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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 11:11 (1108 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How huge is “huge”? [...]

DAVID: Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years.

Three websites that disagree:
Homo erectus Vs. Homo-Sapien: General Difference - Viva ...
https://vivadifferences.com/homo-erectus-vs-homo-sapien/

"The brain capacity was between 900 and 1200 cubic centimeters.."

The IQ & brain size of Homo erectus | Pumpkin Person
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/02/the-iq-brain-size-of-homo-erectus

“So near the end of their run, when Homo erectus averaged 1,186 cc….."

And another which I referred to earlier but can’t find now:
"The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens."

Please stop harping on about a huge leap. Our current size is no greater than that of late erectus.

dhw: You have just agreed that “advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe”. Therefore the frontal lobe would also have expanded! You’ve switched your period of stasis from 300,000 years to 250,000 years, but it doesn’t make the slightest difference. Humans build on the advances made by their predecessors, and I am proposing that ALL their successive brains expanded, as concepts became more and more complex. The sapiens expansion of the frontal and temporal lobes would initially have been the response to some new concept, and then, according to you, there were no more major new concepts (hence stasis) till language came along 250,000 years later, which would have resulted in the complexification of the frontal and temporal lobes, as these could not expand any more without causing anatomical problems. What is your objection?

DAVID: Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus while at that time life's demands was approximately the same for both species. You won't admit it is over-expansion because that supports my claim God did it, plain and simple.

"Huge" expansion dealt with above. Life’s demands = lifestyle, answered earlier: erectus and early sapiens’ lifestyle was based mainly on survival: “the hunter with a new spear is still a hunter”. There was no over-expansion – all cells were used, but new requirements were met through complexification, which proved so efficient that some previously essential cells became redundant. In any case, overexpansion would not support your claim that God did it! It would merely raise the question of why he gave sapiens cells that proved to be unnecessary! Meanwhile, you still refuse to tell us why a God who created an autonomous mechanism for complexification (you agree) could not have created an autonomous mechanism for expansion.

Survival
dhw: Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.

DAVID: In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survi val is guaranteed, not a struggle.

How can survival be “guaranteed” when all organisms die, and 99% of species have become extinct? Evolution does not mean “life”, it means adaptations and innovations which are intended to improve chances of survival and which lead to new species. And EVERY species struggles to survive, whether your God designs their adaptations/innovations or not. Why else would they try to eat and to avoid being eaten?