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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 03, 2021, 18:09 (1328 days ago) @ dhw

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.[/b]

dhw: 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:.... Now please tell me why you find my theory and my explanations illogical.

You've totally missed the point so I now have it in bold. It isn't just that 200 cc was added. The key is where it was added. This is the FIRST time the main addition is entirely in the abstract and idea THINKIG AREA. This is the area we had to learn to use very completely. I have no idea why you haven't understood this.

Survival

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.

dhw: 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?

History tells us what God decided to do, evolve step by step so life becomes an enormous bush..

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.

dhw: 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.

My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin