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

by dhw, Friday, April 09, 2021, 08:37 (1110 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO
QUOTE: It follows, therefore, that the brains of early humans did not become particularly large or particularly modern until around 1.7 million years ago. However, these early humans were quite capable of making numerous tools, adapting to the new environmental conditions of Eurasia, developing animal food sources, and caring for group members in need of help.

All of these could have “triggered” the various expansions.

QUOTE: During this period, the cultures in Africa became more complex and diverse, as evidenced by the discovery of various types of stone tools. The researchers think that biological and cultural evolution are probably interdependent. "It is likely that the earliest forms of human language also developed during this period,"

And so we appear to have a smooth development, with areas of the brain complexifying or expanding, as “triggered” by the innovations of the time. There is no mention of giant leaps or of excessive cells, and why should there be? It all makes perfect sense: innovations trigger expansions and complexifications and restructuring in between periods of stasis, when there are no innovations, and future use by sapiens – e.g. an infinitely more complex language than that of earlier humans – will entail further complexification and restructuring of the existing cells because further expansion is not possible.

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

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.

DAVID: 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?

Nobody knows what the new requirements were for ANY of the brain expansions (I listed some, and so did the articles), but they were obviously NOT small. You keep assuming that the brain expanded excessively in anticipation of bigger requirements to come. Why do you find this more logical than the brain expanding to meet a current need, then complexifying or expanding to meet new needs, though these may not have arisen for thousands of years (stasis)? And why do you think it sounds like good planning to have your God giving sapiens all those unnecessary cells that were later jettisoned (shrinkage), or specially designing Neanderthal’s even bigger brain and then killing him off?

Survival
dhw: 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.b

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.

DAVID: 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.

Your point is also that your God chose to evolve (= directly design) every other species from bacteria, including the 99% that had no connection with us. And what survival did God “guarantee”, since all organisms die, and 99% of his specially designed species have died out? Survival is not the driving force – the QUEST for survival is the driving force, and if God exists and if God really designs every single adaptation and innovation (which is pure theory), then even in your theory he designs them in order to enable organisms to fulfil the quest for survival. There is no conflict with Darwin’s theory. The conflict only arises when it comes to HOW the quest is fulfilled. You say through direct design by God, and Darwin says it’s through random mutations and natural selection – but leaves his options open as to the source of this mechanism.