https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-brain-language.html

"The researchers found that especially the so-called Broca's area in the frontal brain of the left hemisphere is one of the regions that was involved in the processing of sign language in almost every study evaluated. This brain region has long been known to play a central role in spoken language, where it is used for grammar and meaning. In order to better classify their results from the current meta-study, the scientists compared their findings with a database containing several thousand studies with brain scans.

"The Leipzig-based researchers were indeed able to confirm that there is an overlap between spoken and signed language in Broca's area. They also succeeded in showing the role played by the right frontal brain—the counterpart to Broca's area on the left side of the brain. This also appeared repeatedly in many of the sign language studies evaluated, because it processes non-linguistic aspects such as spatial or social information of its counterpart. This means that movements of the hands, face and body—of which signs consist—are in principle perceived similarly by deaf and hearing people. Only in the case of deaf people, however, do they additionally activate the language network in the left hemisphere of the brain, including Broca's area. They therefore perceive the gestures as gestures with linguistic content—instead of as pure movement sequences, as would be the case with hearing people.

"The results demonstrate that Broca's area in the left hemisphere is a central node in the language network of the human brain. Depending on whether people use language in the form of signs, sounds or writing, it works together with other networks. Broca's area thus processes not only spoken and written language, as has been known up to now, but also abstract linguistic information in any form of language in general. "The brain is therefore specialized in language per se, not in speaking," explains Patrick C. Trettenbrein, first author of the publication..."

Comment: the brain's plasticity is on display again. Broca's area is key to language in any form.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200804134734.htm

"Humans began to develop systems of reading and writing only within the past few thousand years. Our reading abilities set us apart from other animal species, but a few thousand years is much too short a timeframe for our brains to have evolved new areas specifically devoted to reading.

"To account for the development of this skill, some scientists have hypothesized that parts of the brain that originally evolved for other purposes have been "recycled" for reading. As one example, they suggest that a part of the visual system that is specialized to perform object recognition has been repurposed for a key component of reading called orthographic processing -- the ability to recognize written letters and words. (my bold)

***

"Reading is a complex process that requires recognizing words, assigning meaning to those words, and associating words with their corresponding sound. These functions are believed to be spread out over different parts of the human brain.

"Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have identified a region called the visual word form area (VWFA) that lights up when the brain processes a written word. This region is involved in the orthographic stage: It discriminates words from jumbled strings of letters or words from unknown alphabets. The VWFA is located in the IT cortex, a part of the visual cortex that is also responsible for identifying objects.

***

"The researchers also recorded neural activity from a different brain area that also feeds into IT cortex: V4, which is part of the visual cortex. When they fed V4 activity patterns into the linear classifier model, the model poorly predicted (compared to IT) the human or baboon performance on the orthographic processing tasks.

"The findings suggest that the IT cortex is particularly well-suited to be repurposed for skills that are needed for reading, and they support the hypothesis that some of the mechanisms of reading are built upon highly evolved mechanisms for object recognition, the researchers say."

Comment: This finding is a logical extension of what we have learned about our big and formally oversized brain. We have been given a brain that has the ability to repurpose or recycle an area with underlying abilities, as noted in my bold. It is a result of the complexification mechanism of our brain.

DAVID: Same retort: if design keeps you agnostic, who/what is your designer?

dhw: Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

DAVID: I know, but something designs and it is not chance.

dhw: Agreed. In the context of evolution, I suggest it is the intelligent cell. In the context of the source of the intelligent cell, I can only adopt the same approach you use when I ask you awkward questions about your God and evolution: nobody knows, and we can only guess.

DAVID: Your answer brings back the obvious question, how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

dhw: I have just given you the answer: in the context of the source of the intelligent cell….nobody knows, and we can only guess. One guess is a mysterious, unknown being you call God. How did God find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought, not to mention the knowledge and power to create a whole universe and life itself? Oh, “first cause” – intelligent cells must have a source, but an unknown and almighty intelligence doesn’t have to have a source.

Same old response. We exist. There is something. It cannot have come from nothing. Something has to be first cause which is eternal ..

dhw: Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

DAVID: I know, but something designs and it is not chance.

dhw: Agreed. In the context of evolution, I suggest it is the intelligent cell. In the context of the source of the intelligent cell, I can only adopt the same approach you use when I ask you awkward questions about your God and evolution: nobody knows, and we can only guess.

