More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 08, 2018, 14:00 (2478 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.

dhw: I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof, and that is why it remains a hypothesis, but unlike your own equally unproven hypothesis, it offers a coherent explanation of evolutionary history. I am aware of your firm belief that only God can design the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale, neither of which have the remotest connection to his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. But I’m afraid firm belief is not a very persuasive argument.

DAVID: That is why you are agnostic.

My agnosticism is irrelevant. Some atheists also have a firm belief in the ability of chance to produce the complexities of living organisms. Do you regard their firm belief as a persuasive argument?

dhw: And I keep pointing out that a species can only survive if individuals survive. Do you have a closed mind to that? The survivability of individuals and of their whole species does not necessitate complexity. Anything backward there?

DAVID: Not my point: I originally brought up the point that sapiens lived at a survival level even though their new brain allowed for much more and there was a delay until they discovered how to use it.

Dealt with several times. My comment was in response to: “I’m still discussing species survival, not individual. Do you have a closed mind to that?” But I’m glad you have now dropped that unproductive theme.

DAVID: Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.
dhw: Yes, it’s an on-going process. A concept that is not implemented won’t advance civilization, and so you are right to say the larger or more complex brain leads to the advance, though it cannot do so without the concept previously thought up by the smaller/less complex brain.

DAVID: You state that as a fact. My view is the smaller brail was incapable of the concept. Only the larger brain had both concept and implementation.

Sorry, I should keep repeating that it is my hypothesis. You keep harping on about size, and the question actually boils down to whether ideas are the product of the dualist’s soul or his brain. If you believe it is the soul that thinks/remembers/conceptualizes (dualism), clearly the size of the brain makes no difference except to the potential for implementation. If you believe the soul cannot think/remember/conceptualize without a functioning brain (as you keep saying on the “big brain evolution” thread), and cannot think bigger without a bigger brain, you are a materialist. Please make up your mind.