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

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 17:08 (1128 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements.

dhw: I am proposing that the brain enlarges through the process of producing the new artefacts. Just as the modern brain complexifies through the process of learning new skills. That has nothing to do with stasis, which is simply the period when there are no new requirements.

For sapiens the stasis period was +/-300,000 years. God's enlargement in anticipation of use is a much more obvious explanation.

DAVID: 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.
And:
DAVID: 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.

dhw: You wrote that between Lucy and erectus there were “major changes in lifestyle”. I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (always based on survival) but the ways of improving chances of survival that provided the major advances, and you kindly provided us with a list of examples: weapons, clothing, use of fire etc. Yes, these were all major advances despite your attempts now to minimise them. If you claim that your God expanded the brain before early humans came up with their new inventions, at least you have given a reason for the expansion, but at the same time you are agreeing that the new inventions required brain expansion! And we know from the modern brain that it changes in response to needs and not in anticipation of them. But since you are now trying once more to minimise the importance of new artefacts etc., please tell us what changes you were thinking of when you said that there had been “major changes in lifestyle” if you were not referring to the above list.

They were major advances for the time, but did not require much use of the brain, compared to how we use our brain now. Why does 200 cc from erectus to sapiens make such a difference? The time to learn to use the available brain with a much more sophisticated pre-frontal area..

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?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I suspect that most of the early major advances provided solutions to problems (how to kill at a distance, how to keep warm), but in any case why do you regard problem solving as a major use, but use of fire, new tools and weapons, warm clothing (plus the skill to make it) as minor? And again, please tell us what major changes in early human lifestyles you were thinking of. And why do you reject “no new requirements” as the cause of stasis? And finally, at no time have I denied the possible existence of God.

For me it is still an enlargement in anticipation of future use.

SURVIVAL
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.

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

dhw: Why do you think a logical supposition is a weak approach? Do you or do you not agree that the purpose of evolutionary adaptation and innovation – whether designed by your God or not – is to improve organisms’ chances of survival?

That does not explain the advance of humans beyond apes/monkeys. Those primates survived without any problems until the past 100 years when we began to overrun them. All we have gotten from our brains in a much better lifestyle, since survival was no issue. Please answer that issue.