my speciation hypothesis is based on cellular adaptability to changing stimuli. And in case you’ve forgotten, it proposes that this adaptability is controlled by possibly God-given, autonomous cellular intelligence, but we have no evidence that intelligence-governed cellular adaptability can extend so far as to innovation, and that is why it remains a hypothesis.

8269 views

DAVID: You are trying to portray my use of the word 'steppingstone' to mean that each animal in each niche leads to humans. That is not what I have stated. They simply supply energy, while the evolutionary lines that lead to humans progresses through time. That line represents the only steppingstones as you refer to them.

dhw: You stated (17 November): “All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.” (My bold) But if you really meant to say that all econiches provide energy, and humans descended in steps from a particular line of organisms and the process took time, then we are in complete agreement, though I have no idea why you would wish to make two such obvious and unrelated statements.

The relationship is patently obvious: niches provide energy so evolution can take 3.6 billion years, stated over and over.

DAVID: It is not that I don't believe: I've pointed out to you that you have introduced a human purpose for God to follow. You have discussed around the point. God is not human. I don't know that He needs entertainment and set up some for himself. I was referring to serious purpose but didn't make that clear.

dhw: Perhaps you should have written: “I have never seen you present a logical purposeful activity of God that I consider to be serious.” I have offered you a perfectly logical purpose which fits in with the history of life as we know it. Indeed in unguarded moments you have even suggested that your hidden God watches us with interest. But of course God is not human, and we don’t even “know” if he exists, let alone what his purpose might be. We have been over all this umpteen times. I do not accept your definition of “a logical purposeful activity” as an activity you consider to be “serious”, and in any case I personally consider the purpose I have proposed as something extremely serious, though I would prefer to use a less flippant term than "entertainment". "Occupation" perhaps, as in something to occupy his mind.

You have again talked your way around the fact that you constantly humanize god

DAVID: You are still partial Darwinist, while disavowing a portion of his theory.[…] That is pure Darwin wishful thinking.

dhw: Yes, I am a “partial Darwinist”. So what? The concept of cellular intelligence as a driving force is neither pure Darwin nor wishful thinking. It is a hypothetical explanation of evolution based on research Darwin knew nothing about.

DAVID: Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory behind the evolutionary mechanism he envisioned, that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water.

dhw: How the heck do you know that? Hypothesis: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, so some mammals took to water. Is that less logical than God’s purpose was humans, and so he gave some land-dwelling mammals fins to enable them to enter the water? Survivability is pure common sense. All organisms fight to survive, and if conditions change, either they adapt or they die. My hypothesis goes one step further: adaptation in order to survive may extend to innovation in order to improve chances of survival.

I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck! Still sticking to Darwin.

DAVID: All your theory is based on is cellular adaptability to changing stimuli, but the cells/organisms are not really a different form or species.

dhw: Cells are the components of all organisms. The way in which cell communities are structured determines the nature of the organism. But yes, of course my speciation hypothesis is based on cellular adaptability to changing stimuli. And in case you’ve forgotten, it proposes that this adaptability is controlled by possibly God-given, autonomous cellular intelligence, but we have no evidence that intelligence-governed cellular adaptability can extend so far as to innovation, and that is why it remains a hypothesis.

And I would again ask, why you envision a God who gives up control? No one in the religions agrees with you. Remember you are reinterpreting their God.

8290 views

DAVID: You are trying to portray my use of the word 'steppingstone' to mean that each animal in each niche leads to humans. That is not what I have stated. They simply supply energy, while the evolutionary lines that lead to humans progresses through time. That line represents the only steppingstones as you refer to them.

dhw: You stated (17 November): “All of the varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans; that is what evolution means and I believe God designed what He thought was necessary all the way from the first cells to humans.” (My bold) But if you really meant to say that all econiches provide energy, and humans descended in steps from a particular line of organisms and the process took time, then we are in complete agreement, though I have no idea why you would wish to make two such obvious and unrelated statements.

DAVID: The relationship is patently obvious: niches provide energy so evolution can take 3.6 billion years, stated over and over.

Niches provide energy, and so far evolution has lasted for 3.X billion years – not “so evolution can take…”. Who knows what may evolve in the next few billion years? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your explicit belief that “all varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans”! That is the patently obvious unrelatedness of your earlier statement.

DAVID: […] God is not human. I don't know that He needs entertainment and set up some for himself. I was referring to serious purpose but didn't make that clear.

dhw: […] of course God is not human, and we don’t even “know” if he exists, let alone what his purpose might be. We have been over all this umpteen times. I do not accept your definition of “a logical purposeful activity” as an activity you consider to be “serious”, and in any case I personally consider the purpose I have proposed as something extremely serious, though I would prefer to use a less flippant term than "entertainment". "Occupation" perhaps, as in something to occupy his mind.

DAVID: You have again talked your way around the fact that you constantly humanize god.

You asked me for a logical purposeful activity, and I gave you one. It is quite impossible to describe purpose without humanizing – which is why when pressed you have your God watching us with interest, wanting a relationship with us, testing us etc. - and there is no reason to suppose that our own consciousness does not in some ways mirror his own (according to some religions, we are “made in his image”. See my response under “Immunity”.) But “humanizing” is your constant get-out whenever you ask me for purpose and don’t like my response.

DAVID: Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory behind the evolutionary mechanism he envisioned, that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water.

dhw: How the heck do you know that? Hypothesis: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, so some mammals took to water. Is that less logical than God’s purpose was humans, and so he gave some land-dwelling mammals fins to enable them to enter the water? Survivability is pure common sense. All organisms fight to survive, and if conditions change, either they adapt or they die. My hypothesis goes one step further: adaptation in order to survive may extend to innovation in order to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck! Still sticking to Darwin.

You have ignored the whole of my response. Why don’t you stick to the point? You are talking to me, not to David Raup.

DAVID: All your theory is based on is cellular adaptability to changing stimuli, but the cells/organisms are not really a different form or species.

dhw: Cells are the components of all organisms. The way in which cell communities are structured determines the nature of the organism. But yes, of course my speciation hypothesis is based on cellular adaptability to changing stimuli. […]

DAVID: And I would again ask, why you envision a God who gives up control? No one in the religions agrees with you. Remember you are reinterpreting their God.

As for religion, firstly it is not “their” God. There are all kinds of religions with all kinds of gods, and deists who believe God initiated creation but then let it run its own course have just as much right to their views as Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, and the Dogon and the Yanomami. Secondly, I have given you a full answer to your question about control, but you don’t like it so you dismiss it as “humanizing”. Thirdly, you have always prided yourself on your independence from established religion, but in any case the main focus of the monotheistic religions (like the main focus of your view of evolution) is on humans, and if I remember rightly, you are a firm believer in human free will. How can we have free will if your God doesn’t give up control? And if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn't he invent a mechanism for free innovation?

8241 views

dhw: Niches provide energy, and so far evolution has lasted for 3.X billion years – not “so evolution can take…”. Who knows what may evolve in the next few billion years? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your explicit belief that “all varieties produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans”! That is the patently obvious unrelatedness of your earlier statement.

"Unrelated"! without the energy supply from econiches we wouldn't have evolved to be here.The diversity of the bush of life is a required plan of development.

DAVID: You have again talked your way around the fact that you constantly humanize god.

dhw: You asked me for a logical purposeful activity, and I gave you one. It is quite impossible to describe purpose without humanizing – which is why when pressed you have your God watching us with interest, wanting a relationship with us, testing us etc. - and there is no reason to suppose that our own consciousness does not in some ways mirror his own (according to some religions, we are “made in his image”. See my response under “Immunity”.) But “humanizing” is your constant get-out whenever you ask me for purpose and don’t like my response.

Of course, I'll guess at His reasoning when you ask me, but I recognize I am using human reasoning when I search for a reason that what might be His motives. I primarily view Him as pure purpose in what He does. 'Spectacle' is well beyond that view.

DAVID: Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory behind the evolutionary mechanism he envisioned, that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water.

dhw: How the heck do you know that? Hypothesis: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, so some mammals took to water. Is that less logical than God’s purpose was humans, and so he gave some land-dwelling mammals fins to enable them to enter the water? Survivability is pure common sense. All organisms fight to survive, and if conditions change, either they adapt or they die. My hypothesis goes one step further: adaptation in order to survive may extend to innovation in order to improve chances of survival.

See my entry to answer Tony: under strange DNA finding

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck! Still sticking to Darwin.

dhw: You have ignored the whole of my response. Why don’t you stick to the point? You are talking to me, not to David Raup.

How do you know Raup doesn't contain the answer from my wide-spread research to formulate my opinions,. ?

DAVID: And I would again ask, why you envision a God who gives up control? No one in the religions agrees with you. Remember you are reinterpreting their God.

dhw: As for religion, firstly it is not “their” God. There are all kinds of religions with all kinds of gods, and deists who believe God initiated creation but then let it run its own course have just as much right to their views as Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, and the Dogon and the Yanomami. Secondly, I have given you a full answer to your question about control, but you don’t like it so you dismiss it as “humanizing”.

It makes Him human. There is no other way of characterizing your imagination of Him.

dhw: Thirdly, you have always prided yourself on your independence from established religion, but in any case the main focus of the monotheistic religions (like the main focus of your view of evolution) is on humans, and if I remember rightly, you are a firm believer in human free will. How can we have free will if your God doesn’t give up control? And if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn't he invent a mechanism for free innovation?

Neat sidestep. Human free will is the only freedom God has obviously allowed. You can extrapolate all you want without any proof but you are back to your favorite theories. Free will is my fact to stand with, nothing more.

8269 views

I am combining the “Immunity” thread with this one, as they cover the same ground.

dhw: Your own reading of his mind – that he created 50,000 spider webs etc. etc. in order to produce humans – makes no sense even to you, which is why you keep telling us his logic is different from ours.

DAVID: [..] I make sense to me. Stop denigrating my thought processes. Again slighting my view: the diversity provides econiche supplies of food so life can survive for all the time evolution took.

Once more, I am NOT disputing the fact that diversity supplies food for ALL forms of life, and life has survived for 3.X billion years so far. The thought process I challenge is your claim that this obvious fact is related to your claim that “all of the varieties of life produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans”.

DAVID: "Unrelated"! without the energy supply from econiches we wouldn't have evolved to be here. […]

Without the energy supply from econiches, NO form of life would be here. That does not mean that every form of life was and is a stepping stone to humans!

DAVID: You illogically want HIM to view spectacles. You've constantly downgraded God to a human level. Of course God is logical in His own purposeful way.

There is no point in insisting on God’s logic and purpose if you then refuse to consider what that logic and purpose might be.

dhw: You asked me for a logical purposeful activity, and I gave you one. It is quite impossible to describe purpose without humanizing – which is why when pressed you have your God watching us with interest, wanting a relationship with us, testing us etc. - and there is no reason to suppose that our own consciousness does not in some ways mirror his own (according to some religions, we are “made in his image”. […]

DAVID: Of course, I'll guess at His reasoning when you ask me, but I recognize I am using human reasoning when I search for a reason that what might be His motives. I primarily view Him as pure purpose in what He does. […]

Of course you are using human reasoning. What else can you use? Elsewhere you tell us our consciousness is part of your God’s consciousness, so can’t our consciousness be an image of his consciousness? And what is “pure” purpose? Purpose without any definable purpose? You keep telling us that his purpose in creating life was to create H. sapiens. I’m sorry, but I still can’t see any logical connection between that statement and the fact that all life needs energy to survive and evolution has gone on for 3.X billion years.

Xxxxx

DAVID: Your dependency on Darwin is shown by the fact that you still cling to an unproven theory […] that survivability plays a role in advancing evolution. Survivability did not make mammals take to water.

dhw: Hypothesis: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, so some mammals took to water. Is that less logical than God’s purpose was humans, and so he gave some land-dwelling mammals fins to enable them to enter the water? Survivability is pure common sense. All organisms fight to survive, and if conditions change, either they adapt or they die. My hypothesis goes one step further: adaptation in order to survive may extend to innovation in order to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: See my entry to answer Tony: under strange DNA finding.

You have not commented at all on the survivability argument above.

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck!

I agree that luck also plays a part: those organisms that were lucky enough to have the means of coping with or exploiting environmental change were able to survive. How does that answer my point that survivability is pure common sense, as above, with an illustration as to how it might work?

DAVID: (re God giving up control) No one in the religions agrees with you […]

dhw: […] I have given you a full answer to your question about control, but you don’t like it so you dismiss it as “humanizing”.

DAVID: It makes Him human. There is no other way of characterizing your imagination of Him.

It does not make him human. It gives him characteristics in common with humans, as proposed by all the religions you are now so fond of.

dhw: [..] How can we have free will if your God doesn’t give up control? And if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn't he invent a mechanism for free innovation?

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Human free will is the only freedom God has obviously allowed.You can extrapolate all you want without any proof but you are back to your favorite theories. Free will is my fact to stand with, nothing more.

Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation? It is no answer to say I have no proof. There is no more proof for your favourite theories than for my hypothesis.

8316 views

dhw: Once more, I am NOT disputing the fact that diversity supplies food for ALL forms of life, and life has survived for 3.X billion years so far. The thought process I challenge is your claim that this obvious fact is related to your claim that “all of the varieties of life produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans”.

I view humans as the desired endpoint. I must repeat the very logical point, which you accept, that life must eat until humans appear and keep eating afterward. It explains also the need for the bush of life and diversity in econiches. Why you have trouble with the idea that ongoing evolution requires energy along the way is beyond me, if you recognize that the current endpoint in humans

DAVID: "Unrelated"! without the energy supply from econiches we wouldn't have evolved to be here. […]

Without the energy supply from econiches, NO form of life would be here. That does not mean that every form of life was and is a stepping stone to humans!

DAVID: You illogically want HIM to view spectacles. You've constantly downgraded God to a human level. Of course God is logical in His own purposeful way.

dhw; There is no point in insisting on God’s logic and purpose if you then refuse to consider what that logic and purpose might be.

I've said the arrival of humans with consciousness.

dhw: You asked me for a logical purposeful activity, and I gave you one. It is quite impossible to describe purpose without humanizing – which is why when pressed you have your God watching us with interest, wanting a relationship with us, testing us etc. - and there is no reason

dhw: And what is “pure” purpose? Purpose without any definable purpose?

A single goal.

Xxxxx

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck!

dhw: I agree that luck also plays a part: those organisms that were lucky enough to have the means of coping with or exploiting environmental change were able to survive. How does that answer my point that survivability is pure common sense, as above, with an illustration as to how it might work?

