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

by dhw, Monday, April 19, 2021, 10:16 (1103 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] The only clue we have is the way the modern brain works, which is by RESPONDING to new needs. It RESPONDS by complexifying, although the hippocampus has expanded. We do not know of any instance in which the brain complexifies/expands in anticipation of some unknown future requirement. Why do you continue to ignore this argument?

DAVID: The reason the brain complexifies is that it has extra neuron networks to work with....

Still totally ignoring the “response” evidence of how the brain works! The reason the brain complexifies, as we know from modern science, is that it has to adjust itself in order to meet new requirements. In former times, the ability to make these adjustments depended on two factors: the number of cells available, and their capacity for complexification (i.e. establishing new connections). Today it responds almost exclusively by complexifying.

DAVID: ...They are already present so as the brain develops more efficiency of thought a fairly large number can be discarded.

Yes, in sapiens’ case the cells are present, and as the ability to complexify is enhanced, some of the cells which I suggest had previously been essential can be discarded.

DAVID: I view the brain much as we might consider material transport: a model T cannot carry the same load as an 18-wheeler. This is why I raised the point that the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus.

We don’t need your truck image. You simply keep ignoring the point that all lifestyles prior to late sapiens were based mainly on survival. Whatever new requirements arose (our list contained such causes as new tools, weapons, clothes, ideas, discoveries, environmental conditions, use of fire etc.) would have been devoted to improving chances of survival. The simple example I gave you was: the hunter with a brand new spear is still a hunter.

DAVID: The fact that the brain shrunk as it became more fully used, demonstrates design in preparation for future use. All you are proposing is all the new cells were required for what? Evidence it was for little new use at first and major use came later.

The fact that the brain shrunk indicates that some of the cells which had previously been essential (why else would they have been added to the quantity available?) were no longer needed once complexification had taken over. That is the difference between our theories: you have your God giving us extra cells to be used in the future, except that they were not needed in the future and were therefore discarded. I have additions being made only when essential, e.g. to implement the design, making and use of the spear, followed by period of stasis till next new requirement exceeds existing capacity (i.e. number of cells and ability to complexify).

dhw: Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]

DAVID: […] essential for what? We use our brain to live as best we can. We see the flow of hominin/homo lifestyle go from very simple to highly complex with each step of enlargement….

No we don’t. You’ve just said yourself that “the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus”, and although undoubtedly the step from tree-dwelling to land-dwelling would have been a major development, the hunter with spear would have had the same lifestyle as the hunter without spear. I note your refusal to answer my question above.

DAVID…and we find a very high degree of complexity in our brain that has no resemblance to other primates. (Note bold above) Five tiers of frontal lobe neurons, probably evolved from hominin to now with a last very giant sapiens step.

Why do you keep repeating what we already know? The matter in dispute is how this very high degree evolved. You insist that your God kept operating on all the hominins and homos, enlarging their brains in anticipation of future needs, and in our case giving us excess cells we wouldn’t need in the future! I propose that expansions took place in response to needs at the time, and in our case enhanced complexification made some previously essential cells redundant. As far as your God’s role is concerned, you agree that he must have invented a mechanism for autonomous complexification (unless you believe he thinks all our thoughts for us), and we know that the modern brain only complexifies or expands (hippocampus) IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Autonomy is only possible if the cells themselves have the intelligence to know when they need to multiply/complexify, and your God’s role – if he exists – would have been to design the mechanism that gave them their intelligence.

dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.

DAVID: 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.

I shan’t repeat the rest of the discussion, in which for the umpteenth time I summarized your own humanized view of God, whom you can “make into anything you wish”. It is covered again under “theodicy”, and it does not provide one single logical reason for rejecting my theory concerning the expansion and complexification of the brain!