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

by David Turell , Thursday, March 18, 2021, 15:01 (1344 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 15:06

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

dhw: 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.

We have no proof, only our separate theories of a reason for 200 cc expansion in more ancient hominins.

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.

dhw: 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,

I don't avoid your question. You don't accept my answer. The bold is the nub of the issue. Your interpretation is not mine. The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use. This is easily seen if one accepts God as in control of evolution. You have never explained stasis, just a lot of palaver around the issue, as evidenced by your complaint that I raise the issue, which I first presented as a concept for discussion. Stasis equals obvious underuse for the current size. The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.

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.

dhw: 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”.

Why not use 'driving' just as I use stasis? It disturbs your comfort worth your agnostic use of Darwin. Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything? Prompt use of a new tool aids survival, doesn't it? Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.