'Common sense' that the fit will survive is not proof that survivability plays a role in evolution to the next species. The gaps and the fact that species 'look like islands in the ocean' with this study of DNA enforces the point.

DAVID: (re God giving up control) No one in the religions agrees with you […]

dhw: […] I have given you a full answer to your question about control, but you don’t like it so you dismiss it as “humanizing”.

DAVID: It makes Him human. There is no other way of characterizing your imagination of Him.

It does not make him human. It gives him characteristics in common with humans, as proposed by all the religions you are now so fond of.

dhw: [..] How can we have free will if your God doesn’t give up control? And if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn't he invent a mechanism for free innovation?

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Human free will is the only freedom God has obviously allowed.You can extrapolate all you want without any proof but you are back to your favorite theories. Free will is my fact to stand with, nothing more.

dhw: Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation?

Free will is not a mechanism but an attribute of the human brain . Do you make choices every day or not?

8269 views

dhw: Once more, I am NOT disputing the fact that diversity supplies food for ALL forms of life, and life has survived for 3.X billion years so far. The thought process I challenge is your claim that this obvious fact is related to your claim that “all of the varieties of life produced through evolution are steppingstones to humans”.

DAVID: I view humans as the desired endpoint. I must repeat the very logical point, which you accept, that life must eat until humans appear and keep eating afterward. It explains also the need for the bush of life and diversity in econiches. Why you have trouble with the idea that ongoing evolution requires energy along the way is beyond me, if you recognize that the current endpoint in humans.

I don’t think any evolutionist would disagree that all life requires food, you can’t have evolution without life, and so humans, mosquitoes, elephants and the duckbilled platypus could not have evolved if life had not continued. But this does not depend on recognizing that we are the current endpoint, and it certainly doesn’t mean that trilobites, brontosauruses, 50,000 spider webs, whales and the weaverbird’s nest were/are steppingstones to humans!

DAVID: You illogically want HIM to view spectacles. You've constantly downgraded God to a human level. Of course God is logical in His own purposeful way.

dhw: There is no point in insisting on God’s logic and purpose if you then refuse to consider what that logic and purpose might be.

DAVID: I've said the arrival of humans with consciousness.

Yes, but if your God is purposeful, he must have had a purpose for producing humans with consciousness, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have had a logical way of achieving that purpose.

dhw: And what is “pure” purpose? Purpose without any definable purpose?

DAVID: A single goal.

So what do you think was your God’s single goal in specially designing 50,000 spider webs, eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, Neanderthal lungs and the brain of Homo sapiens?

Xxxxx

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck!

dhw: I agree that luck also plays a part: those organisms that were lucky enough to have the means of coping with or exploiting environmental change were able to survive. How does that answer my point that survivability is pure common sense, as above, with an illustration as to how it might work?

DAVID: 'Common sense' that the fit will survive is not proof that survivability plays a role in evolution to the next species. The gaps and the fact that species 'look like islands in the ocean' with this study of DNA enforces the point.

If the environment changes, it is commonsense that organisms will try to survive. You said that “survivability did not make mammals take to water”, and I offered a commonsense scenario: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, and so in order to survive, pre-whales took to water. Why do you find this less commonsensical than the proposal that mammals did not need to take to water until God turned their legs into fins and told them to start swimming?

DAVID: Human free will is the only freedom God has obviously allowed.You can extrapolate all you want without any proof but you are back to your favorite theories. Free will is my fact to stand with, nothing more.

dhw: Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation?

DAVID: Free will is not a mechanism but an attribute of the human brain. Do you make choices every day or not?

Actually, since you claim to be a dualist, I’d have thought free will was an attribute of the soul and not the brain. But we’d better not re-open that can of worms. The brain is a mechanism. If you think free will is a product of that mechanism, then that’s fine. So if you think your God can invent a mechanism for humans which in turn produces free will, why shouldn’t he create a mechanism for other organisms which in turn produces free innovation? In answer to your question, I myself believe in free will but recognize that there is a strong case for not believing in it.

8201 views

dhw: I don’t think any evolutionist would disagree that all life requires food, you can’t have evolution without life, and so humans, mosquitoes, elephants and the duckbilled platypus could not have evolved if life had not continued. But this does not depend on recognizing that we are the current endpoint, and it certainly doesn’t mean that trilobites, brontosauruses, 50,000 spider webs, whales and the weaverbird’s nest were/are steppingstones to humans!

They provided the food energy for evolution to continue, as you agree.

dhw: There is no point in insisting on God’s logic and purpose if you then refuse to consider what that logic and purpose might be.

DAVID: I've said the arrival of humans with consciousness.

dhw: Yes, but if your God is purposeful, he must have had a purpose for producing humans with consciousness, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have had a logical way of achieving that purpose.

Yes b y evolving humans from single celled life.

dhw: And what is “pure” purpose? Purpose without any definable purpose?

DAVID: A single goal.

dhw: So what do you think was your God’s single goal in specially designing 50,000 spider webs, eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, Neanderthal lungs and the brain of Homo sapiens?

Simple, the creation of humans.

Xxxxx

DAVID: I would remind you that a firm Darwinist David Raup devoted a whole book to this issue and concluded, survival depended on luck!

dhw: I agree that luck also plays a part: those organisms that were lucky enough to have the means of coping with or exploiting environmental change were able to survive. How does that answer my point that survivability is pure common sense, as above, with an illustration as to how it might work?

DAVID: 'Common sense' that the fit will survive is not proof that survivability plays a role in evolution to the next species. The gaps and the fact that species 'look like islands in the ocean' with this study of DNA enforces the point.

dhw: If the environment changes, it is commonsense that organisms will try to survive. You said that “survivability did not make mammals take to water”, and I offered a commonsense scenario: food was short on land but plentiful in the water, and so in order to survive, pre-whales took to water. Why do you find this less commonsensical than the proposal that mammals did not need to take to water until God turned their legs into fins and told them to start swimming?

But your so-called common sense does not tell us how surviving species changed into more advanced forms. Survival only preserves an existing form. You can't seem to leave Darwin's adaptation theory behind.

DAVID: Human free will is the only freedom God has obviously allowed.You can extrapolate all you want without any proof but you are back to your favorite theories. Free will is my fact to stand with, nothing more.

dhw: Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation?

DAVID: Free will is not a mechanism but an attribute of the human brain. Do you make choices every day or not?

dhw: Actually, since you claim to be a dualist, I’d have thought free will was an attribute of the soul and not the brain. But we’d better not re-open that can of worms. The brain is a mechanism. If you think free will is a product of that mechanism, then that’s fine. So if you think your God can invent a mechanism for humans which in turn produces free will, why shouldn’t he create a mechanism for other organisms which in turn produces free innovation? In answer to your question, I myself believe in free will but recognize that there is a strong case for not believing in it.

You know darn well the brain is the seat of the soul during life. Don't open the can again.

8167 views

dhw: I don’t think any evolutionist would disagree that all life requires food, you can’t have evolution without life, and so humans, mosquitoes, elephants and the duckbilled platypus could not have evolved if life had not continued. But this does not depend on recognizing that we are the current endpoint, and it certainly doesn’t mean that trilobites, brontosauruses, 50,000 spider webs, whales and the weaverbird’s nest were/are steppingstones to humans!

DAVID: They provided the food energy for evolution to continue, as you agree.

But that does not make them stepping stones to humans, as you clearly agree since you resolutely avoid the sheer illogicality of your stepping stone image.

dhw: There is no point in insisting on God’s logic and purpose if you then refuse to consider what that logic and purpose might be.

DAVID: I've said the arrival of humans with consciousness.

dhw: Yes, but if your God is purposeful, he must have had a purpose for producing humans with consciousness, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have had a logical way of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: Yes by evolving humans from single celled life.

How does that tell us his purpose for producing humans with consciousness?

dhw: And what is “pure” purpose? Purpose without any definable purpose?

DAVID: A single goal.

dhw: So what do you think was your God’s single goal in specially designing 50,000 spider webs, eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, Neanderthal lungs and the brain of Homo sapiens?

DAVID: Simple, the creation of humans.

So he specially created 50,000 webs, eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest and humans in order to create humans. I will refrain from commenting.

Xxxxx
dhw: If the environment changes, it is commonsense that organisms will try to survive. You said that “survivability did not make mammals take to water”, and I offered a commonsense scenario […]

DAVID: But your so-called common sense does not tell us how surviving species changed into more advanced forms. Survival only preserves an existing form. You can't seem to leave Darwin's adaptation theory behind.

Once more, NOBODY knows how speciation takes place. You have challenged the role of survivability in evolution, and you believe that your God changed pre-whale legs into fins before it was necessary, and then told pre-whales to enter the water. Why is that more commonsensical than the proposal that food was short on land but plentiful in the water, and so in order to survive, pre-whales entered the water, flourished, and their bodies changed accordingly? Nobody knows how, but this explains how survivability is integral to the evolutionary process, which is the current point at issue.

dhw: Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation?

DAVID: Free will is not a mechanism but an attribute of the human brain. Do you make choices every day or not?

dhw: Actually, since you claim to be a dualist, I’d have thought free will was an attribute of the soul and not the brain. But we’d better not re-open that can of worms. The brain is a mechanism. If you think free will is a product of that mechanism, then that’s fine. So if you think your God can invent a mechanism for humans which in turn produces free will, why shouldn’t he create a mechanism for other organisms which in turn produces free innovation? In answer to your question, I myself believe in free will but recognize that there is a strong case for not believing in it.

DAVID: You know darn well the brain is the seat of the soul during life. Don't open the can again.

I said myself that we shouldn’t re-open it. Perhaps now you will answer the bolded question.

8187 views

dhw: If the environment changes, it is commonsense that organisms will try to survive. You said that “survivability did not make mammals take to water”, and I offered a commonsense scenario […]

DAVID: But your so-called common sense does not tell us how surviving species changed into more advanced forms. Survival only preserves an existing form. You can't seem to leave Darwin's adaptation theory behind.

dhw: Once more, NOBODY knows how speciation takes place. You have challenged the role of survivability in evolution, and you believe that your God changed pre-whale legs into fins before it was necessary, and then told pre-whales to enter the water. Why is that more commonsensical than the proposal that food was short on land but plentiful in the water, and so in order to survive, pre-whales entered the water, flourished, and their bodies changed accordingly? Nobody knows how, but this explains how survivability is integral to the evolutionary process, which is the current point at issue.

You are simply repeating Darwin's theory that survival adaptations may cause new species. And I'm simply saying it is logical to view survivability as only helping existing organisms to survive and has no way of explaining the gaps we know exist.

dhw: Free will is not a fact, but that’s beside the point. My question was: if he can invent a mechanism for free will, why shouldn’t he invent a mechanism for innovation?

DAVID: Free will is not a mechanism but an attribute of the human brain. Do you make choices every day or not?

dhw: Actually, since you claim to be a dualist, I’d have thought free will was an attribute of the soul and not the brain. But we’d better not re-open that can of worms. The brain is a mechanism. If you think free will is a product of that mechanism, then that’s fine. So if you think your God can invent a mechanism for humans which in turn produces free will, why shouldn’t he create a mechanism for other organisms which in turn produces free innovation? In answer to your question, I myself believe in free will but recognize that there is a strong case for not believing in it.

DAVID: You know darn well the brain is the seat of the soul during life. Don't open the can again.

dhw: I said myself that we shouldn’t re-open it. Perhaps now you will answer the bolded question.

As usual you want to enter God's mind. God has given animals a way to react to needs with instincts. Animals are conscious and make choices. As for material innovation, that is changing material form, not a mechanism at the level of mentation (free will). Why does one process mean another? God does what God does and I look at results, since His reasons are not clear. Why should they be? You are fascinated at the workings of a mind you believe doesn't exist, or that you can't imagine might exist as you remain agnostic.

8231 views

dhw: Once more, NOBODY knows how speciation takes place. You have challenged the role of survivability in evolution, and you believe that your God changed pre-whale legs into fins before it was necessary, and then told pre-whales to enter the water. Why is that more commonsensical than the proposal that food was short on land but plentiful in the water, and so in order to survive, pre-whales entered the water, flourished, and their bodies changed accordingly? Nobody knows how, but this explains how survivability is integral to the evolutionary process, which is the current point at issue.

DAVID: You are simply repeating Darwin's theory that survival adaptations may cause new species. And I'm simply saying it is logical to view survivability as only helping existing organisms to survive and has no way of explaining the gaps we know exist.

Forget Darwin. You are talking to me. Nobody can explain the gaps, and I have agreed over and over again that we do not have the evidence to prove that the mechanism for adaptation is also capable of innovation. Now please tell me why your hypothesis that your God changed pre-whales’ legs to fins before there was any need to do so is more commonsensical than the proposal that there was a need for pre-whales to enter the water, and their bodies adapted accordingly in the quest to improve their chances of survival?

Under “whale teeth and baleens”:

QUOTE: When whales first evolved, they used teeth to chew their food, just like their land-dwelling ancestors. As time went on, many descendants of these early whales continued to chew their food, inheriting this trait from their predecessors. But as the oceans around them changed and animals evolved, entirely new feeding strategies arose, including baleen filter feeding, says National Museum of Natural History predoctoral fellow Carlos Mauricio Peredo, the lead author of the study who analyzed the Maiabalaena fossils.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-whales-lost-teeth-evolving-hair-like.html#jCp

A great example of the manner in which all kinds of changes take place in response to environmental change. Or do you think your God took away pre-baleen’s teeth and then told him to filter feed?

dhw: So if you think your God can invent a mechanism for humans which in turn produces free will, why shouldn’t he create a mechanism for other organisms which in turn produces free innovation?

DAVID: As usual you want to enter God's mind.

Yes. If your God is purposeful, I would like to know his purpose, and so I look at his work to try to understand his purpose. What is wrong with that?

DAVID: God has given animals a way to react to needs with instincts. Animals are conscious and make choices.

There is a big difference between instincts and conscious choices! So what we are discussing, in the context of evolutionary innovation, is whether he gave the cell communities (of which all animals are made) a way to react instinctively (preprogramming) or an autonomous way to restructure themselves.

DAVID: As for material innovation, that is changing material form, not a mechanism at the level of mentation (free will). Why does one process mean another?

The one doesn’t mean the other. You keep insisting that God remains in full control of evolution. We have an example of him deliberately sacrificing control (free will). If he deliberately sacrificed control in one instance, why should he not do so in another (equipping organisms with the means of controlling their own evolution)?

