More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 15:53 (191 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum

DAVID: All you have done is redescribe the process, avoiding the conceptualization requirement issue.

dhw: My point is that there is NO conceptualization, if by that you mean consciously formulating plans in advance. We don’t know how strategies originate, but the trigger has to be whatever problem needs to be solved. If bacteria can come up with solutions, why can’t snakes, wasps, and our old friend the possum? I find it hard to believe that they all receive precise instructions from your God – whether through a dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of solutions for all problems – and I think the likeliest explanation is a mixture of intelligence, problem-solving ability, trial and error, and sheer luck. Once the strategy has succeeded, it will be passed on.

Nuts!!! There is conceptualization: the prey must think if I do this will the predator do that, in deciding a life-saving maneuver. Problem solving requires conceptual thought.

Global warming

DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. […] Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice? [...]

dhw: I don’t have enough knowledge to make an “informed” choice. Nor do you, and unfortunately nor do the experts, since they cannot agree. However, yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution etc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?

DAVID: No threats. Problems to be logically addressed. You as a liberal live in fright. I am very conservative and much less emotional about issues.

dhw: Why do you think a problem doesn’t represent a threat? I don’t care about political labels or degrees of emotion. The damage is real and is escalating. Yes, the problems need to be logically addressed and solved. I'm glad you agree.

You use 'threat' and I use 'problem', a vast emotional difference.

One cubic millimetre of brain

DAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.

dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.[…]

DAVID: Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.

dhw: We’re not talking about “equals”, and I’m talking to you, not to Bechly. Past brains, just like current animal brains including other primate brains, have many features in common with the sapiens brain. Yes or no? So do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex?

DAVID: Yes, what is in our brain has some less complex parts from previous brains. What has been added is a giant single step. Bechly's thought. I use experts to support my research. Bechly has talked to you. He won't go away. Why do you dislike a Ph.D. fellow you don't know.

dhw: Why are you making this personal? Nobody knows the truth about how evolution works, and the fact that you prefer one expert view to another expert view does not get us very far. That is why I asked you my question, which you still haven’t answered. How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?

Our brain is vastly different from the erectus brain, based on size, shape, and what we accomplished compared to erectus when both coexisted. Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.