https://www.science.org/content/article/human-gene-linked-bigger-brains-was-born-seemin...

"Now, a study identifies mutations that transform seemingly useless DNA sequences into potential genes by endowing their encoded RNA with the skill to escape the cell nucleus—a critical step toward becoming translated into a protein. The study’s authors highlight 74 human protein genes that appear to have arisen in this de novo way—more than half of which emerged after the human lineage branched off from chimpanzees. Some of these newcomer genes may have played a role in the evolution of our relatively large and complex brains. When added to mice, one made the rodent brains grow bigger and more humanlike, the authors report this week in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

“'This work is a big advance,” says Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved with the research. It “suggests that de novo gene birth may have played a role in human brain evolution.”

***

"A decade ago, Chuan-Yun Li, an evolutionary biologist at Peking University, and colleagues discovered that some human protein genes bore a striking resemblance to DNA sequences in rhesus monkeys that got transcribed into long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs), which didn’t make proteins or have any other apparent purpose. Li couldn’t figure out what it had taken for those stretches of monkey DNA to become true protein-coding genes in humans.

"A clue emerged when Li’s postdoc, Ni A. An, discovered that many lncRNAs have a hard time exiting the nucleus. The researchers used a sophisticated computer program to identify differences between protein-coding genes whose mRNA got out of the nucleus and the DNA sequences that produced RNAs that did not. The program homed in on stretches of DNA known as U1 elements, which when transcribed into RNA make the strand too sticky to make a clean escape. In protein-coding genes, these elements have mutations that make the RNA less sticky. So, for an lncRNA to escape the nucleus and give its instructions to a ribosome, the parental DNA must acquire those key U1 mutations or somehow make that transcribed section get cut out of the RNA strands altogether.

“'This makes perfect sense because for an RNA to be translated, it needs to go the cytoplasm [where ribosomes are found] first,” says Maria Del Mar Albà, an evolutionary biologist at Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute.

***

"Overall, the findings suggest these de novo human genes “may have a role in brain development and may have been a driver of cognition during the evolution of humans,” says Erich Bornberg-Bauer, an evolutionary biophysicist at the University of Münster.

"Manyuan Long, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, calls the new study “a breakthrough in the understanding of the molecular evolutionary processes that generate [new] genes.” In an indication of how widespread those processes may be, Long’s group has found that most of the recognizable de novo genes in rice were once lncRNAs, and that lncRNAs also helped form new genes in bamboo. But he is more cautious about interpreting the role of de novo genes in brain evolution. Organoids are far simpler tissues than the brain itself, he notes, and human and mouse brains have evolved along very different paths.

Comment: tremendously complex research. Could such a complex arrangement to invent a new gene have come from a chance search for a mutation? Looks like design with purpose to me. God, who had a goal to produce us, would do it exactly this way!

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-modern-humans-brain-neurons-neandertals.html

"Researchers...now show that the modern human variant of the protein TKTL1, which differs by only a single amino acid from the Neandertal variant, increases one type of brain progenitor cells, called basal radial glia, in the modern human brain. Basal radial glial cells generate the majority of the neurons in the developing neocortex, a part of the brain that is crucial for many cognitive abilities. As TKTL1 activity is particularly high in the frontal lobe of the fetal human brain, the researchers conclude that this single human-specific amino acid substitution in TKTL1 underlies a greater neuron production in the developing frontal lobe of the neocortex in modern humans than Neandertals.

"Only a small number of proteins have differences in the sequence of their amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—between modern humans and our extinct relatives, the Neandertals and Denisovans. The biological significance of these differences for the development of the modern human brain is largely unknown. In fact, both, modern humans and Neandertals, feature a brain, and notably a neocortex, of similar size, but whether this similar neocortex size implies a similar number of neurons remains unclear.

***

"The researchers focus on one of these proteins that presents a single amino acid change in essentially all modern humans compared to Neandertals, the protein transketolase-like 1 (TKTL1). Specifically, in modern humans TKTL1 contains an arginine at the sequence position in question, whereas in Neandertal TKTL1 it is the related amino acid lysine. In the fetal human neocortex, TKTL1 is found in neocortical progenitor cells, the cells from which all cortical neurons derive. Notably, the level of TKTL1 is highest in the progenitor cells of the frontal lobe.

***

"Anneline and her colleagues introduced either the modern human or the Neandertal variant of TKTL1 into the neocortex of mouse embryos.

"They observed that basal radial glial cells, the type of neocortical progenitors thought to be the driving force for a bigger brain, increased with the modern human variant of TKTL1 but not with the Neandertal variant. As a consequence, the brains of mouse embryos with the modern human TKTL1 contained more neurons.

"After this, the researchers explored the relevance of these effects for human brain development. To this end, they replaced the arginine in modern human TKTL1 with the lysine characteristic of Neandertal TKTL1, using human brain organoids—miniature organ-like structures that can be grown from human stem cells in cell culture dishes in the lab and that mimic aspects of early human brain development.

"'We found that with the Neandertal-type of amino acid in TKTL1, fewer basal radial glial cells were produced than with the modern human-type and, as a consequence, also fewer neurons," says Anneline Pinson. "This shows us that even though we do not know how many neurons the Neandertal brain had, we can assume that modern humans have more neurons in the frontal lobe of the brain, where TKTL1 activity is highest, than Neandertals." (my bold)

"The researchers also found that modern human TKTL1 acts through changes in metabolism, specifically a stimulation of the pentose phosphate pathway followed by increased fatty acid synthesis. In this way, modern human TKTL1 is thought to increase the synthesis of certain membrane lipids needed to generate the long process of basal radial glial cells that stimulates their proliferation and, therefore, to increase neuron production.

