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

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 18:50 (1353 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What requirements? They have to be the needs for that time period. However if we look at the difference between erectus and sapiens the current activities of daily living (a term used today about folks) the difference is slight. So a new model Volkswagen is not given a 650 hp engine, my point you've ignored.

dhw: I can't follow any of this! The current activities of daily living

My apologies for garbling the meaning. I meant the changes in daily living for original sapiens was slight compared to erectus activities of that time period despite the new huge brain.

dhw: I propose that an unknown requirement (I gave you a list of theories in my last post) led to our expansion to 1350cc. The variation in erectus may also have been due to new requirements during his 2-million-year existence (e.g. new tools, new ideas – wasn’t erectus the first hunter-gatherer? - use of fire).

You make my case. Erectus led a simple life as did original sapiens. No need for big brain.

dhw: Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.

Simple concept: God anticipates needs all through evolution. Flippers given to pre-whales so thet can swim easily.

dhw: It did not “overexpand”.

DAVID: Yes, it probably did, like every other past smaller brain which is the best guess about previous expansions.

dhw: What is your criterion for “overexpansion”? .. We’ve been over this time and again, and you have never provided one single argument against the logic of this theory.

Constant logical answer. Obviously too big for the needs of the time it appeared.

David’s theory of evolution

dhw: […] Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: A truism that doesn't support your chopping up the process of evolution in to segments.

dhw: I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.

Really? Didn't humans have to evolve from previous forms, which also had to evolve?

Symbiosis by bacteria

dhw: […] Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.

DAVID: That is pure unproven speculative Darwinism.

Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment.

My view is God provides for future survival as He designs new forma.

Playing possum

DAVID: How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative?

dhw: Because maybe one clever possum realized he could not outrun a predator, and hit on the brilliant idea of pretending to be dead. It worked. And when something works, it generally catches on.

DAVID: Now you have possums watching each other and reaching conceptual conclusions.

dhw: What exactly do you mean by “conceptual”? All life forms have developed strategies to improve their chances of survival. They must have originated at one time and been passed on. That doesn’t mean that flowers and insects and birds and fish and animals have at some time sat down to have a good think about what to do if….Once a strategy works, it is passed on to others in a group, or from generation to generation.

So now you have a group of possums watching a successful escape by a single possum and adopting the method. Really?