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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 01, 2021, 17:35 (1330 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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)

Interesting approach which means all the all old brain cells and the new ones had a tiny bit to do. The acquisition of four areas of the brain to create complex language is a refutation of your theory. Specifically designated brain areas for certain functions also refutes it.
The newly created additional frontal and prefrontal cortexes allowed complex abstract thought which did not pre-exist their appearance. I don't buy your theory since it doesn't ac count from what I have just presented.

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.

dhw: 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.

All you are saying is more cells had more to do, which is my point. complexification recruits cells to do more specific work.

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!

dhw: 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.

Your wild misinterpretation. We have free will and can use our brain as we wish. God knew exactly what He was doing in granting free will. You can't distort that.

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.

dhw: 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.

Oversized brain allowed for more refined complexification as brain was newly used by us. My God knows exactly what He is doing while your imagined God wan ders in a mental fog.

Survival

DAVID: His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.

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

To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.

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.

dhw: 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%?

We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?