"'This study implies that the production of neurons in the neocortex during fetal development is greater in modern humans than it was in Neandertals, in particular in the frontal lobe," summarizes Wieland Huttner, who supervised the study. "It is tempting to speculate that this promoted modern human cognitive abilities associated with the frontal lobe."

Comment: small differences in a single protein's form makes sapiens special brain!!! The rule that it must take multiple mutations for such an advance doesn't appear here. dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-birth-canal.html

"The relatively narrow human birth canal presumably evolved as a "compromise" between its abilities for parturition, support of the inner organs, and upright walking. But not only the size of the birth canal, also its complex, "twisted" shape is an evolutionary puzzle. Katya Stansfield from the University of Vienna and her co-authors have published a study in BMC Biology presenting new insights into why the human birth canal evolved to have this complex shape. They suggest that the longitudinally oval shape of the lower birth canal is beneficial for the stability of the pelvic floor muscles.

***

"In most women, the upper part, or inlet, of the birth canal has a round or transversely (left-to-right) oval shape, which is considered ideal for parturition, but it is unknown why the lower part of the birth canal has a pronounced longitudinally (front-to-back) oval shape. This twisted shape typically requires the Baby to rotate when passing through the narrow birth canal, which further increases the risk of birth complications.

"In comparison with humans, apes have a relatively easy birth pattern that does not require rotation of the baby thanks to the longitudinally oval shape of the birth canal both at its inlet and the outlet. "For giving birth, it would be much easier to have a uniformly shaped birth canal also in our species," says Katya Stansfield, a specialist in biomechanics. Instead, the twisted human shape requires a complex, rotational birth mechanism: The baby needs to rotate to align the longest dimension of its head with the widest dimension of each plane of the birth canal. Misalignment can lead to obstructed labor and result in health risks for both mother and baby.

***

"'Our results demonstrate that the longitudinally oval lower birth canal is beneficial in terms of stability," says Katya Stansfield. "However, this outcome prompted us to ask why the pelvic inlet in humans is not also elongated longitudinally," elaborates Barbara Fischer, an evolutionary biologist.

"Traditionally, it has been assumed that the transverse dimension of the human pelvis is constrained by the efficiency of upright locomotion. "We argue that the transverse elongation of the pelvic inlet has evolved because of the limits on the front-to-back diameter in humans imposed by balancing upright posture, rather than by the efficiency of the bipedal locomotion," says Philipp Mitteroecker, who was also involved in this study. A longitudinally deeper inlet would require greater pelvic tilt and lumbar lordosis, which would compromise spine health and the stability of upright posture. These different requirements of the pelvic inlet and outlet likely have led to the evolution of a twisted birth canal, requiring human babies to rotate during birth."

Comment: I've discussed these problems before. The human female pelvis is far from ape-like to accommodate big brain birth and upright posture. How did this develop in a chance evolutionary scenario? Not likely. There are several players involved: Mom, Pop and baby DNA all adjusting on their own, unless a designer is at work.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4451168/Ancient-human-ancestor-Lucy-nee...

"She is one of mankind's oldest and best preserved ancestors and is more than three million years old.

"And now new research suggests that 'Lucy', along with others in her species, may have needed a midwife to give birth, due to the shape of her pelvis.

***

"Researchers from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire were studying how Lucy and her relatives would have given birth, and found that it would have been in a manner in between that of chimpanzees and humans.

"While there are no known fossils of any newborn australopiths, the researchers modelled the shape and size of an infant's head by assuming it had the same dimensions as a large baby chimpanzee.

"They also estimated the width of an australopith baby's shoulder by looking at the relationship between the shoulder widths of adult and newborn primates such as humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons, and by examining the width of Lucy's shoulders.

"The models indicate that, as happens in humans, a baby australopith would have entered the birth canal sideways.

"But the researchers also suggested that an infant australopith would have had to tilt only slightly to make way for its shoulders as its head slid down the birth canal, instead of its head rotating 90 degrees as happens with human babies during childbirth.

"These findings suggest that there was a tight fit between the infant and its birth canal,.

"This mean Lucy might have had some difficulties during labour - just like modern humans.

***

"Modern humans give birth in a very different way to their primate relatives.

This is most likely due to the large size of the human head and the way a woman's pelvis is positioned for upright walking.

"Human babies fit snugly inside the birth canal, meaning that women often require assistance during delivery.

"But other female apes do not have this problem, meaning that instead, 'mothers can just reach down and assist with their own births,' Dr DeSilva said."

Comment: The dilemma refers to this problem. In evolving our big brain with a pelvis that supports upright walking, the mother's pelvis bony outlet had to enlarge at the same time a bigger brained fetus appeared. And this also involves the Dad's DNA input. Lucy's problems point this out. A baby 'Lucy' brain was very small but the newly shaped walking pelvis presented trouble. Our evolution had to be guided by a designing mind, God, as our bigger brain kept evolving bigger and bigger. Three different DNA's contribute to a three-way evolutionary input.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273020-people-living-100000-years-ago-spent-time-...

"A cache of beautiful crystals collected 105,000 years ago in South Africa is shedding new light on the emergence of complex behaviours in our species.

"A team led by Jayne Wilkins at Griffith University, Australia, discovered 22 distinctively shaped white calcite crystals at a site in the Kalahari desert called Ga-Mohana Hill North Rockshelter. “They are little rhomboids, really visually striking,” says Wilkins.

