Evolution and humans: all over Africa (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 01, 2018, 14:07 (2396 days ago) @ David Turell

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")