DAVID: Your answer brings back the obvious question, how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

I have just given you the answer: in the context of the source of the intelligent cell….nobody knows, and we can only guess. One guess is a mysterious, unknown being you call God. How did God find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought, not to mention the knowledge and power to create a whole universe and life itself? Oh, “first cause” – intelligent cells must have a source, but an unknown and almighty intelligence doesn’t have to have a source.

DAVID: Same retort: if design keeps you agnostic, who/what is your designer?

dhw: Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

DAVID: I know, but something designs and it is not chance.

dhw: Agreed. In the context of evolution, I suggest it is the intelligent cell. In the context of the source of the intelligent cell, I can only adopt the same approach you use when I ask you awkward questions about your God and evolution: nobody knows, and we can only guess.

Your answer brings back the obvious question, how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

dhw: Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

DAVID: I know, but something designs and it is not chance.

Agreed. In the context of evolution, I suggest it is the intelligent cell. In the context of the source of the intelligent cell, I can only adopt the same approach you use when I ask you awkward questions about your God and evolution: nobody knows, and we can only guess.

DAVID: With these findings it indicates our cerebellum is a part of the brain far advanced from the cerebellum in other primates. The circuits described show how our cerebellum is integrated with the cerebrum. Once again our most unusual brain is demonstrated in new studies. The Difference of Man and The Difference it Makes still is a major point in the proof of God.

dhw: All agreed. These findings also support the materialist view of consciousness, and as we have seen throughout the history of this forum, the complexity of all life forms, including the single cell, is a major point in the argument for God’s existence. But just in case any casual reader should interpret this as a renunciation of the AgnosticWeb’s agnosticism, there are equally major points in the argument against the existence of the unknown, hidden, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial being that David believes in.

DAVID: Same retort: if design keeps you agnostic, who/what is your designer?

dhw: Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

I know, but something designs and it is not chance.

dhw: All agreed. These findings also support the materialist view of consciousness, and as we have seen throughout the history of this forum, the complexity of all life forms, including the single cell, is a major point in the argument for God’s existence. But just in case any casual reader should interpret this as a renunciation of the AgnosticWeb’s agnosticism, there are equally major points in the argument against the existence of the unknown, hidden, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial being that David believes in.

DAVID: Same retort: if design keeps you agnostic, who/what is your designer?

Same answer: if you can believe that a supreme, conscious mind can simply exist without any source, you might as well believe that conscious minds can evolve spontaneously from material sources. I find these two beliefs equally unbelievable.

DAVID: With these findings it indicates our cerebellum is a part of the brain far advanced from the cerebellum in other primates. The circuits described show how our cerebellum is integrated with the cerebrum. Once again our most unusual brain is demonstrated in new studies. The Difference of Man and The Difference it Makes still is a major point in the proof of God.

dhw: All agreed. These findings also support the materialist view of consciousness, and as we have seen throughout the history of this forum, the complexity of all life forms, including the single cell, is a major point in the argument for God’s existence. But just in case any casual reader should interpret this as a renunciation of the AgnosticWeb’s agnosticism, there are equally major points in the argument against the existence of the unknown, hidden, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial being that David believes in.

Same retort: if design keeps you agnostic, who/what is your designer?

All agreed. These findings also support the materialist view of consciousness, and as we have seen throughout the history of this forum, the complexity of all life forms, including the single cell, is a major point in the argument for God’s existence. But just in case any casual reader should interpret this as a renunciation of the AgnosticWeb’s agnosticism, there are equally major points in the argument against the existence of the unknown, hidden, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial being that David believes in.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341730622X?via%3Dihub

"The current review made systematic attempts to evaluate the cerebellar deficit hypothesis, which claims that the cerebellum contributes to dyslexia and normal reading development. We first reviewed neurobiological evidence implicating the cerebellum as a region associated with both normal and dyslexic reading. Based upon the accumulated findings, we concluded that there is compelling evidence linking individual differences in cerebellar structure and function with individual differences in reading ability. However, considerable speculation remains as to the specific nature of cerebellar contributions to reading development.

***

"From this effort emerged evidence for two circuits in which there is functional connectivity between specific sectors of the cerebellum, and dorsal and ventral cerebral reading pathways. Based upon the term overlap across the regions within the circuits and the extent literature, we propose that the dorsal circuit supports orthographic-phonological decoding at the sub-lexical level, with the cerebellum playing a modulatory role that improves phonological processing and thus decoding performance. We also propose that the ventral circuit supports lexicalized decoding, in which the pronunciation of unfamiliar words is based upon analogy to previously learned words. Although sparse, a literature on cued-word retrieval tasks suggests the cerebellum may play a modulatory role that improves the retrieval of word knowledge from semantic memory, and thus decoding performance. Because successful decoding is linked to the acquisition of orthographic knowledge, the interconnection of the cerebellum with dorsal and ventral reading pathways may thus indirectly support the automatisation of visual word recognition.

