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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 19:15 (1323 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two
DAVID: I'll admit I've simplified our discussion by using size only at times but what expands and what it functionally does is much more to the point. Your response?

dhw: Thank you for your admission. Modern research shows that the sapiens leap was no “huger” than erectus’s, and that hominid brains and homo brains expanded in precisely the same areas, performing precisely the same functions.

DAVID: I'd like to add one more point on simply using volumes. Neanderthal brain size was bigger than ours! They didn't win.

QUOTE: "Analyses of DNA found in human fossils from around that time — the oldest known human remains in Europe — suggest that interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neandertals, who were on the fast track to extinction, occurred more commonly than has often been assumed, two new studies suggest."

dhw: So now what is your theory: your God gave sapiens a bigger brain than he needed, and he gave Neanderthal an even bigger brain and then let him disappear (apart from leaving a few of his genes behind)? And all this is supposed to denote evidence of his “genomic pre-planning”? Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.

You can't escape from the point that we've reached, why so much potential functionality from a small new need, much more than the new requirement should require, as shown by what happened much later after the recognized stasis period?

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 survival is guaranteed, not a struggle.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: All living organisms want to live, but I don't see humans struggling to live as wild animals have to do. It seems God favored us over them.

dhw: Then perhaps you should watch the news or read the newspapers. But disregarding the natural catastrophes that take or threaten millions of human lives, our brilliant minds have ensured that the struggle is vastly more complex than that of wild animals, who do not find themselves in refugee camps, totalitarian states, bankruptcy courts etc. And why are you ignoring the fact that early sapiens and his human ancestors followed very similar lifestyles to those of wild animals, but simply used increasingly sophisticated weapons to obtain their meat? All this is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that evolutionary adaptations and innovations which led from bacteria to dinosaurs and humans served the purpose of improving chances of survival, as per Darwin, no matter whether they were designed by God or not.

DAVID: As for 99%, they have to go to make room, and are discarded as less complex models of evolutionary advances. God guarantees what He wishes to guarantee. Obvious.

dhw: What was the point of his directly designing 99% of species that would take up all that room and would then have to be discarded, if the only line of descent he wanted to design was the 1% from bacteria to humans? Please stop dodging, and please either accept the bold or give us a logical reason why you reject it.

Same old logical point: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, per logical Adler and me. My view is God guaranteed survival at each stage of evolution, so survival is not the driving force of evolution.