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

by dhw, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 11:50 (1330 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

What is the logic behind him giving us extra cells to enhance complexification if the extra cells prove to be redundant? Once again, you have avoided telling me what is wrong with my theory. And my explanation does not exclude God – it only excludes your illogical interpretation of what your God did. I went on to set out the details of my theory yet again, but I shan’t repeat it, as your comments force me to repeat it anyway!

DAVID: Total history review with no real answer for the fact that we were given lots of extra unused cells until much later on.

A history review is essential if you want your theory to fit in with the history! I am proposing that he did NOT give us extra unused cells! I even bolded the argument. The extra cells were essential for the first sapiens to meet new requirements. All 1350 cc were used. And when much later there were new requirements, complexification took over, and this proved so efficient that some of the previously essential cells became redundant (= shrinkage).

DAVID: 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.

Once more: Nobody knows what the new requirements were that caused ANY of the expansions. You were kind enough to list some of the possible past causes yourself. Once more: new tools, new weapons, new ideas, new discoveries, use of fire, clothes, changes in the environment etc. And once more: the changes were not in the lifestyle, which was always dedicated to survival, but in the means of improving the chances of survival. Example: the hunter with a brand new weapon is still a hunter.

DAVID: 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.

Of course it’s pertinent. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: in order to develop language, the “available” 1350cc of cells that were essential from the beginning of sapiens’ history must have complexified, presumably because expansion was no longer possible.

DAVID: Shrinkage simply means the brain was oversized to begin with. I explain possibly why below.
DAVID: 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!

So your God gave us too many cells in the first place – in his own “human” way he didn’t really know what he was doing. And why is that more likely for you than the proposal that ALL the cells were necessary until complexification made them redundant? You have already conceded free rein by agreeing that complexification is autonomous, and you continue to ignore the theistic possibility that as well as complexifying, the mechanism your God designed could earlier have been used to add more cells to existing brains (as it does now with the hippocampus).

Brain expansion
QUOTE: "A cache of beautiful crystals collected 105,000 years ago in South Africa is shedding new light on the emergence of complex behaviours in our species."

DAVID: Just another study which shows how we gradually learned to use our brain aesthetically. It had the capacity initially waiting to be used. Aesthetics are immaterial ideation.

Nobody will deny that humans have advanced!!! That does not mean that your God performed operations on every species of hominin and homo, adding 200 cc without any immediate purpose, until finally he added the same amount to the first sapiens, who would likewise do nothing with the extra cells until eventually he used them, and then they proved to be unnecessary. Now please tell us why you find my theory illogical.

Survival
DAVID: 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?

DAVID: No and yes. His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.

Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.

DAVID: 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.

What is a “guarantee from God”? He designs an innovation, says to the organism: “I guarantee this will keep you alive”, and then it joins the other 99% of dead species? Even if God designed all life forms, and even if some of the designs entail complexification, the purpose of each design is to improve chances of survival (until eventually changing conditions wipe the species out). Why else would he have designed the complexities of the brontosaurus plus all the other 99%?