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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 04, 2021, 18:52 (1109 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 18:59

DAVID: 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 THINKING AREA. This is the area we had to learn to use very completely. I have no idea why you haven't understood this.

dhw: First your “point” was the enormous addition, then your “point” was no change in lifestyle, and when I’ve answered your “points”, you shift to another “point”! It also helps you to leave out certain parts of my answer, and five minutes' research on the Internet reveals a fact that you might not have known, which is that The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.

I knew about erectus expansion, but it didn't develop much aesthetic or analytical thinking as evidenced by the small change in lifestyle during their existence. The huge advances in lifestyle came only because of the appearance of an oversized-for-current-needs prefrontal and frontal regions that allowed for much more complex ideation. The stasis period only represents learning to is use it. You don't deny that it took lots of time.

dhw: it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change itself in anticipation of them.

If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.

Survival

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

dhw: Yes indeed. Whether (theistic version) your God designed it directly or designed a mechanism to produce it, life became an enormous bush. It did not consist of one straight line from bacteria to H. sapiens, but diversified into vast numbers of branches, 99% of which had no connection to humans.

Again you have forgotten or ignored the need for huge food supply.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.

I'll repeat: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.