Brain Expansion: current literature is puzzled (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 19, 2020, 20:33 (43 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Imagine a mutation, or series of mutations, that improve the eyesight of an organism. For the brain to be able to process this information, it either must evolve after the eye, before the eye, or at the same time. (DAVID’s bold)

QUOTE: Evolving the brain at the same time as the eye is the only explanation that allows the function to be an actual advantage. .(DAVID’s bold)
Even the terminology used by scientists to explain the evolution of the human brain sounds anything but random: The homo sapiens brain evolution was a "special event." Rapid evolution was "needed." The brain evolved "in preparation" for our complex social structure. bbbEven those dedicated to a random, naturalistic explanation for life cannot avoid using terminology that implies purpose, intent, and intelligence. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: I’ve cherry-picked your bolds to try and create a coherent argument. Simultaneity is crucial to my own theory (expansion accompanies and is caused by the effort to implement the concept), I do not subscribe to randomness, I agree that the human brain is “special” but would suggest that there is a natural progression from one expansion to another until the brain reaches sapiens size, and finally I also agree that there is “purpose, intent and intelligence” behind its evolution. None of this in any way counters the observation that brain cell communities RESPOND to new demands, and that ALL the expansions may have originated when the existing smaller brain could not develop a new concept without adding to its own capabilities (hence expansion). The – perhaps God-given - intelligence etc. may be that of the cells/cell communities responding to new demands, just as they do in a changed environment to which they must adapt or die.

The bold indicates your usual reversion to Darwin. We have no proof that challenges of nature or species competition drive evolution. The article is a complete opposite of that view.


DAVID: this is from a religious website I stumbled into. This article have all the reasons I developed from my studies. Natural science cannot explain why we are here from an evolutionary standpoint, considering the need for survival, as apes and monkeys have done just fine for millions of years. It is so much easier to logically reason from the recognition of the complexity of the design of life, an intelligent designer is required.

dhw: We have dealt with this non-argument many times before. The human branch may well have developed from a localized group or groups of our ancestors confronted with different conditions from those of our other ancestors. The latter may have had no problem surviving, whereas the former may have needed to change their way of life because of local conditions. From an evolutionary standpoint, no multicellular organisms were needed for survival, since unicellular organisms have “done just fine for billions of years”. The complexity of the design of life is indeed a logical reason for belief in a designer, but he doesn’t have to think in the way you make him think.

My God is described from the way I view Him.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum