Logic and evolution: doubting Darwin; (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 04, 2020, 11:43 (1753 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: It's long been thought that developing different spinal regions is one important step in evolving backbones with many functions, but Pierce and Jones show that this isn't enough. An evolutionary trigger was also required, in this case the evolution of a highly active lifestyle that put new demands on the backbone. (David’s bold)

Jones said, "We're trying to get at something that's quite a fundamental evolutionary question which is: How does a relatively simple structure evolve into a complex one that can do lots of different things? Is that determined by the limitations of development or natural selection related to the behavior of the animal?" (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is exactly the backward thinking that dhw exhibits. Why did the cynodont diaphragm bother to appear? Advances like this in evolution are not required, just as the human brain was not required Note the first bold; how does an animal have the active lifestyle requiring a specialize backbone if that backbone dose not already exist?

Of course the backbone exists. The question they are asking is how a simple backbone evolves into a more complex one – which is the same question we ask about the whole of evolution: how did (relatively) simple cellular structures evolve into whales and eagles and elephants and humans? They talk of an evolutionary trigger, and animal behaviour. So how about the trigger being changes in the environmental conditions, and how about new lifestyles (behaviour) resulting in the intelligent cell communities restructuring the spine and all its related bits and pieces? Just like the whale again: you want your God magically switching legs into flippers before they enter the water; I propose that they enter the water first, and then the cells get to work on their own restructuring to facilitate the new form of behaviour.

DAVID: Trying to do the new activity does not cause the backbone to suddenly appear, especially because we have no evidence of gradualism which that thought implies. The second bold again raises the foolish specter of an active natural selection producing evolution.

They are not saying the backbone suddenly appeared! They are talking specifically of “new demands on the backbone” – precisely the proposal I keep putting to you, which you keep reversing with your proposal: God preprogrammed or twiddled with all these different backs before the different organisms could perform their own special back exercises. And for good measure, why did he do it? Because according to you, he only wanted to produce H. sapiens, but had to keep designing new backs in order to keep life going until he decided to design the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: Let's use humans as an example. 300,000+ years old and only recently we have invented activities like ballet, gymnastics, other ball games requiring throwing or other required agilities allowed by the 300,000 year old spine. No question, form first, use second. Our advanced brain invented those new activities. Darwinists are backward theorists. ID proponents are not.

There is nothing backward here, but you simply refuse to register the answers offered before. How did the brain reach its current capacity: jumps and stasis…new jumps and new stasis…maximum capacity reached. Once the capacity was reached, new ideas required a new form of adjustment: complexification. Of course the brain was in place so many thousands of years ago, and from then on new ideas and activities were implemented by complexification (which was so efficient that shrinkage occurred)within the existing capacity of the brain. These activities also used the existing spine. How is this “backward” and why do you think an ID proponent would reject it? Do ID-ers believe their God is incapable of devising a mechanism that would give organisms the ability to think for themselves?