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

by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2018, 18:11 (2278 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm still discussing survival of a human species, not individuals. At one point in our sapiens evolution it us thought we were down to 10,000 individuals, but the species grew larger in numbers and survived. It is called the 'bottleneck'. And I don't know why God took so long. Your question to me is totally unreasonable. My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step. That is obvious from the history .

You have forgotten what triggered this discussion. Here is the starting point:

DAVID: 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: We have agreed ad nauseam that no multicellular life forms were “necessary”, since bacteria have survived since the year dot. You have now at last agreed that improvement goes “hand in hand” with complexity, but you seem to think that once an organism is more complex, it doesn’t need to survive! Survival is always the first priority, for humans as for every other organism.

I can't seem to get you to the level of species survival, compared to individual survival. There are two levels to think about. Humans are overly complex for simple survival skills and as a result they have taken over the Earth and now are trying to help species on the edge to avoid extinction, which is the natural course of events in the past. Complexity did not help many species in the past from extinction, which is why complexity may or may not go 'hand in hand' with improvement, despite the truth in that complexity usually implies/supplies improvement. "Improvement' implies a human judgment is employed in determining if improvement is present. Complexity is obvious in and of itself.

dhw: And improving the chances of survival are anything but a minor issue. If you wish to confine the discussion to the human species, you said survival was of no issue at all, and yet you tell us that throughout the millions of years of our evolution, until a mere 30,000 years ago, all our innovations (tools, weapons, clothing, use of fire) served no purpose except to ensure or improve SURVIVAL. So once again, how can you claim that survivability was of no issue?

Again you are the level of individual survival, not species.

dhw: If it’s reasonable for you to ask why sapiens took so long to use his newly enlarged brain, it can hardly be unreasonable to ask why your God took so long to fulfil his sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain? (Both ask: why the “gap”?)

God prefers to evolve in my view.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “prepose” here, but I presume it amounts to saying that was what he wanted to do, which really isn’t much of an explanation, is it?

The sentence was: "My simple answer is He preposed evolving each step." I know what I meant to type:" He prefers evolving each step".

dhw: I have offered you several theistic reasons in the past: he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose; he was experimenting; he didn’t think of sapiens till late on; producing sapiens was NOT his one and only purpose. All of them fit in with the “history”. You reject them all, and prefer the answer that God has his reasons, but you can’t think what they might be.

I've told you His purpose is reaching the complexity of the human brain and its ability to study His works to the extent that we can understand them. Karen Armstrong's opinion that the Quran is the most advanced study by humans of God, states that we learn about Him only through His works. Yhis is one of the key anchors of my thinking about God.