"These geometric crystals didn’t originate at the site and haven’t been modified, so seem to have been deliberately collected and brought to the rock shelter for ornamental purposes. “They don’t seem to have been used for everyday tasks,” she says.

"The collection of beautiful items seems like a normal thing for humans to do today, but this so-called symbolic behaviour only emerged around 100,000 years ago. “Collecting these kinds of pretty objects for non-utilitarian reasons could have its roots in symbolism and arts and culture,” says Wilkins.

"Also found at the site were 42 fragments of burnt ostrich egg shell. The large egg shells may have been used by humans to store and transport water – offering more evidence of human innovation.

"These discoveries in the Kalahari, 600 kilometres from the sea, are challenging the prevailing assumption that the emergence of complex behaviours like symbolism and technological innovation emerged at the coast, where humans had access to seafood containing nutrients thought to support brain growth.

"Until now, the earliest evidence of symbolic behaviour was found at sites close to the sea, such as 100,000-year-old engraved ochre from Blombos cave and 60,000-year-old decorated ostrich egg shells from the Diepkloof rock shelter, both on the South African coast.

“'In the Kalahari, which is really far from the coast, we are seeing the same kinds of behaviours, at the same time,” says Wilkins."

Comment: Just another study which shows how we gradually learned to use our brain aesthetically. It had the capacity initially waiting to be used. Aesthetics are immaterial ideation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210302150116.htm

High-resolution imaging and 3D computer modeling show that the dendrites of neurons weave through space in a way that balances their need to connect to other neurons with the costs of doing so.

The discovery, reported in Nature Scientific Reports Jan. 27, emerged as researchers sought to understand the fractal nature of neurons as part of a University of Oregon project to design fractal-shaped electrodes to connect with retinal neurons to address vision loss due to retinal diseases.

***

Working with collaborators at the University of Auckland and University of Canterbury in New Zealand, confocal microscopy of neurons in the hippocampal region of a rat's brain revealed an intricate interplay of branches weaving through space at multiple size scales before connecting to other neurons. That, Taylor said, raised the question, why adopt such a complicated pattern?

***

"By distorting their branches and looking at what happens, we were able to show that the fractal weaving of the natural branches is balancing the ability of neurons to connect with their neighbors to form natural electric circuits while balancing the construction and operating costs of the circuits," Rowland said.

***

Nature's fractals benefit from how they grow at multiple scales, said Taylor, who has long turned to fractals as bioinspiration. While trees have the most-recognized form of fractal branching, this work, he said, highlights how neurons are different from trees.

"Whereas the fractal character of trees originates predominantly from the distribution of branch sizes, the neurons also use the way their branches weave through space to generate their fractal character," Taylor said.

Comment: Fractal patterns exist all through nature, and are simple repetitions of the same patterns. They are highly efficient. Chanced arrangement of neurons would not be efficient. Design required

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210301112334.htm

"In a paper published by Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, Dr Ben Goult from Kent's School of Biosciences describes how his new theory views the brain as an organic supercomputer running a complex binary code with neuronal cells working as a mechanical computer. He explains how a vast network of information-storing memory molecules operating as switches is built into each and every synapse of the brain, representing a complex binary code. This identifies a physical location for data storage in the brain and suggests memories are written in the shape of molecules in the synaptic scaffolds.

"The theory is based on the discovery of protein molecules, known as talin, containing "switch-like" domains that change shape in response to pressures in mechanical force by the cell. These switches have two stable states, 0 and 1, and this pattern of binary information stored in each molecule is dependent on previous input, similar to the Save History function in a computer. The information stored in this binary format can be updated by small changes in force generated by the cell's cytoskeleton.

"In the brain, electrochemical signalling between trillions of neurons occurs between synapses, each of which contains a scaffold of the talin molecules. Once assumed to be structural, this research suggests that the meshwork of talin proteins actually represent an array of binary switches with the potential to store information and encode memory.

"This mechanical coding would run continuously in every neuron and extend into all cells, ultimately amounting to a machine code coordinating the entire organism. From birth, the life experiences and environmental conditions of an animal could be written into this code, creating a constantly updated, mathematical representation of its unique life.

"Dr Goult, a reader in biochemistry, said: 'This research shows that in many ways the brain resembles the early mechanical computers of Charles Babbage and his Analytical Engine. Here, the cytoskeleton serves as the levers and gears that coordinate the computation in the cell in response to chemical and electrical signalling. Like those early computation models, this discovery may be the beginning of a new understanding of brain function and in treating brain diseases.''

Comment: A fascinating discovery, but I would remind, the brain has consciousness, and computers don't.

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-human-brain-grew-result-extinction.html

"A new paper by Dr. Miki Ben-Dor and Prof. Ran Barkai from the Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University proposes an original unifying explanation for the physiological, behavioral and cultural evolution of the human species, from its first appearance about two million years ago, to the agricultural revolution (around 10,000 BCE). According to the paper, humans developed as hunters of large animals, causing their ultimate extinction. As they adapted to hunting small, swift prey animals, humans developed higher cognitive abilities, evidenced by the most obvious evolutionary change—the growth of brain volume from 650cc to 1,500cc. To date, no unifying explanation has been proposed for the major phenomena in human prehistory. (my bold)

"In recent years more and more evidence has been accumulated to the effect that humans were a major factor in the extinction of large animals, and consequently had to adapt to hunting smaller game, first in Africa and later in all other parts of the world. In Africa, 2.6 million years ago, when humans first emerged, the average size of land mammals was close to 500kg. Just before the advent of agriculture this figure had decreased by over 90%—down to several tens of kilograms.

