Human evolution; savannah theory fading (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 24, 2022, 11:11 (604 days ago) @ David Turell

Brain expansion

DAVID: Our only disagreement is how the new enlarged number of neurons arrived in sapiens. I'll stick with a designer God. But we have agreed the extra cells arrived new and unused in preparation for the future use.

dhw: We absolutely do NOT agree that the extra new cells were unused!!! That is the nub of our disagreement! You say your God popped in to insert new cells which would not be used for thousands and thousands of years – just as you believe that he turned pre-whales’ legs into flippers before they entered the water. The essence of your theories is God’s anticipation of events to come. (On the pelvis thread, you wrote: “I think God designs all future forms for future use”). My view is the exact opposite. The new sapiens brain cells would have been added to meet what was then a new requirement. They were needed. (If they had not been used, they would have become redundant – which was our agreed explanation for shrinkage, if shrinkage happened). But whereas in the past complexification reached its capacity and more new cells had to be added, in our case, complexification took over almost completely, and the existing, always useful cells were thus able to meet each new requirement as it arose.

DAVID: It is preposterous to assume that huge new brain was fully used at its beginning.

Why have you inserted the word “fully”? Of course it’s preposterous. The brain can never be “fully” used – unless you think there will never be any more new ideas or conditions for the rest of time! I dispute your claim that the new cells were not used when they arrived but simply sat around for a few thousand years doing nothing. I find it “preposterous” to assume that new cells were added without any need for them at the time. I propose that they were needed and used to meet a new requirement, and have continued to be used ever since, complexifying as they and their buddies continue to meet new requirements. (But if shrinkage occurred, complexification proved so efficient that some previously useful cells became redundant).

DAVID: Lots of palaver about all those extra neurons 315,000 years ago, not used as they are now. Note in the caves there was little complicated for them to do. Certainly not reading, typing, deep conceptualizing as we do in our discussions.

dhw: Of course they were not used as they are used now! They enhanced their range of use as all these new requirements arose. But that does not mean they were not used before![/i] […]

DAVID: The bold is the right way to view it. Minor use early, heavy use later.

We agree. They did NOT arrive “unused in preparation for the future use”, but were used right from the start. And I extend this principle to the whole of evolution: changes do not take place in anticipation of future requirements but as a response to current new requirements.

Cerebellum

dhw: […] you still haven’t explained why your God, who you agree designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification, could not possibly have designed a mechanism for autonomous enlargement.

DAVID: Same answer. You want secondhand design. Hands on design is more efficient, without question.

dhw: We have dealt with this before. When comparing yourself to God, you told us you had your plan when you wanted to design something, and of course it was more efficient for you to do your own designing. And I suggest that if your God’s only plan had been to design H. sapiens plus food, it would have been more efficient for him to mimic you and do it directly. But he didn’t. Unlike you, instead of directly designing the only things he wanted to design, he apparently fiddled around with countless life forms and foods – most of which had no connection with us and our foods – and then with one stage after another (the evolution of humans), designing some bits that were useful, discarding other bits that weren’t, until at long last he came up with the goods: you and me and our food.

DAVID: Simply a weak criticism of God's method of evolution to create us.

It is not a criticism of God! It is a criticism of your theory that his one and only purpose was to create us and our food! The history of life does not reveal the single-minded pursuit of a single purpose which characterized your own form of design and made direct action the most efficient way of achieving your goal.

dhw: I suggest that he designed what he wanted to design, and that he actually wished for all those countless forms and foods and stages, as life unfolded its ever-changing variety. What better way than to give the original life forms their own means of designing? You agree that he gave brain cells an autonomous mechanism for complexification. And so once more, why couldn’t he possibly have given them the autonomous means of adding to their numbers?

DAVID: Back to secondhand design. Not worth the trouble it presents. covered before.

Still you refuse to answer my question, now bolded. The silly “secondhand” argument, in which you modestly compared yourself to God, has been dealt with above, and you have simply ignored it.