Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 19:03 (2490 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: New research shows why we are not apes, even though our DNA looks very similar in types and number of bases:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-evolving-gene-differences-primates.html

DAVID’s comment: This fits the point of the book, Not a Chimp , 2009, which states we really are about 78% similar, despite the total DNA base comparison of 98%. And none of our difference is necessary for survival as shown by the survival of apes over the past 8 million years since we started to split off. Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue.

dhw: As we keep saying, bacteria have survived since the year dot, so no subsequent differences were necessary for survival. But once cells began to combine – for whatever reason – they devised different modes of survival, and as environmental conditions changed, they perished or they adapted or they found new ways of exploiting the environment.

But we can find no reason for multicellularity based on a need for survival, and as you point out multicellularity created problems for survival, so why bother? My answer is God wanted complexity to achieve His goals and had to introduce it.

dhw: In most cases I agree that these new ways would have led to greater complexity, but as I keep saying, complexity for no purpose makes less sense to me than complexity for a purpose (improved chances of survival, or improved living conditions).

Makes no sense in view of my comment above.

dhw: I see survivability as the major issue, which is why most species remain unchanged once they can survive without needing to change. Humans also focused initially on survival and/or improving their modes of survival. You are quite right to single out sapiens as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival, but there is still a smooth progression from intelligently improved survivability to intelligently improved living conditions to intelligent expansion of thought. Again no need for God’s “guidance” (a term we need to jettison, since you made it clear under “autonomy v automaticity” that you really mean preprogramming or dabbling) if he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to work out their own ways of surviving and improving.

Of course God guided the process. Why did sapiens 'as a species that carried improvement far beyond the bounds of survival' as you state, but then gloss over it by describing their further development beyond survivability. Doesn't it occur to you that you have it all backward and survivability was of no issue to the Homo branch?