Evolution, survival and adaptation (Evolution)
I am once more telescoping overlapping threads.
Dhw: (under “Balance of nature, ants…") All forms of life have always depended on some sort of balance, and the balance is constantly shifting, which is why some species have survived and others have died out in the long history of the higgledy-piggledy bush. Thank you for this beautiful illustration of Margulis’s contention that evolution depends on cooperation as well as (if not more than) competition.
DAVID: This is why I question the significance of competition for survival as a major factor.
You questioned the concept of “survival of the fittest”. This is not just a matter of competition. Once again you seem to be equating survival with population density and totally ignoring every other environmental factor that threatens life.
QUOTE: (under “Natures wonders: bacterial adaptation”) "To survive hostile environments, an organism often has to acquire new traits.”
dhw: And yet you keep trying to tell us that survivability plays no role in evolution. Bacteria remain bacteria, but maybe other organisms acquire major new traits for the same reason, and duly become new species.
DAVID: Not that survivability 'plays no role' but a much smaller role than implied by 'survival of the fittest’.
You wrote: “Survival of the fittest is an unproven conjecture.” I consider it pure commonsense that organisms which can cope with the environment survive, and organisms which cannot cope do not survive. Once multicellularity appears, I would suggest that the development of means of survival (and I would add improvement) plays a crucial role in evolution, but perhaps you think that different ways of acquiring food, of catching prey or of defence against predators, and of countering or exploiting changes in the environment only play a small role.
Dhw (under Natural wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas): [...] I do not ask you to agree with my hypothesis – I also have reservations. I only ask you to consider it as a possibility. The mystery does not in any way support your theory that there is a supernatural power which designed flippers before pre-whales entered the water.
DAVID: If major and minor adaptations ae part of the mechanism for change, we have no evidence so far, only small epigenetic DNA changes which can be passed on to descendants. What supports my theory of a supernatural power is the obvious need for visualizing the future form and the design planning that must go into it in order for the change to be accomplished. The DNA of a completely new species may show reference to the past species, but will have very major differences in order to create the new form and function. Only design fits this.
We have had this discussion many times before, but it’s worth repeating since so much else depends on it. After much ado, you agreed some time ago that environmental factors play a major role in evolution. Minor adaptations clearly take place as a RESPONSE to environmental change. There is no visualizing of the future form, and no design planning in advance. You continue to ignore my question concerning the mechanism that makes this possible - i.e. do you think your God dabbled or preprogrammed the changes in the beaks of finches, or did their cell communities accomplish these autonomously? We agree that innovation is far more complex, and that nobody can explain it. Where we do not agree is on the likeliest order of events. You have your God planning major adaptations (innovations) in advance of environmental change, whereas I have my organisms responding to environmental change. Your version requires your God’s advance knowledge of every environmental change that entails innovation, which suggests that he has preprogrammed or manipulated the environment (local and global) as well as the structures of all the creatures that survive the changes. (We’d better leave out the great non sequitur of all this being done for the sake of the human brain!) The complications are enormous, whereas the scenario of life forms RESPONDING to environmental change, either by dying or by adapting or by producing useful new organs to exploit the changes requires only one premise: that they do the designing themselves with an intelligence which your God may have given them in the first place. We know they respond on a minor scale. Perhaps they also respond on a major scale. It’s a hypothesis, but Occam would be delighted with such a simple solution to the mystery.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell 
, Saturday, September 02, 2017, 15:20 (2421 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is why I question the significance of competition for survival as a major factor.
dhw: You questioned the concept of “survival of the fittest”. This is not just a matter of competition. Once again you seem to be equating survival with population density and totally ignoring every other environmental factor that threatens life.
I don't think population density is an issue. It is something you seemed to mention and I questioned. Darwinists have math models regarding reproductivity as another issue. We've discussed Raup and environment causing extinctions. Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
dhw: We have had this discussion many times before, but it’s worth repeating since so much else depends on it. After much ado, you agreed some time ago that environmental factors play a major role in evolution. Minor adaptations clearly take place as a RESPONSE to environmental change. There is no visualizing of the future form, and no design planning in advance. You continue to ignore my question concerning the mechanism that makes this possible - i.e. do you think your God dabbled or preprogrammed the changes in the beaks of finches, or did their cell communities accomplish these autonomously?
Not so. I have stated that finch beak changes are epigenetic adaptations, a mechanism given by God.
dhw: We agree that innovation is far more complex, and that nobody can explain it. Where we do not agree is on the likeliest order of events. You have your God planning major adaptations (innovations) in advance of environmental change, whereas I have my organisms responding to environmental change.
Environmental change is only one issue. There is no evidence that humans left trees because of major climate changes. Preparatory anatomic changes for bipedalism started 23 million years ago!
dhw: Your version requires your God’s advance knowledge of every environmental change that entails innovation, which suggests that he has preprogrammed or manipulated the environment (local and global) as well as the structures of all the creatures that survive the changes. (We’d better leave out the great non sequitur of all this being done for the sake of the human brain!) The complications are enormous, whereas the scenario of life forms RESPONDING to environmental change, either by dying or by adapting or by producing useful new organs to exploit the changes requires only one premise: that they do the designing themselves with an intelligence which your God may have given them in the first place. We know they respond on a minor scale. Perhaps they also respond on a major scale. It’s a hypothesis, but Occam would be delighted with such a simple solution to the mystery.
All I can say to this mishmash is that Occam did not accept simplicity beyond all recognition. Whales entering water is an environmental change for them, but not an environmental change for the Earth. As for the brain, it evolved, a process you accept. All in a scramble to deny God.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: This is why I question the significance of competition for survival as a major factor.
dhw: You questioned the concept of “survival of the fittest”. This is not just a matter of competition. Once again you seem to be equating survival with population density and totally ignoring every other environmental factor that threatens life.
DAVID: I don't think population density is an issue. It is something you seemed to mention and I questioned.
It was you who brought it up on the amoeba thread (see my post 31 August at 8.21 am), when you mistakenly assumed that survivability only entailed that one issue:
DAVID: We have no proof that survivability is a major issue due to population density, as you imply. Density is only an issue since WWII when we are displacing animal habitats.
Dhw: I do not imply population density at all! Where did you get that from?
DAVID: From your statement: " more and more new organisms came on the scene".
Dhw: "New organisms" refers to variety, not to population density. It’s a fact of evolution that more and more new organisms came on the scene once multicellularity had occurred, and I am suggesting that the variety entailed more and more new ways of surviving.
DAVID: Darwinists have math models regarding reproductivity as another issue. We've discussed Raup and environment causing extinctions. Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
It’s not a tautology (= saying the same thing twice) but it is a self-evident observation. That does not mean it plays no role, or only a small role, in the development of evolution.
dhw: We have had this discussion many times before, but it’s worth repeating since so much else depends on it. After much ado, you agreed some time ago that environmental factors play a major role in evolution. Minor adaptations clearly take place as a RESPONSE to environmental change. There is no visualizing of the future form, and no design planning in advance. You continue to ignore my question concerning the mechanism that makes this possible - i.e. do you think your God dabbled or preprogrammed the changes in the beaks of finches, or did their cell communities accomplish these autonomously?
DAVID: Not so. I have stated that finch beak changes are epigenetic adaptations, a mechanism given by God.
With my theist hat on, I am happy to accept that the mechanism for autonomous epigenetic changes may have been given by your God, i.e. that he may have given finches the autonomous means of adapting their beaks without being preprogrammed or dabbled with. So maybe he also gave pre-whales the autonomous means of adapting their legs.
dhw: We agree that innovation is far more complex, and that nobody can explain it. Where we do not agree is on the likeliest order of events. You have your God planning major adaptations (innovations) in advance of environmental change, whereas I have my organisms responding to environmental change.
DAVID: Environmental change is only one issue. There is no evidence that humans left trees because of major climate changes. Preparatory anatomic changes for bipedalism started 23 million years ago!
But it IS an issue, even if it is not the ONLY issue. You say later: “Whales entering water is an environmental change for them, but not an environmental change for the Earth.” Who says that species change can only happen if the whole Earth changes? Maybe both pre-whales and pre-humans started off in local areas where it became advantageous to enter the water or to descend from the trees. Convergent evolution suggests that local changes can lead to similar solutions in other areas. And a successful new species can spread.
dhw: Your version requires your God’s advance knowledge of every environmental change that entails innovation, which suggests that he has preprogrammed or manipulated the environment (local and global) as well as the structures of all the creatures that survive the changes. (We’d better leave out the great non sequitur of all this being done for the sake of the human brain!) The complications are enormous, whereas the scenario of life forms RESPONDING to environmental change, either by dying or by adapting or by producing useful new organs to exploit the changes requires only one premise: that they do the designing themselves with an intelligence which your God may have given them in the first place. We know they respond on a minor scale. Perhaps they also respond on a major scale. It’s a hypothesis, but Occam would be delighted with such a simple solution to the mystery.
DAVID: All I can say to this mishmash is that Occam did not accept simplicity beyond all recognition. As for the brain, it evolved, a process you accept. All in a scramble to deny God.
There is no scramble to deny God, since my hypothesis allows for God. Of course I accept that the brain evolved, as did every other organ we can think of, and since I accept that the human brain is a very special instrument, I can even allow for your God doing a dabble. But divine preprogramming or dabbling of the whole history of evolution, including by implication the history of the environment, seems to me to take complexity beyond all reason, especially when there is a simple explanation which – as you have repeatedly acknowledged – fits in perfectly with the history of life.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 03, 2017, 15:56 (2420 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Not so. I have stated that finch beak changes are epigenetic adaptations, a mechanism given by God.
dhw: With my theist hat on, I am happy to accept that the mechanism for autonomous epigenetic changes may have been given by your God, i.e. that he may have given finches the autonomous means of adapting their beaks without being preprogrammed or dabbled with. So maybe he also gave pre-whales the autonomous means of adapting their legs.
Beak size is a very simple epigenetic change (God given). Leg to flipper involves total form change. Only prior design planning and a designer (God) could do that.
dhw: We agree that innovation is far more complex, and that nobody can explain it. Where we do not agree is on the likeliest order of events. You have your God planning major adaptations (innovations) in advance of environmental change, whereas I have my organisms responding to environmental change.
DAVID: Environmental change is only one issue. There is no evidence that humans left trees because of major climate changes. Preparatory anatomic changes for bipedalism started 23 million years ago!
dhw: But it IS an issue, even if it is not the ONLY issue. You say later: “Whales entering water is an environmental change for them, but not an environmental change for the Earth.” Who says that species change can only happen if the whole Earth changes? Maybe both pre-whales and pre-humans started off in local areas where it became advantageous to enter the water or to descend from the trees. Convergent evolution suggests that local changes can lead to similar solutions in other areas. And a successful new species can spread.
There is no disagreement from me that environment change can have major effects: Chicxulub.
DAVID: All I can say to this mishmash is that Occam did not accept simplicity beyond all recognition. As for the brain, it evolved, a process you accept. All in a scramble to deny God.dhw: There is no scramble to deny God, since my hypothesis allows for God. Of course I accept that the brain evolved, as did every other organ we can think of, and since I accept that the human brain is a very special instrument, I can even allow for your God doing a dabble. But divine preprogramming or dabbling of the whole history of evolution, including by implication the history of the environment, seems to me to take complexity beyond all reason, especially when there is a simple explanation which – as you have repeatedly acknowledged – fits in perfectly with the history of life.