***

"Continued efforts to integrate the cerebellum – a brain structure with an enormous computation power that drives learning – into neuroanatomical models of reading and dyslexia is important for understanding the neural mechanisms that underlie reading development and which contribute to individual differences in reading ability."

Comment: With these findings it indicates our cerebellum is a part of the brain far advanced from the cerebellum in other primates. The circuits described show how our cerebellum is integrated with the cerebrum. Once again our most unusual brain is demonstrated in new studies. The Difference of Man and The Difference it Makes still is a major point in the proof of God.

DAVID: Control over the activities of one desired species to which He purposely gave consciousness and the right of choice in managing their lives. That is all the issue entails. God knew when He decided to produce us what our attributes would be. Please let Him the right to choose.

dhw: You keep refusing to see the point. You object to my suggestion that your God might willingly have sacrificed control over evolution itself, as if somehow this belittles him. If he is willing to sacrifice control in one area of life (free will), why do you discount the possibility that he might have been willing to sacrifice control in other areas, and why do you refuse to give him the right to choose uncontrolled evolution rather than controlled?

Because my God is not the God you constantly humanize. My God has specific purposes. He has created the universe and extremely advanced humans. I view Him as knowing exactly what He wants.

dhw: Why don’t you focus on the rest of the paragraph which vividly illustrates exactly the same process you are trying to ignore: cells RESPOND to new requirements and do not change in advance of them.

DAVID: Yes, in a new environment there are new demands that require major design and physiological changes. Let's look: the legged mammal jumps in the watery environment and major changes MUST happen because that is what the fossil record tells us.

dhw: Exactly. You've got it!

But I don't buy your theory about it.

DAVID: […] it must be germ cells changing the next generations through reproduction. At your theory level they receive pleading messages from somatic cells to please fix things.

dhw: Reproduction doesn’t make the changes – it ensures that the changes are passed on. I wish I knew more about stem cells, as they might be the thinkers that make the changes in the first place. What is clear is that there has to be intelligent communication between all the cells involved in any change. […]

DAVID: Those miracle living cells, designed by God, produce and receive all sorts of myriad molecular signals, responding automatically and in so doing living beings appear! Those are you cell communities, not the magical cell committees which can design anything as you conjure ways to avoid God designing when He has to

dhw: The appearance of living beings in the form of intelligent cells may well be the work of your God. And there is no question that once we have life, there are automatic processes at work. But automatic processes do not explain variation from the original life form. Hence evolution from single cells to sharks, eagles, ants, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans. I do not regard it as beyond your God’s powers to have created an autonomous intelligence that enabled the original cells to evolve as they have done. You may call it magic if you like, but I would suggest it is scientific, whether your God created every species individually or created the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt and innovate autonomously.

As usual I am sure He would not give up control to a process that did not have guidelines. My God is purposeful, not like yours.

DAVID: Control over the activities of one desired species to which He purposely gave consciousness and the right of choice in managing their lives. That is all the issue entails. God knew when He decided to produce us what our attributes would be. Please let Him the right to choose.

You keep refusing to see the point. You object to my suggestion that your God might willingly have sacrificed control over evolution itself, as if somehow this belittles him. If he is willing to sacrifice control in one area of life (free will), why do you discount the possibility that he might have been willing to sacrifice control in other areas, and why do you refuse to give him the right to choose uncontrolled evolution rather than controlled?

DAVID: You are mixing and matching my statements to distort my view of God and his purposes as clearly stated, and you ignore.

dhw: This has nothing to do with your view of God and his purposes. I asked you why you considered my alternatives “bumbling” and why you denied him the right to experiment, watch, enjoy etc. even though he probably has thoughts and emotions in common with us. These alternatives are mine, not yours. They do not “distort your view of God and his purposes”!

DAVID: What you list are your humanizing views of God. No they do not describe your distortions, which I have listed previously and elsewhere.

Humanizing views of God cannot be discounted if God “probably has thought patterns and emotions” similar to ours. I have constantly asked you to pinpoint the distortions, and you have never yet succeeded in doing so.

dhw: Why don’t you focus on the rest of the paragraph which vividly illustrates exactly the same process you are trying to ignore: cells RESPOND to new requirements and do not change in advance of them.

DAVID: Yes, in a new environment there are new demands that require major design and physiological changes. Let's look: the legged mammal jumps in the watery environment and major changes MUST happen because that is what the fossil record tells us.