"According to the researchers, the decrease in the size of game and the need to hunt small, swift animals forced humans to display cunning and boldness—an evolutionary process that demanded increased volume of the human brain and later led to the development of language enabling the exchange of information about where prey could be found. The theory claims that all means served one end: body energy conservation.

***

"'We correlate the increase in human brain volume with the need to become smarter hunters," explains Dr. Ben-Dor. For example, the need to hunt dozens of gazelles instead of one elephant generated prolonged evolutionary pressure on the brain functions of humans, who were now using up much more energy in both movement and thought processes. Hunting small animals, that are constantly threatened by predators and therefore very quick to take flight, requires a physiology adapted to the chase as well as more sophisticated hunting tools. Cognitive activity also rises as fast tracking requires fast decision-making, based on phenomenal acquaintance with the animals' behavior—information that needs to be stored in a larger memory."

***

"Prof. Barkai notes, "While the chimpanzee's brain, for example, has remained stable for 7 million years, the human brain grew threefold, reaching its greatest size about 300,000 years ago. In addition to brain volume, evolutionary pressure caused humans to use language, fire and sophisticated tools such as bow and arrow, adapt their arms and shoulders to the tasks of throwing and hurling and their bodies to the prolonged chase, improve their stone tools, domesticate dogs and ultimately also domesticate the game itself and turn to agriculture.'"

Comment: Note my last bold. There is no explanation why the sapiens brain arrived 315,000 years ago. Note the gap in time: mammoths among others went extinct 20,000 years ago. Totally disconnected Darwin-think. dhw will love it, despite its topsy-turvy mish-mash of thought. Obviously the article reviewers were all Darwinist

https://www.wsj.com/articles/seven-and-a-half-lessons-about-the-brain-review-gray-matte...

"Scientists have long posited that time and evolution stratified the human brain, with the oldest and crudest lizard layer lurking at the bottom, followed by the mammalian limbic system, which controls emotion, and topped by the uniquely human neocortex, which guides rational thought. This theory not only suggests that humans are the most evolved creatures, given our deluxe add-ons, but also explains the tug of war between our animal impulses and logical ambitions—an inner struggle Plato observed more than 2,000 years ago.

"But according to Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor at Northeastern University, the idea that the human brain developed a way to rein in our inner lizard is one of the most persistent and widespread errors in all of science.

***

"More dramatically, Ms. Barrett writes that scientists have recently discovered that the brains of all mammals—and most likely all vertebrates—follow a single manufacturing plan. This means every brain has the same essential ingredients but with species-specific mutations to aid survival in different environments. This, argues Ms. Barrett, undermines the idea that the human brain stands apart as the pinnacle of natural selection. Sure, our brain seems impressive, but we are simply one animal among many with a noodle adapted to the task of survival. “Other animals are not inferior to humans,” Ms. Barrett writes. “Your brain is not more evolved than a rat or lizard brain, just differently evolved.”

***

"Perhaps the biggest misconception, Ms. Barrett writes, is that our brains evolved for thinking. Sure, our fancy brains are responsible for everything from suspension bridges to “Infinite Jest,” but these are byproducts of its main purpose: to regulate our physical resources to ensure our survival. Every brain essentially manages what Ms. Barrett calls a “body budget,” tracking resources like water, salt and glucose. “Every action you take (or don’t take) is an economic choice,” she explains, and our brains are engaged in constant guesswork about when it’s best to eat or flee.

***

"The human brain is essentially “under construction” for the first 25 years, Ms. Barrett writes. Babies are born with many more neural connections than they need, and it is the job of caregivers to help strengthen necessary connections and remove unnecessary ones—a process Ms. Barrett calls “tuning and pruning.” Our impressively adaptable brain is what allows humans to thrive in places as diverse as the desert and the Arctic, but it comes at a cost. Caregiver neglect or inadequate nutrition can seriously harm a nascent brain, with lasting consequences.

***

"As Ms. Barrett admits, “there are still many more lessons to learn.” Why, I wondered, are our brains so much more complex than those of other animals? Does survival alone explain human ingenuity? And what is the use of those brain-based experiences that tax our body budget with little upside, such as anxiety and depression? “Our kind of brain isn’t the biggest in the animal kingdom, and it’s not the best in any objective sense,” Ms. Barrett concludes. “But it’s ours. It’s the source of our strengths and our foibles . . . It makes us simply, imperfectly, gloriously human.'”

Comment: another silly model of the human brain to diminish our pinnacle position. Darwin, not God.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128040423000750?dgcid=raven_sd_r...

Abstract
Primates delay neocortical neurogenesis and possess more neocortical neuron numbers compared with other studied taxa. We consider the consequences of evolutionary changes in developmental schedules on neuron numbers and expression of genes to identify evolutionary changes in cortical circuitry in primates. Delays in neocortical neurogenesis account for the expansion of neocortical neuron numbers and concomitant differences in laminar gene expression patterns between the neocortex of primates and rodents. Some of these differentially expressed genes are synaptic-related and reflect changes in connectivity patterns. We suggest that developmental timing accounts for greater intracortical connectivity in primates compared with other mammals.

Comment: The genes control the development. No surprise

DAVID: Cells certainly process information and act on it, following directive information to do so.

dhw: “Directive information” is a substitute for your normal word “instructions”, and that means God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem and every innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or he directly dabbled them. Why is that more likely than him designing cellular intelligence to adapt and innovate for the rest of time?

DAVID: I'm back to: only God can speciate.

dhw: According to you, he speciates by preprogramming or dabbling, and I’ve asked you why this is more likely than him designing cellular intelligence to do the speciating.