God, for you, is 'beyond all reason', but if you can accept a brain dabble with bipedalism as part of it, you are accepting God's control over the last 8 million years of human evolution. Why can't all evolution be under the same God controls? Not beyond all reason.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
I am once more juxtaposing different posts and threads as they all deal with aspects of evolution.
DAVID (under “footprints on Crete”): I think all God did was open the flood gates of different hominin types for further development. What other family of organisms did this? None! Apes made no changes.
dhw: I agree that the floodgates opened. But I thought your God was always in total control. Why bother with all these different hominin types if his primary purpose was homo sapiens?
Question not answered.
Dhw: I don’t know why you keep harping on about hominins being the only family that changed. If apes all descended from a common ancestor, there are loads of variations. Perhaps you mean that only homos developed into homo sapiens, whereas gibbons only developed into 16 species of gibbon, and none of them are homo sapiens.
DAVID: That is of course what I mean.
So apes did make lots of changes, and at one stage some of the changed apes must have changed into hominins who changed into homos who changed into homo sapiens, while other apes changed into other apes or stayed the same. Pre-gorillas became gorillas, and pre-orang-utans became orang-utans. What is your point? Do you think your God should have changed every other type of ape into homo sapiens? Why didn’t he, if he only wanted homo sapiens? Same question as above. Why all the apes, and why all the hominins?
xxxx
DAVID (under “glial cell guidance”): I'm convinced your nebulous hypothesis is just that in our theistic-mode discussion. How do you explain evolution without God present?
My hypothesis could hardly be more concrete: that cells are intelligent, and that cell communities are sufficiently intelligent to innovate (not proven) as well as to adapt (proven). But I have ALWAYS said that it is a hypothesis, and like yourself I will need more evidence before it turns into a belief. How do I explain evolution without God present? Easy. If he exists, he set up the whole mechanism and then let it run autonomously, as with finch beaks and humans, so too with all other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and the environment.
DAVID: (under “glial cell guidance”) Your inventive mechanism proposal would need a human-brain-like ability as you describe above. That implies all the complexity of our brain, not found in current studies of the genome.
It would not imply human-brain-like ability. The human brain is also a collection of cells, and different cells have different functions, all of which are limited. Just as individual ants are limited but the group is able to design whole cities, groups of cells can design what individual cells cannot. I would not expect heart cells to write King Lear, but they can do things that Shakespeare would never have known about. My point is that there are different forms of intelligence with different abilities.
DAVID: Why do you constantly slough aside the point that development of complex changes, as seen in the gaps in evolution, require foresight of the future needs in order to start designing the plans for those changes?
Why do you constantly slough aside the possibility that complex changes may be a RESPONSE to environmental changes, instead of having your God foreseeing or causing every environmental change local and global and preparing organisms before the change takes place?
DAVID (on this thread): There is no disagreement from me that environment change can have major effects: Chicxulub.
Good. An effect comes after the cause. This applies both to local and to global changes. But according to you, every innovation ANTICIPATES environmental change: God changes legs to fins before pre-whales enter the water. So does that mean, for instance, that God created all the new Cambrian species before increasing the oxygen?
xxxxx
DAVID (on this thread): God, for you, is 'beyond all reason', but if you can accept a brain dabble with bipedalism as part of it, you are accepting God's control over the last 8 million years of human evolution. Why can't all evolution be under the same God controls? Not beyond all reason.
I have accepted the possibility of a brain dabble, mainly to please you, but if pressed, I would say that all the different hominins evolved naturally from some form of ape (bipedalism being a natural response to an environment in which it became advantageous to leave the trees). If there was a dabble, it would have been much later in the proceedings, perhaps as an afterthought, but I can just as easily view the human brain as a natural progression too. As regards control, yes, the whole history of life on Earth could be your God’s game, as he shifts the pieces around. You and I could also be his playthings, but we just don’t know it. Or maybe, just maybe, if he exists he allowed us to be free agents. And maybe, just maybe, if he exists, he allowed evolution to take its own course.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 04, 2017, 17:18 (2419 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (under “footprints on Crete”): I think all God did was open the flood gates of different hominin types for further development. What other family of organisms did this? None! Apes made no changes.
dhw: I agree that the floodgates opened. But I thought your God was always in total control. Why bother with all these different hominin types if his primary purpose was homo sapiens?
The history of evolution is it always produces bushes of organisms. Must be His method. Your human logic is not His.
dhw: Why all the apes, and why all the hominins?
Same answer. God creates bushes. Only the hominins are advanced in mentation.
xxxx
DAVID (under “glial cell guidance”): I'm convinced your nebulous hypothesis is just that in our theistic-mode discussion. How do you explain evolution without God present?
dhw: My hypothesis could hardly be more concrete: that cells are intelligent, and that cell communities are sufficiently intelligent to innovate (not proven) as well as to adapt (proven). But I have ALWAYS said that it is a hypothesis, and like yourself I will need more evidence before it turns into a belief. How do I explain evolution without God present? Easy. If he exists, he set up the whole mechanism and then let it run autonomously, as with finch beaks and humans, so too with all other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and the environment.
Your same answer. Where did cellular intelligence come from if God did not do it? An inorganic universe creating intelligence on its own is beyond my belief.
DAVID: (under “glial cell guidance”) Your inventive mechanism proposal would need a human-brain-like ability as you describe above. That implies all the complexity of our brain, not found in current studies of the genome.dhw: It would not imply human-brain-like ability. The human brain is also a collection of cells, and different cells have different functions, all of which are limited.
You are understating the complexity of the organization of the brain. The individual neurons might have specific duties, but they also have plasticity to adapt to new tasks in an multitude of new ways.
dhw:Just as individual ants are limited but the group is able to design whole cities, groups of cells can design what individual cells cannot. I would not expect heart cells to write King Lear, but they can do things that Shakespeare would never have known about. My point is that there are different forms of intelligence with different abilities.
Your nebulous point is based on what Shapiro finds in bacteria. It is a giant jump to cell committees speciating.
DAVID: Why do you constantly slough aside the point that development of complex changes, as seen in the gaps in evolution, require foresight of the future needs in order to start designing the plans for those changes?dhw: Why do you constantly slough aside the possibility that complex changes may be a RESPONSE to environmental changes, instead of having your God foreseeing or causing every environmental change local and global and preparing organisms before the change takes place?
Of course the change must be a response, but you still ignoring the necessity for foresight and planning to solve the new problems, not possible at a cellular level. Your house was built by a plan, not thrown together. The same with new organisms, planning and design required either by your cell committees or by God.
DAVID (on this thread): There is no disagreement from me that environment change can have major effects: Chicxulub.dhw: Good. An effect comes after the cause. This applies both to local and to global changes. But according to you, every innovation ANTICIPATES environmental change: God changes legs to fins before pre-whales enter the water. So does that mean, for instance, that God created all the new Cambrian species before increasing the oxygen?
Twisting my approach. I just presented Chicxulub as a prime example of change requiring adaptation. We don't know if Whales had flippers on land, like sea lions or seals, but perhaps that is a change God used to put whales in water. Only whales came directly from land animals. As for the Cambrian the evidence is oxygen came first to support it, the explosion second.
xxxxx
dhw: I have accepted the possibility of a brain dabble, mainly to please you, but if pressed, I would say that all the different hominins evolved naturally from some form of ape (bipedalism being a natural response to an environment in which it became advantageous to leave the trees). If there was a dabble, it would have been much later in the proceedings, perhaps as an afterthought, but I can just as easily view the human brain as a natural progression too. As regards control, yes, the whole history of life on Earth could be your God’s game, as he shifts the pieces around. You and I could also be his playthings, but we just don’t know it. Or maybe, just maybe, if he exists he allowed us to be free agents. And maybe, just maybe, if he exists, he allowed evolution to take its own course.
Written like a true agnostic.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: I thought your God was always in total control. Why bother with all these different hominin types if his primary purpose was homo sapiens?
DAVID: The history of evolution is it always produces bushes of organisms. Must be His method. Your human logic is not His.
We know the history, and I’m pleased to see you acknowledge the illogicality of your interpretation. I therefore wonder why you are not prepared to accept the possibility that God’s logic might be the same as ours, and it is your interpretation that is wrong.
xxxx
dhw: How do I explain evolution without God present? Easy. If he exists, he set up the whole mechanism and then let it run autonomously, as with finch beaks and humans, so too with all other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and the environment.
DAVID: Your same answer. Where did cellular intelligence come from if God did not do it? An inorganic universe creating intelligence on its own is beyond my belief.
If your God set up the autonomous mechanism, then your God set up the autonomous mechanism. The subject here is the existence of the autonomous mechanism (as opposed to a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine dabbling), and not the existence of God.
DAVID: Your inventive mechanism proposal would need a human-brain-like ability as you describe above. That implies all the complexity of our brain, not found in current studies of the genome.
dhw: It would not imply human-brain-like ability. The human brain is also a collection of cells, and different cells have different functions, all of which are limited.
DAVID: You are understating the complexity of the organization of the brain. The individual neurons might have specific duties, but they also have plasticity to adapt to new tasks in an multitude of new ways.
Of course they do. One of their functions is to adapt to new tasks!
dhw: […] My point is that there are different forms of intelligence with different abilities.
DAVID: Your nebulous point is based on what Shapiro finds in bacteria. It is a giant jump to cell committees speciating.
Nothing nebulous, and yes it is based on what a number of scientists have found in cells (hardly a reason for rejecting it), and yes it is a giant jump – just as it is a giant jump from the complexity of life to a sourceless, eternal, infinite, conscious being that creates universes and micro-organisms but keeps itself hidden. Both are hypotheses for which there is no conclusive evidence.
dhw: Why do you constantly slough aside the possibility that complex changes may be a RESPONSE to environmental changes, instead of having your God foreseeing or causing every environmental change local and global and preparing organisms before the change takes place?
DAVID: Of course the change must be a response, but you still ignoring the necessity for foresight and planning to solve the new problems, not possible at a cellular level.
Cells solve new problems all the time. (But see the proviso below.) Adaptation to new conditions is a proven process, and I find it difficult to believe that bacteria have prior knowledge of new problems and plan the responses in advance. I find it equally difficult to believe that your God provided them with a computer programme to cover every possible new problem, or that he pops down to give them instructions.
DAVID: Your house was built by a plan, not thrown together. The same with new organisms, planning and design required either by your cell committees or by God.
We are not talking about a house. We are talking about responses to a changing environment. See above. But always with the proviso that major innovations are a mystery, and my hypothesis is an unproven extension of an existing mechanism.
DAVID (on this thread): There is no disagreement from me that environment change can have major effects: Chicxulub.
dhw: Good. An effect comes after the cause. This applies both to local and to global changes. But according to you, every innovation ANTICIPATES environmental change: God changes legs to fins before pre-whales enter the water. So does that mean, for instance, that God created all the new Cambrian species before increasing the oxygen?
DAVID: Twisting my approach. I just presented Chicxulub as a prime example of change requiring adaptation. We don't know if Whales had flippers on land, like sea lions or seals, but perhaps that is a change God used to put whales in water. Only whales came directly from land animals. As for the Cambrian the evidence is oxygen came first to support it, the explosion second.
