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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 14:14 (2489 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

I am in no position to explain multicellularity (I wrote “for whatever reason”), but if God exists, I am quite prepared to acknowledge that he wanted complexity to achieve his goals. And since multicellularity produced an ever changing bush of life, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his goal was to create an ever changing bush of life. Not just one particular species, but lots and lots of species.

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).
DAVID: Makes no sense in view of my comment above.

You said he needed complexity to achieve his goals. Why does it make no sense to suggest that his goals were improved chances of survival/improved living conditions?
dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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?

Do you honestly believe that the Homo branch was not and is not concerned with survival? Tell that to the Rohingya and the millions of homos who have died and are still dying from disease, starvation, war, natural disasters, so-called ethnic cleansing. Tell it to yourself, a retired doctor whose whole career was based on saving people’s lives or improving their physical condition? There is no “glossing over”. Most of our so-called civilisation has grown out of improving our chances of survival and improving our living conditions. Survivability is ALWAYS the first priority. But the same intelligence that has led to all the advances in both fields has also led us to thoughts beyond those of survival and improvement – e.g. to questioning the purpose of it all, or to enhancing the richness of our lives through the arts.