DAVID: God does what God does and I look at results, since His reasons are not clear. Why should they be? You are fascinated at the workings of a mind you believe doesn't exist, or that you can't imagine might exist as you remain agnostic.

I emphatically do not believe he doesn’t exist. And yes, I am fascinated by the workings of his mind if he does exist. And yes, I look at results as you do in my efforts to understand what might be the purpose you keep harping on about. (See my post under “Innovation, Speciation”.) You have concluded that only he could have designed 50,000 webs etc. etc. and he did so because his purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. I can’t see any logic in this. Instead, as you know only too well, I am suggesting that he may have given spiders the autonomous means to design their own webs – i.e. that he deliberately sacrificed control, and unlike your anthropocentric hypothesis, that would offer a logical (theistic) explanation of the result you and I look at: i.e. the long higgledy-piggledy history of life extant and extinct (though I also allow for occasional dabbling).

8130 views

DAVID: You are simply repeating Darwin's theory that survival adaptations may cause new species. And I'm simply saying it is logical to view survivability as only helping existing organisms to survive and has no way of explaining the gaps we know exist.

dhw: Forget Darwin. You are talking to me. Nobody can explain the gaps, and I have agreed over and over again that we do not have the evidence to prove that the mechanism for adaptation is also capable of innovation. Now please tell me why your hypothesis that your God changed pre-whales’ legs to fins before there was any need to do so is more commonsensical than the proposal that there was a need for pre-whales to enter the water, and their bodies adapted accordingly in the quest to improve their chances of survival?

Fine answer but no solid explanation. Just wishful thinking. Adaptation doesn't lead to speciation. Pure Darwin which I'm not supposed to point out.

Under “whale teeth and baleens”:

QUOTE: When whales first evolved, they used teeth to chew their food, just like their land-dwelling ancestors. As time went on, many descendants of these early whales continued to chew their food, inheriting this trait from their predecessors. But as the oceans around them changed and animals evolved, entirely new feeding strategies arose, including baleen filter feeding, says National Museum of Natural History predoctoral fellow Carlos Mauricio Peredo, the lead author of the study who analyzed the Maiabalaena fossils.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-whales-lost-teeth-evolving-hair-like.html#jCp

dhw: A great example of the manner in which all kinds of changes take place in response to environmental change. Or do you think your God took away pre-baleen’s teeth and then told him to filter feed?

It is no explanation but a huge gap in how it happened. A transitional form does not fill gaps!

Yes. If your God is purposeful, I would like to know his purpose, and so I look at his work to try to understand his purpose. What is wrong with that?

DAVID: As for material innovation, that is changing material form, not a mechanism at the level of mentation (free will). Why does one process mean another?

dhw: The one doesn’t mean the other. You keep insisting that God remains in full control of evolution. We have an example of him deliberately sacrificing control (free will). If he deliberately sacrificed control in one instance, why should he not do so in another (equipping organisms with the means of controlling their own evolution)?

A repeated non-sequitur. God has every right to give us consciousness which gave us free will as part of an evolutionary process, but He still remains in full overall control.

DAVID: God does what God does and I look at results, since His reasons are not clear. Why should they be? You are fascinated at the workings of a mind you believe doesn't exist, or that you can't imagine might exist as you remain agnostic.

dhw: I emphatically do not believe he doesn’t exist. And yes, I am fascinated by the workings of his mind if he does exist. And yes, I look at results as you do in my efforts to understand what might be the purpose you keep harping on about. (See my post under “Innovation, Speciation”.) You have concluded that only he could have designed 50,000 webs etc. etc. and he did so because his purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. I can’t see any logic in this. Instead, as you know only too well, I am suggesting that he may have given spiders the autonomous means to design their own webs – i.e. that he deliberately sacrificed control, and unlike your anthropocentric hypothesis, that would offer a logical (theistic) explanation of the result you and I look at: i.e. the long higgledy-piggledy history of life extant and extinct (though I also allow for occasional dabbling).

As usual I reject your fanciful theory. The webs have no direct connection to humans, a point you constantly distort. The webs are part of the energy supply so life can stay alive and evolve. You might ask why whales exist. Part of the econiches, nothing more.

8162 views

DAVID: […] I'm simply saying it is logical to view survivability as only helping existing organisms to survive and has no way of explaining the gaps we know exist.

dhw: […] Nobody can explain the gaps, and I have agreed over and over again that we do not have the evidence to prove that the mechanism for adaptation is also capable of innovation. Now please tell me why your hypothesis that your God changed pre-whales’ legs to fins before there was any need to do so is more commonsensical than the proposal that there was a need for pre-whales to enter the water, and their bodies adapted accordingly in the quest to improve their chances of survival?

DAVID: Fine answer but no solid explanation. Just wishful thinking. Adaptation doesn't lead to speciation. […]

There is no “solid” explanation. If there was, we would not be having these discussions. Now please tell me why your hypothesis is more commonsensical than mine.

Under “whale teeth and baleens”:
QUOTE: When whales first evolved, they used teeth to chew their food, just like their land-dwelling ancestors. As time went on, many descendants of these early whales continued to chew their food, inheriting this trait from their predecessors. But as the oceans around them changed and animals evolved, entirely new feeding strategies arose, including baleen filter feeding, […] Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-whales-lost-teeth-evolving-hair-like.html#jCp

dhw: A great example of the manner in which all kinds of changes take place in response to environmental change. Or do you think your God took away pre-baleen’s teeth and then told him to filter feed?

DAVID: It is no explanation but a huge gap in how it happened. A transitional form does not fill gaps!

Of course a transitional form fills gaps. But you expect a line of transitional fossils to fill every single gap. Yet again, however, NOBODY knows how major changes take place. Yes, the gaps are a problem, but that does not make the theory any less problematical than your own.

Later:

DAVID: When a mammal enters a new environment to live the changes have to be very complex and enormous. Just hopping into the water doesn't work. Losing teeth and gaining a filter system isn't done stepwise. It has to be designed.

So you really do believe your God took away the teeth of the pre-baleen and then told him to go and filter feed. And this to you is more likely than a change in conditions making filter feeding a better way of surviving, with a subsequent loss of teeth being the consequence of their no longer being needed.

DAVID: As for material innovation, that is changing material form, not a mechanism at the level of mentation (free will). Why does one process mean another?

dhw: The one doesn’t mean the other. You keep insisting that God remains in full control of evolution. We have an example of him deliberately sacrificing control (free will). If he deliberately sacrificed control in one instance, why should he not do so in another (equipping organisms with the means of controlling their own evolution)?

DAVID: A repeated non-sequitur. God has every right to give us consciousness which gave us free will as part of an evolutionary process, but He still remains in full overall control.

You state your opinion as if it were a fact! It’s a hypothesis with no more validity than my own. Of course God, if he exists, has every right to do whatever he wants. If he wanted to give us free will (i.e. NOT to be in full control of what we do), it is perfectly possible that he also wanted to give organisms free rein to develop themselves (i.e. NOT to be in full control of them).

dhw: I am suggesting that he may have given spiders the autonomous means to design their own webs – i.e. that he deliberately sacrificed control, and unlike your anthropocentric hypothesis, that would offer a logical (theistic) explanation of the result you and I look at: i.e. the long higgledy-piggledy history of life extant and extinct (though I also allow for occasional dabbling).

DAVID: As usual I reject your fanciful theory. The webs have no direct connection to humans, a point you constantly distort. The webs are part of the energy supply so life can stay alive and evolve. You might ask why whales exist. Part of the econiches, nothing more.

Thank you. Yes, I do ask why whales exist if your God’s single purpose was “the creation of humans” (Thursday 29 November). Every organism and econiche is part of the comings-and-goings of life’s history, and this would be true whether your God designed them or not. The only problem here is your insistence that he specially designed whales and webs and weaverbirds as “stepping stones” to the fulfilment of his single purpose - his specially designed humans. But now apparently he didn’t. He specially designed them to be part of life, different econiches and evolution, so that there could be life, different econiches and evolution. Nothing more, and nothing to do with single-purpose humans. We are coming closer together! Who knows, one day you may also concede the possibility that whales, webs, weaverbirds and humans all evolved as a response to changing econiches instead of being specially designed in advance of the changes. But perhaps I'm being over optimistic!

8175 views

DAVID: When a mammal enters a new environment to live the changes have to be very complex and enormous. Just hopping into the water doesn't work. Losing teeth and gaining a filter system isn't done stepwise. It has to be designed.

dhw: So you really do believe your God took away the teeth of the pre-baleen and then told him to go and filter feed. And this to you is more likely than a change in conditions making filter feeding a better way of surviving, with a subsequent loss of teeth being the consequence of their no longer being needed.

Again you revert to adaptations to a new environment as possibly creating complex speciation requiring engineering. That whale fossil had no evidence of teeth or teeth buds, and probably used suction before developing baleens, which are a complex construction in and of themselves. Only design by a designer fits.

DAVID: A repeated non-sequitur. God has every right to give us consciousness which gave us free will as part of an evolutionary process, but He still remains in full overall control.

dhw: You state your opinion as if it were a fact! It’s a hypothesis with no more validity than my own. Of course God, if he exists, has every right to do whatever he wants. If he wanted to give us free will (i.e. NOT to be in full control of what we do), it is perfectly possible that he also wanted to give organisms free rein to develop themselves (i.e. NOT to be in full control of them).

Your probability supposition is only is only an extrapolation of the use of our brain. If we have a brain we logically have independent thinking and the freedom to do as we will. Could God have given us a consciousness with a brain and put a governor on our thoughts? Silly idea!

dhw: I am suggesting that he may have given spiders the autonomous means to design their own webs – i.e. that he deliberately sacrificed control, and unlike your anthropocentric hypothesis, that would offer a logical (theistic) explanation of the result you and I look at: i.e. the long higgledy-piggledy history of life extant and extinct (though I also allow for occasional dabbling).

DAVID: As usual I reject your fanciful theory. The webs have no direct connection to humans, a point you constantly distort. The webs are part of the energy supply so life can stay alive and evolve. You might ask why whales exist. Part of the econiches, nothing more.

dhw: Thank you. Yes, I do ask why whales exist if your God’s single purpose was “the creation of humans” (Thursday 29 November). Every organism and econiche is part of the comings-and-goings of life’s history, and this would be true whether your God designed them or not. The only problem here is your insistence that he specially designed whales and webs and weaverbirds as “stepping stones” to the fulfilment of his single purpose - his specially designed humans. But now apparently he didn’t. He specially designed them to be part of life, different econiches and evolution, so that there could be life, different econiches and evolution. Nothing more, and nothing to do with single-purpose humans. We are coming closer together! Who knows, one day you may also concede the possibility that whales, webs, weaverbirds and humans all evolved as a response to changing econiches instead of being specially designed in advance of the changes. But perhaps I'm being over optimistic!

Very over optimistic. Econiches supply energy for life so it can evolve. No change in my view.

8167 views

dhw: So you really do believe your God took away the teeth of the pre-baleen and then told him to go and filter feed. And this to you is more likely than a change in conditions making filter feeding a better way of surviving, with a subsequent loss of teeth being the consequence of their no longer being needed.

DAVID: Again you revert to adaptations to a new environment as possibly creating complex speciation requiring engineering. That whale fossil had no evidence of teeth or teeth buds, and probably used suction before developing baleens, which are a complex construction in and of themselves. Only design by a designer fits.

I am not denying the complexity, but yes adaptation to new environments is the basis of my unproven hypothesis. But we do not know the extent to which the mechanism for minor change might also create major change, and so your objection to my hypothesis is therefore fully justified. That does not provide any evidence for the hypothesis that your God came down and fiddled with the pre-whale’s legs before sending him into the water, and with the pre-baleen’s teeth before sending him off to filter-feed.

DAVID [on the subject of free will]: A repeated non-sequitur. God has every right to give us consciousness which gave us free will as part of an evolutionary process, but He still remains in full overall control.

dhw: You state your opinion on control as if it were a fact! It’s a hypothesis with no more validity than my own. Of course God, if he exists, has every right to do whatever he wants. If he wanted to give us free will (i.e. NOT to be in full control of what we do), it is perfectly possible that he also wanted to give organisms free rein to develop themselves (i.e. NOT to be in full control of them).

DAVID: Your probability supposition is only is only an extrapolation of the use of our brain. If we have a brain we logically have independent thinking and the freedom to do as we will. Could God have given us a consciousness with a brain and put a governor on our thoughts? Silly idea!

I presume you mean our special human brain – otherwise all organisms with a brain have independent thinking and the freedom to do as they will, which has always been quite contrary to your beliefs. But you are missing the point. Once more: If your God was prepared to sacrifice control over human behaviour, it is equally possible that he might have been prepared to sacrifice control over how organisms evolve. Given the history of life as we know it, this theistic hypothesis is just as likely as the hypothesis that “He still remains in full control”. See the next important exchange.

dhw: I am suggesting that he may have given spiders the autonomous means to design their own webs – i.e. that he deliberately sacrificed control, and unlike your anthropocentric hypothesis, that would offer a logical (theistic) explanation of the result you and I look at: i.e. the long higgledy-piggledy history of life extant and extinct (though I also allow for occasional dabbling).

DAVID: As usual I reject your fanciful theory. The webs have no direct connection to humans, a point you constantly distort. The webs are part of the energy supply so life can stay alive and evolve. You might ask why whales exist. Part of the econiches, nothing more.

dhw: Thank you. Yes, I do ask why whales exist if your God’s single purpose was “the creation of humans” (Thursday 29 November). Every organism and econiche is part of the comings-and-goings of life’s history, and this would be true whether your God designed them or not. The only problem here is [I should now change that to “was” – dhw] your insistence that he specially designed whales and webs and weaverbirds as “stepping stones” to the fulfilment of his single purpose - his specially designed humans. But now apparently he didn’t. He specially designed them to be part of life, different econiches and evolution, so that there could be life, different econiches and evolution. Nothing more, and nothing to do with single-purpose humans. We are coming closer together! Who knows, one day you may also concede the possibility that whales, webs, weaverbirds and humans all evolved as a response to changing econiches instead of being specially designed in advance of the changes. But perhaps I'm being over optimistic!

DAVID: Very over optimistic. Econiches supply energy for life so it can evolve. No change in my view.

