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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 17, 2021, 19:27 (1102 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I agree all previous brains had the same complexification capacity. I agree the new expansion covered the needs of that time. But saying not excessive in size or neuronal network complexity at that time is poor reasoning, when we find enormous new brain usages starting 250,000 years later in an unchanged brain waiting to be used.

dhw: the point of my theory: Each expansion – including that of sapiens – was a REPONSE to a new need, and the new expansion then “covered the needs” of all brains, including sapiens, so long as complexification was able to do so. But 250,000 years after sapiens’ initial expansion, NEW REQUIREMENTS arose that could not be covered by existing complexification, and so the hitherto “unchanged brain” now had to change.

DAVID: Our fresh new brain had lots of new extra cells, never used until much later in specialized areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes with intricate five special layers of neurons in a special tandem network. This allowed our new abstractions of thought that we are familiar with now.

dhw: How on earth can you possibly know that the new extra cells – which I propose were NEEDED in order to meet the new requirements – were never used? What would have changed after 250,000 years was the manner in which the neurons combined to form new connections. You persist in ignoring the very clear statement I quoted earlier: “…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.” This is what would have happened when the existing extra (but NOT excessive) cells could no longer cope with the new requirements.

How do you know all those excess cells were needed at the time of sapiens appearance? Just because they were there? Apes, our ancestors, are not experiencing consciousness, but it had to appear in early hominin or later homo forms as the brain enlarged and became more complexly wired and arranged as we are in tiered neuron groups. That had to precede the development of language which allowed us to exchange complex abstractions which was followed by full use of the entire new brain form and loss of volume 150 cc and contained neuron networks. You can't realistically explain the excess brain in the beginning any other way.

dhw: […] 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: It is totally unreasonable. Many extra cells are many extra cells, no matter ow you try and twist it. The stasis until their use cannot be tossed away with by the contorted explanation you present. Thrown away extra cells were extra cells from, the beginning.

dhw: Yet again: in my theory the many extra cells were needed in order to meet whatever was the new requirement 315,000 years ago. If previous expansions, as you agree, “covered the needs of that time”, why on earth would you assume that our own expansion did NOT simply cover the needs of that time? You harp on about stasis, but stasis was always the case once the new requirements had been met. Our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no further expansions. In our case no change was NEEDED until 250,000 years had passed. And so yet again, what logical objection can you have to the proposal that our extra cells WERE needed, were NOT excessive, and only become unnecessary when enhanced complexification had taken over?

A lot of words that do not really explain the excess of cells in the beginning. You are simply assuming the neurons knew how to rearrange and rewire themselves as we left apedom.

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

dhw: True.... And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!

DAVID: All we know, and you have used another distortion of our agreement on this, organisms have minor necessary epigenetic adaption but stay the same species. No one can identify how species appear. I say God does it by design.

dhw: If anyone could identify how species appear, we would not be having this discussion...My proposal is that evolutionary change comes about through responses to new requirements, not through anticipation of them. I am quite happy to don my theist’s hat in these discussions, because my theory allows for your God as the designer, but instead of designing every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, he would have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to do their own autonomous designing. And apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.

My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.