Why is this a twist? You are acknowledging that environmental change can precede organismal change. Previously you have insisted that your God prepared whales for life in the water. I’m delighted that you are now acknowledging the possibility that the changes took place after whales entered the water, and I would suggest that this order of events is the norm. No foresight, no planning, but organisms (which consist of cell communities) responding to challenges and opportunities.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 05, 2017, 17:51 (2418 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The history of evolution is it always produces bushes of organisms. Must be His method. Your human logic is not His.
dhw: We know the history, and I’m pleased to see you acknowledge the illogicality of your interpretation.
I have said nothing illogical. God does what He wants.
xxxx
DAVID: Your same answer. Where did cellular intelligence come from if God did not do it? An inorganic universe creating intelligence on its own is beyond my belief.
dhw: If your God set up the autonomous mechanism, then your God set up the autonomous mechanism. The subject here is the existence of the autonomous mechanism (as opposed to a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine dabbling), and not the existence of God.
You've avoided the question. Without God where does intelligent foresight come from?
DAVID: You are understating the complexity of the organization of the brain. The individual neurons might have specific duties, but they also have plasticity to adapt to new tasks in an multitude of new ways.
dhw: Of course they do. One of their functions is to adapt to new tasks!
Given by consciousness/soul. They do not initiate.
DAVID: Your house was built by a plan, not thrown together. The same with new organisms, planning and design required either by your cell committees or by God.
dhw: We are not talking about a house. We are talking about responses to a changing environment. See above. But always with the proviso that major innovations are a mystery, and my hypothesis is an unproven extension of an existing mechanism.
Your answer again ignores the concept of foresight and planning to arrange for new advances or adaptations.
DAVID: Twisting my approach. I just presented Chicxulub as a prime example of change requiring adaptation. We don't know if Whales had flippers on land, like sea lions or seals, but perhaps that is a change God used to put whales in water. Only whales came directly from land animals. As for the Cambrian the evidence is oxygen came first to support it, the explosion second.
dhw: Why is this a twist? You are acknowledging that environmental change can precede organismal change. Previously you have insisted that your God prepared whales for life in the water. I’m delighted that you are now acknowledging the possibility that the changes took place after whales entered the water, and I would suggest that this order of events is the norm. No foresight, no planning, but organisms (which consist of cell communities) responding to challenges and opportunities.
Yes, they just do it. That is your answer. Unbelievable. Planning and foresight are never needed prior to arranging for complex changes. Totally illogical.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
Dhw: I thought your God was always in total control. Why bother with all these different hominin types if his primary purpose was homo sapiens?
DAVID: The history of evolution is it always produces bushes of organisms. Must be His method. Your human logic is not His.
dhw: We know the history, and I’m pleased to see you acknowledge the illogicality of your interpretation.
DAVID: I have said nothing illogical. God does what He wants.
So your always-in-control God’s method of fulfilling his primary purpose (the human brain) was to produce a bush. My human logic suggests that a primary purpose would normally be fulfilled as directly as possible, but although you can’t explain why he created all these different hominins, not to mention the whales and the rest of the bush, you happen to know that God’s logic is different from human logic, and so you are not prepared to consider the possibility that the bush itself might have been his primary purpose.
xxxx
DAVID: Your same answer. Where did cellular intelligence come from if God did not do it? An inorganic universe creating intelligence on its own is beyond my belief.
dhw: If your God set up the autonomous mechanism, then your God set up the autonomous mechanism. The subject here is the existence of the autonomous mechanism (as opposed to a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine dabbling), and not the existence of God.
DAVID: You've avoided the question. Without God where does intelligent foresight come from?
I keep disputing “foresight”, as below. Where does intelligence come from? I have always acknowledged that it may come from your God. I don’t know. That is why I am an agnostic.
DAVID: You are understating the complexity of the organization of the brain. The individual neurons might have specific duties, but they also have plasticity to adapt to new tasks in an multitude of new ways.
dhw: Of course they do. One of their functions is to adapt to new tasks!
DAVID: Given by consciousness/soul. They do not initiate.
Adapting to new tasks does not mean initiating. The soul as initiator = dualism, as opposed to materialism, but that is not the point here, since we are debating whether your God preprogrammed or dabbled every evolutionary change, or (theistic version) gave organisms the intelligence to do it themselves.
DAVID: Your house was built by a plan, not thrown together. The same with new organisms, planning and design required either by your cell committees or by God.
dhw: We are not talking about a house. We are talking about responses to a changing environment. See above. But always with the proviso that major innovations are a mystery, and my hypothesis is an unproven extension of an existing mechanism.
DAVID: Your answer again ignores the concept of foresight and planning to arrange for new advances or adaptations.
I am not ignoring it. I am disputing it. My whole hypothesis is based on intelligent organisms RESPONDING to new challenges and/or opportunities, instead of your God preprogramming them in advance or dabbling with them. The response comes AFTER the challenge/new opportunity.
DAVID: Yes, they just do it. That is your answer. Unbelievable. Planning and foresight are never needed prior to arranging for complex changes. Totally illogical.
No, not prior to. There is nothing illogical in the argument that organisms ADAPT to changing conditions. It is a proven fact. The open question is how far they can take that process. I like your example of the whale, because I see each stage as a logical progression in the whale’s adaptation to life in the water. Not your God preprogramming or dabbling eight different changes (and it’s not clear anyway when he would actually have pushed the pre-whales into the water). What is unbelievable to you is that cell communities should be able to make major changes to themselves, although you accept minor changes. But nobody knows how the major changes took place. We only have different hypotheses: 1) random mutations; 2) a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme plus divine dabbling; 3) cellular intelligence (origin unknown but possibly your God). And it takes faith to turn a hypothesis into a belief. I sometimes wonder if your hostility to (3) might be connected to your unwillingness to question your fixed belief in (2).
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 06, 2017, 15:11 (2417 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have said nothing illogical. God does what He wants.
So your always-in-control God’s method of fulfilling his primary purpose (the human brain) was to produce a bush. My human logic suggests that a primary purpose would normally be fulfilled as directly as possible, but although you can’t explain why he created all these different hominins, not to mention the whales and the rest of the bush, you happen to know that God’s logic is different from human logic, and so you are not prepared to consider the possibility that the bush itself might have been his primary purpose.
The amazing human brain is His obvious purpose. Bushiness is the unavoidable history.
xxxx
DAVID: Your answer again ignores the concept of foresight and planning to arrange for new advances or adaptations.
dhw: I am not ignoring it. I am disputing it. My whole hypothesis is based on intelligent organisms RESPONDING to new challenges and/or opportunities, instead of your God preprogramming them in advance or dabbling with them. The response comes AFTER the challenge/new opportunity.
You have again ignored the need for foresight and planning. How do intelligent organisms accomplish major adaptive changes without those mental processes? I'm not discussing the adaptive level of finch beaks. Of course the required change might be a challenge or opportunity. The impetus is not the point!
DAVID: Yes, they just do it. That is your answer. Unbelievable. Planning and foresight are never needed prior to arranging for complex changes. Totally illogical.dhw: No, not prior to. There is nothing illogical in the argument that organisms ADAPT to changing conditions. It is a proven fact. The open question is how far they can take that process. I like your example of the whale, because I see each stage as a logical progression in the whale’s adaptation to life in the water. Not your God preprogramming or dabbling eight different changes (and it’s not clear anyway when he would actually have pushed the pre-whales into the water). What is unbelievable to you is that cell communities should be able to make major changes to themselves, although you accept minor changes. But nobody knows how the major changes took place. We only have different hypotheses: 1) random mutations; 2) a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme plus divine dabbling; 3) cellular intelligence (origin unknown but possibly your God). And it takes faith to turn a hypothesis into a belief. I sometimes wonder if your hostility to (3) might be connected to your unwillingness to question your fixed belief in (2).
Cellular intelligence is the result of intelligent instructions in the DNA. 3) is a pipedream.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: I have said nothing illogical. God does what He wants.
dhw: So your always-in-control God’s method of fulfilling his primary purpose (the human brain) was to produce a bush. My human logic suggests that a primary purpose would normally be fulfilled as directly as possible, but although you can’t explain why he created all these different hominins, not to mention the whales and the rest of the bush, you happen to know that God’s logic is different from human logic, and so you are not prepared to consider the possibility that the bush itself might have been his primary purpose.
DAVID: The amazing human brain is His obvious purpose. Bushiness is the unavoidable history.
God wanted to produce the human brain, and so he could not avoid producing dinosaurs, whales, monarch butterflies and the weaverbird’s nest. I understand why you think God’s logic is different from ours.
xxxx
DAVID: Your answer again ignores the concept of foresight and planning to arrange for new advances or adaptations.
dhw: I am not ignoring it. I am disputing it. My whole hypothesis is based on intelligent organisms RESPONDING to new challenges and/or opportunities, instead of your God preprogramming them in advance or dabbling with them. The response comes AFTER the challenge/new opportunity.
DAVID: You have again ignored the need for foresight and planning. How do intelligent organisms accomplish major adaptive changes without those mental processes? I'm not discussing the adaptive level of finch beaks. Of course the required change might be a challenge or opportunity. The impetus is not the point!
Taking your favourite example of the whale, here’s how:
PRE-WHALE: Dammit, there ain’t no food around here. Wonder what’s in the water. (Wades out to sea.) Wowee, look at all them thar fishes. (Gobbles his fill and returns to land.) I reckon we’d be a darn sight better off livin’ in the water than starvin’ out here. I’m goin’ back in again.
PRE-WHALE CELL COMMUNITIES (exchanging messages): Looks like we’m in for a big change here. It ain’t workin’ too good for you leggy folk. We need ter get you more like what them fishy folk have – y’know, them finny, flippy things. Means makin’ quite a few adjustments, but hey, we c’n do it. Dammit, if them thar finches c’n change the shape o’ their beaks, we c’n change the shape of our legs. So let’s do it…
(They do it. Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes, and all the other changes.)
Contrast this with the Turell scenario:
PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 07, 2017, 14:36 (2416 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am not ignoring it. I am disputing it. My whole hypothesis is based on intelligent organisms RESPONDING to new challenges and/or opportunities, instead of your God preprogramming them in advance or dabbling with them. The response comes AFTER the challenge/new opportunity.
DAVID: You have again ignored the need for foresight and planning. How do intelligent organisms accomplish major adaptive changes without those mental processes? I'm not discussing the adaptive level of finch beaks. Of course the required change might be a challenge or opportunity. The impetus is not the point!dhw: Taking your favourite example of the whale, here’s how:
PRE-WHALE: Dammit, there ain’t no food around here. Wonder what’s in the water. (Wades out to sea.) Wowee, look at all them thar fishes. (Gobbles his fill and returns to land.) I reckon we’d be a darn sight better off livin’ in the water than starvin’ out here. I’m goin’ back in again.
PRE-WHALE CELL COMMUNITIES (exchanging messages): Looks like we’m in for a big change here. It ain’t workin’ too good for you leggy folk. We need ter get you more like what them fishy folk have – y’know, them finny, flippy things. Means makin’ quite a few adjustments, but hey, we c’n do it. Dammit, if them thar finches c’n change the shape o’ their beaks, we c’n change the shape of our legs. So let’s do it…
(They do it. Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes, and all the other changes.)
Contrast this with the Turell scenario:
PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)
Very cute but shoves all the complexity of change under the rug.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: [….]
PRE-WHALE CELL COMMUNITIES (exchanging messages): Looks like we’m in for a big change here. It ain’t workin’ too good for you leggy folk. We need ter get you more like what them fishy folk have – y’know, them finny, flippy things. Means makin’ quite a few adjustments, but hey, we c’n do it. Dammit, if them thar finches c’n change the shape o’ their beaks, we c’n change the shape of our legs. So let’s do it…
(They do it. Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes, and all the other changes.)
Contrast this with the Turell scenario:
PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)
DAVID: Very cute but shoves all the complexity of change under the rug.
The need for clarification of the Turell scenario has been shoved under the rug.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 08, 2017, 21:00 (2415 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: [….]
PRE-WHALE CELL COMMUNITIES (exchanging messages): Looks like we’m in for a big change here. It ain’t workin’ too good for you leggy folk. We need ter get you more like what them fishy folk have – y’know, them finny, flippy things. Means makin’ quite a few adjustments, but hey, we c’n do it. Dammit, if them thar finches c’n change the shape o’ their beaks, we c’n change the shape of our legs. So let’s do it…(They do it. Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes, and all the other changes.)
Contrast this with the Turell scenario:
PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)DAVID: Very cute but shoves all the complexity of change under the rug.
dhw: The need for clarification of the Turell scenario has been shoved under the rug.
Behind the curtain of your play, God is whispering to the whales-to-be, " I'd like you to live in water and I'll supply the changes. Want to try?"
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)
DAVID: Very cute but shoves all the complexity of change under the rug.
dhw: The need for clarification of the Turell scenario has been shoved under the rug.
DAVID: Behind the curtain of your play, God is whispering to the whales-to-be, "I'd like you to live in water and I'll supply the changes. Want to try?"
Nice of him to give them the choice. However, we still don’t know why he wanted pre-whales to live in water when his primary purpose was to produce the human brain. And we still don’t know why he made the changes in so many different stages. And since you have him planning everything in advance, and not making the changes as a RESULT of their entering the water, we still don’t at which stage they actually did start living in water. Do you think at Stage 1 he said: “You got your fins. Go live in the water.” Then at Stage 2: “Come on out o’ there now, cos it’s time for me to give you a blowhole.” Or: “Dammit, I make the darnedest mistakes. I’m comin’ in to give you guys a blowhole.”
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 09, 2017, 14:45 (2414 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: PRE-WHALE: What the heck’s happenin’ to me? Why is my legs turnin’ into flippers? Jumpin’ Jiminy, I’d better go live in the water.
(Repeat the dialogue for noses/blowholes and all the other changes, apart from the last line, as pre-whale may already have gone to live in the water…except that all the other changes are supposed to have been planned in advance as well and not as a result of his entering the water. Pre-whale to improvise last line until scenario is clarified.)DAVID: Very cute but shoves all the complexity of change under the rug.
dhw: The need for clarification of the Turell scenario has been shoved under the rug.
DAVID: Behind the curtain of your play, God is whispering to the whales-to-be, "I'd like you to live in water and I'll supply the changes. Want to try?"
dhw: Nice of him to give them the choice. However, we still don’t know why he wanted pre-whales to live in water when his primary purpose was to produce the human brain. And we still don’t know why he made the changes in so many different stages. And since you have him planning everything in advance, and not making the changes as a RESULT of their entering the water, we still don’t at which stage they actually did start living in water. Do you think at Stage 1 he said: “You got your fins. Go live in the water.” Then at Stage 2: “Come on out o’ there now, cos it’s time for me to give you a blowhole.” Or: “Dammit, I make the darnedest mistakes. I’m comin’ in to give you guys a blowhole.”
This whole whale play doesn't get to the point of why bother to create such a major physiologic mess that required so many major bodily changes and physiological alterations. It happened and is miraculous.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: Behind the curtain of your play, God is whispering to the whales-to-be, "I'd like you to live in water and I'll supply the changes. Want to try?"
dhw: Nice of him to give them the choice. However, we still don’t know why he wanted pre-whales to live in water when his primary purpose was to produce the human brain. And we still don’t know why he made the changes in so many different stages. And since you have him planning everything in advance, and not making the changes as a RESULT of their entering the water, we still don’t at which stage they actually did start living in water. Do you think at Stage 1 he said: “You got your fins. Go live in the water.” Then at Stage 2: “Come on out o’ there now, cos it’s time for me to give you a blowhole.” Or: “Dammit, I make the darnedest mistakes. I’m comin’ in to give you guys a blowhole.”
DAVID: This whole whale play doesn't get to the point of why bother to create such a major physiologic mess that required so many major bodily changes and physiological alterations. It happened and is miraculous.
The point of the whale play is to emphasize what a major physiologic and theological mess your theory creates. It’s a mess because you have no idea why your God should have done it that way, or what it has to do with his prime purpose of creating the human brain. The mess disappears if you accept the possibility that pre-whales may have had good reason to enter the water (e.g. more food), and adapted to life in the water in different stages, thanks to their cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence, as you agree they do when changes are minor (e.g. finches’ beaks).
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 10, 2017, 15:30 (2413 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This whole whale play doesn't get to the point of why bother to create such a major physiologic mess that required so many major bodily changes and physiological alterations. It happened and is miraculous.dhw: The point of the whale play is to emphasize what a major physiologic and theological mess your theory creates. It’s a mess because you have no idea why your God should have done it that way, or what it has to do with his prime purpose of creating the human brain. The mess disappears if you accept the possibility that pre-whales may have had good reason to enter the water (e.g. more food), and adapted to life in the water in different stages, thanks to their cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence, as you agree they do when changes are minor (e.g. finches’ beaks).
Finch beaks are epigenetic. Whales are speciation. The two are not equivalent. You can't use beaks to explain whales. You have stretched cell intelligent responses beyond all recognition.
Evolution, strange prehistoric ants
by David Turell , Sunday, September 10, 2017, 23:38 (2413 days ago) @ David Turell
Powerful jaws and a metallic unicorn horn:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146821-meet-the-vampire-ant-from-hell-with-huge-j...
"A newly discovered species of prehistoric “hell ant” had anatomy that lived up to its demonic name, including a lethal feeding apparatus reinforced with metal.
"Hell ants are an extinct lineage from the Cretaceous Period. Instead of regular mouthparts, they had upward-facing blades.
No living species have such facial anatomy. However, the hairs around hell ants’ mouths are reminiscent of hairs on modern trap-jaw ants that cause their mouths to snap shut when triggered. This has led to speculation that the hell ants’ mouthparts worked in a similar way.
"Some also had a horn-like appendage that jutted out over their tusk-like mandibles. This includes the new species, Linguamyrmex vladi, which Phillip Barden at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark and his colleagues found preserved in 98-million-year-old amber.
"It may be that when another insect brushed the trigger hairs, the blade-like mandibles flipped up and impaled the prey against the horn, punching through its outer layer. “You have this sort of stopping plate, made to accommodate the mandibles closing and capturing prey,” says Barden.
"That’s not all. CT scans revealed that L. vladi’s horn was reinforced with metal.
“'Probably the metal helps to keep the horn undamaged,” says Vincent Perrichot at the University of Rennes 1 in France. In 2016, he published a description of another horned hell ant, which he called a “unicorn ant”.
“'It makes sense to reinforce that [appendage],” agrees Barden, since the horn must have had to withstand repeated impacts from the mandibles. Some modern insects reduce wear and tear in a similar way, by reinforcing their mandibles with metals like zinc and iron.
"As well as being a metal-reinforced unicorn, L. vladi may have been a vampire. When their mandibles moved upwards, they formed a “gutter”. “That might be something that developed to funnel haemolymph – insect blood – down through the mouthparts,” says Barden.
"Next to the ant, Barden’s team found a preserved beetle grub – exactly the kind of “squishy, haemolymph-laden insect” that could support a vampiric lifestyle. Perhaps it was next on the menu.
"But the metal-reinforced horn suggests that the ants’ jaws moved with enough power to penetrate the tougher cuticles of adult insects as well.
“'Until we find a specimen with the prey item trapped, which is probably a matter of time, we’re left to speculate,” says Barden. However, the Myanmar amber deposits where he found his specimen are so rich that more detailed observations are likely to emerge."
Comment: Wow! I wouldn't want this ant at my picnic.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: This whole whale play doesn't get to the point of why bother to create such a major physiologic mess that required so many major bodily changes and physiological alterations. It happened and is miraculous.
dhw: The point of the whale play is to emphasize what a major physiologic and theological mess your theory creates. It’s a mess because you have no idea why your God should have done it that way, or what it has to do with his prime purpose of creating the human brain. The mess disappears if you accept the possibility that pre-whales may have had good reason to enter the water (e.g. more food), and adapted to life in the water in different stages, thanks to their cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence, as you agree they do when changes are minor (e.g. finches’ beaks).
DAVID: Finch beaks are epigenetic. Whales are speciation. The two are not equivalent. You can't use beaks to explain whales. You have stretched cell intelligent responses beyond all recognition.
Epigenetic changes are heritable changes most likely caused by environmental factors. Nobody knows how speciation takes place. It is possible that the same mechanism which causes small changes also caused the unexplained large changes. Finches needed different beaks to cope with different environments. Whale legs were modified into fins for the same reason. The difference between the two is one of scale, not of basic principle. But it remains a hypothesis, as does your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or divine dabbling, all somehow geared to the production of the human brain. The advantage of my hypothesis is that it removes the physiological, philosophical and theological mess engendered by yours.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 11, 2017, 17:59 (2412 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Finch beaks are epigenetic. Whales are speciation. The two are not equivalent. You can't use beaks to explain whales. You have stretched cell intelligent responses beyond all recognition.
dhw: Epigenetic changes are heritable changes most likely caused by environmental factors. Nobody knows how speciation takes place. It is possible that the same mechanism which causes small changes also caused the unexplained large changes. Finches needed different beaks to cope with different environments. Whale legs were modified into fins for the same reason. The difference between the two is one of scale, not of basic principle. But it remains a hypothesis, as does your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or divine dabbling, all somehow geared to the production of the human brain. The advantage of my hypothesis is that it removes the physiological, philosophical and theological mess engendered by yours.
Agree it is a matter of scale. I don't view my views as illogical. My theology is God is in charge.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: Finch beaks are epigenetic. Whales are speciation. The two are not equivalent. You can't use beaks to explain whales. You have stretched cell intelligent responses beyond all recognition.
dhw: Epigenetic changes are heritable changes most likely caused by environmental factors. Nobody knows how speciation takes place. It is possible that the same mechanism which causes small changes also caused the unexplained large changes. Finches needed different beaks to cope with different environments. Whale legs were modified into fins for the same reason. The difference between the two is one of scale, not of basic principle. But it remains a hypothesis, as does your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or divine dabbling, all somehow geared to the production of the human brain. The advantage of my hypothesis is that it removes the physiological, philosophical and theological mess engendered by yours.
DAVID: Agree it is a matter of scale. I don't view my views as illogical. My theology is God is in charge.
Thank you for your agreement. As you have admitted you don’t understand why your God kept messing around with pre-whales, I presume your logic is that God is in charge, and therefore it’s logical that God messed around with pre-whales though you don’t know why. My sense of logic requires coherent reasoning, e.g. that whales wanted more food, entered the water to get it, and their bodies adapted stage by stage to life in the water. And your God may have given their cell communities the ability to make the necessary adjustments, as with finches and their beaks, but on a much larger scale.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 15:32 (2411 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Agree it is a matter of scale. I don't view my views as illogical. My theology is God is in charge.dhw: Thank you for your agreement. As you have admitted you don’t understand why your God kept messing around with pre-whales, I presume your logic is that God is in charge, and therefore it’s logical that God messed around with pre-whales though you don’t know why. My sense of logic requires coherent reasoning, e.g. that whales wanted more food, entered the water to get it, and their bodies adapted stage by stage to life in the water. And your God may have given their cell communities the ability to make the necessary adjustments, as with finches and their beaks, but on a much larger scale.