No change in my agreement that without econiches supplying energy, life could not have continued and evolved. But now that you have agreed that 50,000 spider webs, whale fins and weaverbirds’ nests were not stepping stones to humans, we are just left with the question of why your God must have designed every innovation in advance of any need for it. Wouldn’t life and econiches have continued to evolve, with all their comings and goings, if he had given organisms their own means of responding to environmental change instead of him preparing the lucky ones in advance?

8118 views

DAVID: Your probability supposition is only is only an extrapolation of the use of our brain. If we have a brain we logically have independent thinking and the freedom to do as we will. Could God have given us a consciousness with a brain and put a governor on our thoughts? Silly idea!

dhw: I presume you mean our special human brain – otherwise all organisms with a brain have independent thinking and the freedom to do as they will, which has always been quite contrary to your beliefs.

Not true. My dog makes conscious choices all the time: eat, not eat, play, not play, etc.

dhw: But you are missing the point. Once more: If your God was prepared to sacrifice control over human behaviour, it is equally possible that he might have been prepared to sacrifice control over how organisms evolve. Given the history of life as we know it, this theistic hypothesis is just as likely as the hypothesis that “He still remains in full control”. See the next important exchange.

How a brain works and whether it has free will or not is at a consciousness level, not a body adaptation level of evolution. I don't think your stretch from one level to another makes any sense at all.

dhw: Thank you. Yes, I do ask why whales exist if your God’s single purpose was “the creation of humans” (Thursday 29 November). Every organism and econiche is part of the comings-and-goings of life’s history, and this would be true whether your God designed them or not. The only problem here is [I should now change that to “was” – dhw] your insistence that he specially designed whales and webs and weaverbirds as “stepping stones” to the fulfilment of his single purpose - his specially designed humans. But now apparently he didn’t. He specially designed them to be part of life, different econiches and evolution, so that there could be life, different econiches and evolution. Nothing more, and nothing to do with single-purpose humans. We are coming closer together! Who knows, one day you may also concede the possibility that whales, webs, weaverbirds and humans all evolved as a response to changing econiches instead of being specially designed in advance of the changes. But perhaps I'm being over optimistic!

DAVID: Very over optimistic. Econiches supply energy for life so it can evolve. No change in my view.

dhw: No change in my agreement that without econiches supplying energy, life could not have continued and evolved. But now that you have agreed that 50,000 spider webs, whale fins and weaverbirds’ nests were not stepping stones to humans, we are just left with the question of why your God must have designed every innovation in advance of any need for it. Wouldn’t life and econiches have continued to evolve, with all their comings and goings, if he had given organisms their own means of responding to environmental change instead of him preparing the lucky ones in advance?

That is logical if God supplied the necessary engineering design instructions to cover the really insurmountable gaps of the fossil record. Understanding needs of the future are required for design, for example as mammals hopped into the water. You are still hoping that tiny adaptations can somehow bridge the gaps. That is pure unadulterated faith in Darwinism.

8211 views

DAVID: Your probability supposition is only is only an extrapolation of the use of our brain. If we have a brain we logically have independent thinking and the freedom to do as we will. Could God have given us a consciousness with a brain and put a governor on our thoughts? Silly idea!

dhw: I presume you mean our special human brain – otherwise all organisms with a brain have independent thinking and the freedom to do as they will, which has always been quite contrary to your beliefs.

DAVID: Not true. My dog makes conscious choices all the time: eat, not eat, play, not play, etc.

Apologies for my mistake, but now it’s clear. You think every organism with a brain logically has independent thinking and the freedom to do as it wants. (Let’s forget about bacteria for the moment.) Theoretically, that leaves every organism with a brain capable of independently working out its own means of coping with environmental change, if that is what your God wanted them all to do. One up for the autonomy of whales, ants and weaverbirds. (I'll leave out spiders, since their form of "brain" is controversial.)

dhw: Once more: If your God was prepared to sacrifice control over human behaviour, it is equally possible that he might have been prepared to sacrifice control over how organisms evolve. Given the history of life as we know it, this theistic hypothesis is just as likely as the hypothesis that “He still remains in full control”.

DAVID: How a brain works and whether it has free will or not is at a consciousness level, not a body adaptation level of evolution. I don't think your stretch from one level to another makes any sense at all.

Again missing the point of this discussion, which concerns your insistence that God remains in full control. You believe he has chosen NOT to remain in full control of humans. So he is willing not to be in control. Therefore, how do you know he was not also willing to sacrifice control over how evolution proceeded?

dhw: […] now that you have agreed that 50,000 spider webs, whale fins and weaverbirds’ nests were not stepping stones to humans, we are just left with the question of why your God must have designed every innovation in advance of any need for it. Wouldn’t life and econiches have continued to evolve, with all their comings and goings, if he had given organisms their own means of responding to environmental change instead of him preparing the lucky ones in advance?

DAVID: That is logical if God supplied the necessary engineering design instructions to cover the really insurmountable gaps of the fossil record. Understanding needs of the future are required for design, for example as mammals hopped into the water. You are still hoping that tiny adaptations can somehow bridge the gaps. That is pure unadulterated faith in Darwinism.

God giving organisms the design instructions is the exact opposite of my hypothesis. As usual, you insist that innovation requires knowledge of the future, whereas we know that adaptation requires response to the present. Unless you are now going to insist that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single adaptation, there has to be an autonomous mechanism for minor changes. My hypothesis, as you well know, is that the same mechanism may be capable of major changes in RESPONSE to environmental changes. Please stop talking about “hope”, and harping on about Darwin, and tell me why my own unproven hypothesis is less likely than your own unproven hypothesis, in which your God changes pre-whale legs into fins before there is any need for them to enter the water, and removes pre-baleen teeth before filter-feeding becomes a better way of survival than chewing?

8168 views

dhw: I presume you mean our special human brain – otherwise all organisms with a brain have independent thinking and the freedom to do as they will, which has always been quite contrary to your beliefs.

DAVID: Not true. My dog makes conscious choices all the time: eat, not eat, play, not play, etc.

dhw: Apologies for my mistake, but now it’s clear. You think every organism with a brain logically has independent thinking and the freedom to do as it wants. (Let’s forget about bacteria for the moment.) Theoretically, that leaves every organism with a brain capable of independently working out its own means of coping with environmental change, if that is what your God wanted them all to do. One up for the autonomy of whales, ants and weaverbirds. (I'll leave out spiders, since their form of "brain" is controversial.)

I don't believe the human brain arranges for our physical adaptations. Its your flighty wishful thinking hypothesis to escape an external designer at work. The simple purposes my dog exhibits are immediate responses to immediate needs. My dog does not study purpose for the future as required by fossil gaps. A mammal wading in the water does not imagine how a flipper would work instead of legs, or worst of all problems how to give birth underwater and arrange for nursing under water. Talk about future complexities! Yes, those adaptations have to happen, so in your version they simply do.

dhw: Again missing the point of this discussion, which concerns your insistence that God remains in full control. You believe he has chosen NOT to remain in full control of humans. So he is willing not to be in control. Therefore, how do you know he was not also willing to sacrifice control over how evolution proceeded?

Free will is at a neurological level of thought, not at the physical level of phenotypic change.

dhw: […] now that you have agreed that 50,000 spider webs, whale fins and weaverbirds’ nests were not stepping stones to humans, we are just left with the question of why your God must have designed every innovation in advance of any need for it. Wouldn’t life and econiches have continued to evolve, with all their comings and goings, if he had given organisms their own means of responding to environmental change instead of him preparing the lucky ones in advance?

DAVID: That is logical if God supplied the necessary engineering design instructions to cover the really insurmountable gaps of the fossil record. Understanding needs of the future are required for design, for example as mammals hopped into the water. You are still hoping that tiny adaptations can somehow bridge the gaps. That is pure unadulterated faith in Darwinism.

dhw: God giving organisms the design instructions is the exact opposite of my hypothesis. As usual, you insist that innovation requires knowledge of the future, whereas we know that adaptation requires response to the present.

An immediate response to the present is all we see in adaptation, just tiny alterations.Back to pure Darwinism. You are wedded to him at the hip and brain. You never explain how the gaps might occur!

dhw: Unless you are now going to insist that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single adaptation, there has to be an autonomous mechanism for minor changes.

When did I ever leave pre-programming or dabbling? I believe that very minor adaptations are done by all organisms. Darwin's finch beaks come to mind, as a prime example.

dhw: My hypothesis, as you well know, is that the same mechanism may be capable of major changes in RESPONSE to environmental changes. Please stop talking about “hope”, and harping on about Darwin, and tell me why my own unproven hypothesis is less likely than your own unproven hypothesis, in which your God changes pre-whale legs into fins before there is any need for them to enter the water, and removes pre-baleen teeth before filter-feeding becomes a better way of survival than chewing?

Your stonewall mind doesn't recognize the need for future planning to cover the gaps we know exist. Someday you might forget your Darwin inculcation. Your hypothesis is pure Darwin.

8083 views

dhw: You think every organism with a brain logically has independent thinking and the freedom to do as it wants. (Let’s forget about bacteria for the moment.) Theoretically, that leaves every organism with a brain capable of independently working out its own means of coping with environmental change, if that is what your God wanted them all to do. One up for the autonomy of whales, ants and weaverbirds. (I'll leave out spiders, since their form of "brain" is controversial.)

DAVID: I don't believe the human brain arranges for our physical adaptations. Its your flighty wishful thinking hypothesis to escape an external designer at work.

I’m not confining this to human adaptations. My proposal, as you well know, is that it is the intelligent cell communities (including that of the brain) of all organisms that organize all physical adaptations and POSSIBLY innovations. (See below) There is no wishful thinking – I am trying to find a logical explanation for innovations. And my hypothesis allows for an external designer to have created the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: The simple purposes my dog exhibits are immediate responses to immediate needs. My dog does not study purpose for the future as required by fossil gaps. A mammal wading in the water does not imagine how a flipper would work instead of legs, or worst of all problems how to give birth underwater and arrange for nursing under water. Talk about future complexities! Yes, those adaptations have to happen, so in your version they simply do.

No organisms don’t simply adapt, and indeed many fail to do so. In my hypothesis the mammal doesn’t imagine anything, just as I do not consciously direct my heart, liver and lungs to do their job. It is the cell communities of which every organ is made that function independently of my conscious intelligence, and we know that organs can adapt to new conditions. I find it easier to imagine cell communities doing this in response to new demands than I do to imagine a universal mind constantly monitoring every organism in all conditions, prophesying what will happen, and by some process of psychokinesis restructuring the various organs (cell communities) in preparation for every environmental change.

DAVID: Free will is at a neurological level of thought, not at the physical level of phenotypic change.

I am not comparing the two processes. I am pointing out that if your God can allow freedom on one level, there is no reason to suppose that he was not willing to allow freedom on another level.

dhw: As usual, you insist that innovation requires knowledge of the future, whereas we know that adaptation requires response to the present.

DAVID: An immediate response to the present is all we see in adaptation, just tiny alterations. Back to pure Darwinism. You are wedded to him at the hip and brain. You never explain how the gaps might occur!

I keep agreeing that we do not have proof that the process of adaptation can extend so far as to the major changes necessary for speciation, and that is why it remains a hypothesis. The gaps may be due to the fact that over hundreds of millions of years, fossils have not survived or not been found (Darwin’s explanation) or the cell communities are capable of creating major innovations in the process known as saltation (which Darwin rejected). Now please tell me where in Darwin you have found the hypothesis that speciation has taken place through the possibly God-given intelligence of cells that are capable of restructuring themselves to create not only minor but also major adaptations and innovations. And please stick to the arguments and stop dropping Darwin's name as if doing so provided evidence for your hypotheses and against mine.

dhw: Unless you are now going to insist that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single adaptation, there has to be an autonomous mechanism for minor changes.

DAVID: When did I ever leave pre-programming or dabbling? I believe that very minor adaptations are done by all organisms. Darwin's finch beaks come to mind, as a prime example.

You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

DAVID: Your stonewall mind doesn't recognize the need for future planning to cover the gaps we know exist. Someday you might forget your Darwin inculcation. Your hypothesis is pure Darwin.

See above, re Darwin and re my hypothesis. No, I do not recognize the need for your God to change legs into fins before pre-whales enter the water, or adjust pelvises before pre-humans descend from the trees, or jaws before pre-baleens start filter-feeding. I find it more logical that these changes occurred as a result of organisms adapting to new environments.

8082 views

dhw: I’m not confining this to human adaptations. My proposal, as you well know, is that it is the intelligent cell communities (including that of the brain) of all organisms that organize all physical adaptations and POSSIBLY innovations. (See below) There is no wishful thinking – I am trying to find a logical explanation for innovations. And my hypothesis allows for an external designer to have created the intelligent cell in the first place.

And I firmly believe that the simple intelligent responses of cells cannot be extrapolated to grand designs necessary to create newer species.

dhw: No organisms don’t simply adapt, and indeed many fail to do so. In my hypothesis the mammal doesn’t imagine anything, just as I do not consciously direct my heart, liver and lungs to do their job. It is the cell communities of which every organ is made that function independently of my conscious intelligence, and we know that organs can adapt to new conditions. I find it easier to imagine cell communities doing this in response to new demands than I do to imagine a universal mind constantly monitoring every organism in all conditions, prophesying what will happen, and by some process of psychokinesis restructuring the various organs (cell communities) in preparation for every environmental change.

All this statement does is reaffirm your agnosticism, and have replaced God with a blind faith in cellular intelligence to create new designs.

DAVID: Free will is at a neurological level of thought, not at the physical level of phenotypic change.

dhw: I am not comparing the two processes. I am pointing out that if your God can allow freedom on one level, there is no reason to suppose that he was not willing to allow freedom on another level.

It's still apples an oranges. And guesses at what God decides to do.

dhw: As usual, you insist that innovation requires knowledge of the future, whereas we know that adaptation requires response to the present.

DAVID: An immediate response to the present is all we see in adaptation, just tiny alterations. Back to pure Darwinism. You are wedded to him at the hip and brain. You never explain how the gaps might occur!

dhw: I keep agreeing that we do not have proof that the process of adaptation can extend so far as to the major changes necessary for speciation, and that is why it remains a hypothesis. The gaps may be due to the fact that over hundreds of millions of years, fossils have not survived or not been found (Darwin’s explanation) or the cell communities are capable of creating major innovations in the process known as saltation (which Darwin rejected). Now please tell me where in Darwin you have found the hypothesis that speciation has taken place through the possibly God-given intelligence of cells that are capable of restructuring themselves to create not only minor but also major adaptations and innovations. And please stick to the arguments and stop dropping Darwin's name as if doing so provided evidence for your hypotheses and against mine.

