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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 11:35 (1142 days ago) @ David Turell

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)…

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

Erectus’s brain varied from 900cc to 1200cc – a range of 300 cc. Sapiens’ brain averages 1350 cc., an increase of 150 cc. I propose that all these increases would have been caused by new tools, ideas, discoveries etc. that required additional cells. Why do you think the invention of, for instance, a new tool or weapon would revolutionize the “simple” way of life? They needed the bigger brain to implement new ideas as an improvement to their still ”simple” way of life. A hunter with a new weapon is still a hunter.

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.

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

So do you think whales could have waited around for 300,000 years before they entered the water? That’s the argument you are using for the sapiens brain! Why did he give it to sapiens 300,000 years before they needed it? How about this for an amazing idea: both the sapiens brain expansion and the whale’s flipper constituted structural changes in response to new requirements – sapiens to implement a new idea, whale to improve its chances of survival in a new environment? Too logical for you?

Early Asia spread

QUOTE: ….while the tools at Attirampakkam may resemble Middle Paleolithic tools found elsewhere, that doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility that different peoples converged on similar solutions to common problems.

DAVID: Early homos either had massive wanderlust or environmental problems that drove them. Like convergence why could there not have been different populations with the same new concepts?

Agreed. All these widespread, larger brained sapiens and their tools suggest to me that we are getting closer and closer to the point at which we can say it is feasible that more sophisticated tool-making was the activity that first enlarged the pre-sapiens brain.

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”? [...]

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

Obviously proved adequate once it had appeared. But from then on, in the case of sapiens, when there was a new requirement, complexification took over from expansion.

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.

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

Yes, that’s the 1% we’re talking about. I asked you to stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans (now bolded). And so you proceed to restrict evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.

SURVIVAL

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.

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

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

If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. You simply have your God inventing means of survival in advance instead of organisms doing it themselves when needed. The purpose is still survival.

Playing possum

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

How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?