Evolution and humans: all over Africa (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, May 05, 2018, 12:17 (2392 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As before, God speciates and creates a 'next' species with more pre-frontal, frontal size and complexity. It then takes time to learn how to use the new size. The contemporary artifacts prove the point.

dhw: Please enlighten me. Did the artefacts appear when the new species appeared, or was there a sapiens-like “gap” BEFORE the artefacts appeared? If nothing new happens for hundreds of thousands of years after the arrival of the new brain, please tell us what uses of the new brain are being “learned”, and how do you think the “learning” takes place if it produces nothing?

DAVID: I don't think the artifacts are in any way an immediate result of the enlarged frontal lobes. We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now. Sapiens took a long time to really use their new brain, and it must have been the same in past stages of evolution of hominins. In survival living, it must be one little improvement at a time invented by an unusually thoughtful person, as you have discussed as below.

If my hypothesis is correct, the artefacts would have appeared at the time when the new species appeared (it was their implementation that triggered the new sized brain). Unfortunately, your only evidence against this seems to be that you don’t think it’s right. In my hypothesis, once the spear had been made and the brain had expanded, pre-sapiens carried on using the “new brain” for a long time without any advances (like pre-sapiens), until the new concept caused the next expansion. See below for what we study now. I agree that little improvements would have followed on from the big improvements which caused the brain to expand. It’s the big improvements (innovations) which would have come from the geniuses.

DAVID: I do agree to long periods of stasis but I suspect complexification can have occurred in past stages of hominin evolution.

I expect so too. The jump would have occurred when complexification could no longer cope within the existing capacity.

DAVID: I absolutely disagree with your push concept of brain growth. It is pure Darwinism.

I know you disagree. I don’t know where Darwin comes into it, but even if he did, that is hardly an argument against it! Anyway, do please tell us where he proposes that cellular intelligence caused the brain to expand when the s/s/c came up with new concepts which required greater capacity for their implementation.

dhw: […] it seems that the only “logical flaw” you can find is that my theistic hypothesis is not yours.

DAVID: Logical thought is a series of conclusions based on the initial starting points being accepted. I don't agree at all with your initial proposals as to why the brain grew. But if accepted you have proceeded logically.

A nice observation, but what starting point are you talking about? The starting point of this discussion is that the brain of pre-sapiens expanded. Agreed? We want to know the cause. You say: “We have to interpret past evolution by studying what we see now.” I agree. Now we see that the brain responds to new concepts by changing (i.e. complexifying and even expanding within limits). Agreed? It is therefore logical to conclude that the pre-sapiens brain also responded to new concepts by changing. Please tell us what current studies support the hypothesis that the brain changes BEFORE it has the concepts that require brain change for their implementation. Reminder: the starting point is: what caused pre-sapiens' brain expansion?