You sense of logic doesn't explain polar bears who swim about eating seafood and never change. And if God can offer cell communities the biochemical knowledge to make major phenotypic and physiologic changes, why does your logic require a two step mechanism? He can do it directly Himself, can't He?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: Agree it is a matter of scale. I don't view my views as illogical. My theology is God is in charge.
dhw: Thank you for your agreement. As you have admitted you don’t understand why your God kept messing around with pre-whales, I presume your logic is that God is in charge, and therefore it’s logical that God messed around with pre-whales though you don’t know why. My sense of logic requires coherent reasoning, e.g. that whales wanted more food, entered the water to get it, and their bodies adapted stage by stage to life in the water. And your God may have given their cell communities the ability to make the necessary adjustments, as with finches and their beaks, but on a much larger scale.
DAVID: You sense of logic doesn't explain polar bears who swim about eating seafood and never change. And if God can offer cell communities the biochemical knowledge to make major phenotypic and physiologic changes, why does your logic require a two step mechanism? He can do it directly Himself, can't He?
Polar bears don’t live in the water. They can get ample food without changing. Pre-whales presumably couldn’t. I don’t know what you’re referring to with your ‘two-step mechanism’. Cell communities would take as many steps as are needed to reach optimum efficiency. Hence all the different finch beaks and all the different stages of whale. But your God could have created the final whale directly, without any steps, so why didn’t he?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 14, 2017, 01:34 (2409 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You sense of logic doesn't explain polar bears who swim about eating seafood and never change. And if God can offer cell communities the biochemical knowledge to make major phenotypic and physiologic changes, why does your logic require a two step mechanism? He can do it directly Himself, can't He?dhw: Polar bears don’t live in the water. They can get ample food without changing. Pre-whales presumably couldn’t. I don’t know what you’re referring to with your ‘two-step mechanism’.
Two steps are: step one, God gives the organisms the info to make their own changes, and step two, the organisms make the changes.
dhw: Cell communities would take as many steps as are needed to reach optimum efficiency. Hence all the different finch beaks and all the different stages of whale. But your God could have created the final whale directly, without any steps, so why didn’t he?
God obviously prefers to evolve organisms. Why all the steps to H. sapiens I might point out to you. It is his pattern of action.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: You sense of logic doesn't explain polar bears who swim about eating seafood and never change. And if God can offer cell communities the biochemical knowledge to make major phenotypic and physiologic changes, why does your logic require a two step mechanism? He can do it directly Himself, can't He?
dhw: Polar bears don’t live in the water. They can get ample food without changing. Pre-whales presumably couldn’t. I don’t know what you’re referring to with your ‘two-step mechanism’.
DAVID: Two steps are: step one, God gives the organisms the info to make their own changes, and step two, the organisms make the changes.
Thank you. I am never happy with your use of “info” as you sometimes turn it into instructions. My hypothesis is that he has given them the autonomous means (subsumed under “intelligence”) of gathering their own info, of processing it, and of then making the changes.
dhw: Cell communities would take as many steps as are needed to reach optimum efficiency. Hence all the different finch beaks and all the different stages of whale. But your God could have created the final whale directly, without any steps, so why didn’t he?
DAVID: God obviously prefers to evolve organisms. Why all the steps to H. sapiens I might point out to you. It is his pattern of action.
What I keep pointing out to you is the illogicality of your know-it-all God having the prime purpose of producing Homo sapiens and his brain, and yet going all round the mulberry bush to do it – not just with all the other hominins and homos but also with all the lifestyles and natural wonders you insist can only be produced by him. Why could his pattern of action not be to set the wheels of evolution in motion and see where they lead (though granting himself the odd dabble when he feels like it)? THAT hypothesis fits the history of life and accounts for every twig extant and extinct of life’s great bush.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 14, 2017, 16:08 (2409 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Cell communities would take as many steps as are needed to reach optimum efficiency. Hence all the different finch beaks and all the different stages of whale. But your God could have created the final whale directly, without any steps, so why didn’t he?
DAVID: God obviously prefers to evolve organisms. Why all the steps to H. sapiens I might point out to you. It is his pattern of action.
dhw: What I keep pointing out to you is the illogicality of your know-it-all God having the prime purpose of producing Homo sapiens and his brain, and yet going all round the mulberry bush to do it – not just with all the other hominins and homos but also with all the lifestyles and natural wonders you insist can only be produced by him. Why could his pattern of action not be to set the wheels of evolution in motion and see where they lead (though granting himself the odd dabble when he feels like it)? THAT hypothesis fits the history of life and accounts for every twig extant and extinct of life’s great bush.
What doesn't fit your theory is the obvious driven portion of evolution. The bush of hominins leading to sapiens has no underlying apparent causative drive, but in the DNA of these folks are found hot spots of mutations, noted in a previous entry. Why not a God who drives evolution? After all He created a life-giving universe. If He has that power why stop and watch as you imply?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
Once again I am telescoping threads.
Dhw (under “misfolded protein problems”): It is because we don’t know about lots of things that we formulate hypotheses. Yours seem to change from day to day. You now seem to be taking it for granted that God has limits. Not so long ago, he was all-powerful and always in control. Why not acknowledge the possibility (which is all it can be) that what we have IS God’s goal – namely, a massive free-for-all, full of nice and nasty, good and evil, joy and sadness, birth and death, extinction and survival?
DAVID: Obviously I don't see that your conclusion fits the arrival of H. sapiens, but yours does include free will and the chaos it creates. Birth and death, extinctions are requirements of evolution. Your view of God's limits may be requirements of evolving life as a method of creation. As for my apparent changeability, it is the result of your probing questions, requiring me to explore my own theories and consolidate ideas.
Not a conclusion but a hypothesis, and these are not my views of your God’s limits. They are yours, as you constantly shift your ground. My proposal is that your God is NOT limited, and that he deliberately created a free-for-all, i.e. did not WANT to control every twist and turn of evolution. This removes all the convolutions that arise from your anthropocentrism, which is the theory you want to consolidate but can’t. So I am simply asking you to consider an alternative.
DAVID: What doesn't fit your theory is the obvious driven portion of evolution. The bush of hominins leading to sapiens has no underlying apparent causative drive, but in the DNA of these folks are found hot spots of mutations, noted in a previous entry. Why not a God who drives evolution? After all He created a life-giving universe. If He has that power why stop and watch as you imply?
My theory is that evolution is driven by the twin fuels of survival and improvement. There is a perfectly natural progression from use of tools to use of more sophisticated tools to ways of making life more comfortable to ways of making life even more comfortable. This doesn’t solve the great mystery of consciousness, which I accept might stem from a God. As for stopping and watching, it is you who tell us that your God is hidden. Of course he has the power to do what he likes, so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 15, 2017, 15:29 (2408 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Not a conclusion but a hypothesis, and these are not my views of your God’s limits. They are yours, as you constantly shift your ground. My proposal is that your God is NOT limited, and that he deliberately created a free-for-all, i.e. did not WANT to control every twist and turn of evolution. This removes all the convolutions that arise from your anthropocentrism, which is the theory you want to consolidate but can’t. So I am simply asking you to consider an alternative.
I don't view myself as shifting at all in my basic premise that God is in charge. And we agree He uses an evolutionary mechanism that creates a marvelously inventive bush of life.
DAVID: What doesn't fit your theory is the obvious driven portion of evolution. The bush of hominins leading to sapiens has no underlying apparent causative drive, but in the DNA of these folks are found hot spots of mutations, noted in a previous entry. Why not a God who drives evolution? After all He created a life-giving universe. If He has that power why stop and watch as you imply?dhw: My theory is that evolution is driven by the twin fuels of survival and improvement. There is a perfectly natural progression from use of tools to use of more sophisticated tools to ways of making life more comfortable to ways of making life even more comfortable. This doesn’t solve the great mystery of consciousness, which I accept might stem from a God. As for stopping and watching, it is you who tell us that your God is hidden. Of course he has the power to do what he likes, so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show.
We both know God is hidden. You can't find Him at all. As for the bush I've accepted God's approach of evolving complex organisms rather than the six day Genesis story. Note He had first to evolve a universe with exploding stars to spread around the necessary life-creating element molecules from their fiery fusion furnaces. God evolves what He wants to create. That conclusion cannot be avoided. As for your theory, what fuels evolution of life is a mechanism that knows how to change for the better, not nebulous concepts of survival and improvement. You are touting purpose, which is fine sounding, but it is obvious that speciation requires foresight and planning by a mental process, in God's brain.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: Not a conclusion but a hypothesis, and these are not my views of your God’s limits. They are yours, as you constantly shift your ground. My proposal is that your God is NOT limited, and that he deliberately created a free-for-all, i.e. did not WANT to control every twist and turn of evolution. This removes all the convolutions that arise from your anthropocentrism, which is the theory you want to consolidate but can’t. So I am simply asking you to consider an alternative.
DAVID: I don't view myself as shifting at all in my basic premise that God is in charge. And we agree He uses an evolutionary mechanism that creates a marvelously inventive bush of life.
If God exists, then of course he is in charge, and of course we agree that he used evolution, and of course we agree that evolution has resulted in a great big bush. Where we don’t agree is that God personally designed every twig of the bush although his prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain. THAT is the theory you keep trying to consolidate, and in doing so find yourself shifting ground with every anomaly it throws up.
DAVID: What doesn't fit your theory is the obvious driven portion of evolution. […] Why not a God who drives evolution? After all He created a life-giving universe. If He has that power why stop and watch as you imply?
dhw: My theory is that evolution is driven by the twin fuels of survival and improvement. […] Of course he has the power to do what he likes, so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show.
DAVID: We both know God is hidden. You can't find Him at all. As for the bush I've accepted God's approach of evolving complex organisms rather than the six day Genesis story. Note He had first to evolve a universe with exploding stars to spread around the necessary life-creating element molecules from their fiery fusion furnaces. God evolves what He wants to create. That conclusion cannot be avoided.
As above, the question concerns what he wanted to create. With my theist hat on, I suggest he wanted to create an ever changing show which perhaps he continues to watch. You suggest he wanted to create Homo sapiens, you don’t know why he had to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests and hominins in order to get there, and he’s hidden himself because…well, why has he hidden himself, and is he watching or not?
DAVID: As for your theory, what fuels evolution of life is a mechanism that knows how to change for the better, not nebulous concepts of survival and improvement.
Changing for the better IS improvement! And I don’t see anything nebulous in the concept of survival.
DAVID: You are touting purpose, which is fine sounding, but it is obvious that speciation requires foresight and planning by a mental process, in God's brain.
God’s brain (does he have one?) could have provided the mental process by which organisms work out their own path to speciation. And that process can be one of response and not crystal-ball gazing.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 16, 2017, 15:17 (2407 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't view myself as shifting at all in my basic premise that God is in charge. And we agree He uses an evolutionary mechanism that creates a marvelously inventive bush of life.dhw: If God exists, then of course he is in charge, and of course we agree that he used evolution, and of course we agree that evolution has resulted in a great big bush. Where we don’t agree is that God personally designed every twig of the bush although his prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain. THAT is the theory you keep trying to consolidate, and in doing so find yourself shifting ground with every anomaly it throws up.