Exactly. You've got it!

DAVID: You want your beloved cells to design the major changes, without any interim minor modifications. A designing mind is required. The cells of yours don't have it as there is no evidence they are that smart.

I have no idea just how many minor modifications might have taken place, but yes, my theory is that the cell communities did all the designing. I’m glad you’ve understood it. And it is a THEORY. See the Shapiro thread.

DAVID: […] it must be germ cells changing the next generations through reproduction. At your theory level they receive pleading messages from somatic cells to please fix things.

dhw: Reproduction doesn’t make the changes – it ensures that the changes are passed on. I wish I knew more about stem cells, as they might be the thinkers that make the changes in the first place. What is clear is that there has to be intelligent communication between all the cells involved in any change. […]

DAVID: Those miracle living cells, designed by God, produce and receive all sorts of myriad molecular signals, responding automatically and in so doing living beings appear! Those are you cell communities, not the magical cell committees which can design anything as you conjure ways to avoid God designing when He has to

The appearance of living beings in the form of intelligent cells may well be the work of your God. And there is no question that once we have life, there are automatic processes at work. But automatic processes do not explain variation from the original life form. Hence evolution from single cells to sharks, eagles, ants, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans. I do not regard it as beyond your God’s powers to have created an autonomous intelligence that enabled the original cells to evolve as they have done. You may call it magic if you like, but I would suggest it is scientific, whether your God created every species individually or created the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt and innovate autonomously.

DAVID: God gave the brain the ability to make changes called plasticity. As we learn small areas can enlarge to handle new knowledge. Touting 'cells' doesn't change the concept.

dhw: If your God gave brain cells the ability to enlarge small areas without his preprogramming and/or dabbling, is it not possible that the same ability was used earlier in evolution when large areas were expanded, with the resultant expansion of the whole brain?

Any woolly theory is possible. I think brain changes are specific to the brain which requires that special ability to handle how we use our brain.

dhw: You simply refuse to answer the above questions, and to realize that free will is an EXAMPLE of your God deliberately sacrificing control.

Control over the activities of one desired species to which He purposely gave consciousness and the right of choice in managing their lives. That is all the issue entails. God knew when He decided to produce us what our attributes would be. Please let Him the right to choose.

DAVID: You are mixing and matching my statements to distort my view of God and his purposes as clearly stated, and you ignore.

dhw: This has nothing to do with your view of God and his purposes. I asked you why you considered my alternatives “bumbling” and why you denied him the right to experiment, watch, enjoy etc. even though he probably has thoughts and emotions in common with us. These alternatives are mine, not yours. They do not “distort your view of God and his purposes”!

What you list are your humanizing views of God. No they do not describe your distortions, which I have listed previously and elsewhere.

DAVID: The bold above is silly. Only germ cells can do the changes. The legs have to tell the germ cells. Let's stick to real biology, please, not lala land.

dhw: I couldn’t care less which cells do the actual thinking and directing, so long as you acknowledge that thinking and directing take place within the cell community. Why don’t you focus on the rest of the paragraph which vividly illustrates exactly the same process you are trying to ignore: cells RESPOND to new requirements and do not change in advance of them.

Yes, in a new environment there are new demands that require major design and physiological changes. Let's look: the legged mammal jumps in the watery environment and major changes MUST happen because that is what the fossil record tells us. You want your beloved cells to design the major changes, without any interim minor modifications. A designing mind is required. The
cells of yours don't have it as there is no evidence they are that smart.

From “magic embryology” (the rest of which is dealt with elsewhere)

dhw: Epigenetics does not explain how cells adapt! My proposal is that the cells themselves have the intelligent autonomous ability to adapt. Why did you raise the subject of epigenetics in the first place?

DAVID: To answer, epigenetics is the only proven mechanism we know. As you seem to point out, we don't know how the mechanism is managed with the organisms, but, as I view it, it must be germ cells changing the next generations through reproduction. At your theory level they receive pleading messages from somatic cells to please fix things.

dhw: Reproduction doesn’t make the changes – it ensures that the changes are passed on. I wish I knew more about stem cells, as they might be the thinkers that make the changes in the first place. What is clear is that there has to be intelligent communication between all the cells involved in any change. Are you not aware of messages from cell communities within your body when you do things they don’t like? They don’t have to speak Texan to make themselves understood. Fortunately, in many cases other cell communities hear the messages and leap into action. I’d have thought doctors would know about such things.

