Back to brain expansion (Humans)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 27, 2020, 18:23 (1489 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have invented artifacts when the article discussed environmental changes as driving the enlargement.

dhw: My theory concerns new requirements, of which artefacts are one example. However, in this particular case, artefacts were also found. You should read these articles more carefully.

QUOTE: Then, beginning around 320,000 years ago, people living there entered the Middle Stone Age, crafting smaller, more sophisticated weapons, including projectiles. At the same time, they began to trade resources with distant groups and to use coloring materials, suggesting symbolic communication. All these changes were a significant departure from their previous lifestyle, likely helping early humans cope with their newly variable landscape, Potts said.
***
"'Then with humans in the mix, and some of their innovations like projectile weapons, they also may have affected the fauna. It's a whole ecosystem changing, with humans as part of it.'"

dhw: I think we can now close this thread.

DAVID: Not yet, you are quoting items I knew about…
(You said there was no mention of them)
…but recognize the Darwin loyalist view sticks them in with no relationship as to timing of brain size and tool appearance. Remember the erectus barbed spear point? Tools pop up in the record with all sorts of brain complexities.

dhw: You then go on to quote the whole article, which includes all the environmental changes as well as the artefacts as the new requirements that existed at the time when the brain is known to have expanded.

DAVID: Yes all these changes, but they do not mention how that made a big brain or when that occurred in relation to all that was happening! It is pure Darwinism with environment making humans change.

dhw: They have given us a list of new requirements, including artefacts. You say your God expanded the brain in anticipation of the artefacts and environmental changes, and I propose that it expanded as a result of trying to meet the new requirements. We are simply going over old ground – presumably in order to cover the fact that your principal objection to my theory was that there were NO new requirements at the time, whereas we now know that there WERE new requirements. There really is no need to drag this out. We each know the other’s theory, but one of your objections to mine has proved to be wrong. That’s it.

Fine. Not wrong, differently interpreted as you say. The end.