You cannot get around the evidence that the pinnacle of evolution is the human brain, making it an obvious goal. That is all the evidence I need. Look at your own words. If He used evolution and it created a great bush, it was His work. all perfectly logical.
DAVID: We both know God is hidden. You can't find Him at all. As for the bush I've accepted God's approach of evolving complex organisms rather than the six day Genesis story. Note He had first to evolve a universe with exploding stars to spread around the necessary life-creating element molecules from their fiery fusion furnaces. God evolves what He wants to create. That conclusion cannot be avoided.
dhw: As above, the question concerns what he wanted to create. With my theist hat on, I suggest he wanted to create an ever changing show which perhaps he continues to watch. You suggest he wanted to create Homo sapiens, you don’t know why he had to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests and hominins in order to get there, and he’s hidden himself because…well, why has he hidden himself, and is he watching or not?
I recognize those are your questions which keep you agnostic. Accepting God's existence does away with your issues. How logical is God in human terms? Perhaps not at all.
DAVID: You are touting purpose, which is fine sounding, but it is obvious that speciation requires foresight and planning by a mental process, in God's brain.dhw: God’s brain (does he have one?) could have provided the mental process by which organisms work out their own path to speciation. And that process can be one of response and not crystal-ball gazing.
You can't build a house without a plan. Crystal-ball gazing is required. "Their own path to speciation" response must be a step by step attempt, which cannot produce highly complex physiology or phenotypic change all at once, as the fossil gaps show. You cannot avoid the need for design.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: You cannot get around the evidence that the pinnacle of evolution is the human brain, making it an obvious goal. That is all the evidence I need. Look at your own words. If He used evolution and it created a great bush, it was His work. all perfectly logical.
I have looked at my own words. If God exists, his work resulted in a great bush and in the brain of Homo sapiens. Of course it’s logical, if God exists. However, the theistic question is the nature of the work, as follows:
dhw: […] the question concerns what he wanted to create. With my theist hat on, I suggest he wanted to create an ever changing show which perhaps he continues to watch. You suggest he wanted to create Homo sapiens, you don’t know why he had to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests and hominins in order to get there, and he’s hidden himself because…well, why has he hidden himself, and is he watching or not?
DAVID: I recognize those are your questions which keep you agnostic. Accepting God's existence does away with your issues. How logical is God in human terms? Perhaps not at all.
They are not the questions that keep me agnostic. They are the questions I ask when I put on my theist hat, and you cannot answer them because they pinpoint the anomalies in your anthropocentric theory of evolution and your personal concept of your God.
DAVID: You are touting purpose, which is fine sounding, but it is obvious that speciation requires foresight and planning by a mental process, in God's brain.
dhw: God’s brain (does he have one?) could have provided the mental process by which organisms work out their own path to speciation. And that process can be one of response and not crystal-ball gazing.
DAVID: You can't build a house without a plan. Crystal-ball gazing is required. "Their own path to speciation" response must be a step by step attempt, which cannot produce highly complex physiology or phenotypic change all at once, as the fossil gaps show. You cannot avoid the need for design.
We are not talking about house-building but about how organisms change. Nobody understands the latter. But we actually see it happening in cases of minor adaptation, and this is in RESPONSE to environmental change. If it is not rapid, organisms will die. We have no idea how swiftly organisms can make major changes to themselves. You simply assume they can’t do it. You may be right, and you may be wrong – it is a hypothesis. I don’t know why you think I am avoiding the need for design. I am only questioning the need for your God to do all the designing. (And to please you, I can even allow for the odd dabble, which might include sapiens’ brain, though as I pointed out earlier, I can see that as a perfectly logical progression from earlier brains.) For instance, I see no reason why – in his quest to produce the human brain – he should have taken the trouble to design eight stages of whale, to guide the monarch butterfly to its distant destination (having also fiddled with its reproductive cycle), and to give the weaverbird private lessons in nest-building.
(This post also answers the points made under “revisiting convergence”.)`
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 17, 2017, 15:34 (2406 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I recognize those are your questions which keep you agnostic. Accepting God's existence does away with your issues. How logical is God in human terms? Perhaps not at all.dhw: They are not the questions that keep me agnostic. They are the questions I ask when I put on my theist hat, and you cannot answer them because they pinpoint the anomalies in your anthropocentric theory of evolution and your personal concept of your God.
Your theistic hat contains a human attempt to be logical about God, rather than accepting the evidence that God's works offer. He can only be understood from what we see He created and how it seems He did it.
DAVID: You can't build a house without a plan. Crystal-ball gazing is required. "Their own path to speciation" response must be a step by step attempt, which cannot produce highly complex physiology or phenotypic change all at once, as the fossil gaps show. You cannot avoid the need for design.
dhw: We are not talking about house-building but about how organisms change. Nobody understands the latter. But we actually see it happening in cases of minor adaptation, and this is in RESPONSE to environmental change. If it is not rapid, organisms will die. We have no idea how swiftly organisms can make major changes to themselves. You simply assume they can’t do it. You may be right, and you may be wrong – it is a hypothesis. I don’t know why you think I am avoiding the need for design. I am only questioning the need for your God to do all the designing. (And to please you, I can even allow for the odd dabble, which might include sapiens’ brain, though as I pointed out earlier, I can see that as a perfectly logical progression from earlier brains.) For instance, I see no reason why – in his quest to produce the human brain – he should have taken the trouble to design eight stages of whale, to guide the monarch butterfly to its distant destination (having also fiddled with its reproductive cycle), and to give the weaverbird private lessons in nest-building.
You are not avoiding design, but trying to find ways around the principals of how design occurs. You know how it occurs in human terms on Earth today. Since you don't like the concept of God, the hidden eternal engineer of reality, you want a mechanism to appear, by itself, which must be by chance, after life appears (somehow, but lets avoid that miracle), that speciates with huge gaps in the fossil record. The fossil record leaps and jumps. Why don't you restart your thinking from that point of view? I find the basic footprints of your theories planted firmly in mid air.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: With my theist hat on, I suggest he wanted to create an ever changing show which perhaps he continues to watch. You suggest he wanted to create Homo sapiens, you don’t know why he had to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests and hominins in order to get there, and he’s hidden himself because…well, why has he hidden himself, and is he watching or not?
DAVID: I recognize those are your questions which keep you agnostic. Accepting God's existence does away with your issues. How logical is God in human terms? Perhaps not at all.
dhw: They are not the questions that keep me agnostic. They are the questions I ask when I put on my theist hat, and you cannot answer them because they pinpoint the anomalies in your anthropocentric theory of evolution and your personal concept of your God.
DAVID: Your theistic hat contains a human attempt to be logical about God, rather than accepting the evidence that God's works offer. He can only be understood from what we see He created and how it seems He did it.
Of course my logic is human, but what makes you think it is not based on the evidence that your God’s works offer? Even you have agreed that my hypothesis fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it! Yours doesn’t, which is why you don't answer the questions raised at the head of this post.
DAVID: You are not avoiding design, but trying to find ways around the principals of how design occurs. You know how it occurs in human terms on Earth today. Since you don't like the concept of God, the hidden eternal engineer of reality, you want a mechanism to appear, by itself, which must be by chance, after life appears (somehow, but lets avoid that miracle), that speciates with huge gaps in the fossil record.
Hey, hold on! Design occurs through intelligence, and I am proposing that all organisms are intelligent in their own particular way. Who says I don’t like the concept of God? I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I do not “want a mechanism that appears by itself by chance”! Its origin is a mystery, which is why I always specify that the mechanism may have been invented by your God. This is the unworthy digression you always indulge in when I challenge your version of how evolution works and of what your God’s purpose might be. That is why I put on my theist’s hat, so that we can begin with the same basic premise.
DAVID: The fossil record leaps and jumps. Why don't you restart your thinking from that point of view? I find the basic footprints of your theories planted firmly in mid air.
If your God was capable of preprogramming every leap and jump 3.8 billion years ago, I’m sure he was also capable of producing a mechanism that would do its own leaping and jumping. Once more: I am not excluding your God. I am challenging your hypothesis that your God designed every twig on the higgledy-piggledy bush, and that he did so in order to fulfil his primary purpose of producing the human brain.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 18, 2017, 17:49 (2405 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: With my theist hat on, I suggest he wanted to create an ever changing show which perhaps he continues to watch. You suggest he wanted to create Homo sapiens, you don’t know why he had to create a higgledy-piggledy bush of whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests and hominins in order to get there, and he’s hidden himself because…well, why has he hidden himself, and is he watching or not?
We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and n ot watch the outcomes?
DAVID: You are not avoiding design, but trying to find ways around the principals of how design occurs. You know how it occurs in human terms on Earth today. Since you don't like the concept of God, the hidden eternal engineer of reality, you want a mechanism to appear, by itself, which must be by chance, after life appears (somehow, but lets avoid that miracle), that speciates with huge gaps in the fossil record.dhw: Hey, hold on! Design occurs through intelligence, and I am proposing that all organisms are intelligent in their own particular way. Who says I don’t like the concept of God? I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I do not “want a mechanism that appears by itself by chance”! Its origin is a mystery, which is why I always specify that the mechanism may have been invented by your God. This is the unworthy digression you always indulge in when I challenge your version of how evolution works and of what your God’s purpose might be. That is why I put on my theist’s hat, so that we can begin with the same basic premise.
We don't start with the same basic premise. Your theist hat is skewed, and you don't realize it. For example I don't know why God made the whales but I can sure He did because of the obvious design planning that must be done to span each gap between the eight stages. You want organisms to be their own architects to jump to the next species. Your theory fits only minor adaptations in existing species.
DAVID: The fossil record leaps and jumps. Why don't you restart your thinking from that point of view? I find the basic footprints of your theories planted firmly in mid air.dhw: If your God was capable of preprogramming every leap and jump 3.8 billion years ago, I’m sure he was also capable of producing a mechanism that would do its own leaping and jumping. Once more: I am not excluding your God. I am challenging your hypothesis that your God designed every twig on the higgledy-piggledy bush, and that he did so in order to fulfil his primary purpose of producing the human brain.
Either way, under your theory, God is in charge. don't you realize that?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?
We don’t “know” anything, but if he is there, and you believe he is watching but stays hidden, is it not possible that he started the show off because he wanted a show he could watch? What do you think would be more interesting: a lot of robots doing precisely what you have instructed them to do, or a free-for-all with unpredictable outcomes?
dhw: Design occurs through intelligence, and I am proposing that all organisms are intelligent in their own particular way. Who says I don’t like the concept of God? I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I do not “want a mechanism that appears by itself by chance”! Its origin is a mystery, which is why I always specify that the mechanism may have been invented by your God. This is the unworthy digression you always indulge in when I challenge your version of how evolution works and of what your God’s purpose might be. That is why I put on my theist’s hat, so that we can begin with the same basic premise.
DAVID: We don't start with the same basic premise. Your theist hat is skewed, and you don't realize it. For example I don't know why God made the whales but I can sure He did because of the obvious design planning that must be done to span each gap between the eight stages. You want organisms to be their own architects to jump to the next species. Your theory fits only minor adaptations in existing species.
