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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 11:36 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: It is obvious that every brained organism that ever lived used and uses its cooperative brain cells to achieve whatever results are necessary. It is also obvious that the human brain expanded when new factors (e.g. new weapons, tools, ideas, discoveries, clothes, use of fire, changing conditions) required additional cells. It is far from obvious that brain cells were once there for no purpose at all, simply waiting to fulfil some vague future purpose.

DAVID: What is wrong with recognizing extra cells being present for future use? With belief in God as the designer, it makes perfect sense.

What does not make sense is your theory that he gave us extra cells for no particular purpose, we didn’t use them for 300,000 years, and when we did, they proved to be redundant. Now please tell me what is wrong with my theory.

DAVID: The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period.

dhw: You have never explained how one can learn without producing anything new. The stasis must be viewed as a period when there were no new requirements. Or whatever requirements there were could be dealt with by the existing mechanism for complexification.

DAVID: The large requirement of development of a complex language mechanism used the available cells presented in advance!!!

You still refuse to explain how one can learn without producing anything new, and why your God gave us extra cells we eventually didn’t need. I don’t know why you have suddenly switched the whole discussion to language. Previously, all you could talk about was 300,000 years of stasis, and now you want to cut it to 245,000 years of stasis. No problem for my theory. The leap to 1350 cc (caused by one of many possible new requirements) marks the beginning of H. sapiens. He needed the extra number of cells in order to meet that new requirement. From then on, there was no room for further expansion, and so all new requirements were met by enhanced complexification. That includes adjustments made to those parts of the brain and body associated with making sounds which earlier homos had been unable to make. The success of enhanced complexification resulted in some of the cells that had previously been essential becoming redundant (= shrinkage), just as when adaptations/ innovations/ speciation made previously essential cells redundant.

DAVID: I see no logic in your discussion, only your version of a review of history. Language development was a major requirement and the necessary cells were already present, weren't they?

Yes, the cells which had been essential for all earlier activities were still present, and met all new requirements by complexifying, and….yet again…complexification was so successful that some of them became redundant.

DAVID: As for redundancy I am fully aware of its use in God's design: two eyes, two ears, two kidneys, two adrenal glands, two lungs, various oversized organs (i.e., liver).

Totally irrelevant. Why can’t you recognize the logic of all cells being there to fulfil current needs, but becoming redundant when they are no longer needed? Why have your God popping all those extra new cells into a few brains for no immediate purpose except to “learn to use them”, and then when they are used, they turn out to be redundant?

Survival
DAVID: 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.

DAVID: Of course without survival evolution and life stop.

dhw: And so there is no contradiction between the two theories, and I presume you will stop attacking Darwin for arguing that the purpose of evolutionary innovations is to improve chances of survival. Just asking for clarification.

DAVID: The contradiction is not the need for survival, but the point I raised initially: God drives evolution from stage to stage, survival doesn't.

Playing with words. Just change your sentence: God drives evolution from stage to stage, and the reason for the innovations that he designs is to improve chances of survival. Yes or no?