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

by David Turell , Saturday, February 27, 2021, 14:39 (1363 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: “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.

You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. Your own bias overwhelms you.

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.

dhw: 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.

Our view, like cell functions, is from the outside of the process. It is again 50/50 probability, and I chose Behe's interpretation.