The basic premise is that God exists and does what he wants to do. You go on to say your God designed the eight stages of whale and you don’t know why. I go on to say your God gave the whale the intelligence to adapt of its own accord to a new environment which would improve its way of life (possibly even to ensure its survival). You go on to say that your God’s prime purpose was to create Homo sapiens’ brain. I go on to say that doesn’t fit in with the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution’s history. A free-for-all fits in perfectly (though he can still dabble if he wants to). I have agreed that we do not know if my hypothesis concerning the DEGREE of organismal intelligence is correct. Nor do we know if your hypothesis concerning a 3.8-billion-year computer programme for the whole of evolutionary history is correct. Same basic premise, different interpretation of how it applies to evolution.
DAVID: Either way, under your theory, God is in charge. don't you realize that?
Dhw: (Saturday 16 September at 13.03): If God exists, then of course he is in charge, and of course we agree that he used evolution, and of course we agree that evolution has resulted in a great big bush. Where we don’t agree is that God personally designed every twig of the bush although his prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain. THAT is the theory you keep trying to consolidate, and in doing so find yourself shifting ground with every anomaly it throws up.
I stand by every word of my earlier post.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 14:57 (2404 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?
dhw: We don’t “know” anything, but if he is there, and you believe he is watching but stays hidden, is it not possible that he started the show off because he wanted a show he could watch? What do you think would be more interesting: a lot of robots doing precisely what you have instructed them to do, or a free-for-all with unpredictable outcomes?
So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
DAVID: We don't start with the same basic premise. Your theist hat is skewed, and you don't realize it. For example I don't know why God made the whales but I can sure He did because of the obvious design planning that must be done to span each gap between the eight stages. You want organisms to be their own architects to jump to the next species. Your theory fits only minor adaptations in existing species.The basic premise is that God exists and does what he wants to do. You go on to say your God designed the eight stages of whale and you don’t know why. I go on to say your God gave the whale the intelligence to adapt of its own accord to a new environment which would improve its way of life (possibly even to ensure its survival). You go on to say that your God’s prime purpose was to create Homo sapiens’ brain. I go on to say that doesn’t fit in with the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution’s history. A free-for-all fits in perfectly (though he can still dabble if he wants to). I have agreed that we do not know if my hypothesis concerning the DEGREE of organismal intelligence is correct. Nor do we know if your hypothesis concerning a 3.8-billion-year computer programme for the whole of evolutionary history is correct. Same basic premise, different interpretation of how it applies to evolution.
DAVID: Either way, under your theory, God is in charge. don't you realize that?
Dhw: (Saturday 16 September at 13.03): If God exists, then of course he is in charge, and of course we agree that he used evolution, and of course we agree that evolution has resulted in a great big bush. Where we don’t agree is that God personally designed every twig of the bush although his prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain. THAT is the theory you keep trying to consolidate, and in doing so find yourself shifting ground with every anomaly it throws up.
dhw: I stand by every word of my earlier post.
And I stand by my interpretations.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?
dhw: We don’t “know” anything, but if he is there, and you believe he is watching but stays hidden, is it not possible that he started the show off because he wanted a show he could watch? What do you think would be more interesting: a lot of robots doing precisely what you have instructed them to do, or a free-for-all with unpredictable outcomes?
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 20, 2017, 15:01 (2403 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?
dhw: We don’t “know” anything, but if he is there, and you believe he is watching but stays hidden, is it not possible that he started the show off because he wanted a show he could watch? What do you think would be more interesting: a lot of robots doing precisely what you have instructed them to do, or a free-for-all with unpredictable outcomes?
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
dhw: You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
I don't think He watches in a human way.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: We know he's there because only a designing mind could have created life. We don't know if He is watching, but since He is in charge, I'm sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?
dhw: We don’t “know” anything, but if he is there, and you believe he is watching but stays hidden, is it not possible that he started the show off because he wanted a show he could watch? What do you think would be more interesting: a lot of robots doing precisely what you have instructed them to do, or a free-for-all with unpredictable outcomes?
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
dhw: You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 21, 2017, 15:14 (2402 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
dhw: You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
dhw: So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
dhw: You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
dhw: So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
DAVID: Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized.
So he creates a show and watches it with interest. I’ll settle for that and leave you to imagine what sort of watching is different from human watching, and what sort of interest is different from human interest.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 22, 2017, 15:03 (2401 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: So God is like a sports spectator! How humanizing.
dhw: You said above that you thought he was watching: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” So please give us your theory as to why he’s watching if he’s not interested in what’s happening, like a sports spectator.
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
dhw: So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
DAVID: Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized.
dhw: So he creates a show and watches it with interest. I’ll settle for that and leave you to imagine what sort of watching is different from human watching, and what sort of interest is different from human interest.
It is obvious I do not know, and do not try because He is a personality like none other.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
dhw: So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
DAVID: Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized.
dhw: So he creates a show and watches it with interest. I’ll settle for that and leave you to imagine what sort of watching is different from human watching, and what sort of interest is different from human interest.
DAVID: It is obvious I do not know, and do not try because He is a personality like none other.
How do you know he is a personality like none other? How do you know that his way of watching the show and his interest in it is not precisely the same as our way of watching and being interested? If, as some folk believe, he made us in his image, then it stands to reason that we reflect his image. You have even argued that our consciousness is a piece of his consciousness, which returns to him when we die. So how do you know that a piece of his consciousness is unlike his consciousness?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 23, 2017, 14:38 (2400 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't think He watches in a human way.
dhw: So when you asked: “Why create and not watch the outcomes?” what did you mean by “watch”? If it means looking at what is happening, and it's reasonable for him to look at what is happening, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he is interested in what is happening?
DAVID: Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized.
dhw: So he creates a show and watches it with interest. I’ll settle for that and leave you to imagine what sort of watching is different from human watching, and what sort of interest is different from human interest.
DAVID: It is obvious I do not know, and do not try because He is a personality like none other.
dhw: How do you know he is a personality like none other? How do you know that his way of watching the show and his interest in it is not precisely the same as our way of watching and being interested? If, as some folk believe, he made us in his image, then it stands to reason that we reflect his image. You have even argued that our consciousness is a piece of his consciousness, which returns to him when we die. So how do you know that a piece of his consciousness is unlike his consciousness?
As to his personality I'm quoting Adler, whose teachings I follow. As for consciousness, the basic mechanism may be the same but the personal thought process different. We may well use it differently.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: Of course interested, but in His own way, not humanized.
dhw: So he creates a show and watches it with interest. I’ll settle for that and leave you to imagine what sort of watching is different from human watching, and what sort of interest is different from human interest.
DAVID: It is obvious I do not know, and do not try because He is a personality like none other.
dhw: How do you know he is a personality like none other? How do you know that his way of watching the show and his interest in it is not precisely the same as our way of watching and being interested? If, as some folk believe, he made us in his image, then it stands to reason that we reflect his image. You have even argued that our consciousness is a piece of his consciousness, which returns to him when we die. So how do you know that a piece of his consciousness is unlike his consciousness?
DAVID: As to his personality I'm quoting Adler, whose teachings I follow. As for consciousness, the basic mechanism may be the same but the personal thought process different. We may well use it differently.
So how do you and your teacher Adler know your God is a personality like none other and indulges in a kind of watching and interest that is different from ours?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 24, 2017, 14:43 (2399 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As to his personality I'm quoting Adler, whose teachings I follow. As for consciousness, the basic mechanism may be the same but the personal thought process different. We may well use it differently.dhw: So how do you and your teacher Adler know your God is a personality like none other and indulges in a kind of watching and interest that is different from ours?
It is an assumption based on the seeming powers, yet remoteness, of God
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: As to his personality I'm quoting Adler, whose teachings I follow. As for consciousness, the basic mechanism may be the same but the personal thought process different. We may well use it differently.
dhw: So how do you and your teacher Adler know your God is a personality like none other and indulges in a kind of watching and interest that is different from ours?
DAVID: It is an assumption based on the seeming powers, yet remoteness, of God.
Why do you assume that watching and being interested in his own creation has a different meaning for your God just because he is all-powerful and remote? I do wish you and Adler would explain what you think the words might mean to him. If you can’t, then why not assume that when you say your God is watching and is interested, he is "watching" and is "interested"?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 25, 2017, 14:31 (2398 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As to his personality I'm quoting Adler, whose teachings I follow. As for consciousness, the basic mechanism may be the same but the personal thought process different. We may well use it differently.
dhw: So how do you and your teacher Adler know your God is a personality like none other and indulges in a kind of watching and interest that is different from ours?
DAVID: It is an assumption based on the seeming powers, yet remoteness, of God.
dhw: Why do you assume that watching and being interested in his own creation has a different meaning for your God just because he is all-powerful and remote? I do wish you and Adler would explain what you think the words might mean to him. If you can’t, then why not assume that when you say your God is watching and is interested, he is "watching" and is "interested"?
Because we think He does it in His own particular way.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: So how do you and your teacher Adler know your God is a personality like none other and indulges in a kind of watching and interest that is different from ours?
DAVID: It is an assumption based on the seeming powers, yet remoteness, of God.
dhw: Why do you assume that watching and being interested in his own creation has a different meaning for your God just because he is all-powerful and remote? I do wish you and Adler would explain what you think the words might mean to him. If you can’t, then why not assume that when you say your God is watching and is interested, he is "watching" and is "interested"?
DAVID: Because we think He does it in His own particular way.
I’ll settle for that. Your God created life and evolution to provide himself with a show which, like all of us, he could watch with interest in his own particular way.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
Once more I am bringing different threads together, as the arguments interlink.
DAVID’s comment (under "frog self-protection"): Unless these moths had these chemicals from the beginning of their species, they would not be here now. I think they were designed to be protected this way.
dhw: […] is it just possible that the now acknowledged capability for autonomous design was in operation for both the frog and the moth?
DAVID: You keep pushing your idea that God gave organisms the ability to speciate or to create irreducibly complex mechanisms. I have specifically, in both comments above, specified the need for design. And as always it is programmed from the beginning or it is a dabble. The 'capability for autonomous design' is epigenetic adaptation at the level we have discovered.
Thank you for answering my question: you believe that 3.8 billion years ago your God either provided the first living cells with a programme for the poisonous frogs and moths, or he specially created these variations in existing frogs and moths (assuming you still believe in common descent). This leads to the following point:
dhw (under “frog adaptation”):Clearly they have nothing to do with producing the brain of Homo sapiens, and you have agreed that “balance of nature” means nothing more than that life goes on, regardless of whether humans are there or not. So could it be that you are now saying your God specially designs all these things for the sake of the show (of which humans are simply one part), which he watches with interest in his own special way?
DAVID: I've not changed and neither have you. Balance of nature is absolutely necessary to produce the human brain, exactly to keep solve the issue of 'life goes on' by providing the necessary energy supply.
And so your all-powerful God could not have provided the necessary energy supply to produce the human brain without preprogramming/dabbling the poisonous moths and frogs, the weaverbird’s nest, the eight stages of whale, the monarch butterfly’s life cycle, plus all the innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that no longer exist. And this makes sense to you?
DAVID: The brain is the current endpoint of evolution. The possibility of a 'show' is your side issue. I see God full of purpose, not theatrics, which might be a favorite subject of yours as a playwright.
