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

by dhw, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 11:06 (1344 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: To clear it up: Your statement of added neurons was incorrect as it applied to the study on illiterate Italian women, who had thickening in the Cortex and visual areas, regions that don't add neurons.

dhw: I never stated any such thing! Expansion did not apply to the Indian women!!!! Their brains complexified!

DAVID: From March 14, dhw: " 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”? My objection was only the hippocampus has this designed ability

March 13, dhw: “If new requirements such as reading complexify the brain, what programmes are the neurons following….Are you now saying your God preprogrammed the neurons specifically to respond to the task of reading?” I specifically said “complexify”, and I asked why your God could not have designed the same mechanism to expand as well as complexify. What is “incorrect”? And why didn’t you answer?

DAVID: In London cabbies where only memory is required, the hippocampus thickened and is presumed to have added neurons. Therefore, in most activities requiring complex brain activities in several areas more axon connections do the complexification, not new neurons.

dhw: And so we have two examples in which the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements: the first results in complexification, and the second in expansion, and you use these two examples to try and disprove my proposal that the same mechanisms could have been at work in the past, when the smaller brain would have complexified until its capacity was exceeded by new requirements, and then it expanded. Although you have tried to misrepresent what I wrote, thank you for this clear evidence of its feasibility.

DAVID: Tiny expansions in our brains prove nothing about the past, other than those brains probably had the same small expansions.

If we had proof, there would be nothing to discuss, and that applies to every subject from brain expansion to the existence of God. That is why we keep proposing and analysing the logic of different theories. So please tell me why it is illogical to suggest that since the modern brain RESPONDS to new requirements by complexifying and expanding on a small scale, it may have done the same in the past, but when brains were smaller, they responded by expanding on a larger scale.

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

dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?

DAVID: Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.

dhw: Instead of answering my now bolded question, you have once more switched to stasis, which I have covered over and over again! Stasis followed each expansion because there were no new requirements that needed extra capacity.... Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: I did. God is the cause for stasis. Your repeated discussion explains nothing, because I entered the concept of stasis long ago To emphasize the issue: why a huge brain so early before it was really used? You never have had a valid explanation.

You continue to avoid my bolded question, and you continue to dwell on stasis! I gave you a complete explanation, which you have shortened, and your response is to say it explains nothing, although you don’t say what is wrong with it! Once more: the sapiens brain expanded to its full size IN ORDER TO MEET UNKNOWN NEW REQUIREMENTS. Then there were no more new requirements until 300,000 years later, but instead of expanding again, it complexified presumably because further expansions would have created problems for the anatomy. Complexification proved so efficient that some cells were no longer necessary (= shrinkage.) Please tell us what is illogical about such a theory, and then please answer the bolded question above, since you have argued that past requirements were too “tiny” to require the earlier expansions.

SURVIVAL

dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me. […]

DAVID: I fully agree the new adaptations improved survival. My point you have avoided in this discussion is survival does not drive evolution, God does. That is the reason all I accept from Darwin in common descent, designed by God.

I’ve left out the bits in between. Since you agree that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival (regardless of whether your God designed them or not), you are in agreement with Darwin that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival. We do not need to use the words “driving force”.