Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 11:08 (1372 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The 285,000 years are the period of stasis, and I have just repeated my proposal that ALL stages of brain development have followed the same pattern: the brain changes when there are new activities or requirements. Once those activities are established and the requirements are fulfilled, THE BRAIN DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE. Hence stasis, until new activities and requirements require the next change.

DAVID: You are presenting a giant brain waiting for future use, appearing and then just lying around for for 285,000 years for full use. You have not answered why so big so early. Early sapiens lived in a very similar way to erectus. What demanded such a large change if a drive cannot be identified as a requirement for living?

I don’t know why you simply ignore my explanation, although we’ve been over it so many times. Nobody knows the cause of brain expansion, but we know that each stage was followed by a period of stasis. You propose that your God popped in and operated on the brain, and then nothing happened for thousands of years because he operated in anticipation of later requirements. I wonder why he felt he had to do it so far in advance. I propose that each expansion was CAUSED by the brain responding to an unknown requirement, and once that requirement had been met, there was a long period of stasis until new requirements triggered a new expansion. And so an unknown requirement triggered the expansion to current giant size, and there were no new requirements until a few thousand years ago, but since the brain had reached a size beyond which it would have demanded major changes to the whole anatomy, the process of complexification took over from expansion, although we still see minor expansion of individual sections of the brain. Although we've been over this a dozen times, perhaps you should try once more to explain why you find this illogical.

DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.

dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?

DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.

dhw: We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.

DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.

dhw: How many more times do you want me to quote the passages YOU quote in your own book?
“Living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation…Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.

DAVID: I don't pretend. I quoted him from his book. He and you extrapolate a theory from bacterial studies.

He also used the research of other scientists – as do all theorists, including yourself. Besides, we are not discussing the truth of his theory but your accusation that I have distorted it. I have not.

DAVID: His presentation the Royal Society was a more measured presentation. And I presented it here in the past. Perhaps you should refresh your memory.

I remember it well, and there was nothing in his presentation to contradict his theory of cellular intelligence as the driving force behind evolutionary innovation. Perhaps you should refresh your memory. Alternatively, please pinpoint the passage in which he says he no longer believes that cells are cognitive entities which self-modify to produce evolutionary novelties.

Information delivery

DAVID: We are still on the outside looking in. We do not know the text of the messages or how they are interpreted by the cells. All we know is cells do talk to each other.

Essential if they are to “act and interact purposefully”, as Shapiro puts it.