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

by David Turell , Saturday, March 27, 2021, 15:20 (1335 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You never explain stasis, which I see as a consequence of a brain appearing which is too large for current needs, and is the actual history of what happened. God speciates in anticipation of future use.

dhw: The above was your reply to my theoretical explanation of stasis, which I shall now repeat for the umpteenth time. But first, why on earth would an overlarge brain result in stasis? And no, a brain too large for current needs is NOT the actual history of what happened. That is your theory. The sapiens’ brain expanded from 1200cc erectus to 1350cc, just as all earlier brains expanded by similar amounts...The sapiens brain was never too large either. It was adequate for all sapiens’ needs for 300,000 years...You have never offered one single reason for rejecting this hypothesis, but merely go on repeating your own beliefs as if they were “the actual history of what happened”. I only ask you to provide one logical reason for rejecting it.

It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis. I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements. To me that is the obvious conclusion and a strong position, considering how use of sapiens brain exploded in the past 10,000 years showing its true capacity that was really available 315,000 years ago. You have scrambled around trying to diminish the point, but all you have done is describe stasis, a non-answer to my point.

DAVID: Which means stasis after huge enlargement.

dhw: How huge is huge? Our enlargement was no “huger” than preceding enlargements, stasis occurred after every enlargement (as explained above), and how does this comment invalidate the point that the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them?

Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there

SURVIVAL

dhw: …And when, 300,000 years after that final expansion, there were new requirements – whether connected with improved chances of survival or with other matters – the brain could not expand any further without creating problems for the anatomy (my proposal), and so enhanced complexification took over as the means of meeting them, as we know from research into “the only brain we can study”. You keep supporting my theory in your efforts to oppose it!

DAVID: Just the opposite. Humans had to learn to use the overexpansion and the stasis period demonstrates the time it took.

dhw: I propose that there was no overexpansion, and I have no idea how you can learn to use something without producing anything. Stasis means nothing new, and it applied to all stages of expansion, as explained above. I now eagerly await one logical reason for your rejection of my theory – other than the fact that it is the opposite of your theory.

All discussed above: "Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there."