Those miracle living cells, designed by God, produce and receive all sorts of myriad molecular signals, responding automatically and in so doing living beings appear! Those are you cell communities, not the magical cell committees which can design anything as you conjure ways to avoid God designing when He has to.

If your God gave brain cells the ability to enlarge small areas without his preprogramming and/or dabbling, is it not possible that the same ability was used earlier in evolution when large areas were expanded, with the resultant expansion of the whole brain? And if your God gave cells/cell communities the ability to make changes to the brain – call it plasticity – why is it not possible that he gave the same ability to other cell communities in all bodies?

dhw: Repeat: why is deliberate sacrifice of control (as with “human free will”) wishy-washy? Why is the creation of cellular intelligence magic and unreasonable, whereas divine dabbles and a 3.8-billion-year-old programme are not magic or unreasonable?

DAVID: It all revolved about God's tight control of evolution to achieve humans as the result with free will given. God obviously didn't care to precisely control us.

You simply refuse to answer the above questions, and to realize that free will is an EXAMPLE of your God deliberately sacrificing control.

dhw: Why do you see experimenting, watching, enjoying and learning as “bumbling”? And since you agree that your God probably has “similar thought patterns and emotions” to yours, why do you now “deny him the right” to have them?

DAVID: You are mixing and matching my statements to distort my view of God and his purposes as clearly stated, and you ignore.

This has nothing to do with your view of God and his purposes. I asked you why you considered my alternatives “bumbling” and why you denied him the right to experiment, watch, enjoy etc. even though he probably has thoughts and emotions in common with us. These alternatives are mine, not yours. They do not “distort your view of God and his purposes”!

DAVID: You constantly avoid "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes". We have known observations on our uniqueness. […]

I have reminded you that Shapiro’s theory is an extrapolation from known processes, whereas yours cannot call on any known processes from which to extrapolate. The uniqueness of H.sapiens is not a process! And it is no argument to dismiss Shapiro’s theory because nobody has actually witnessed speciation. Your whole reply (I’ve left out the dinosaur bit) is a non sequitur.

dhw: The [pre-whale] legs don’t say anything. They attempt to do the work required, but this proves difficult. This is the point at which the cells (I don’t care which ones they are, because ALL of them are involved in the process of change) respond to the unnaturalness of the movements under the new conditions. Of course they think, or some of them do and then direct the others. That is the whole point of the theory. […] This is an extension of precisely the same process observed in the brains of illiterate women, taxidrivers, musicians, and in thousands and thousands of other known changes [I gave more examples]. The cells respond to the new requirements. They do not anticipate, and the organism does not give orders. It is the attempt to cope that gives rise to the activity of the cells.

DAVID: The bold above is silly. Only germ cells can do the changes. The legs have to tell the germ cells. Let's stick to real biology, please, not lala land.

I couldn’t care less which cells do the actual thinking and directing, so long as you acknowledge that thinking and directing take place within the cell community. Why don’t you focus on the rest of the paragraph which vividly illustrates exactly the same process you are trying to ignore: cells RESPOND to new requirements and do not change in advance of them.

From “magic embryology” (the rest of which is dealt with elsewhere)

dhw: Epigenetics does not explain how cells adapt! My proposal is that the cells themselves have the intelligent autonomous ability to adapt. Why did you raise the subject of epigenetics in the first place?

DAVID: To answer, epigenetics is the only proven mechanism we know. As you seem to point out, we don't know how the mechanism is managed with the organisms, but, as I view it, it must be germ cells changing the next generations through reproduction. At your theory level they receive pleading messages from somatic cells to please fix things.

Reproduction doesn’t make the changes – it ensures that the changes are passed on. I wish I knew more about stem cells, as they might be the thinkers that make the changes in the first place. What is clear is that there has to be intelligent communication between all the cells involved in any change. Are you not aware of messages from cell communities within your body when you do things they don’t like? They don’t have to speak Texan to make themselves understood. Fortunately, in many cases other cell communities hear the messages and leap into action. I’d have thought doctors would know about such things.

DAVID: Some shrinkage makes way for some lesser enlargement, sensibly.

dhw: So did your God give us too much capacity? And does he dabble in order to give us our modern enlargements, or are the cells able to expand themselves?

God gave the brain the ability to make changes called plasticity. As we learn small areas can enlarge to handle new knowledge. Touting 'cells' doesn't change the concept.

dhw: Repeat: why is deliberate sacrifice of control (as with “human free will”) wishy-washy? Why is the creation of cellular intelligence magic and unreasonable, whereas divine dabbles and a 3.8-billion-year-old programme are not magic or unreasonable?