You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

dhw: Unless you are now going to insist that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single adaptation, there has to be an autonomous mechanism for minor changes.

DAVID: When did I ever leave pre-programming or dabbling? I believe that very minor adaptations are done by all organisms. Darwin's finch beaks come to mind, as a prime example.

dhw: You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

Adapting to water change can be within the fishes ability to adapt without God helping. We are still at the level of natural adaptability.

DAVID: Your stonewall mind doesn't recognize the need for future planning to cover the gaps we know exist. Someday you might forget your Darwin inculcation. Your hypothesis is pure Darwin.

dhw: See above, re Darwin and re my hypothesis. No, I do not recognize the need for your God to change legs into fins before pre-whales enter the water, or adjust pelvises before pre-humans descend from the trees, or jaws before pre-baleens start filter-feeding. I find it more logical that these changes occurred as a result of organisms adapting to new environments.

Which means you really don't accept the designs you see as requiring a designing mind. For ten years I've presented extraordinary designs, which is what I consider my main contribution here. Designs require planning. Minds plan. Not illogical.

8002 views

dhw: There is no wishful thinking – I am trying to find a logical explanation for innovations. And my hypothesis allows for an external designer to have created the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: And I firmly believe that the simple intelligent responses of cells cannot be extrapolated to grand designs necessary to create newer species.

But please don't tell me that my hypothesis is an "escape" from an external designer. It is an alternative to your firm beliefs, the logic of which you don’t like me to question.

dhw: In my hypothesis the mammal doesn’t imagine anything, just as I do not consciously direct my heart, liver and lungs to do their job. It is the cell communities of which every organ is made that function independently of my conscious intelligence, and we know that organs can adapt to new conditions. I find it easier to imagine cell communities doing this in response to new demands than I do to imagine a universal mind constantly monitoring every organism in all conditions, prophesying what will happen, and by some process of psychokinesis restructuring the various organs (cell communities) in preparation for every environmental change.

DAVID: All this statement does is reaffirm your agnosticism, and have replaced God with a blind faith in cellular intelligence to create new designs.

Once more: God has not been replaced. He remains as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence. I don’t know how often I have to stress that this is a hypothesis and I do not have blind faith in it, but I am surprised that you find your own hypothesis so easy to imagine that you do have blind faith in it.

DAVID: Free will is at a neurological level of thought, not at the physical level of phenotypic change.

dhw: I am not comparing the two processes. I am pointing out that if your God can allow freedom on one level, there is no reason to suppose that he was not willing to allow freedom on another level.

DAVID: It's still apples an oranges. And guesses at what God decides to do.

All our hypotheses are guesses, and you are still missing the point of your God being capable of allowing both freedoms.

DAVID: You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

Yes, I am influenced by those aspects of Darwin’s theory that I find convincing, I agree that small adaptations won’t lead to speciation, but I offer the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which allows for small adaptations might also be capable of major adaptations and innovations. I asked you to tell me where Darwin proposes this hypothesis. If he doesn’t then please stop telling me that my hypothesis is pure Darwinism, and please stop pretending that any mention of Darwin is enough to discredit my arguments!

dhw: You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

DAVID: Adapting to water change can be within the fishes ability to adapt without God helping. We are still at the level of natural adaptability.

Thank you for this straight answer. “Natural adaptability” relies on the cells/cell communities to work out their own way of making changes to themselves. You agree that these changes are not divinely preprogrammed or dabbled but are autonomous responses to new environmental conditions. And yet you discount the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism may, in response to new conditions, be capable of major changes as well as minor, and insist that, for example, legs must be changed to fins before pre-whales enter the water. I don’t ask you to believe my hypothesis, but I’m surprised at your total disbelief.

dhw: No, I do not recognize the need for your God to change legs into fins before pre-whales enter the water, or adjust pelvises before pre-humans descend from the trees, or jaws before pre-baleens start filter-feeding. I find it more logical that these changes occurred as a result of organisms adapting to new environments.

DAVID: Which means you really don't accept the designs you see as requiring a designing mind. For ten years I've presented extraordinary designs, which is what I consider my main contribution here. Designs require planning. Minds plan. Not illogical.

I accept that the extraordinary designs require intelligence and have not come about by chance. I also accept that design is the strongest argument for the existence of your God. However, I do not accept that these designs require planning in advance – as I have made clear in the comment you have responded to. Once more: the (theistic) hypothesis that your God designed the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt autonomously to new conditions encompasses the possibility that the same mechanism is capable of turning legs to fins etc. These changes therefore come about by design and not by chance, but I propose that they come about as responses to new conditions, and not in advance of them. “Not illogical.”

8007 views

DAVID: All this statement does is reaffirm your agnosticism, and have replaced God with a blind faith in cellular intelligence to create new designs.

dhw: Once more: God has not been replaced. He remains as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence. I don’t know how often I have to stress that this is a hypothesis and I do not have blind faith in it, but I am surprised that you find your own hypothesis so easy to imagine that you do have blind faith in it.

I've always agreed with you that God might have given organisms the method of evolving new more advanced forms, but you object to my contention that God won't give up control but will offer that mechanism with guidelines. That makes perfect sense to me as God is the one and only Creator. Your God might allow latitude, mine won't.

DAVID: You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

dhw: Yes, I am influenced by those aspects of Darwin’s theory that I find convincing, I agree that small adaptations won’t lead to speciation, but I offer the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which allows for small adaptations might also be capable of major adaptations and innovations. I asked you to tell me where Darwin proposes this hypothesis. If he doesn’t then please stop telling me that my hypothesis is pure Darwinism, and please stop pretending that any mention of Darwin is enough to discredit my arguments!

Thank you for recognizing the obvious influence. Darwin, using the example of breeding, assumed simple adaptations would lead to covering the gaps in speciation and we would find the fossils to fit that concept. All wrong! Gould had to invent weird concepts like punctuated equilibrium to paper over the problem.

dhw: You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

DAVID: Adapting to water change can be within the fishes ability to adapt without God helping. We are still at the level of natural adaptability.

dhw: Thank you for this straight answer. “Natural adaptability” relies on the cells/cell communities to work out their own way of making changes to themselves. You agree that these changes are not divinely preprogrammed or dabbled but are autonomous responses to new environmental conditions. And yet you discount the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism may, in response to new conditions, be capable of major changes as well as minor, and insist that, for example, legs must be changed to fins before pre-whales enter the water. I don’t ask you to believe my hypothesis, but I’m surprised at your total disbelief.

Total disbelief. The major changes require design and a designer. Only capable minds can design for the future, as in whales. You are starting at the minor adaptation level, no more, and leaping major gaps, like Superman leaping tall buildings.

dhw: No, I do not recognize the need for your God to change legs into fins before pre-whales enter the water, or adjust pelvises before pre-humans descend from the trees, or jaws before pre-baleens start filter-feeding. I find it more logical that these changes occurred as a result of organisms adapting to new environments.

DAVID: Which means you really don't accept the designs you see as requiring a designing mind. For ten years I've presented extraordinary designs, which is what I consider my main contribution here. Designs require planning. Minds plan. Not illogical.

dhw: I accept that the extraordinary designs require intelligence and have not come about by chance. I also accept that design is the strongest argument for the existence of your God. However, I do not accept that these designs require planning in advance – as I have made clear in the comment you have responded to. Once more: the (theistic) hypothesis that your God designed the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt autonomously to new conditions encompasses the possibility that the same mechanism is capable of turning legs to fins etc. These changes therefore come about by design and not by chance, but I propose that they come about as responses to new conditions, and not in advance of them. “Not illogical.”

We are still miles apart.

8037 views

DAVID: All this statement does is reaffirm your agnosticism, and have replaced God with a blind faith in cellular intelligence to create new designs.

dhw: Once more: God has not been replaced. He remains as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence. I don’t know how often I have to stress that this is a hypothesis and I do not have blind faith in it, but I am surprised that you find your own hypothesis so easy to imagine that you do have blind faith in it.

DAVID: I've always agreed with you that God might have given organisms the method of evolving new more advanced forms, but you object to my contention that God won't give up control but will offer that mechanism with guidelines. That makes perfect sense to me as God is the one and only Creator. Your God might allow latitude, mine won't.

I query your insistence that your God controls (or “guides”) every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and that all of them are geared to the production of H. sapiens, although with his total control you don’t know why he chose to faff around with all of them. He can be the one and only Creator and still allow latitude because he WANTS to allow latitude.

DAVID: You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

dhw: Yes, I am influenced by those aspects of Darwin’s theory that I find convincing, I agree that small adaptations won’t lead to speciation, but I offer the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which allows for small adaptations might also be capable of major adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing the obvious influence. Darwin, using the example of breeding, assumed simple adaptations would lead to covering the gaps in speciation and we would find the fossils to fit that concept. All wrong! Gould had to invent weird concepts like punctuated equilibrium to paper over the problem.

Of course I am influenced by Darwin, but he proposed random mutations as the prime cause of innovations, and you still haven’t told me where he proposes cellular intelligence in their place. There is nothing weird about punctuated equilibrium (which contradicts Darwin’s gradualism – another aspect of his theory which I do not accept). Even if your God created every single life form, there are still long periods of stasis and then sudden bursts of activity (though these may cover thousands of years, which is “sudden” in geological time). I don’t recall Darwin discussing your theory that all life forms were specially designed to keep life going for the sake of humans, but I have no doubt that he would have concurred with the statement that all forms of life need food. Once more, the discussion is not about Darwin and me but about your ideas and mine concerning how evolution proceeds.

dhw: You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

DAVID: Adapting to water change can be within the fishes ability to adapt without God helping. We are still at the level of natural adaptability.

dhw: Thank you for this straight answer. “Natural adaptability” relies on the cells/cell communities to work out their own way of making changes to themselves. You agree that these changes are not divinely preprogrammed or dabbled but are autonomous responses to new environmental conditions. And yet you discount the possibility that the same autonomous mechanism may, in response to new conditions, be capable of major changes as well as minor, and insist that, for example, legs must be changed to fins before pre-whales enter the water. I don’t ask you to believe my hypothesis, but I’m surprised at your total disbelief.

DAVID: Total disbelief. The major changes require design and a designer. Only capable minds can design for the future, as in whales. You are starting at the minor adaptation level, no more, and leaping major gaps, like Superman leaping tall buildings.

I keep agreeing that we do not have proof that the mechanism for minor change can extend to major change. That is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis. Now let's look at your hypothesis again: your God created autonomously intelligent cells/cell communities capable of changing their own structures in response to new conditions (minor adaptations), but you insist that 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes to replace legs with fins before they were needed (or he dabbled with each individual pre-whale), and he also preprogrammed pre-baleen loss of teeth, or popped in to do the extractions, and a few million years later popped in again to provide them with baleens. Because otherwise life would not have continued so that he could fulfil his sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, which he could have done directly anyway. I accept your reason for doubting my hypothesis. You don’t know why your God used the method you think he used, but you can't see any reason to doubt your hypotheses.

8006 views

DAVID: I've always agreed with you that God might have given organisms the method of evolving new more advanced forms, but you object to my contention that God won't give up control but will offer that mechanism with guidelines. That makes perfect sense to me as God is the one and only Creator. Your God might allow latitude, mine won't.

dhw: I query your insistence that your God controls (or “guides”) every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and that all of them are geared to the production of H. sapiens, although with his total control you don’t know why he chose to faff around with all of them. He can be the one and only Creator and still allow latitude because he WANTS to allow latitude.

You can theorize about His wants and motives all you want. It doesn't tell us anything of substance. What tells us anything is studying His works. He couldn't feed life without making a huge diversity to form the econiches. It is so obvious.

DAVID: You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing the obvious influence. Darwin, using the example of breeding, assumed simple adaptations would lead to covering the gaps in speciation and we would find the fossils to fit that concept. All wrong! Gould had to invent weird concepts like punctuated equilibrium to paper over the problem.

dhw: Of course I am influenced by Darwin, but he proposed random mutations as the prime cause of innovations, and you still haven’t told me where he proposes cellular intelligence in their place. There is nothing weird about punctuated equilibrium (which contradicts Darwin’s gradualism – another aspect of his theory which I do not accept).... Once more, the discussion is not about Darwin and me but about your ideas and mine concerning how evolution proceeds.

Cellular intelligence is your mantra, not Darwin's. I don't understand your question. 'Punc-inc' is Gould's excuse to cover gaps.

dhw: I don’t ask you to believe my hypothesis, but I’m surprised at your total disbelief.[/i]

DAVID: Total disbelief. The major changes require design and a designer. Only capable minds can design for the future, as in whales. You are starting at the minor adaptation level, no more, and leaping major gaps, like Superman leaping tall buildings.

dhw: I keep agreeing that we do not have proof that the mechanism for minor change can extend to major change. That is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis. Now let's look at your hypothesis again: your God created autonomously intelligent cells/cell communities capable of changing their own structures in response to new conditions (minor adaptations), but you insist that 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes to replace legs with fins before they were needed (or he dabbled with each individual pre-whale), and he also preprogrammed pre-baleen loss of teeth, or popped in to do the extractions, and a few million years later popped in again to provide them with baleens. Because otherwise life would not have continued so that he could fulfil his sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens, which he could have done directly anyway. I accept your reason for doubting my hypothesis. You don’t know why your God used the method you think he used, but you can't see any reason to doubt your hypotheses.

Because I analyze from what I see history and it tells us about what happened. I build on what I think God intended from those facts. We are here. We can think about Him but I am not inside His mind. I see the results of evolution as His intentions in direct relationship. I really don't care about His motives. For my conversion from agnosticism, all I have ever needed is the logical recognition, it can't be done without a designing mind.

8043 views

DAVID: […] you object to my contention that God won't give up control but will offer that mechanism with guidelines. That makes perfect sense to me as God is the one and only Creator. Your God might allow latitude, mine won't.

dhw: I query your insistence that your God controls (or “guides”) every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and that all of them are geared to the production of H. sapiens, although with his total control you don’t know why he chose to faff around with all of them. He can be the one and only Creator and still allow latitude because he WANTS to allow latitude.

DAVID: You can theorize about His wants and motives all you want. It doesn't tell us anything of substance. What tells us anything is studying His works. He couldn't feed life without making a huge diversity to form the econiches. It is so obvious.

