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

by dhw, Sunday, February 21, 2021, 11:02 (1369 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.

dhw: There was no requirement to use it AFTER it had expanded – and that is why there was a period of stasis! And nobody knows why it expanded, but there could have been any number of causes – not just artefacts.

DAVID: You are trying to disarm the impression that big brain, unused, brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with your “analogy”. “All dressed up and nowhere to go” is your depiction of early sapiens: you say your God expanded the brain 315,000 years ago, but sapiens did nothing with it. Why did he expand it then if nothing was done with it for 280,000+ years? You simply refuse to consider the possibility that the pre-sapiens brain expanded 315,000 years ago as a RESULT of some new requirement (see next exchange) and then, just as with every earlier brain expansion, there was a period of stasis until the next new requirement arose, but then the brain didn’t expand (perhaps because that would have been too damaging to the rest of the body), and so it complexified instead, which is the process we are able to observe today.

dhw: Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.

DAVID: Since each 200 cc expansion was followed later by very new artifacts, each expansion was in preparation of later use. And later,
DAVID: For me God planned it for us to learn to use over time.

Why do you say it was followed? The artefacts were found with the remains of the homos that made them. How can you possibly tell that the process of designing and making the artefacts was not the original cause of the expansion, just as in modern times it is the implementation of tasks that CAUSES complexification? (It is of course, perfectly feasible that in each earlier case complexification would have sufficed for new tasks, until eventually it reached the limits of its capacity, which then had to be increased.)

As for learning to use over time, how can you learn how to use something without there being any visible sign? Now it’s you who have your ancient sapiens mucking about with rockets! Earlier sapiens did not NEED to launch into new projects and ways of life – just as even today there are remote tribes who do not NEED central heating or to build cars and computers and rockets to Mars.

DAVID: You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain, but not any sort of driving force is known as you try to worm around in your explanations.

History does not know what caused the brain to expand. All we know is the brain changes when it meets new requirements. But I doubt if there are many historians who would tell you that an unknown power operated on a few brains 315,000 years ago, so that the brain-owners could learn how to use their brains by achieving nothing until 285,000+ years later.

Behe

DAVID:...Adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.

dhw: I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.

DAVID: Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.

dhw: […] The article talks of loss or deletion of genes and loss of function. Please explain why you think the loss of genes would have CAUSED adaptation rather than being the RESULT of adaptation (i.e. they were no longer needed), and please acknowledge that adaptation/speciation is accompanied by NEW genes.

DAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.

It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.

Macaques smart

DAVID: Primate brains are used for planning and cleverness by their soul/owners. We souls are just bigger and better at it, because our bigger better brain allows it.

I wish you wouldn’t use these fascinating wonders to provoke yet more repetition of the dualism v materialism discussion. Yes, in dualism the soul uses the brain to implement its thoughts. Materialists will argue that the brain is responsible for the thoughts and the implementation. This natural wonder can be used to defend either view.