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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 11:30 (1339 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold is a total distortion of my views. From before Lucy to latter erectus there were major changes in physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle.[dhw’s bold]

dhw: Last week you were telling us: “My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.” “There is no reason for an oversized brain to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today.”....“You are left with natural speciation which doesn’t explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.” Now apparently there were major changes in lifestyle. Please make up your mind. [dhw’s bold]

DAVID: You are ignoring the many small steps that led to major changes: Lucy's brain was 400 cc. The growth was on the average 200cc each time until at erectus (1,200 cc) we have stone weapons, hide clothing, fire, cave dwelling, but remember, even the first sapiens (1,350 cc) lived very little differently than erectus. Now brain size growth is finished, shrunk a little and the use of this brain is huge.

Why are you telling me what I have already told you? You have left out the whole paragraph in which I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (based on the struggle for survival) that changed – though you said there were major changes - but the methods that improved chances of survival. So now you’ve itemized some of the methods, every one of which was major enough to require additional brain capacity. Or do you think the first apes that descended from trees were capable of making stone weapons and hide clothing, and using fire?

dhw: Hence my point that the hunter with a new weapon was still a hunter. But I’m not going to complain if you now believe that last week’s tiny advances were in fact major changes. That lies at the heart of my theory.

DAVID: And for me it doesn't prove the need for 200cc jumps with each new hominin species.

I suggest that since each jump was accompanied by major changes which you once called tiny changes, there is a causal connection. But no, it’s not proven. Your good old get-out expression. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory but a fact, and we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

DAVID: I don't accept your theory as it doesn't fit the human story over 315.00 years.

And so you try to dodge the implications of the major changes which you once called tiny. Of course my theory fits the story, although nobody knows the exact cause of each expansion. After ours – to meet some unknown requirement – there were no new requirements until 300,000 years had passed – peanuts in the 2-3-million-year history of hominins and homos. Then the next new requirements were met by complexification. What doesn’t fit?

DAVID: I don't dislike Darwin. but what his blind followers have done to his theory.

dhw: On the subject of survival, you wrote: “Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything?....Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.” You simply refuse to acknowledge that stasis occurs when the species survives without any new requirements (such as implementing new ideas, exploiting new discoveries, adapting to new conditions etc.). And you simply refuse to acknowledge that all of these are directly geared to “the struggle to survive”.

DAVID: Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.

The above is not a description of stasis but an explanation (there were no new requirements), and as usual you try to ignore it, just as you refuse to recognize that instead of the brain expanding 10,000 years ago to meet new requirements (I suggest that further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy), it complexified. What is your objection? See below for survival.

How plasticity mjght work
DAVID: As new brain areas respond to demands from use, excitatory and inhibitory balance has to be maintained.

I am pleased to note that you now have new brain areas RESPONDING to demands from use. I don’t know why you think your God had to create new brain areas in the past in anticipation of demands from use.

SURVIVAL
dhw: Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force. […]

DAVID: What is your point? I will agree once God has developed His purposes He pursues them with no hesitation. Does He feel 'driven'? I have no idea. What is your guess?

This discussion began with your attempt to belittle Darwin’s theory concerning the “constant struggle to survive”. My “guess” is that if, as you say, your God designed all the innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival, it is fair enough to argue, as Darwin does, that survival is the purpose of all the innovations. We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.