You have simply ignored what I have written. You believe that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder that ever existed in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose of producing humans so that he could have a relationship with us. Your conclusion above leaves out the crucial “sole purpose”, and in any case is patently wrong. Life was “fed” when it comprised nothing but single cell life forms. It is indeed blindingly obvious that the huge diversity forms all the different econiches. Nothing whatsoever to do with your anthropocentric theory concerning your God’s wants and motives (a relationship with H. sapiens).

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing the obvious influence. Darwin, using the example of breeding, assumed simple adaptations would lead to covering the gaps in speciation and we would find the fossils to fit that concept. All wrong! Gould had to invent weird concepts like punctuated equilibrium to paper over the problem.

dhw: Of course I am influenced by Darwin, but he proposed random mutations as the prime cause of innovations, and you still haven’t told me where he proposes cellular intelligence in their place. There is nothing weird about punctuated equilibrium (which contradicts Darwin’s gradualism – another aspect of his theory which I do not accept).... Once more, the discussion is not about Darwin and me but about your ideas and mine concerning how evolution proceeds.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your mantra, not Darwin's. I don't understand your question. 'Punc-inc' is Gould's excuse to cover gaps.

You said that my hypothesis was “pure Darwinism”. I don’t recall him ever proposing cellular intelligence as an alternative to random mutations as the mechanism for innovation. Punctuated equilibrium is not an excuse – it is based on observation of life’s history, and runs counter to Darwin’s insistence that nature does not make jumps. Nobody has yet discovered how the jumps take place.

dhw: I accept your reason for doubting my hypothesis. You don’t know why your God used the method you think he used, but you can't see any reason to doubt your hypotheses.

DAVID: Because I analyze from what I see history and it tells us about what happened. I build on what I think God intended from those facts.

And yet you tell us you don’t try to read your God’s mind! Thinking what God intended means trying to read his mind! All of us see the history, and theists, atheists and agnostics all try to understand how it happened. I have put on my theist’s hat and I have pointed out the sheer illogicality of “what you think God intended”, but when I offer you alternative versions of what your God “might have intended” (= his motive), I’m told you don’t care about motives (see below).

DAVID: We are here. [Yes.] We can think about Him but I am not inside His mind. [Nobody is.] I see the results of evolution as His intentions in direct relationship. [Not clear. Do you mean, for instance, you see his special creation of baleens as a means of keeping life going until he could have a direct relationship with specially designed H. sapiens?] I really don't care about His motives. [Then why do you say that his motive was to have a direct relationship with humans?] For my conversion from agnosticism, all I have ever needed is the logical recognition, it can't be done without a designing mind. [That is your reason for theism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that he specially designed every life form etc. to keep life going until he could fulfil his one and only purpose – a relationship with H. sapiens.]

Thank you for the interesting article on the discovery of another new Australopithecus.

DAVID: It suggests God liked diversity in evolving humans, just as He created diversity in the huge bush of life. I suspect the reason for the diversity in life is econiches for food, while I suspect He already knew what H' sapiens would be like when evolution got to that point.

So now you have your God creating millions of life forms and econiches in order to expand the menu, and creating different hominins and homos because he liked diversity, although his sole purpose in producing different econiches and different hominins and homos was to produce H. sapiens so that he could have a relationship with us.

8051 views

DAVID: You can theorize about His wants and motives all you want. It doesn't tell us anything of substance. What tells us anything is studying His works. He couldn't feed life without making a huge diversity to form the econiches. It is so obvious.

dhw: You have simply ignored what I have written. You believe that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder that ever existed in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose of producing humans so that he could have a relationship with us. Your conclusion above leaves out the crucial “sole purpose”, and in any case is patently wrong. Life was “fed” when it comprised nothing but single cell life forms. It is indeed blindingly obvious that the huge diversity forms all the different econiches. Nothing whatsoever to do with your anthropocentric theory concerning your God’s wants and motives (a relationship with H. sapiens).

Again ignoring the need for energy . Larger more complex forms need more energy while evolution evolves to create humans. All answered elsewhere. What you ahve wsritten makes n o sense to me and perhaps many others.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your mantra, not Darwin's. I don't understand your question. 'Punc-inc' is Gould's excuse to cover gaps.

dhw: You said that my hypothesis was “pure Darwinism”. I don’t recall him ever proposing cellular intelligence as an alternative to random mutations as the mechanism for innovation. Punctuated equilibrium is not an excuse – it is based on observation of life’s history, and runs counter to Darwin’s insistence that nature does not make jumps. Nobody has yet discovered how the jumps take place.

Darwin tried to get rid of God. Your cell intellect proposal is of the same order. Don't fully get rid of God but reduce His apparent controls.

DAVID: Because I analyze from what I see history and it tells us about what happened. I build on what I think God intended from those facts.

dhw: And yet you tell us you don’t try to read your God’s mind! Thinking what God intended means trying to read his mind! All of us see the history, and theists, atheists and agnostics all try to understand how it happened. I have put on my theist’s hat and I have pointed out the sheer illogicality of “what you think God intended”, but when I offer you alternative versions of what your God “might have intended” (= his motive), I’m told you don’t care about motives (see below).

I cannot read/enter His mind, nor can anyone else. I can guess at intentions based on the results I see.

dhw: Thank you for the interesting article on the discovery of another new Australopithecus.

DAVID: It suggests God liked diversity in evolving humans, just as He created diversity in the huge bush of life. I suspect the reason for the diversity in life is econiches for food, while I suspect He already knew what H' sapiens would be like when evolution got to that point.

dhw: So now you have your God creating millions of life forms and econiches in order to expand the menu, and creating different hominins and homos because he liked diversity, although his sole purpose in producing different econiches and different hominins and homos was to produce H. sapiens so that he could have a relationship with us.

I can only look at what fossils are found and what they tell us about God's possible intentions. Human existence, based on survivability, is not a reasonable view. We are too complex for that approach (Darwin)

8020 views

This thread, “whale teeth and baleens” and “strange DNA finding” are now overlapping to such a degree that we need to combine them. I should have thought of that before embarking on all this repetition, but I don’t have time to do the editing now. My apologies.

DAVID: You can theorize about His wants and motives all you want. It doesn't tell us anything of substance. What tells us anything is studying His works. He couldn't feed life without making a huge diversity to form the econiches. It is so obvious.

dhw: You have simply ignored what I have written. You believe that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder that ever existed in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose of producing humans so that he could have a relationship with us. Your conclusion above leaves out the crucial “sole purpose”, and in any case is patently wrong. Life was “fed” when it comprised nothing but single cell life forms. It is indeed blindingly obvious that the huge diversity forms all the different econiches. Nothing whatsoever to do with your anthropocentric theory concerning your God’s wants and motives (a relationship with H. sapiens).

DAVID: Again ignoring the need for energy . Larger more complex forms need more energy while evolution evolves to create humans. All answered elsewhere. What you have written makes no sense to me and perhaps many others.

All life forms require energy, and larger more complex forms require more energy, and evolution evolved to create trilobites and dinosaurs and spiders and whales and the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus and us, all of which has taken time. All blindingly obvious and – as in the passage you have quoted but ignored – it has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s wants and motives and methods.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your mantra, not Darwin's. I don't understand your question. 'Punc-inc' is Gould's excuse to cover gaps.

dhw: You said that my hypothesis was “pure Darwinism”. I don’t recall him ever proposing cellular intelligence as an alternative to random mutations as the mechanism for innovation. Punctuated equilibrium is not an excuse – it is based on observation of life’s history, and runs counter to Darwin’s insistence that nature does not make jumps. Nobody has yet discovered how the jumps take place.

DAVID: Darwin tried to get rid of God. Your cell intellect proposal is of the same order. Don't fully get rid of God but reduce His apparent controls.

My hypothesis is not “pure Darwinism” – he never even mentions cellular intelligence. He himself was an agnostic, explicitly stated that his theory was NOT meant to get rid of God, and even inserted references to the Creator in later editions of Origin. With my theist hat on, I have suggested that your God may have deliberately sacrificed control over evolution (see my answer on the baleen thread), in the same way and for the same reason as he deliberately sacrificed control over human behaviour.

DAVID: Because I analyze from what I see history and it tells us about what happened. I build on what I think God intended from those facts.

dhw: And yet you tell us you don’t try to read your God’s mind! Thinking what God intended means trying to read his mind! All of us see the history, and theists, atheists and agnostics all try to understand how it happened. I have put on my theist’s hat and I have pointed out the sheer illogicality of “what you think God intended”, but when I offer you alternative versions of what your God “might have intended” (= his motive), I’m told you don’t care about motives.

DAVID: I cannot read/enter His mind, nor can anyone else. I can guess at intentions based on the results I see.

So if it’s OK for you to guess, and insist that your guesses are right even though you can’t explain how the method fits the intention, why do you criticize me for guessing at his intentions in a manner which does link up logically with the results we see?

dhw: Thank you for the interesting article on the discovery of another new Australopithecus.

DAVID: It suggests God liked diversity in evolving humans, just as He created diversity in the huge bush of life. I suspect the reason for the diversity in life is econiches for food, while I suspect He already knew what H' sapiens would be like when evolution got to that point.

dhw: So now you have your God creating millions of life forms and econiches in order to expand the menu, and creating different hominins and homos because he liked diversity, although his sole purpose in producing different econiches and different hominins and homos was to produce H. sapiens so that he could have a relationship with us.

DAVID: I can only look at what fossils are found and what they tell us about God's possible intentions. Human existence, based on survivability, is not a reasonable view. We are too complex for that approach (Darwin).

You are not talking to Darwin, you are talking to me, and I did not mention survivability. I was simply pointing out yet again the dichotomy in your thinking.

8043 views

DAVID: Again ignoring the need for energy . Larger more complex forms need more energy while evolution evolves to create humans. All answered elsewhere. What you have written makes no sense to me and perhaps many others.

dhw: All life forms require energy, and larger more complex forms require more energy, and evolution evolved to create trilobites and dinosaurs and spiders and whales and the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus and us, all of which has taken time. All blindingly obvious and – as in the passage you have quoted but ignored – it has nothing to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s wants and motives and methods.

Repeat: I accept God's methods as exhibited.

DAVID: I cannot read/enter His mind, nor can anyone else. I can guess at intentions based on the results I see.

dhw: So if it’s OK for you to guess, and insist that your guesses are right even though you can’t explain how the method fits the intention, why do you criticize me for guessing at his intentions in a manner which does link up logically with the results we see?

I think my God stays in control. Giving up speciation control as you propose may take evolution's course off the path to humans.

DAVID: I can only look at what fossils are found and what they tell us about God's possible intentions. Human existence, based on survivability, is not a reasonable view. We are too complex for that approach (Darwin).

dhw: You are not talking to Darwin, you are talking to me, and I did not mention survivability. I was simply pointing out yet again the dichotomy in your thinking.

You are very influenced by Darwin and don't seem to recognize it.

8017 views

A new study from twins different cultures:

https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/identical-twins-raised-in-different-countries/?utm_sour...

"About 45 years later, the identical twins reunited after the American sister submitted a DNA sample as part of South Korea’s program for locating lost family members. Their story is now the focus of an intriguing scientific case study. As identical twins, the sisters share the same genes. So, how similar would they be given their remarkably different upbringings?

"Despite growing up in vastly different cultures and households, the identical twins shared very similar personalities, the researchers found. Both are hard workers, job-oriented, well-organized, enjoy playing sports, and strive for achievements. The Korean sister “was raised in a more supportive and cohesive family atmosphere where personal growth was encouraged. In contrast, the [American sister] was raised in a stricter, more religiously-oriented environment with higher levels of family conflict,” the researchers described.

"In line with the differences in American and Korean cultures, the American sister expressed “the self as autonomous and believes that all members of a collective are of equal status,” while the Korean sister “perceives the self as a part of a collective, and accepts hierarchy and inequality within that collective.”

"Consistent with their shared genetics, the identical twins were of a similar height and weight and both have diabetes. Both also had to undergo surgeries in their teen years to remove tumors from their ovaries.

"The sharpest difference between the twins was in intelligence. The Korean sister outscored the American sister by 16 points on an IQ test. What explains this difference? While environment is one potential explanation, the study didn’t show that it necessarily was the cause. After all, partially explaining the variance is the fact that the American sister suffered three concussions as an adult, the most recent in 2018, which resulted in emotional changes and slight cognitive impairment.

***

"Identical twins raised apart have actually been studied before, though it’s rare to find them raised in different countries. Published in 1990, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart examined over 100 sets of twins from around the world that were separated very early in life, reared apart during their formative years, and reunited in adulthood. The researchers behind the massive effort found that an identical twin raised apart from their sibling had “about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin.”

“'This finding leads us to believe that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment,” they concluded.

"The most amazing example of twin similarity from the study was the “Jim twins.” Separated at four weeks of age, each were named James by their adoptive parents. After finding each other at age 39, the identical twins learned that they each enjoyed carpentry, mechanical drawing, and block lettering, did poorly in spelling and well in math, and had law-enforcement training, among many other eerie similarities."

Comment: just an addition to our discussion about personality development

3379 views

A review of fossil evidence and possible migrations:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwzsqMPVQnvJRVqcqVggDNQjx

"...eastern Asia was home to the Denisovans, while the island of Flores had the hobbits (Homo floresiensis) and the Philippines had Homo luzonensis. It’s often hypothesised, or even assumed, that H. erectus was the ancestor of all these populations, but we don’t have DNA from H. erectus so we don’t actually know.

"And then along came modern humans (Homo sapiens). Our species seems to have expanded from Africa in multiple waves: H. sapiens remains are known from Israel from 177,000 years ago and 120,000 years ago, but genetic evidence suggests most non-Africans today are descended from a migration out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. Other hominin groups vanish from the fossil record not long after.

"In other words, there were two main waves of migration from Africa to Asia. The first was Homo erectus, which then gave rise to a bunch of other groups. The second was Homo sapiens, which replaced all of them.

"Seems simple enough, right? The thing is, there’s a bunch of fossils from southern Asia that don’t neatly fit, and nobody is quite sure what to make of them.

"One of the studies from the aforementioned special issue describes a lower jawbone from Hualongdong, a cave in eastern China...we have pronounced chins and the Hualongdong jawbone doesn’t, and on other measures it looks like an older species. The overall mix of features is unique.

"The jawbone is about 300,000 years old. That’s a curious bit of timing, because it’s about when the oldest known Homo sapiens were living in what’s now Morocco, in northern Africa.

