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

by dhw, Friday, March 12, 2021, 07:40 (1138 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have not described any major change in lifestyle between erectus and sapiens that would require sure a large brain expansion, compared to the way it is massively used today. God anticipated that use.

dhw: I have just said that there is no reason why the erectus and sapiens expansions should have changed the lifestyle: the hunter would still be a hunter. The massive use today of the existing brain has resulted in complexification, not expansion – presumably because the brain could not expand any more without major changes to the anatomy. And according to you, complexification is an autonomous process (no divine interference), so why shouldn’t he have made expansion an autonomous process too: cells add to their number or complexify as and when they need to – not before they need to?

DAVID: Your only weak response is God let the neurons do it. It doesn't answer the question of why such a large jump in size while lifestyle requirements changes were minimal as you admit.

According to you, your God lets the neurons complexify, so why not also let them multiply? Why is that weak? I keep repeating that NOBODY knows what caused ANY of the jumps in ANY of the hominin and homo brains. That is why we have different theories. And I keep repeating that whatever the cause (new tools, new weapons, new ideas, new environments, new discoveries), it did not have to change the lifestyles, which would still have been based almost exclusively on survival. You keep ignoring my example: a hunter with a new weapon will still be a hunter.

dhw: I am proposing that even if it were true that your God popped in to change legs to flippers, you would not have expected him to do so 300,000 years before the whale entered the water. So why would he pop in to expand the brain 300,000 years before the extra capacity was needed?

DAVID: You have asked me the question I've posed to you. My answer is in logical anticipation of future use.

Why have you inserted the word “logical”? What is logical about your God creating a large brain that is not going to be used for 300,000 years? My logical answer: the brain enlarged IN RESPONSE to a new requirement, and then remained the same until there was another new requirement which also needed greater capacity.

David’s theory of evolution

dhw: I am not disputing evolution! You keep telling us that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans!

DAVID: Your same chopping up of evolution into segments. All branches evolved from bacteria. That is the original connection.

There is no chopping. All branches evolved from bacteria, but branches branched out into more and more branches, and humans are not directly descended from 99% of those branches. That is what makes nonsense of your claim that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans”. Or will you now tell us how, for instance, the lizard/dinosaur branch formed part of the goal of designing humans?

SURVIVAL

dhw: If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. [..]

DAVID: God's purpose was to produce humans.

dhw: There you go again. God turned legs into flippers, and designed millions of life forms and their food supplies, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders because he wanted to design humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. And adaptation to new conditions has nothing to do with the quest for survival. Please let’s put an end to this discussion. It is becoming more and more nonsensical.

DAVID: I start up only because you constantly reference your illogical objections.

My objections are to the logic of your theories: 1) that your God had only one goal (humans) but designed millions of extinct life forms as part of his goal, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. This is illogical. 2) Organs which are designed to improve an organism’s chances of survival are evidence that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. This is illogical.

Playing possum

dhw: 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?

DAVID: God had to teach them somehow.

dhw: You have only offered us these two methods, and I wonder how many even of your ID-ers, let alone the folk who have studied animal behaviour, would support the idea that animals, birds, insects etc. are incapable of making their own discoveries or designing their own survival strategies.

DAVID: Back to the weaverbird nests. Even boy scouts would have trouble with some of the complex knots.

So 3.8 billion years ago, your God preprogrammed the arrival of possums and their play-dead strategy, and he preprogrammed weaverbirds and their ability to tie complicated knots? Or did he pop in to give courses to possums and weaverbirds, all as part of his goal to design humans? Any alternatives?