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

by dhw, Monday, April 26, 2021, 08:31 (1090 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't ignore your arguments, I reject them. You cannot wish away the fact that we had more cells when our brain appeared than we have now under much heavier use than was present then.

dhw: I have not wished it away. That is what we call shrinkage, and I have explained it over and over again: when enhanced complexification took over from expansion, it proved so efficient that certain previously essential cells became redundant. Please stop ignoring my arguments.

DAVID: I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.

You say you don’t accept my arguments, but then you proceed to repeat them almost word for word, except for calling the new cells “excess”! I suppose I’d better repeat that in my theory, the EXTRA (not “excess”) cells were added in response to new requirements. During the period of stasis there were no major (your "heavy") new requirements, and so they would then have continued to be used (with "light" complexification) for that new purpose and any other minor requirements, until 250,000 years later. Then new requirements led not to expansion but to enhanced complexification, which made some cells unnecessary. What do you disagree with?

DAVID: Your whole concept. We had to learn to use our oversized brain, by adding huge new functions such as usable language with speech, more exact stone tool manufacture, leaving caves for structures like tents, and softening hides for clothing and more recently arithmetic, and other immaterial concepts. with shrinkage of the excess. The excess allowed us to tailor our own new big brains.

You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive. The picture you draw is absurd in the light of modern research, which shows that our brains complexify (and the hippocampus expands) IN RESPONSE to new demands. I don’t believe we said to ourselves: “Oh, God gave me a lot of new cells that aren’t doing anything, so I’d better invent language etc.” I’ve explained why I think the new cells were added initially (new requirements), and why they were “lightly used” during stasis (no major new requirements), and then all the new ideas etc. that you have listed required enhanced complexification of the existing cells (including the original extra ones) – and, for the umpteenth time, this proved so efficient that certain cells became unnecessary. Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?

DAVID: I'll stay with my personal theology. God speciates, and you reject it. No changes.

dhw: We are talking about our ancestors. Do you believe your God gave them the autonomous ability to invent new tools etc., as above, or do you think he programmed or taught them how to do it?

DAVID: Answered already. We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.

I’ll take that as meaning that our ancestors did indeed have the autonomous ability to invent new tools.

DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.

dhw: So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.

DAVID: For the obvious reasons I've presented.

dhw: Agreed. All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?

DAVID: I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. God-given oversized at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have.

Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.