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

by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 09:07 (1147 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

You said “willy-nilly”, and I said “to serve a particular purpose”! Of course they are in a special structural form, and of course they are designed! But instead of your God preprogramming every single new structural form 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to perform an operation on a group of sleeping homos to add the neurons necessary for tasks to be accomplished 280,000+ years later, we have intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) adding the neurons necessary to accomplish tasks in their here and now. Please explain why you think neurons designed to serve a particular purpose are “willy-nilly”, whereas neurons designed for some unknown future task are designed in a special structural form.

Behe

dhw: […] 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: […] I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.

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

The fact that you reject my theory that adaptation will RESULT in some genes losing their function and therefore being discarded (as opposed to their loss CAUSING adaptation) does not explain why you regard my theory as illogical.