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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 22, 2021, 20:10 (1309 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:[...] I keep answering your objections, and you keep ignoring my own: WE KNOW THAT THE MODERN BRAIN CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF THEM. WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN THE PAST?

DAVID: Excess is excess no matter how you contort it. You are proposing a light use of all neurons in the brain when enlargement occurs, and with heavy use later 150 cc of them disappears. Strange, so heavy use makes some neurons unnecessary? Heavy use in our current brain grows volumes of new axon connections, which tells us any heavy use simply enlarges axon networks.

dhw: And STILL you go on ignoring the question written in block capitals. You are now repeating my own theory in different terms, as if somehow that invalidated it! Yes, once the brain had expanded to 1350 cc, all cells would have been used. We don’t need your new category of light and heavy use, which glosses over the central issue of requirements.

I'm only ignoring your twisted interpretation. I'll accept your all-over usage, but it must be light use compared to how our brain is utilized today. Look at all the things our brain does now compared to then.

DAVID: We know our early brain was lightly used, but had great potential for complex use. As for the past I assume, as you do, the process was the same: enlargement in anticipation of future use with some excess neurons discarded as complexification occurred to fit the new uses. And of course with God as the designer.

dhw: Of course it had potential. That does not mean your God stuck in an extra 150cc which were not needed at the time. And as for the past, no, I do not believe that the process was in anticipation of future use or that excess neurons were discarded! Why are you shoving your theory onto me? I am proposing that there were never any excess neurons until sapiens' enhanced complexification came into force. In the past, when complexification could no longer cope, I propose that there was enlargement to meet new requirements, not to anticipate future use. But it is possible that your God was the designer of the autonomous mechanism which you agree runs complexification, but which you refuse to even consider as the source of expansion.

Look, my position is unchanged. God expanded all hominin/homo brains. The overexpansion does not fit your goal of a naturally caused expansion, un less the idea of light over-all use is accepted, which means still over expanded. .

dhw: It is you who denigrate your God by claiming that he gave us excessive neurons which proved unnecessary. Now suddenly you change your tune: the 150 cc were not excessive – now you think they were essential for the way complexification worked, and they even gave us our free will (which denotes the autonomy of complexification). So why were they made redundant?

A clever design by God which prepares for whatever uses we free-will humans invent is not any form of denigration except in your twisted view.
ired new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.[/i]

DAVID: There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.

dhw: Then why do you call them excess if we couldn’t have managed to speak our languages without them?

The excess cells allowed a special complexification of the brain for all the different types of networks needed for different languages.

dhw: …why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?

DAVID: We still totally disagree in interpretation. God designs the larger brain for future use by free-will hominins/homos in all stages.

dhw: Repeating your fixed belief is not an answer to my question.

Our brain responds with complexification, a mechanism planned, designed and given by God. Therefore it can rearrange itself whenever necessary. You have my response.