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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 11:31 (1318 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (Saturday April 10 at 19:32): You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.

For months you have been on and on about the huge leap in the size of the brain, with overexpansion and then shrinkage in size. For weeks and weeks I have been arguing that the leap was not huge and there was no overexpansion, because the cells were needed from the start, and when there were new requirements, complexification took over. You then narrowed the focus to the frontal lobe, but continued to emphasize the increase in size: (All to be found in your post of April 10):
DAVID: Of course they [rudimentary forms of language] were in a small way in preparation for future massive use by a much bigger brain given to us by God.

DAVID: We arrived with an extra 150 cc we eventually discarded. God giving us the extra cells allowed us the freedom to modify ourselves brain by our own wishes

DAVID: Look at the dramatic new size of the frontal areas in only sapiens and Neanderthal.

My response was as follows: […] "my proposal is that we got them because we needed them at the time, and after that there was a period when the new size of the frontal lobe coped with all requirements until 245,000 years later it would not have been able to cope, but instead of expanding it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells were no longer needed. As usual, you have totally ignored this proposal. Here is an interesting website on the frontal lobe that also lays emphasis on complexification:

Frontal Lobe - Physiopedia
www.physio-pedia.com/Frontal_Lobe
QUOTE: […] The human frontal cortex is not relatively larger than the cortex in the other great apes, but it is relatively larger than the frontal cortex in the lesser apes and the monkeys. However, what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.
Your comments, please.

DAVID: The bold is the key. Volume is not as important as organization of neuronal networks but also how the frontal lobes are differently organized by region.

Precisely. Connectivity, neurotransmitter changes, organization of neuronal networks can all be summed up as complexification. So do please stop harping on about brain size and overexpansion. Your next quote seems to me irrelevant as well as being sheer muddle:

https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/frontal-lobe-size
“The frontal lobe is defined as the portion of the brain anterior to the central sulcus. Absolutely,the size of the human frontal lobe is approximately 3-4 times that of great apes bb; however, information to date suggests that evolutionary increase in the relative size of the entire frontal lobe does not distinguish humans from apes. The frontal lobe does not show disproportionate volumetric increase in humans relative to great apes (Semendeferi and Damasio, 2000). Proportinately, the human frontal lobe occupies approximately 35-38.5% of the cerebral hemispheres, which does not fall discretely outside of the ranges found in all great ape species. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. Again it is organization of regions, not simple volume. Elephant brains are larger overall.

What is there to note? Our frontal lobe is 3-4 bigger than that of great apes, but the relative size does not distinguish us from apes! Confused? Nothing there about organization of regions, but yes, I agree with you, and am pleased to see that you have dropped your focus on size. All the regions would presumably have expanded in earlier times, according to needs (we can’t simply ignore the fact that ALL brains have expanded), but the crucial factor for sapiens’ brain has been its enhanced ability to complexify – see the bold in my quote above.

dhw: Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?

DAVID: Stated many times: Without a God your ideas are reasonable. But I have God.

Stated many times: my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system. It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.