***

"if the Hualongdong jawbone really does belong to the same population as the Moroccan Homo sapiens, it would mean hominins made the journey from northern Africa to eastern China within a few tens of thousands of years. That’s surely possible but I would want to see evidence.

"An alternative explanation is that the Hualongdong jawbone is a case of convergent evolution: that is, the same features evolved independently in certain east Asian and African populations.

***

"There are lots of other hominin fossils from eastern Asia that are similarly odd. The Dali cranium from China is 260,000 years old and has also been (controversially) interpreted as early Homo sapiens. Other specimens don’t quite fit H. erectus or H. sapiens: some have old-looking shapes but lived recently, others look recent but are actually ancient. And we haven’t even got to the stone tool record, or instances of prehistoric art.

***

"The genetic evidence is unambiguous that our species hails from Africa: that conclusion was true in the 1990s and it’s only been strengthened by the swathes of genomic data we’ve obtained since. But that doesn’t mean the traffic was one way. Overall, yes, we come from Africa. But I’m now convinced there was a lot of back and forth.

***

"...maybe some of the features we now associate with Homo sapiens first evolved in southern Asia and were then carried into Africa by a westward migration – before being carried right back out of Africa and all around the world when our species went global. This would explain the Hualongdong and Dali remains, without contradicting the genetics.

***

"If there’s one simple thing we can draw out of all this, it may be that prehistoric populations were more connected than we imagine. We tend to think of prehistoric people living in isolated tribes, each with its own patch of land. But that isolation is partly a reflection of how hunter-gatherers live today, when agriculture has forced them to the fringes of society.

"In earlier times, the hunter-gatherer network spanned continents. I don’t mean that people living in modern Tanzania were personally acquainted with those living in what’s now Laos – clearly, they weren’t. But there was a long chain of communities linking them

***

"If that’s true, then once upon a time a new and advantageous gene variant could spread rapidly across thousands of kilometres, as people moved and intermarried. In other words, prehistory may have been globalised.

Comment: The conclusion is 315,000-year-old H. sapiens had an enormous wanderlust or was the result of convergent evolution. Or it shows God wanted to be sure His goal was met.

1625 views

Their advanced lifestyle included making fire and cooking:

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-neanderthal-cuisine-excavations-reveal-neanderthals.html

"The fact that Neanderthals were able to make a fire and use it, among other things, for cooking, demonstrates their intelligence. "This confirms our observations and theories from previous studies," explains Diego Angelucci, archaeologist at the University of Trento and co-author of the study.

"'Neanderthals were capable of symbolic thought, could create artistic objects, knew how to decorate their bodies using personal ornaments and had an extremely varied diet. Add to that that, based on our findings, we can say with certainty that they habitually ate cooked food. This ability confirms that they were as skilled as the Homo sapiens who lived millennia later."

***

"In this study we demonstrate that there is no doubt that Neanderthals could make a fire and that fire was a central element in their daily life."

***

"The cave is part of the Almonda karst system, a vast network of caves placed at different elevations above a large spring that have been inhabited in different periods during Prehistory. The oldest layers of the Gruta de Oliveira, which includes a number of passages, date back to about 120,000 years ago, the most recent to about 40,000: It is believed that Neanderthals inhabited this place between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago.

***

"In this case however, what caught the attention of archaeologists were the traces of hearths intentionally built and used in the cave. The archaeologists found about a dozen hearths at various stratigraphic levels in an excavation area of about 30 square meters and six meters deep. The unmistakable basin-like, circular structures were filled with remains.

"Findings from inside and near the hearths demonstrate that the inhabitants of the caves used to cook their food. "We found burnt bones, burnt wood and ash remains. And the rock underneath—continues Angelucci—has been reddened by the heat: This is a crucial detail because it tells us that the structure is in a primary position. And it has always been there. Fire is a fundamental element in their daily lives. It makes the place comfortable and helps socialization. It gives back that basic idea of 'home' that perhaps could also apply to them."

***

"What did Neanderthals eat? "We were able to find out what they ate and even the cooking techniques they used. We found the remains and burnt bones of cooked goats, deer, horses, aurochs (extinct bulls), rhinos, turtles, which were probably laid on their carapace and stewed on hot stones.'"

"'Meat was on the menu in this inland cave, but in other excavations in caves overlooking the western Mediterranean Sea near Cartagena (Spain), remains of fish, mussels and mollusks, even roasted pine nuts, were found. We had already demonstrated in 2020 in another paper that appeared in Science that Neanderthals had a varied diet, but the Portuguese excavations have further confirmed that they used fire to cook food."

"Despite the excavations, the archaeologists were not able to determine how the Neanderthals started a fire."

Comment: this certainly rehabilitates the Neanderthal story to show they were quite advanced.

1562 views

So many repeats:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-lobby-where-a-molecule-mob-tells-genes-what-to-do-2024...

"the human genome is rich in regulatory connections. Our genes interact in a dense network, in which pieces of DNA and the molecules they encode (RNA and proteins) control the “expression” of other genes, influencing whether they make their respective RNA and proteins. To understand the human genome, we needed to understand this process of gene regulation.

***

"gene regulation... involves a gang of molecules, including proteins, RNAs and pieces of DNA from throughout a chromosome, that somehow collaborate to control the expression of a gene.

***

"have uncovered a component of this fuzzy mode of gene regulation. Their work, published last September in Science, suggests that the DNA near a gene acts as a kind of shallow well for trapping diverse regulatory molecules, keeping them ready for action so that, when needed, they can add their voice to the decision about whether to activate the gene.

"These regulatory wells are made from decidedly odd stretches of DNA. They consist of sequences in which a short stretch of DNA, from one to six base pairs long, repeats many times over. Tens of copies of these “short tandem repeats” (STRs) can be strung together in these sequences, like the same little “word” written again and again. (my bold)

"STRs are abundant in the human genome: They comprise about 5% of all our DNA. They were once thought to be classic examples of “junk” DNA because a repetitive DNA “text” made up only of STRs can’t hold nearly as much meaningful information as, say, the irregular sequence of letters that make up a sentence in this article.

***

"In humans and other eukaryotes, the regulatory sequences can be more numerous, various — and perplexing. Regions called enhancers, for example, affect the probability that a gene will be transcribed. Enhancers are often the targets for proteins called transcription factors, which can bind to boost or inhibit gene expression. Weirdly, some enhancers are tens of thousands of base pairs away from the genes they regulate, and are only brought close to them through the physical rearrangement of the loops of DNA in a packed chromosome.

***

“Traditionally in genomics, the goal has been to classify genomic sites in a [binary] way as either ‘bound’ or ‘unbound’” by transcription factors, Fordyce said. “But the picture is way more nuanced than that.” The individual members of those gene regulatory “committees” don’t seem to be invariably present for or absent from their meetings, but rather have different probabilities of being there or not.

"The tendency of gene regulation in eukaryotes to rely on so many diverse weak interactions among large molecular complexes “is one of the things that makes it notoriously difficult to get a handle on theoretically,” said the biophysicist Thomas Kuhlman ... It’s a profound puzzle how, out of this seemingly chaotic process, precise decisions about turning genes on and off emerge.

***

"Molecules generally move around the cell by diffusion, buffeted by all the other surrounding molecules, such as water, and wandering in random directions. We might expect these loose committees to drift apart too quickly to do their regulatory job.

"That, Fordyce and her colleagues think, is where the STRs come in. STRs are strikingly common within enhancer sites on DNA. In their paper, the researchers argue that the STRs act as sticky patches that convene transcription factors and stop them from straying.

***

"The Stanford team found that different STR sequences can alter the binding affinities of transcription factors to DNA by as much as a factor of 70; they sometimes have more impact on transcription factor binding than changing the sequence of the binding motif itself. And the effects were different for the two different transcription factors they looked at.

So STRs seem able to fine-tune the ability of transcription factors to dock at a DNA site and thus to regulate a gene. But how, exactly?

***

“'There are now multiple examples that support the idea that DNA elements can crowd transcription factors to the point where they form condensates with cofactors,” said Richard Young, a cell biologist ... Enhancers bind many transcription factors to produce that crowding. STRs may be an ingredient that helps muster transcription factors to cluster near a gene, but they won’t be the whole story.

"Why regulate genes in this complicated manner, rather than relying on the kind of strong and specific interactions between regulatory proteins and DNA sites that dominate in prokaryotes? It’s possible that such fuzziness is what made large complex metazoans possible at all.

***

"To Fordyce, it suggests that STRs “may therefore serve as the raw material for evolving new regulatory elements and fine-tuning existing regulatory modules for sensitive transcriptional programs,” such as those governing the development of animals and plants.

***

***

“The gene regulatory systems in bacteria and eukaryotes do seem to have diverged quite substantially,” Tjian agreed."

Comment: human gene fuzziness gives many more results the rigidity of bacterial DNA controls.

1050 views

The latest ENCODE work:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-wiring-human-genome.html#google_vignette

"Understanding the non-coding portion of our DNA is critical for understanding the genetic components of disease, says Steven Reilly, an assistant professor of genetics at Yale School of Medicine who co-led the study.

"'When we find mutations in DNA that are associated with some trait or disease, they're often in these non-coding regions," said Reilly. "Being able to understand which genes these mutations impact is really critical."

"For the study, Reilly and his colleagues set out to understand how non-coding regions of DNA known as "enhancers" and "promoters" are linked to genes. Promoters are bits of DNA just upstream of genes that control whether the genes are transcribed into mRNA, which will eventually be turned into protein. Molecules that activate genes bind to promoters to initiate the process.

"Enhancers are regions of DNA that act as additional control elements for promoters, instructing them where and when to turn on. However, they can be quite far away from the genes they control, making it hard to predict which genes a mutation in an enhancer might impact.

"Essentially, these genetic regulators help turn genes on and off.

"The research effort is part of a 20-year-long project known as the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, Consortium.

***

"'The good news was that the only things that seemed to do anything were the things we'd already mapped out as enhancers or promoters," said Reilly. "So there weren't some secret light switches we hadn't known about. That confirms that when we're looking at a DNA variation that might impact disease, the enhancers and promoter maps we have are the places to look."

"In a more surprising finding, the researchers discovered that individual enhancers could affect multiple genes. It was as if one light switch turned on several lights.

"'We originally had tended to think that one enhancer was affecting one gene, but we found it was really common for one enhancer to impact many genes," said Reilly. "That says that if you have a mutation in an enhancer that's associated with a disease, you might need to be looking for several impacted genes, not just one."

***

"'Depending on which strand you target, you will get different results of how big of an effect the CRISPR-mediated DNA repression has on genes," said Reilly. "Knowing these differences will allow researchers to design the right analysis methods."

This particular finding wouldn't have been possible without the large collaborative effort of this work, he added.

***

"The ENCODE Consortium, which was launched in 2003, is coming to an end with many of its main goals achieved. Going forward, Reilly aims to use the best practices that have come out of this work to do these types of analyses in more complicated systems. One goal is to better understand how many genes are involved in the development of disease or in conferring observable traits like height.

"'We have a good sense of what DNA variants exist, but we don't have a good sense of how those variants affect genes," said Reilly. "This study gives us a roadmap to do those experiments better.'"

Comment: 21 years of work are coming to a very fruitful close. Our gene total may by relatively small but the 3-D relationships, the complexities of teamed genes, and the work of promoters and enhancers all create a very powerful control system.

977 views

The article points to the bias that since we are here and they are not, e ere allays better:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46988399

"By implication, if modern humans were in south-western Iberia so early then they must have caused the early disappearance of the Neanderthals. It is a restatement of the idea that modern human superiority was the cause of the Neanderthal demise. Are these ideas tenable in the light of mounting genetic evidence that our ancestors interbred with the Neanderthals?

***

"Neanderthals are generally considered to have been a distinct human species (Homo neanderthalensis) that once inhabited a region stretching from Siberia in the east to Iberia in the west, and from Britain in the north to Iraq in the south. They first appear around 450,000 years ago and then die out as our own species starts to settle in Eurasia, after 60,000 years ago. Not everyone agrees that they were separate species.

***

"The important question of course, and one which genetics is unlikely to resolve, is to what degree these differences between Neanderthals and ourselves actually had an effect and impact on the ground. In recent years, we have seen how differences in anatomy seem not to have mattered.

"These physical differences may have been part of a wider phenotypic diversity within the human population, which included the Neanderthals, and may simply reflect contextual differences in ecology. Anatomy could have constrained some behaviours. For example, the bulky Neanderthals may not have been as suited as our long-distance running ancestors to chasing herds across the mammoth steppe.

"On the other hand, they were probably better than them at ambush hunting large animals at close quarters from cover. In the Pleistocene world of rapidly changing ecological scenarios luck had everything to do with success or failure. It was all about being in the right place at the right time, something that natural selection - with its restriction of acting in the present on templates from the past - could not respond to fast enough.

"And so we have consistently mistaken survival and extinction with biological superiority or inferiority. That is why we have incessantly sought differences to explain our observations. We are here and they are not and so we must seek differences to explain the data. (my bold)

"Of course, part of the problem is that we are participants trying to explain a story in which we are actors and that will inevitably lead to bias in our favour. Having given the Neanderthals a name, we immediately conditioned ourselves to seeing them as something else.
They were not us. They were hardly human and we were certainly superior to them. After all, we are here to tell the story. It is one of history's ultimate distortions, perhaps the greatest of them all.

"The footnote is that we have to change the chip, the paradigm if you prefer. There is still an insistence on proving that our ancestors took over the planet from all those who had been here before, Neanderthals included. We replaced all and sundry.

"The evidence of replacement anywhere is, being generous, slim. We have mapped out this replacement, in Europe at least, using the flimsy connection between human type and stone tool technology. Stone tools have been used as proxy for expanding populations of humans and declining ones of other humans.

***

"Denigrating the Neanderthals has been part of that process of exalting our own. In a recent BBC television documentary I was asked if I would like to meet a Neanderthal today.

"My immediate response was to say yes, but I hesitated and changed my mind. If our history is anything to go by, what would we do if we found a remotely isolated group of Neanderthals somewhere on Earth today? I leave it to the reader to answer that question."

Comment: Excellent discussion of the place Neanderthals should have in our thinking. Note my bold. Survival does not indicate natural superiority. We still do not know all the reasons for survival and therefore for evolution to newer 'better' forms. Evolution is not driven by a need for survival. On the other hand it is obvious there is a drive for evolution to proceed.

