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

by David Turell , Monday, March 29, 2021, 18:25 (1122 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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: Stasis proves the brain was too big for current requirements, as you point out it took 300,000 years to fully use it.

dhw: Stasis proves that there were no new requirements or developments, and it is you who insist that the brain was TOO big and it took 300,000 years to “fully use it”. Your next comment supports my theory:

This comment doesn't support your backward interpretation atall. DAVID: And the import of shrinkage is opposite to your convoluted reasoning. Overall size is not the issue but the ability to reorganize as needed as new uses of a big brain are employed.

As presented yesterday: "the major point to me is how the brain easily shuttles the information around the different cooperative areas to achieve the necessary result. Let us note this ability was present 315,000 year ago and unused until complex language appeared about 70,000 estimated years ago. It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent. The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period. The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain." A answer below:

dhw: Correct. Size is not the issue.... In other words, there were never too many cells, but the existing cells had to respond to new uses by enhanced complexification and not by adding to their number. This process proved so efficient that some cells became redundant (= shrinkage).

Not too many cells? Sapiens brain shrunk 150 cc from complexification.

dhw: […] the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them…

dhw: As with the first point in this post, not answered. And you have not answered the question of how sapiens “learned to use” his brain for 300,000 years by producing nothing.

It took time, as history shows to learn to use it.

dhw: How on earth do you know that an ability was present but was never used?

Obviously because of the giant usage present now. Original Sapiens lifestyle differed little from erectus while the brain was 200 cc larger.

DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent. The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period. The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain.

dhw: You have now excluded all former expansions from this discussion!

The only period of our evolution which is best to study is from the knowledge of what our brain tells us.

dhw: In sapiens’ case, the improved usage of the complexification mechanism was so great that certain cells became redundant (shrinkage).

Shrinkage was loss of 1500 cc of neurons and their axons It all comes from the development of complex language so that abstract ideas could be exchanged between people. From that point we learned how to use our oversized brains and complexification shrunk them. You just can't admit our first version of our brain was oversized. I view our first brain was a V-8 engine operating on two cylinders, a concept you try to avoid.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Of course adaptations improve survival. God gave organisms the ability to make minor adaptations to respond to changing requirements. Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.

dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.

Of course without survival evolution and life stop.