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

by dhw, Friday, April 16, 2021, 11:54 (1099 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Size, complexity and new functions are all part of our discussion. The bold makes no sense to me. It doesn't explain at all the shrinkage of 150 cc later on in homo history and simply implies the brain was oversized for current use when sapiens appeared.

dhw: I really don’t know how else I can phrase the bold, but perhaps if I put it in block capitals it will finally register. Step One: WHEN SAPIENS APPEARED, THE 1350cc WERE NEEDED. THE BRAIN WAS NOT OVERSIZED. Step two: ALL 1350 cc WERE USED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS UNTIL – YOUR FIGURES – 245,000 YEARS LATER. Step 3: THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WOULD THEN HAVE REQUIRED FURTHER EXPANSION, BUT THE BRAIN DID NOT EXPAND. INSTEAD THERE WAS ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION. Step 4: ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION PROVED SO EFFICIENT THAT 150cc OF PREVIOUSLY ESSENTIAL CELLS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED, AND SO THEY WERE DISCARDED. HENCE SHRINKAGE.

DAVID: I fully understand your approach and fully reject it, no matter the size of the lettering. Your declaration that a total of 1350 cc were absolutely needed over 300,000 years ago is simply your belief, without any proof.

The same applies to your own theory. However, we should not ignore the fact that we do have evidence in the modern brain, which changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the process was the same in the past. This would mean that when pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size (1350cc), it was IN RESPONSE to new requirements – otherwise there would have been no expansion. And in that case, the new cells were necessary to fulfil the new need – they were NOT excessive.

DAVID: My proof that it was oversized is shown by the shrinkage later on just as you describe by enhanced complexification using and also discarding the excess neurons under very complex uses of our big brain we discovered how to employ. Why were excess neurons there in the first place if they could be discarded later under much heavier use of the brain?

It is not proof! You devoted a whole thread to the concept of lost genes coinciding with innovation: the principle is the same. Cells are needed, but when a new mechanism takes over, they become unnecessary. In this case, enhanced complexity made expansion unnecessary and made some of the existing cells unnecessary. The neurons were NOT “excess” until enhanced complexification made them redundant. I do not ask you to believe the theory, but I do ask you for a logical reason for rejecting it. You have not yet offered me a single one.

DAVID: You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.

True. It goes against what we know of the modern brain, and I find it far more logical to assume that any changes in the brain and in the anatomy would have an immediate cause, as opposed to being preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or being the result of your God performing a series of operations (dabbling) in anticipation of some future need. In this respect, our prime example was your insistence that he replaced the legs of pre-whales with flippers BEFORE they entered the water. And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!