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

by David Turell , Monday, March 15, 2021, 14:45 (1347 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I agree thatpast brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?

DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.

dhw: You have misread my post. PAST brains would have had the same mechanism for autonomous complexification, and so I am proposing that the same mechanism would have been used to expand PAST brains when their capacity for complexification could not meet PAST requirements.

Not misread. The bolded is dead wrong as stated above.

DAVID: Of course a new weapon at a time of few useful weapons would 'look' big. To do it our new huge brain was barely used, the point you dance around: why so big if hardly used to full capacity.

dhw: It wasn’t our new huge brain that invented the spear! You are completely missing the point.

My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.

dhw: It is you who “dance” round the problem, because you cannot tell us why your God would have expanded the brain if it was not going to be required for another 300,000 years. Your only theory is that we had to learn to use it, although how you can learn to use something and yet produce nothing is beyond my understanding.

My statement that a designing God anticipate future use of the brain answers the question. Stasis is your problem not mine. Why does a brain naturally way over-expand? You have no natural answer, which why you scream about my bringing up natural causes in recent posts.

SURVIVAL

dhw: Even if your God did design the flipper, the purpose is the driving force behind any action, and if the purpose was survival, then it is illogical to say that survival of the whale was not the driving force behind your God’s evolutionary action. Why else would he have designed the flipper? Please answer.

DAVID: My point is God guarantees survival by preparing all new organisms/species with a proper design of parts to fit whatever new environmental challenges the new organism will meet. Simply God is the driving force for evolution and survival is obviously a necessary part.

dhw: No problem, then. In your theory, God is the driving force who designs all the innovations, and the purpose of the innovations is to improve organisms’ chances of survival in changing environments. And so when you wrote “survival never drives evolution”, you only meant that God designs all the innovations, the purpose of which is survival. Survival as the purpose of evolutionary innovation is therefore exactly the same as in Darwin’s theory.

Complete opposite: Difference in driving force is the issue you miss. God drives evolution, guarantees survival while Darwin says the need for survival drives evolution.