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

by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 09:04 (1364 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.

“Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.

Behe

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.

The mutation article had nothing to do with adaptation. The previous article did, and I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.