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

by dhw, Friday, February 26, 2021, 14:08 (1364 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.

dhw: Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?

DAVID: Remember, my God obviously expanded in anticipation of need, as sapiens brain history shows.

dhw: So your God popped in to perform an expansion operation on pre-sapiens, and they didn’t need it for 280,000+ years. I can’t help wondering why your God didn’t just pop in and do the operation when it was needed. Please don’t tell us that we needed 280,000+ years to learn how to use it, though we didn’t actually use it. Meanwhile, please do tell us why you find the above bolded section unreasonable.

DAVID: In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.

I know you believe God either programmed every single evolutionary change 3.8 billion years ago or stepped in to perform operations on millions of different individual life forms, including humans and their brains. But if you believe your God designed a mechanism that enabled brain cells to complexify without his popping in to operate on each individual brain, why can’t you believe that the same mechanism might enable brain cells to add to their number when they need to do so?

Behe

DAVID: Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.

dhw: And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.

DAVID: Because the article quoted gave the impression that like Behe loss of genes caused the adaptations. ID folks who led me to the article had the same impression. You don't like the implication so you will keep on struggling about it.

The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.