Introducing the brain: why so big? Part two (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, July 19, 2024, 18:35 (50 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Oversized would mean that the new cells were superfluous. How can they have been superfluous if they were all being used?

DAVID: Used in minor survival ways, but available for all the complexification needed later!

dhw: In our next exchange you say they were superfluous:

DAVID: Your quote is correct: "The early cells were able to meet all new demands" for all future years!!!

dhw: Thank you. That does not mean they were superfluous for 290,000 years!

DAVID: Of course they were.

dhw: You’ve just said they weren’t! Even used in “minor survival ways” means they were used. My point is that they came into existence because they were needed. They did not come into existence because they would be needed in 290,000 years’ time!

That is you naturalist, materialist view. Mine is a God who prepared us for our future, now here in the last 10,000 years with reading, writing, languages, singing, higher math, gymnastics, and so on. Major new uses for a brain which can complexify with the many available neurons from 300,000 years ago.

dhw: […] Even in your absurd theory, why the heck would your God have put them there 300,000 years ago if he knew they would not be needed until 10,000 years ago?

DAVID: God understood we humans had to learn how to utilize it to its full capacity. God couldn't teach us.

dhw: Yet another weakness in your all-powerful God. You’ve forgotten that “he would not have enjoyed our development if he knew all of it in advance.” But I have no objections to the theory that your God gave us and our fellow creatures the means to do our/their own designing as part of a great free-for-all. Maybe he simply gave all cell communities a mechanism which they would learn how to use as life presented them with new requirements. Welcome to Shapiro’s intelligent cells and a God who might enjoy the development of his invention by not knowing all of it in advance.

God gave our brain the ability to complexify with the extra neurons only slightly used.

“De novo”

DAVID: Our very large and complex frontal lobes are a giant jump from ape brains.

dhw: That does not mean that our large and complex frontal lobes were created “de novo” by your God. Even in your theory, you have your God operating on existing brains.

DAVID: Of course He uses previous brains, not as highly complex as ours.

dhw: Complexifying existing brains is not “de novo”. Thank you.

DAVID: It is de novo if our frontal lobes' complexity is taken into account. Nothing like them preceded them in prior brains. A completely new type is 'de novo'.

dhw: You have presented article after article in which researchers use mouse brains to understand the workings of our brains. Our brains are not a “completely new type”. They are mammal brains with additional features, and you have admitted that “of course he uses previous brains”. A completely new type (“de novo” = “afresh anew; from the beginning) would have nothing in common with previous brains.

You ignored the point: five layers of pyramidal neurons in our frontal lobes is entirely new. Our pyramidal neurons differ from mouse:

file:///C:/Users/pacemaker/Downloads/s41467-021-22741-9.pdf

Very complex article shows huge differences from mouse type.