The designs as shown in today's entry about molecular machines are extreme complexity. It is more difficult to design a machine that can make an entirely new machine than to do the direct design. In automated factories there are folks who do a large part of the intricate work to complete the production. It is amazing that God has created a process that organisms can reproduce/replicate themselves exactly. That is very different than the designed creation of profoundly different new forms.

DAVID: Understanding all the layers of control in the genome is still being discovered. Genome wide networks of cooperating genes is one of the latest approaches in the literature. One gene, one function is really dead as an approach: https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/21/4/1224/5522018

dhw: And this is science, not theology. How does our not yet knowing the layers of control make your theory of God’s implanted instructions more likely than Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence?

We know bacteria can reprogram some of their DNA through Shapiro. We've seen Lenski's many 20+ years of study of e. Coli. E. Coli is still E. coli. I'm still with God speciating. Shapiro has never gotten any support through research. I accept research.

DAVID: I agree this is the world He designed/wanted. He got here by tight design control. The freedom of molecular action is a requirement of God's design. He wanted it because it is the only way it can work under optimal design.

dhw: The question is how far that freedom might extend. And “tight design” raises the horrible problem of theodicy. If your God created this good and bad world by “tight design”, it can only mean that apart from the disease-causing “errors” in your theory (which were unavoidable and which he tried in vain to eradicate), everything else, including bad viruses and bacteria and meat-eating and possibly also natural catastrophes (as opposed to man-made) was directly designed. Maybe it was, but you can’t believe your God would deliberately want to harm us, can you? Nasty problem for you. Easily solved by my “simplest explanation”!

DAVID: As long as there are folks like me, theodicy will be present, and handled by believers by accepting God knows what He is doing.

dhw: But you and they don’t know why He has done what he has done. That is why you and they have a problem. Setting aside your own fixed beliefs, please explain why you do not think my “simplest explanation” is feasible. Brief summary: God did not want a dull Garden of Eden, but wanted an unpredictable mixture of good and bad (you can’t appreciate the one without the other), and therefore gave organisms the means of steering their own evolutionary course, as exemplified by human free will.

God-given human free will and the enormous range of conscious conceptualization we possess is the answer to your thoughts. God speciates as I view it. Organisms can not steer. As above, too complex.

dhw: “Directive information” is a substitute for your normal word “instructions”, and that means God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem and every innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or he directly dabbled them. Why is that more likely than him designing cellular intelligence to adapt and innovate for the rest of time?

DAVID: I'm back to: only God can speciate.

According to you, he speciates by preprogramming or dabbling, and I’ve asked you why this is more likely than him designing cellular intelligence to do the speciating.

DAVID: I accept Shapiro's theoretical attempts, but have seen no progress on that score.

dhw: What progress has been made on the theory that 3.8 billion years ago God provided all cells/cell communities with instructions on how to respond to all situations for the rest of time except for those which required his direct intervention (dabbling)?

DAVID: Apples and oranges. Shapiro is a science theory, not a theological discussion.

dhw: How cells function is not a theological subject. If you claim that apart from what your God dabbled, right from the beginning the very first cells already contained instructions (“directive information”) on how to solve all problems and to turn into every single species and to design every single natural wonder in the whole history of life, there must be somewhere in the cell for those instructions to be stored – just as there must be somewhere in the cells where decisions are taken. Other than finding the relevant mechanism, what other kind of “progress” do you expect either theory to make?

DAVID: Understanding all the layers of control in the genome is still being discovered. Genome wide networks of cooperating genes is one of the latest approaches in the literature. One gene, one function is really dead as an approach: https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/21/4/1224/5522018

And this is science, not theology. How does our not yet knowing the layers of control make your theory of God’s implanted instructions more likely than Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence?

DAVID: I agree this is the world He designed/wanted. He got here by tight design control. The freedom of molecular action is a requirement of God's design. He wanted it because it is the only way it can work under optimal design.

dhw: The question is how far that freedom might extend. And “tight design” raises the horrible problem of theodicy. If your God created this good and bad world by “tight design”, it can only mean that apart from the disease-causing “errors” in your theory (which were unavoidable and which he tried in vain to eradicate), everything else, including bad viruses and bacteria and meat-eating and possibly also natural catastrophes (as opposed to man-made) was directly designed. Maybe it was, but you can’t believe your God would deliberately want to harm us, can you? Nasty problem for you. Easily solved by my “simplest explanation”!

DAVID: As long as there are folks like me, theodicy will be present, and handled by believers by accepting God knows what He is doing.

But you and they don’t know why He has done what he has done. That is why you and they have a problem. Setting aside your own fixed beliefs, please explain why you do not think my “simplest explanation” is feasible. Brief summary: God did not want a dull Garden of Eden, but wanted an unpredictable mixture of good and bad (you can’t appreciate the one without the other), and therefore gave organisms the means of steering their own evolutionary course, as exemplified by human free will.

dhw: I know you have a fixed belief. But you have not yet given me a single reason why the alternative is not feasible! All you can offer is that you refuse to consider it!

DAVID: Your approach of 'anything is possible' does include feasibility but again your do not view a God with the personality I think He has, purposeful and in full control. In all of your proposals He must relinquish some control.

According to you, he has already relinquished some control, because you agree that the modern brain complexifies and has added cells to the hippocampus without his intervention. I am simply taking his non-intervention back to pre-sapiens days, when the SAME mechanism – which God, if he exists, would have designed – would have performed the SAME functions: complexification and adding cells. Now instead of repeating your own beliefs, please tell me why that is not feasible.

DAVID: You want artifacts to appear before enlargement or to cause enlargement. My view, just opposite, is the enlarged brain is the one capable of creating the new artifacts and comes first as shown by the H. sapiens Moroccans, big brains, no new artifacts.

dhw: New artefacts are one possible driving force for enlargement. Please stop pretending you don’t know that there may be others, as emphasized by the Britannica article.

DAVID: Why should I follow a Britannica article written from a pure Darwin point of view?

I'll refrain from the implications of that question! This has nothing to do with Darwin. Why do you insist on restricting MY theory (that the brain expanded by meeting new requirements/implementing new ideas) to the production of artefacts when I keep repeating that those are only an example, and there could be many different requirements, as I myself have listed previously?

dhw: ….please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

DAVID: Same twisted question. My view is the level of complexity of the brain allows the level of the complexity of thought by the soul. Which means, and you keep avoiding an answer to it, the brain's complexity defines and limits or allows the complexity of the soul's thoughts!!!

I am not avoiding an answer. I am proposing the opposite! The brain’s EXISTING complexity limits the information available to the thinker as well as his ability to implement thoughts/ideas, but it does NOT limit his capacity to come up with new thoughts/ideas (they needn’t be “complex”) relating to the existing information. I have given you a concrete example, in the hope of getting a direct answer, but you still won’t give me one.

dhw: Do you think a homo who wants to kill a bison, and who knows that the closer he gets, the more dangerous his task will be, is capable of thinking to himself: perhaps I could invent a weapon that will enable me to kill it from a distance? Or do you believe your God must operate on him to give him more cells BEFORE he can have such an idea?

DAVID: If he is a sapiens he had no problem to think of it. The erectus used group kills according to findings. Stone age American Indians (sapiens) had spears and bows and arrows. My discussion is above. The example adds nothing to the concepts of brain size and complexity.

Sapiens already has his maximum brain size, and you know I’m not talking about him. We know who had what. Now would you please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: My view of God's personality precludes His inventing independent mechanism for major advances. I am giving you my view. you have yours. We will not meet in the middle, as I do not see middle ground.

dhw: I know you have a fixed belief. But you have not yet given me a single reason why the alternative is not feasible! All you can offer is that you refuse to consider it!

Your approach of 'anything is possible' does include feasibility but again your do not view a God with the personality I think He has, purposeful and in full control. In all of your proposals He must relinquish some control.

DAVID: You want artifacts to appear before enlargement or to cause enlargement. My view, just opposite, is the enlarged brain is the one capable of creating the new artifacts and comes first as shown by the H. sapiens Moroccans, big brains, no new artifacts.

dhw: New artefacts are one possible driving force for enlargement. Please stop pretending you don’t know that there may be others, as emphasized by the Britannica article.

Why should I follow a Britannica article written from a pure Darwin point of view?

dhw: I do not want new artefacts to come BEFORE enlargement. My proposal is that the IDEA precedes enlargement, and it is the effort to design and implement the concept which requires additional brain cells. You know this perfectly well, and it is the reason why you repeatedly refuse to give a direct answer to this question, asked on the “corvids” thread: please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

Same twisted question. My view is the level of complexity of the brain allows the level of the complexity of thought by the soul. Which means, and you keep avoiding an answer to it, the brain's complexity defines and limits or allows the complexity of the soul's thoughts!!! Erectus could not have the complexity of thought and concept sapiens has with the bigger better brain. The issue is not just information, which is what you want to limit the brains use to by the soul. My conclusion is obvious from the archaeological evidence.

DAVID: Again not my nuance of theory: I strongly feel in my view of dualism, the soul must use the brain networks to create thought and is the driver of the creation. Of course in that process it uses information provided by the brain either sensory or from memory. How do you define 'information'?

dhw: As you do: knowledge gained through the senses or through experience. And we agree that the soul uses the information and is the “driver” of thought. As you refuse to give a direct answer to my question, let me help you by repeating our favourite example. Do you think a homo who wants to kill a bison, and who knows that the closer he gets, the more dangerous his task will be, is capable of thinking to himself: perhaps I could invent a weapon that will enable me to kill it from a distance? Or do you believe your God must operate on him to give him more cells BEFORE he can have such an idea?

If he is a sapiens he had no problem to think of it. The erectus used group kills according to findings. Stone age American Indians (sapiens) had spears and bows and arrows. My discussion is above. The example adds nothing to the concepts of brain size and complexity.

DAVID: My view of God's personality precludes His inventing independent mechanism for major advances. I am giving you my view. you have yours. We will not meet in the middle, as I do not see middle ground.

I know you have a fixed belief. But you have not yet given me a single reason why the alternative is not feasible! All you can offer is that you refuse to consider it!

DAVID: You want artifacts to appear before enlargement or to cause enlargement. My view, just opposite, is the enlarged brain is the one capable of creating the new artifacts and comes first as shown by the H. sapiens Moroccans, big brains, no new artifacts.

New artefacts are one possible driving force for enlargement. Please stop pretending you don’t know that there may be others, as emphasized by the Britannica article. I do not want new artefacts to come BEFORE enlargement. My proposal is that the IDEA precedes enlargement, and it is the effort to design and implement the concept which requires additional brain cells. You know this perfectly well, and it is the reason why you repeatedly refuse to give a direct answer to this question, asked on the “corvids” thread: please tell me whether you think the soul is capable of thinking new thoughts, using the information provided by the existing brain.

DAVID: Again not my nuance of theory: I strongly feel in my view of dualism, the soul must use the brain networks to create thought and is the driver of the creation. Of course in that process it uses information provided by the brain either sensory or from memory. How do you define 'information'?

As you do: knowledge gained through the senses or through experience. And we agree that the soul uses the information and is the “driver” of thought. As you refuse to give a direct answer to my question, let me help you by repeating our favourite example. Do you think a homo who wants to kill a bison, and who knows that the closer he gets, the more dangerous his task will be, is capable of thinking to himself: perhaps I could invent a weapon that will enable me to kill it from a distance? Or do you believe your God must operate on him to give him more cells BEFORE he can have such an idea?

DAVID: Yes, as we fully disagree. I have God and you want nature.

dhw: Where does nature come into it? My proposal is that an existing mechanism, possibly designed by your God, may have performed the same function in the past as in the present. Nothing to do with nature!

And I have God tightly designing each speciation advance, no independent mechanism involved.

DAVID: Your 'unknown requirement' is pure invention. All pre-Homo sapiens species fossils are aged with new artifacts, but not us!!! Fact, not imagination.

dhw: […] As regards fossils and artefacts, here is a website that may interest you.
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size

QUOTE: Because more complete fossil heads than hands are available, it is easier to model increased brain size in parallel with the rich record of artifacts from the Paleolithic Period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago), popularly known as the Old Stone Age. […] Hominin brain expansion tracks so closely with refinements in tool technology that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the brain’s increasing size, such as social complexity, foraging strategies, symbolic communication, and capabilities for other culture-mediated behaviours that left no or few archaeological traces.

dhw: Please note the reference to contribution to brain size – as opposed to the idea that the brain expanded in anticipation of these new uses.

DAVID: I've read that Britannica section long ago. Of course it is a non-God interpretation in which again natural adaptive activities enlarge the brain. Not news to me.

dhw: So why do you insist on restricting my possible causes of expansion to the production of artefacts? I keep repeating that other causes are possible. The fact that you already know that is hardly a reason for rejecting it. Nor is the fact that somebody in the field appears to support my proposal. We know that the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements. Where is your evidence that it changes in ANTICIPATION of them? And finally, back we go to my bolded proposal above: why is not feasible? And please stop pretending that it excludes God.

My view of God's personality precludes His inventing independent mechanism for major advances. I am giving you my view. you have yours. We will not meet in the middle, as I do not see middle ground. You want artifacts to appear before enlargement or to cause enlargement. My view, just opposite, is the enlarged brain is the one capable of creating the new artifacts and comes first as shown by the H. sapiens Moroccans, big brains, no new artifacts.

dhw: We know that various sections of the brain expanded in the past. We know that one section has expanded in the modern brain. Somehow this proves to you that other sections could not have done the same in the past, and therefore God stepped in and added the new cells. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

DAVID: Yes, as we fully disagree. I have God and you want nature.

Where does nature come into it? My proposal is that an existing mechanism, possibly designed by your God, may have performed the same function in the past as in the present. Nothing to do with nature!

DAVID: Your 'unknown requirement' is pure invention. All pre-Homo sapiens species fossils are aged with new artifacts, but not us!!! Fact, not imagination.

dhw: […] As regards fossils and artefacts, here is a website that may interest you.
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size

QUOTE: Because more complete fossil heads than hands are available, it is easier to model increased brain size in parallel with the rich record of artifacts from the Paleolithic Period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago), popularly known as the Old Stone Age. […] Hominin brain expansion tracks so closely with refinements in tool technology that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the brain’s increasing size, such as social complexity, foraging strategies, symbolic communication, and capabilities for other culture-mediated behaviours that left no or few archaeological traces.

dhw: Please note the reference to contribution to brain size – as opposed to the idea that the brain expanded in anticipation of these new uses.

DAVID: I've read that Britannica section long ago. Of course it is a non-God interpretation in which again natural adaptive activities enlarge the brain. Not news to me.

So why do you insist on restricting my possible causes of expansion to the production of artefacts? I keep repeating that other causes are possible. The fact that you already know that is hardly a reason for rejecting it. Nor is the fact that somebody in the field appears to support my proposal. We know that the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements. Where is your evidence that it changes in ANTICIPATION of them? And finally, back we go to my bolded proposal above: why is not feasible? And please stop pretending that it excludes God.

DAVID: If one believes in common descent, new advances must mirror past processes. For me our brain acts as old brains did. Which means new neurons added only to the hippocampus. Your thought is just wishful thinking.

dhw: We know that various sections of the brain expanded in the past. We know that one section has expanded in the modern brain. Somehow this proves to you that other sections could not have done the same in the past, and therefore God stepped in and added the new cells. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

Yes, as we fully disagree. I have God and you want nature.

dhw: And so to stasis. My proposal: 1) brain expanded by meeting unknown requirement. 2) No new requirements for 280,000 years. No change in brain. That means STASIS. 3) New requirements after 280,000 years coincide with changes to the brain. You can hardly have a clearer, more logical sequence. Your belief: 1) God performs operation on Moroccans. 2) Moroccans do nothing with new brain for 280,000 years. QUESTION: Why would God expand brain 280,000 years before it was needed? Answer: to “learn how to use it” but “little was done with it”. Sorry, but I don’t think I’m the one who is “struggling with the issue”.

DAVID: All depends upon point of view. I start with God running the show and my theory follows easily from that decision.

You were the one who brought up the subject of stasis. If you think your proposed explanation follows easily, so be it.