7839 views

Note the recent post that sapiens are endurance runners but recent genetic research shows that Neanderthals were most likely sprinters:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2192192-neanderthals-may-have-been-sprinters-not-e...

"We may have to rewrite what we know about Neanderthals — they were sprinters rather than long distance joggers, and occupied forests, not bleak tundra-like wasteland.

"Evidence had suggested they were adapted to the cold, harsh conditions of the last ice age and Neanderthal fossil remains have often been associated with ice age mammals such as mammoths, woolly rhinos, horses and reindeer.

"However, a new analysis suggests a different view. “A closer look at the layers in which their fossils are found suggest Neanderthals actually lived at the same times and places as animals that are associated with warmer, woodland ecologies,” says John Stewart at the University of Bournemouth, who led the study.

"In such an environment, hunting in short bursts would be more favoured, says Stewart, “more power sprint than endurance jog.”

"This conclusion was also backed up by a genetic analysis that found a high proportion of gene variants linked to power sports performance in modern-day athletes in the Neanderthal genetic code."

“'We found that the majority of these power-associated genetic variants were typically more common in Neanderthals than in humans today, who are known to be more endurance-adapted, reflecting their generally more slender builds,” says Yoan Diekmann, a member of the team at University College London."

Comment: with their bulkier bodies it makes sense.

7739 views

Neanderthals keep improving in all categories, changing the original expectations:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2195857-rabbit-bones-suggest-neanderthals-were-bet...

"Neanderthals were better hunters than we thought. Fossils suggest they were hunting rabbits in Western Europe thousands of years ago.

"Eugene Morin at Trent University in Canada and colleagues examined fossilised rabbit remains from eight sites in the north-western Mediterranean region. They found evidence of burning, which was probably from cooking, as well as cut marks on the meat-bearing bones.

"Neanderthals were the most likely rabbit hunters at the majority of the sites. “It changes the perspective on Neanderthals,” says Morin. “Before that, most researchers would have said that Neanderthals were exclusively large game hunters.”

***

"Food shortages probably drove Neanderthals to broaden their diet, although finding archaeological evidence of their hunting techniques is challenging.

"The tip of a projectile point in a bone can shed light on some hunting methods, but the string and roots used to snare and trap animals don’t preserve well.

"There were very few infant rabbit bones at the sites, which may suggest that the inhabitants weren’t flushing rabbits out of their warrens, and instead hunting them individually.

"While larger animals such as bison probably still made up the bulk of the Neanderthals’ diet, the finding shows that their diets weren’t uniform and they adapted to different environments across different regions of Europe, says Morin."

Comment: Not surprising

7639 views

A well reasoned article:

https://www.livescience.com/evolution-says-humans-only-intelligent-life.html?utm_source...

"Are we alone in the universe? It comes down to whether intelligence is a probable outcome of natural selection, or an improbable fluke. By definition, probable events occur frequently, improbable events occur rarely — or once. Our evolutionary history shows that many key adaptations — not just intelligence, but complex animals, complex cells, photosynthesis, and life itself — were unique, one-off events, and therefore highly improbable. Our evolution may have been like winning the lottery … only far less likely.

***

" All convergence happened within one lineage, the Eumetazoa. Eumetazoans are complex animals with symmetry, mouths, guts, muscles, a nervous system. Different eumetazoans evolved similar solutions to similar problems, but the complex body plan that made it all possible is unique. Complex animals evolved once in life's history, suggesting they're improbable.
(my bold)

***

"There are places where evolution repeats, and places where it doesn't. If we only look for convergence, it creates confirmation bias. Convergence seems to be the rule, and our evolution looks probable. But when you look for non-convergence, it's everywhere, and critical, complex adaptations seem to be the least repeatable, and therefore improbable.

***

"All organisms come from a single ancestor; as far as we can tell, life only happened once.

***

"These one-off innovations, critical flukes, may create a chain of evolutionary bottlenecks or filters. If so, our evolution wasn't like winning the lottery. It was like winning the lottery again, and again, and again. On other worlds, these critical adaptations might have evolved too late for intelligence to emerge before their suns went nova, or not at all.

"Imagine that intelligence depends on a chain of seven unlikely innovations — the origin of life, photosynthesis, complex cells, sex, complex animals, skeletons and intelligence itself — each with a 10% chance of evolving. The odds of evolving intelligence become one in 10 million.

"But complex adaptations might be even less likely. Photosynthesis required a series of adaptations in proteins, pigments and membranes. Eumetazoan animals required multiple anatomical innovations (nerves, muscles, mouths and so on). So maybe each of these seven key innovations evolve just 1% of the time. If so, intelligence will evolve on just 1 in 100 trillion habitable worlds. If habitable worlds are rare, then we might be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or even the visible universe.

"And yet, we're here. That must count for something, right? If evolution gets lucky one in 100 trillion times, what are the odds we happen to be on a planet where it happened? Actually, the odds of being on that improbable world are 100%, because we couldn't have this conversation on a world where photosynthesis, complex cells, or animals didn't evolve. That's the anthropic principle: Earth's history must have allowed intelligent life to evolve, or we wouldn't be here to ponder it.

"Intelligence seems to depend on a chain of improbable events. But given the vast number of planets, then like an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters to write Hamlet, it's bound to evolve somewhere. The improbable result was us."

Comment: And add to that our human form of consciousness, the most improbable result of all,
Adler's key point. Against all odds, especially if the result of natural materialism. Note the one complex invention which is the source of our bush of life is from the Cambrian Explosion, with no precursors! See my bold above.

6960 views

Article from a climate scientist who is skeptical:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/18/why-i-am-a-climate-realist/

I pursued my graduate studies at one of the world’s leading universities for climate studies, the University of East Anglia in the UK. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) there is responsible—along with the Hadley Centre—for developing global temperature datasets, known as HadCRUT datasets.

***

I understood that the University’s email system had been breached, and email content scientists from the CRU leaked to the public. The event is infamously known as “Climategate.”

It took me a few more years before I completely understood the implications of that email leak. Email exchanges between scientists from the CRU and other universities revealed a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the present warming and make it appear unprecedented.

Ross McKitrick in “Understanding the Climategate Inquiries” showed how the evidence proves that “The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and WMO [World Meteorological Organization] reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers.”

***

The Climategate episode certainly made me question whether the global warming was as dangerous as it is made up to be.

The answer to my question trickled in slowly over a number of years. Evidence began to emerge that scientists acknowledged a large gap between the actual observed real-world temperature datasets (from satellites) and those temperature predictions from computer climate models.

While these differences may not prove the allegations against the Climategate scientists, they do confirm us about one thing: the computer climate models exaggerate the future warming rate due to their high sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the models continue to show an excessive and unreal warming rate for future decades.

Despite plenty of evidence, the IPCC continues to use these faulty model predictions to inform the public and policymakers about future changes in temperature.

A steady stream of scientific studies has documented the evidence for lack of dangerous warming—IPCC’s level of warming based on fifth- and sixth-generation (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models and the apparent absence of climate-induced ecological collapse.

In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.

***

In simple words, Gore misled the world and promoted falsehood as science, and he continues to do so while profiting from a renewable industry that is sold as the cure for global warming. Yet, he himself generates carbon dioxide emissions and many times higher than an average family’s.

So, not only are the predictions of models are wrong, but also the interpretations of climate data and the propaganda of a climate doomsday were also wrong.

***

So, I am a climate realist. I acknowledge that there has been a gradual increase in global average temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. I acknowledge that climate change can happen in both ways—warming and cooling. I do understand that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases could have positively contributed to the warming from mid-20th century onwards.

I also acknowledge that warming and the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that has contributed to it have actually helped society. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, nearly 50 percent higher than in the 17th century, and the warming—which has occurred chiefly in winter, in higher latitudes and altitudes, and at night, thus raising cold temperatures but with little effect on hot temperatures—have actually resulted in optimal conditions for global plant growth, thus aiding in the flourishing of the agricultural sector.

***

The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

Be a climate realist.

Comment: I am a twin with this guy. A knew all the material presented long ago.

5360 views

There have been too many disasters:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/02/17/the_renewable_energy_disaster_far_more...

"Decades ago, a single energy disaster left three million acres of land uninhabitable to humans and killed between 85,600 and 240,000 people. A casual student of history might assume these shocking statistics refer to the Chernobyl nuclear accident, but that would be incorrect. No, this catastrophic specter was the fault of the Banqiao Dam collapse in Henan, China. By comparison, Chernobyl killed fifteen times fewer people and desolated an area of land one-sixth as large.

"Though sharply different in magnitude, the Banqiao and Chernobyl disasters occurred under similar circumstances. Constructed by the Chinese Communist party during the Great Leap Forward, with guidance from the Soviet Union, the dam was poorly designed and hastily constructed – just like the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Moreover, party officials wanted it to retain as much water as possible because it would be "more revolutionary." Hydrologist Chen Xing, Chief Engineer of dam projects, warned against that superficial goal and advocated for additional safety features. He was overruled and later reassigned.

"Chen Xing's warnings proved prescient in early August 1975 when Typhoon Nina battered Banqiao and dumped a meter of water in three days. The dam didn't stand a chance.

***

"Six hundred million cubic meters of water would eventually pour through the remains of the ruptured dam, forming a wall of water six meters high and twelve kilometers wide moving up to fifty kilometers per hour. The towering deluge eventually collapsed 62 more dams, flooded thirty cities, and destroyed 6.8 million houses. Thousands of people drowned. Far more would eventually die of starvation and disease. The Chinese Communist Party silenced all public accounts of the calamity for more than ten years.

"With the full, deadly scope of the Banqiao dam failure now known, there has been no worldwide movement to halt construction of hydropower dams to save lives.

***

"In the 1980s, 46 nuclear power plants came online in the United States. After Chernobyl, only four have even started being constructed, and none of these have been completed. Despite producing emission-free energy, "nuclear" has become a dirty word.

"Evidence firmly dispels this unfounded belief. Various studies have reached the same conclusion: nuclear power is one of the safest – and perhaps the safest – source of electricity on planet Earth.

"We shouldn't let the minute threat of disaster scare us away from a safe, clean, and dependable source of energy, one that could easily power humanity and prevent carbon pollution for centuries to come."

Comment: We can manipulate the Earth in many massive ways. Dams present danger of collapse as the recent one in Peru (earthen). The known and ignored future problem is the build up of silt behind dams. They will end up destroyed as waterfalls over them appear. Preventive dredging is ignored as too expensive. This is what will happen to the giant dams eventually. I know of Three-mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushema. We have learned from those mistakes. Humans need not be fearful and should push politicians whose only fear is loss of elections through imagined future mistakes.

5429 views

Longer than almost any other species:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-have-humans-evolved-to-have-a-long-journey-to-adulthood?utm_...

"Our babies require an intense amount of investment, and as a species we have gone to staggering lengths to give it to them. As placental mammals, we solved the limitations placed on babies who are gestated in eggs with a fixed amount of resources by capturing the code of an RNA virus in our DNA to create the placenta: a temporary organ that allows our embryos and foetuses to draw sustenance directly from our bodies. As humans, however, we have gone a step further and altered the signalling mechanisms that maintain the delicate balance between our voracious young and the mothers they feed off. Our species’ pregnancies – and only our species’ pregnancies – have become life-threatening ordeals specifically to deal with the outrageous demands of our babies. Gestational diabetes and preeclampsia are conditions virtually unknown in the animal kingdom, but common killers of pregnant humans thanks to this subtle alteration. Babies grow to an enormous size and plumpness, and they’re so demanding that the resources in one body aren’t enough to sustain them. They emerge into the world with large brains and a hefty 15 per cent lard, but still unripe and unready.

***

"Our babies have very large heads, and our mothers quite narrow pelvises, and what seems a trivial question about furniture logistics is in fact a huge impediment to the successful reproduction of our species: this makes human birth dangerous, and mothers die giving birth at a far higher rate than any other species.

"Classically, this was viewed as an acceptable trade-off between competing evolutionary demands. This is what the anthropologist Sherwood Washburn in 1960 called the ‘obstetrical dilemma’: the dangerous trip down the birth canal is necessitated by our upright posture and the tight fit required by our big brains. (My bold)

***

"...human babies really do have a terrible time coming into the world, above and beyond other species, due to that tight fit. So what gives?

"The answer may be in that glorious pinchable baby fat. Having precision-engineered our offspring to siphon resources from their mothers in order to build calorifically expensive structures like our big brains and our chubby cheeks, we have, perhaps, become victims of our own success. Our babies can build themselves up to an impressive size in the womb, one that comes near to being unsurvivable. But the truly fantastic thing is that, having poured so much into our pregnancies, after we hit the limit of what our babies can catabolise from their mothers’ bodies, they are forced to emerge into the world still fantastically needy. For any mammal, survival after birth calls for the magic of milk, and our babies are no different, but here we find another very unusual feature of humans: our long childhood starts with cutting off infancy early.

***

"we kick off our babies from the breast quick – but, once they’ve moved from infancy into childhood, there is yet another surprise: we let them stay there longer than any other species on the planet.

"Childhood in humans is extended, by any measure you care to use. We can look at the 25-odd years it takes to get to physical maturity (in fact, the tiny end plate of your clavicle where it meets the sternum doesn’t fully finish forming until your early 30s) and compare it with our nearest relatives, to see that we have slowed down by a decade or more the time it takes to build something great-ape sized.

***

"There is one more adaptation at play in the support of our needy offspring that should be accounted for: the utter unlikeliness that is a grandmother. Specifically, it is the almost unheard-of biological process of menopause, and the creation of a stage of life for half of our species where reproduction just stops. This is outrageous in evolutionary terms and it occurs only in humans (and a handful of whales).

***

"A long childhood is our greatest evolutionary adaptation. It means that we have created needy offspring, and this has surprising knock-on effects in every single aspect of our lives, from our pair bonds to our dads to our boring genitals to our dangerous pregnancies and births and our fat-cheeked babies and even that unlikely creature, the grandmother. The amount of time and energy required to grow a human child, and to let it learn the things it needs to learn, is so great that we have stopped the clock: we have given ourselves longer to do it, and critically, made sure there are more and more investors ready to contribute to each of our fantastically expensive children."

Comment: this is an old story. Low reproduction rates, a dangerous way to give birth, lengthy childhood, and yet we are the most successful species on Earth. This is the way it had to be.
The obstetrical dilemma was mentioned before. The DNA of Mother, Father and baby have to evolve in coordinated fashion for 'tight fit' pregnancies to work. Not by chance evolution.

1823 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum