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

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 17:31 (1129 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements. God enlarges in anticipation of use based on the allegorical point: the first sapiens 'all dressed up and no where to go'. Simple, giant brain arrives before it is fully used 300,00 years later. My view remains unchanged despite your attempts to magnify early advances.

dhw: 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.

Your major is my minor. I admit considering the low level of living style, finally wearing hides is a big deal even though not much of a brain straining issue.

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.

dhw: 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?

The bold is your problem. The major uses (problem solving) appeared 300,000 years later. God enlarged the brain in anticipation. You have no answer except to deny God.

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

dhw: 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.

That is exactly my point. When needed the areas were there, ready to respond.

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?

dhw: 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.

Survival of the fittest is a weak approach, a nice logical supposition.