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

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 18:15 (1122 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 19:09

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

dhw: 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.

What is your theory? God gave us an oversized brain probably to allow more complexification than fewer cells would allow. You explain the history, while I think God did it. Note the next comment:

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

dhw: 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.

Total history review with no real answer for the fact that we were given lots of extra unused cells until much later on. The bold about new requirements is baseless theory based on known archaeology as erectus and early sapiens lifestyles were quite similar if not exactly the same. I switched to language development because it is totally pertinent to this discussion as it shows new uses for four parts of the new brain. And it allowed us to exchange abstract ideas which then forced more development of brain usage with the neurons already available. Shrinkage simply means the brain was oversized to begin with. I explain possibly why below.

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).

dhw: 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?

You raised the issue of redundancy. My view is the extra cells allowed for a better form of complexification as we developed usage. It is possible God did not recognize exactly how we would learn to use our brain. We are beyond His control so here is your example of free-rein in action!

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.

dhw: 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?

No and yes. His reasons for His designs is for increased complexity. Survival is simply a guarantee from God. I'll repeat: God evolves and God drives evolution. Darwinist thinking is a drive for survival drives evolutionary adaptation, totally backward to my view. God designs and animals are therefore guaranteed survival.