It all revolved about God's tight control of evolution to achieve humans as the result with free will given. God obviously didn't care to precisely control us. Your view of God is not mine, in any sense.

dhw: Why do you see experimenting, watching, enjoying and learning as “bumbling”? And since you agree that your God probably has “similar thought patterns and emotions” to yours, why do you now “deny him the right” to have them?

You are mixing and matching my statements to distort my view of God and his purposes as clearly stated, and you ignore.

DAVID: Reminder: Shapiro's theory extrapolates from what live-alone bacteria can do in editing DNA which is needed for their survival, not a species changer.

dhw: Reminder: it is a theory. How often must I repeat that the extrapolation is from known processes of adaptation, the argument being that if cells have the intelligent ability to adapt, the same mechanism may be applied to the major adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. Please stop pretending that just because it’s a theory it has no value. The same reservations apply to your own theory – except that in yours, we do not have ANY known observations to extrapolate from.

You constantly avoid "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes". We have known observations on our uniqueness. I haven't forgotten in the brain thread how complex you think dinosaurs were as compared to viviparous mice and metamorphosing butterflies. We end evolution with unexpected complexity.

DAVID: And as I've reminder you only germ cells can speciate. Whale-to-be legs have to become flippers. What do they say to the germ cells? Change my joints for different movements, change my muscle attachments, change my skin over all to hairless, and have this all done with the next species to appear that has flippers. and just do it. Don't bother with the required design changes as you can do it without thinking….

dhw: The legs don’t say anything. They attempt to do the work required, but this proves difficult. This is the point at which the cells (I don’t care which ones they are, because ALL of them are involved in the process of change) respond to the unnaturalness of the movements under the new conditions. Of course they think, or some of them do and then direct the others. That is the whole point of the theory. And they think: “This isn’t working very well”, so they adapt to the sort of movement the pre-whale is trying to perform. This is an extension of precisely the same process observed in the brains of illiterate women, taxidrivers, musicians, and in thousands and thousands of other known changes, as when some fish adapt to polluted waters, and some animals (and humans) adapt to high altitudes, to cold or hot climates, and to any other change in their conditions. The cells respond to the new requirements. They do not anticipate, and the organism does not give orders. It is the attempt to cope that gives rise to the activity of the cells.

The bold above is silly. Only germ cells can do the changes. The legs have to tell the germ cells. Let's stick to real biology, please, not lala land.

David: Oh, I forgot. You think God will let them do it on their own, with no guiding control by God to make sure evolution has the endpoint He desires. Your humanized God all over again.

dhw: Of course I think God would let them do it on their own. He wouldn’t, though, if from the very beginning of life he ONLY had the endpoint YOU desire! This is your control freak, human-obsessed God all over again. Why should your reading of your God’s mind and character be any more authentic than any of the alternatives I offer? Especially when, in the case of yours, it leads to a theory which can only be applied to the actual history if we turn our backs on human reason.

I've reasoned along with Adler. Perfectly sensible, very precisely reasoned in a great book.

DAVID: Some shrinkage makes way for some lesser enlargement, sensibly.

So did your God give us too much capacity? And does he dabble in order to give us our modern enlargements, or are the cells able to expand themselves?

dhw: Cells do not “magically replace” God. Instead of your God directly preprogramming or dabbling every change in the brain (not to mention every change in the history of evolution) I have him designing a mechanism enabling organisms to do their own designing. Why is this “magic” and why is it “unreasonable”?

DAVID: Repeat: loss of full control! My God is purposeful, not your wishy-washy type.

Repeat: why is deliberate sacrifice of control (as with “human free will”) wishy-washy? Why is the creation of cellular intelligence magic and unreasonable, whereas divine dabbles and a 3.8-billion-year-old programme are not magic or unreasonable?

dhw: Following on from your silly talk of “rights”, why do you deny him the right to experiment, to watch and enjoy, to learn as he goes along….?

DAVID: Again a bumbling God. Stop humanizing.

Why do you see experimenting, watching, enjoying and learning as “bumbling”? And since you agree that your God probably has “similar thought patterns and emotions” to yours, why do you now “deny him the right” to have them?

dhw: IN MY THEORY CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT DEMANDS. THEY DO NOT PLAN. THEY RESPOND. THERE IS NO FORETELLING OF THE FUTURE.

DAVID: I know that is your theory, which does not explain the gaps, which require design.

dhw: Of course it explains the gaps. Intelligence does the designing, in the form of cells restructuring themselves instead of God having to restructure them. (See also Shapiro thread, but worth repeating since you keep ignoring my replies.)

