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

by dhw, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 08:46 (1335 days ago) @ David Turell

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..Once each brain (including sapiens) had expanded by meeting the new requirement, it did not need to expand any more (complexification could cope) until there was another new requirement which exceeded its existing capacity.(Explanation of stasis.) It was never too large. 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.

DAVID: It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis.

There is no “necessity” for stasis. It is the consequence of there being no new requirements.

DAVID: I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements.

And I keep proposing to you that the brain was never TOO big for current requirements. Only when it was unable to meet new requirements did it expand. But in sapiens’ case, it could not expand any further, and so it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this was so efficient that it made certain cells redundant = shrinkage. It was NOT too big for 300,000 years. If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.

DAVID: 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.

Your explanation of stasis has been that sapiens had to spend 300,000 years learning to use his brain but he produced nothing new! My explanation of stasis, yet again, is that after expansion sapiens did not need to produce anything new. In earlier times, expansions were caused by the major innovations you yourself have listed, and these were followed by stasis. Same brain…no new requirements. Only when new requirements exceed the brain’s capacity does it expand. See above for sapiens. There is no scrambling. It is a perfectly straightforward theory, and you have still not offered a single reason for rejecting it.

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?

DAVID: 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.

Your point is that your God designed each expansion, including sapiens, in anticipation of requirements that did not yet exist. Of course your theory makes him appear! My point is that just as you believe he designed an autonomous process of complexification – unless you’ve suddenly decided that God also designs all our human designs for us – he could (theistic version) have enabled the SAME autonomous mechanism to produce additional cells when needed. I simply have your designer God going where you don’t want him to go.

I note that under “survival” you have now dropped your objection to Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations and innovations was to improve chances of survival. No doubt this will come up again in future posts.