Genome complexity: seemingly not in obvious DNA (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 07, 2020, 12:31 (1361 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I was merely pointing out that there was nothing special about the brain’s need for enough sustenance – that applies to all cell communities – and I didn’t know why you brought chance into it. Adaptations generally require the cooperation of all the cell communities in all areas of evolution.

DAVID: The need for accommodation for an enlarged brain required all the changes I noted, including changes in or by three individuals, father, Mother, and new-sized baby. Cell committees must be clairvoyant to cooperate as dhw describes.

We are talking about the brain’s need for sustenance, so why do you go back to an issue already discussed and dealt with? The expansion of the brain will require the expansion of the skull, with the cells of the skull responding to the cells of the brain. These changes will require changes to the mother’s pelvis, the cells of which will respond to the requirements of the foetus. No doubt there would have been many deaths before the adaptation was complete, but in all cases, the cell communities respond to changes – they do not anticipate them. I find this more plausible than your God stepping in and fiddling with a group of homos who wake up next morning with bigger brains, skulls and pelvises.

Under “the obstetric dilemma”: The maternal pelvis is frequently considered to be subject to two counteracting evolutionary forces: decreased height and increased mediolateral breadth in order to optimize the biomechanics of locomotion, and increased anteroposterior dimensions in order to enable birth of the unusually encephalized human infant. The compromise imposed by these antagonistic demands manifests as a difficult passage of the fetal head through the birth canal, resulting in the birth process being a more complex and lengthy procedure in humans than in closely related species of ape. The antagonistic interaction of bipedalism and encephalization has been assumed to have followed the emergence of the large Homo brain within the last 2 million years. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This obstetric dilemma is a major evolutionary issue as this review makes quite clear, and even has major obstetric importance today. I don't believe dhw's 'smart cooperating' cells could solve the problems by themselves, but God could easily.

The above puts paid to your God’s overnight expansion of brain, skull and pelvis, and clearly shows that the whole process of maternal pelvis adaptation was not only long but also difficult, and is still difficult today. Why did your God, who could do it “easily”, make it so lengthy and so difficult? I see nothing in this whole article to contradict the proposal I have put forward. The only new factor is the requirements of “locomotion” (itself a possible cause of brain expansion).

DAVID: There are gene relationships we do not understand and layers of control that are still being discovered. we still do not know how cells produce the results they control.

dhw: David is quite right: “we do not know how cells produce the results they control”. But the very statement that they control the results might suggest that cellular intelligence (possibly designed by a God) is a very plausible alternative to chance, divine preprogramming and divine dabbling.

DAVID: Again glossing over 'cell intelligence'. It had a definite cause, but dhw's wishy-washy discussion leaves the source hanging. Chance or God the designer?

I am delighted that your comment offers no opposition to the theory of cellular intelligence. I don’t “gloss over” the cause – I openly admit that I don’t know whether it’s chance, God, or some form of panpsychism.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum