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

by dhw, Monday, April 05, 2021, 11:31 (1326 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.

DAVID: 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.

You refuse to say how one can learn to use something without producing anything, and you force me to repeat both theories since you ignore all my responses. Your theory: when the pre-sapiens brain expanded the usual amount, it did so for no immediate purpose, was oversized, and was not fully used until there were huge advances in lifestyle following the period of stasis. Mine: ALL brain expansions (including sapiens) came about because of an immediate requirement, after which the WHOLE brain was used until its capacity for complexification was exhausted, and (with the exception of sapiens) more cells were needed in response to new requirements. You persist in emphasizing “small change in lifestyle”, and I keep reminding you that even early sapiens did not change his lifestyle, because lifestyle until modern sapiens consisted mainly of improving methods of survival. Example repeated ad nauseam: the hunter with a new spear remained a hunter. The process of expansion to meet new needs only changed in sapiens because further expansion would have caused anatomical problems, and so enhanced complexification took over. And finally, this proved so effective that cells which had previously been essential now became redundant. Your objections to this proposal have been 1) that the sapiens addition was too huge (it was the same as all the other expansions), 2) that there was no change in lifestyle (just explained for the umpteenth time), and 3) that it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?

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.

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

Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense. And of course you can believe in your God as the designer of the autonomous mechanism that made this possible, especially as you already believe that your God designed the autonomous mechanism that made complexification possible.

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.

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

Again you have forgotten or ignored your own correct observation that PAST food supplies were for PAST life forms which had nothing to do with present life forms. All life forms, and not just humans, need and needed food!

dhw: […] 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.

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

Survival IS the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to new species (as per Darwin), whether God designed them or not!