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

by dhw, Friday, March 19, 2021, 12:13 (1343 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

Correct. So now please tell me why you regard my theory as illogical.

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: […] The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use.

This has nothing to do with the earlier expansions. Why did he expand earlier brains if the new requirements were too tiny to need expansion? Please note that our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no apparent advances in their lifestyles that we know of, apart from improved artefacts. Long periods without change are what we mean by “stasis”. They arise because there is no NEED for change.

DAVID: 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.

My complaint is not that you raised the issue, but that (a) you keep dodging the bolded question, and (b) you keep returning to stasis when I have given you a perfectly logical explanation. Stasis does not “equal” underuse. It simply means a state or period in which there is no change. My explanation yet again: The human brain expanded to its present size to meet some unknown requirement, and then – as with every preceding stage of brain – there were no new requirements. In the past, stasis ended when the existing capacity was too small to meet new requirements (hence expansion), and when the pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size, the new size was adequate for sapiens’ needs. But when eventually there were new requirements, instead of expanding (and presumably causing problems for the anatomy) the brain enhanced its existing ability to complexify. If the new ideas, discoveries, inventions, lifestyles had occurred earlier, the brain would have complexified earlier. There is no “underuse”. Whether your God performed the initial sapiens expansion operation for no immediate purpose, or the cell communities added cells to meet a particular requirement makes no difference to the facts: 315,000 years ago the brain expanded, for 300,000 years there were no new requirements (stasis), and when there were new requirements, it complexified instead of expanding. And we know for a fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. What is your problem with this explanation?

DAVID: 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.

Yes, we are special. That does not make your theory of brain expansion any more logical than mine, and it does not answer the bolded question concerning why your God would have expanded earlier brains if the new uses were too "tiny" to need expansion.

SURVIVAL
dhw: 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”.

DAVID: 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.

I am perfectly happy to say that purpose is a driving force, but you want to confine the term to the power which you believe has and fulfils the purpose. Your question concerning stasis is absurd: life forms find a mode of life which enables them to survive. If no change is required, there is stasis in their development. If change is required, they adapt or, in some cases, innovate, or they die. End of stasis. Thank you for agreeing that a new tool aids survival. The purpose of “aiding survival” is the driving force behind its invention, but you don’t like me using the term, so I’ll stick to purpose. How on earth does this count as a “disturbance” to the theory that survival is the purpose for evolutionary change? Stasis is simply what occurs when there is no need for change.