DAVID: You are searching vainly for a natural cause of brain enlargement, sans God. Your 'unknown requirement' is pure invention. All pre-Homo sapiens species fossils are aged with new artifacts, but not us!!! Fact, not imagination.

dhw: My explanation is not “sans” God, as you well know. I am an agnostic. My explanations always include the possibility of God. But that does mean that God has to preprogramme or dabble every evolutionary development, natural wonder etc. in the history of life. As regards fossils and artefacts, here is a website that may interest you.
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size

QUOTE: Because more complete fossil heads than hands are available, it is easier to model increased brain size in parallel with the rich record of artifacts from the Paleolithic Period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago), popularly known as the Old Stone Age. […] Hominin brain expansion tracks so closely with refinements in tool technology that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the brain’s increasing size, such as social complexity, foraging strategies, symbolic communication, and capabilities for other culture-mediated behaviours that left no or few archaeological traces.

dhw: Please note the reference to contribution to brain size – as opposed to the idea that the brain expanded in anticipation of these new uses.

I've read that Britannica section long ago. Of course it is a non-God interpretation in which again natural adaptive activities enlarge the brain. Not news to me.

DAVID: If one believes in common descent, new advances must mirror past processes. For me our brain acts as old brains did. Which means new neurons added only to the hippocampus. Your thought is just wishful thinking.

We know that various sections of the brain expanded in the past. We know that one section has expanded in the modern brain. Somehow this proves to you that other sections could not have done the same in the past, and therefore God stepped in and added the new cells. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

dhw: And so to stasis. My proposal: 1) brain expanded by meeting unknown requirement. 2) No new requirements for 280,000 years. No change in brain. That means STASIS. 3) New requirements after 280,000 years coincide with changes to the brain. You can hardly have a clearer, more logical sequence. Your belief: 1) God performs operation on Moroccans. 2) Moroccans do nothing with new brain for 280,000 years. QUESTION: Why would God expand brain 280,000 years before it was needed? Answer: to “learn how to use it” but “little was done with it”. Sorry, but I don’t think I’m the one who is “struggling with the issue”.

DAVID: All depends upon point of view. I start with God running the show and my theory follows easily from that decision.

You were the one who brought up the subject of stasis. If you think your proposed explanation follows easily, so be it.

DAVID: You are searching vainly for a natural cause of brain enlargement, asana God. Your 'unknown requirement' is pure invention. All pre-Homo sapiens species fossils are aged with new artifacts, but not us!!! Fact, not imagination.

My explanation is not “sans” God, as you well know. I am an agnostic. My explanations always include the possibility of God. But that does mean that God has to preprogramme or dabble every evolutionary development, natural wonder etc. in the history of life. As regards fossils and artefacts, here is a website that may interest you.
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size

QUOTE: Because more complete fossil heads than hands are available, it is easier to model increased brain size in parallel with the rich record of artifacts from the Paleolithic Period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago), popularly known as the Old Stone Age. […] Hominin brain expansion tracks so closely with refinements in tool technology that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the brain’s increasing size, such as social complexity, foraging strategies, symbolic communication, and capabilities for other culture-mediated behaviours that left no or few archaeological traces.

Please note the reference to contribution to brain size – as opposed to the idea that the brain expanded in anticipation of these new uses.

dhw: All compartments of the brain consist of cells. If the cells in one compartment are able to add to their numbers in order to meet new requirements, why do you assume that the cells in other compartments could never have done the same at a time when expansion was possible? No, it’s not proven. Nor is your own divine dabbling theory proven. But why is my theory not feasible?

DAVID: It is not feasible because our brain is given a very specific neuron addition mechanism. It was thought for many years we didn't add neurons as adults. This is a recent very specific finding. If you believe in common descent, our current brain mimics the past which means the mechanism is very limited to one specific area all through evolutionary history.

dhw: Nobody knows why earlier brains added neurons. The modern brain is capable of adding neurons when necessary. It is perfectly feasible, then, that earlier brains also added neurons when necessary. The fact that the modern brain has ceased to expand, and now complexifies in order to meet new requirements, does not mean that the mechanism for expansion in the past only applied to the hippocampus!

If one believes in common descent, new advances must mirror past processes. For me our brain acts as old brains did. Which means new neurons added only to the hippocampus. Your thought is just wishful thinking.

DAVID: You can talk all around the stasis period but it is there and it tells me God prepares in advance for future use as He conducts advances in evolution. Your 'unknown new requirements' are unknown because there is not any evidence of them. 'Little was done with it' is stasis. You make my point while struggling with the issue.

dhw: I don’t know why you go on and on about stasis, which is irrelevant to the question of what caused expansion, and which is no problem at all for me but presents a big problem for you! Yet again: NOBODY knows what caused the expansion. I don’t suppose there are many scientists, though, who would announce that God must have stepped in one night and performed an operation on the brains, skulls and pelvises of a group of sleeping Moroccans. And so to stasis. My proposal: 1) brain expanded by meeting unknown requirement. 2) No new requirements for 280,000 years. No change in brain. That means STASIS. 3) New requirements after 280,000 years coincide with changes to the brain. You can hardly have a clearer, more logical sequence. Your belief: 1) God performs operation on Moroccans. 2) Moroccans do nothing with new brain for 280,000 years. QUESTION: Why would God expand brain 280,000 years before it was needed? Answer: to “learn how to use it” but “little was done with it”. Sorry, but I don’t think I’m the one who is “struggling with the issue”.

All depends upon point of view. I start with God running the show and my theory follows easily from that decision. You are searching vainly for a natural cause of brain enlargement, asana God. Your 'unknown requirement' is pure invention. All pre-Homo sapiens species fossils are aged with new artifacts, but not us!!! Fact, not imagination.