DAVID: Reminder: Shapiro's theory extrapolates from what live-alone bacteria can do in editing DNA which is needed for their survival, not a species changer.

Reminder: it is a theory. How often must I repeat that the extrapolation is from known processes of adaptation, the argument being that if cells have the intelligent ability to adapt, the same mechanism may be applied to the major adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. Please stop pretending that just because it’s a theory it has no value. The same reservations apply to your own theory – except that in yours, we do not have ANY known observations to extrapolate from.

DAVID: And as I've reminder you only germ cells can speciate. Whale-to-be legs have to become flippers. What do they say to the germ cells? Change my joints for different movements, change my muscle attachments, change my skin over all to hairless, and have this all done with the next species to appear that has flippers. and just do it. Don't bother with the required design changes as you can do it without thinking….

The legs don’t say anything. They attempt to do the work required, but this proves difficult. This is the point at which the cells (I don’t care which ones they are, because ALL of them are involved in the process of change) respond to the unnaturalness of the movements under the new conditions. Of course they think, or some of them do and then direct the others. That is the whole point of the theory. And they think: “This isn’t working very well”, so they adapt to the sort of movement the pre-whale is trying to perform. This is an extension of precisely the same process observed in the brains of illiterate women, taxidrivers, musicians, and in thousands and thousands of other known changes, as when some fish adapt to polluted waters, and some animals (and humans) adapt to high altitudes, to cold or hot climates, and to any other change in their conditions. The cells respond to the new requirements. They do not anticipate, and the organism does not give orders. It is the attempt to cope that gives rise to the activity of the cells.

David: Oh, I forgot. You think God will let them do it on their own, with no guiding control by God to make sure evolution has the endpoint He desires. Your humanized God all over again.

Of course I think God would let them do it on their own. He wouldn’t, though, if from the very beginning of life he ONLY had the endpoint YOU desire! This is your control freak, human-obsessed God all over again. Why should your reading of your God’s mind and character be any more authentic than any of the alternatives I offer? Especially when, in the case of yours, it leads to a theory which can only be applied to the actual history if we turn our backs on human reason.

dhw: And the shrinkage? Please clarify: Did God decide he’d given us too much capacity?

Some shrinkage makes way for some lesser enlargement, sensibly .

dhw: You do not “accept”, you believe. Cells do not “magically replace” God. Instead of your God directly preprogramming or dabbling every change in the brain (not to mention every change in the history of evolution) I have him designing a mechanism enabling organisms to do their own designing. Why is this “magic” and why is it “unreasonable”?

Repeat: loss of full control! My God is purposeful, not your wishy-washy type.

DAVID: You forget, my view of God is that He is fully purposeful. No distortion. My God does not have humanized sugestions like yours.

dhw: You forget, I also have him fully purposeful, but I dispute your version of his purpose and of his methods of achieving that purpose. Your God is a humanized control freak; one version of mine (I have others, all of whom fit in logically with the actual history) is a humanized “let’s-see-what-happens-if” creative artist. Following on from your silly talk of “rights”, why do you deny him the right to experiment, to watch and enjoy, to learn as he goes along….?

Again a bumbling God. Stop humanizing.

dhw: IN MY THEORY CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT DEMANDS. THEY DO NOT PLAN. THEY RESPOND. THERE IS NO FORETELLING OF THE FUTURE.

DAVID: I know that is your theory, which does not explain the gaps, which require design.

dhw: Of course it explains the gaps. Intelligence does the designing, in the form of cells restructuring themselves instead of God having to restructure them. (See also Shapiro thread, but worth repeating since you keep ignoring my replies.)

Reminder: Shapiro's theory extrapolates from what live-alone bacteria can do in editing DNA which is needed for their survival, not a species changer. And as I've reminder you only germ cells can speciate. Whale-to-be legs have to become flippers. What do they say to the germ cells? Change my joints for different movements, change my muscle attachments, change my skin over all to hairless, and have this all done with the next species to appear that has flippers. and just do it. Don't bother with the required design changes as you can do it without thinking, just jump this obviously great gap in form and function by adapting. Sounds simple, bot no anywhere need logical. Just hopeful organisms can do it without help. Oh, I forgot. You think God will let them do it on their own, with no guiding control by God to make sure evolution has the endpoint He desires. Your humanized God all over again.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing with me. Nothing to do with your God fiddling, then. So the cells might have decided for themselves on shrinkage.

DAVID: God gave the local enlargement mechanism as part of the complexification mechanism.

