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

by dhw, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 09:16 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense. The enormous addition is not explained by the minimal new requirements as Erectus advanced to Sapiens, for the full evidence, which you ignore, is sapiens first lifestyle hardly differed from Erectus. You really can't explain the giant addition of cells in the frontal and prefrontal areas, which, we know, are later used for complex ideation.

You go on and on about the “enormous addition”. It was no more enormous than the additions throughout history. And you go on and on about the fact that there was little change in lifestyle, but you keep ignoring my answer: that the lifestyle of ALL preceding hominins and homos was based on improving chances of survival, and you keep ignoring your own answer: these improvements were in the form of new tools, new weapons, new ideas, clothes, use of fire, adapting to new conditions. Approx. 200 cc at a time. The hunter with a new spear is still a hunter. Now please tell me why you find my theory and my explanations illogical.

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.

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

DAVID: Evolution had to complexify from the bronto's pea-sized brain to ours. Remember God chose to evolve one step at a time.

Why do you say evolution had to do it? According to you, your God had to do it. You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us”. We did not descend from brontosauruses, and you have agreed that there is no connection between 99% of past life forms and us. So why did your God have to design the pea-sized brain of the brontosaurus, from which we did not descend, in order to design our complex brain?

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?

dhw: 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: You've backed away from my real point: survival adaptations don't drive evolutionary advances.

Once again, you refuse to say what you mean by “guaranteeing survival”. You’ve “backed away from my real point”: whether or not your God designed adaptations and innovations, their purpose is to improve chances of survival. This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.