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

by dhw, Friday, April 02, 2021, 14:09 (1117 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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: 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 account from what I have just presented.

Why a “tiny bit”? They would have done all that was required of them. And what do you mean by the “acquisition of four areas” and “newly created additional frontal and prefrontal cortexes?" The existing cortices were not new – they expanded! And once the final expansion had taken place, the areas of the brain associated with language complexified.

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

Then there is no disagreement between us. Right from the start, sapiens used his 1350cc worth of cells. When he needed to make a greater variety of sounds in order to communicate a wider variety of meanings, those existing parts of the brain that were used to link thoughts to sounds, and to make the sounds, had to complexify, because the brain had reached its limit for expansion. What’s the problem?

(I have omitted the digression concerning free will, but will come back to it on the “Theodicy” thread under “subduction”.)

dhw: ...please tell us why you find my theory illogical.

DAVID: 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 wanders in a mental fog.

So a God who endows cells with the autonomous ability not only to complexify (you grant the autonomy) but also to produce additional cells when required is wandering in a mental fog. Whereas a God who produces extra cells which are necessary to improve complexification but which aren’t necessary (shrinkage), knows exactly what he is doing. And, to remind ourselves of your basic theory, the addition of cells for some vague future purpose seems more likely to you than the addition of cells to meet requirements that can’t be met by the existing number of cells.

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.

DAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.

So your God had to design the brontosaurus because otherwise he could not have designed the complex human brain. Your reasoning?

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%?

DAVID: 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?

I asked what you meant by guaranteeing survival. No explanation. Your question is far more relevant to your own theory: if survival is guaranteed, why are 99% dead? I suggest that survival is NEVER guaranteed. All organisms, however, TRY to survive, and that is why they adapt and innovate, using mechanisms possibly designed by your God.

DAVID: Returning vision with an RNA injection in the eye:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210401112532.htm

QUOTE: A Penn Medicine patient with a genetic form of childhood blindness gained vision, which lasted more than a year, after receiving a single injection of an experimental RNA therapy into the eye.

DAVID: Here is proof of my thought that our God-given brains can correct biochemical genomic errors beyond God's control systems. Perhaps that was His reason for The enormous ability of our brains, far beyond survival needs, an observatiOn you can't answer meaningfully.

I would regard the battle against diseases and genetic defects – or what you like to call errors beyond the control of your all-powerful, in-total-control God – as part of the battle for survival, but I have never suggested that our enormous abilities were confined to survival! Our specialness, however, does not prove that your God had to design the brontosaurus etc. before he could design us.