And the shrinkage? Please clarify: Did God decide he’d given us too much capacity?

DAVID: Enlargement of very special areas (cabbies, reading) is a very special plasticity of the brain, both processes part of the plasticity process give to the brain by God, as He managed the evolution of the unique human brain.

dhw: Yes, the brain is plastic. So too are all the other cell communities to the extent that they are capable of making changes to themselves in response to new demands, as is proved over and over again by adaptation. [...] Why is this “unreasonable”?

DAVID: Simple. I accept that God designed these mechanisms. Your cells magically replacing God is what I object to.

You do not “accept”, you believe. Cells do not “magically replace” God. Instead of your God directly preprogramming or dabbling every change in the brain (not to mention every change in the history of evolution) I have him designing a mechanism enabling organisms to do their own designing. Why is this “magic” and why is it “unreasonable”?

DAVID: You keep bringing up your cellular committee system of evolutionary design, denying God his right to keep full control. Your view of God is strange, to say the least.

dhw: This is one your weirder distortions. How is it a denial of God’s “rights” to suggest that he DID NOT WANT full control, but that he WANTED precisely what history shows us

DAVID: You forget, my view of God is that He is fully purposeful. No distortion. My God does not have humanized sugestions like yours.

You forget, I also have him fully purposeful, but I dispute your version of his purpose and of his methods of achieving that purpose. Your God is a humanized control freak; one version of mine (I have others, all of whom fit in logically with the actual history) is a humanized “let’s-see-what-happens-if” creative artist. Following on from your silly talk of “rights”, why do you deny him the right to experiment, to watch and enjoy, to learn as he goes along….?

dhw: IN MY THEORY CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT DEMANDS. THEY DO NOT PLAN. THEY RESPOND. THERE IS NO FORETELLING OF THE FUTURE.

DAVID: I know that is your theory, which does not explain the gaps, which require design.

Of course it explains the gaps. Intelligence does the designing, in the form of cells restructuring themselves instead of God having to restructure them. (See also Shapiro thread, but worth repeating since you keep ignoring my replies.)

DAVID: I've not ignored your unreasonable thinking. Overall shrinkage is not large, but is a definite result of complexification.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing with me. Nothing to do with your God fiddling, then. So the cells might have decided for themselves on shrinkage.

God gave the local enlargement mechanism as part of the complexification mechanism

DAVID: Enlargement of very special areas (cabbies, reading) is a very special plasticity of the brain, both processes part of the plasticity process give to the brain by God, as He managed the evolution of the unique human brain.

dhw: Yes, the brain is plastic. So too are all the other cell communities to the extent that they are capable of making changes to themselves in response to new demands, as is proved over and over again by adaptation. What do you mean by “managed the evolution of the brain”? Why is this “unreasonable”?

Simple. I accept that God designed these mechanisms. Your cells magically replacing God is what I object to.

DAVID: You keep bringing up your cellular committee system of evolutionary design, denying God his right to keep full control. Your view of God is strange, to say the least.

dhw: This is one your weirder distortions. How is it a denial of God’s “rights” to suggest that he DID NOT WANT full control, but that he WANTED precisely what history shows us

You forget, my view of God is that He is fully purposeful. No distortion. My God does not have humanized sugestions like yours.

dhw: IN MY THEORY CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT DEMANDS. THEY DO NOT PLAN. THEY RESPOND. THERE IS NO FORETELLING OF THE FUTURE.

I know that is your theory, which does not explain the gaps, which require design.

DAVID: There is evidence they have design capacity, only epigenetic minor modifications within the same species. My firm explanation for speciation is a designer. I accept nothing else.

dhw: I know you have made up your mind. And I keep asking you questions about your explanations (not about design but about the motives, abilities and methods you impose on your designer), and the only answers I get are that you have no idea, we can’t “know”, why bother?

DAVID: The usual distortion of my views. I cannot know God's reasoning about how He arrived at his motives.

dhw: You cannot know his motives, and his motives are his reasons, and you have specified them in your illogical theory, repeated below. Please stop messing about with language.

DAVID: But I know what He did.

dhw: What you “know” is what the rest of us “know”: if he exists, he somehow produced the great changing bush of life, with humans as the latest branch. That is all we “know”. But you pretend you “know” that humans were his only motive/reason, and you have no idea why, with his total powers, he produced the great changing bush as an “interim goal” to keep life going and to cover the time till he produced the only thing he wanted to produce.

Like Adler, I can reason that our unusual status allows us to accept us logically as His purpose. "The difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".