What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 29, 2017, 15:05 (2394 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I've not changed and neither have you. Balance of nature is absolutely necessary to produce the human brain, exactly to keep solve the issue of 'life goes on' by providing the necessary energy supply.
dhw: And so your all-powerful God could not have provided the necessary energy supply to produce the human brain without preprogramming/dabbling the poisonous moths and frogs, the weaverbird’s nest, the eight stages of whale, the monarch butterfly’s life cycle, plus all the innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that no longer exist. And this makes sense to you?
DAVID: The brain is the current endpoint of evolution. The possibility of a 'show' is your side issue. I see God full of purpose, not theatrics, which might be a favorite subject of yours as a playwright.
dhw: What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.
Your confusion about my theory is that you refuse to recognize that evolution takes time and must be supported during the long periods. There must be a balance of nature to provide energy for life to continue to evolve. God uses evolution in all He does. That is what history tells us. I really don't delve any deeper. I'm satisfied with how all of that fits together. I'm sorry you don't see the connections.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: I've not changed and neither have you. Balance of nature is absolutely necessary to produce the human brain, exactly to keep solve the issue of 'life goes on' by providing the necessary energy supply.
dhw: And so your all-powerful God could not have provided the necessary energy supply to produce the human brain without preprogramming/dabbling the poisonous moths and frogs, the weaverbird’s nest, the eight stages of whale, the monarch butterfly’s life cycle, plus all the innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that no longer exist. And this makes sense to you?
DAVID: The brain is the current endpoint of evolution. The possibility of a 'show' is your side issue. I see God full of purpose, not theatrics, which might be a favorite subject of yours as a playwright.
dhw: What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.
DAVID: Your confusion about my theory is that you refuse to recognize that evolution takes time and must be supported during the long periods. There must be a balance of nature to provide energy for life to continue to evolve. God uses evolution in all He does. That is what history tells us. I really don't delve any deeper. I'm satisfied with how all of that fits together. I'm sorry you don't see the connections.
I recognize that evolution has been going on for billions of years, and that it couldn’t continue if it couldn’t continue. How does that make the brain of H. sapiens the purpose of the eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s migration, the frog’s poison, and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder you can think of? The problem is that the deeper we delve, the more disconnected your hypothesis becomes. I notice you are also avoiding the subject of purpose, which you were so keen to push before. But perhaps you are right not to delve. When people are satisfied, perhaps one shouldn’t question their beliefs. And yet Dawkins is another who seems to be satisfied with how it all fits together, but you don’t hesitate to delve.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 30, 2017, 15:03 (2393 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.DAVID: Your confusion about my theory is that you refuse to recognize that evolution takes time and must be supported during the long periods. There must be a balance of nature to provide energy for life to continue to evolve. God uses evolution in all He does. That is what history tells us. I really don't delve any deeper. I'm satisfied with how all of that fits together. I'm sorry you don't see the connections.
dhw: I recognize that evolution has been going on for billions of years, and that it couldn’t continue if it couldn’t continue. How does that make the brain of H. sapiens the purpose of the eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s migration, the frog’s poison, and every other innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder you can think of? The problem is that the deeper we delve, the more disconnected your hypothesis becomes. I notice you are also avoiding the subject of purpose, which you were so keen to push before. But perhaps you are right not to delve. When people are satisfied, perhaps one shouldn’t question their beliefs. And yet Dawkins is another who seems to be satisfied with how it all fits together, but you don’t hesitate to delve.
I haven't avoided the issue of purpose. It is you who seem to avoid it. Humans with their amazing brain is the primary purpose, which you always wish to deny. The other evolutionary developments support complex ecosystems which support evolution. To me it all fits together, so why delve deeper. Where is the deeper?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.
[…]
dhw: The problem is that the deeper we delve, the more disconnected your hypothesis becomes. I notice you are also avoiding the subject of purpose, which you were so keen to push before. But perhaps you are right not to delve. When people are satisfied, perhaps one shouldn’t question their beliefs. And yet Dawkins is another who seems to be satisfied with how it all fits together, but you don’t hesitate to delve.
DAVID: I haven't avoided the issue of purpose. It is you who seem to avoid it. Humans with their amazing brain is the primary purpose, which you always wish to deny. The other evolutionary developments support complex ecosystems which support evolution. To me it all fits together, so why delve deeper. Where is the deeper?
I have reproduced the paragraph which I devoted to purpose and to which you have not responded. If your all-powerful God deliberately created all the complex organisms and ecosystems extant and extinct (which would have to include all the environmental changes – one of several issues you vacillate over), and if they were not directly connected to the production of the human brain (even you can’t find a connection between eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s poison etc. and the human brain), then maybe they had another purpose. And maybe that other purpose also applied to the human brain. Or don’t you think he must have had a purpose in producing the human brain? That is what I call delving deeper. Until you can explain how your God’s personal design or preprogramming of the weaverbird’s nest “fits together” with the production of the human brain, there can be no “fitting together” of your prime purpose and the history of evolution.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, October 01, 2017, 14:37 (2392 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What purpose? All you offer is H. sapiens’ brain! (You did once mention a desire to communicate with us, but that became a problem with our interlocutor being hidden.) I have suggested purposes for individual organisms and for your God producing the whole bush of evolution AND the human brain. You wrote: “We don’t know if he is watching, but since he is in charge, I’m sure he is. Why create and not watch the outcomes?” And you conceded that this must mean he is interested. If this doesn’t suggests a show of some kind, perhaps you will tell us what other purpose you think he had in creating the higgledy-piggledy bush of a billion and one organisms, lifestyles and wonders, including the brain of Homo sapiens, while remaining hidden and watching with interest.
[…]
dhw: The problem is that the deeper we delve, the more disconnected your hypothesis becomes. I notice you are also avoiding the subject of purpose, which you were so keen to push before. But perhaps you are right not to delve. When people are satisfied, perhaps one shouldn’t question their beliefs. And yet Dawkins is another who seems to be satisfied with how it all fits together, but you don’t hesitate to delve.DAVID: I haven't avoided the issue of purpose. It is you who seem to avoid it. Humans with their amazing brain is the primary purpose, which you always wish to deny. The other evolutionary developments support complex ecosystems which support evolution. To me it all fits together, so why delve deeper. Where is the deeper?
dhw: I have reproduced the paragraph which I devoted to purpose and to which you have not responded. If your all-powerful God deliberately created all the complex organisms and ecosystems extant and extinct (which would have to include all the environmental changes – one of several issues you vacillate over), and if they were not directly connected to the production of the human brain (even you can’t find a connection between eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s poison etc. and the human brain), then maybe they had another purpose. And maybe that other purpose also applied to the human brain. Or don’t you think he must have had a purpose in producing the human brain? That is what I call delving deeper. Until you can explain how your God’s personal design or preprogramming of the weaverbird’s nest “fits together” with the production of the human brain, there can be no “fitting together” of your prime purpose and the history of evolution.
My not delving into your thought processes of God's purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated. We can only understand God through what He has produced. His motives, from our standpoint are only educated guesses. You have yours, influenced from your non-belief, I have mine. Mine look consistent to me. Yours make me think, but if I have no answer to your questions, it is generally because I don't see how to reach one I can believe. As for watching, since God created form and function, I'm sure He watches to see how His creations are working out their lives at a functional level. Does He judge human choices and moral behavior? Doubtful. As for fitting in whales, weaverbirds, etc., I'll stick with ecosystems for food supply.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
dhw: […] Until you can explain how your God’s personal design or preprogramming of the weaverbird’s nest “fits together” with the production of the human brain, there can be no “fitting together” of your prime purpose and the history of evolution.
DAVID: My not delving into your thought processes of God's purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated. We can only understand God through what He has produced. His motives, from our standpoint are only educated guesses. You have yours, influenced from your non-belief, I have mine. Mine look consistent to me. Yours make me think, but if I have no answer to your questions, it is generally because I don't see how to reach one I can believe. As for watching, since God created form and function, I'm sure He watches to see how His creations are working out their lives at a functional level. Does He judge human choices and moral behavior? Doubtful. As for fitting in whales, weaverbirds, etc., I'll stick with ecosystems for food supply.
As always, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that your hypothesis raises questions you cannot answer. That is why I keep asking you to consider other hypotheses. If God exists, we can indeed only try to understand him through what he has produced, and what he has produced does not fit in with your hypothesis. I shan’t repeat the long list of anomalies, since you acknowledge them as questions you can’t answer. My own theistic hypothesis is not “influenced by my non-belief” (when I put on my theist’s hat, I don’t suddenly become an atheist!) – it is influenced by my attempt to find a coherent explanation for evolution’s history. I agree that humans are especially self-aware and intelligent, and so they may have been an afterthought, or the result of experimentation or a dabble, but that does not make them the “prime” purpose, which needs to explain the weaverbird’s nest as well as the human brain. The motive I suggest is the spectacle (which even you think he must be watching), and the method is a free-for-all, so we needn’t wonder why he specially created the whale and the weaverbird's nest and the frog's poison. The simple answer is that he didn’t. He only created the means whereby they (their intelligent cell communities) did their own creating. Just a hypothesis, but which of your “unanswerable” questions does it fail to answer?
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, October 02, 2017, 15:32 (2391 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: […] Until you can explain how your God’s personal design or preprogramming of the weaverbird’s nest “fits together” with the production of the human brain, there can be no “fitting together” of your prime purpose and the history of evolution.
DAVID: My not delving into your thought processes of God's purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated. We can only understand God through what He has produced. His motives, from our standpoint are only educated guesses. You have yours, influenced from your non-belief, I have mine. Mine look consistent to me. Yours make me think, but if I have no answer to your questions, it is generally because I don't see how to reach one I can believe. As for watching, since God created form and function, I'm sure He watches to see how His creations are working out their lives at a functional level. Does He judge human choices and moral behavior? Doubtful. As for fitting in whales, weaverbirds, etc., I'll stick with ecosystems for food supply.
dhw: As always, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that your hypothesis raises questions you cannot answer. That is why I keep asking you to consider other hypotheses. If God exists, we can indeed only try to understand him through what he has produced, and what he has produced does not fit in with your hypothesis. I shan’t repeat the long list of anomalies, since you acknowledge them as questions you can’t answer. My own theistic hypothesis is not “influenced by my non-belief” (when I put on my theist’s hat, I don’t suddenly become an atheist!) – it is influenced by my attempt to find a coherent explanation for evolution’s history. I agree that humans are especially self-aware and intelligent, and so they may have been an afterthought, or the result of experimentation or a dabble, but that does not make them the “prime” purpose, which needs to explain the weaverbird’s nest as well as the human brain. The motive I suggest is the spectacle (which even you think he must be watching), and the method is a free-for-all, so we needn’t wonder why he specially created the whale and the weaverbird's nest and the frog's poison. The simple answer is that he didn’t. He only created the means whereby they (their intelligent cell communities) did their own creating. Just a hypothesis, but which of your “unanswerable” questions does it fail to answer?'
Don't you realize your paragraph is supposition piled on supposition to explain in your mind what is miraculous material. Why is there any life? Why did the human brain appear? If you look at it from a sense of wonder and appreciation purpose can appear. If you then say to yourself it all requires planning, that planning must come from a miraculous mind. It is all very logical to me. I see the coherence you can't find.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: Don't you realize your paragraph is supposition piled on supposition to explain in your mind what is miraculous material. Why is there any life? Why did the human brain appear? If you look at it from a sense of wonder and appreciation purpose can appear. If you then say to yourself it all requires planning, that planning must come from a miraculous mind. It is all very logical to me. I see the coherence you can't find.
You keep talking of purpose, but you admit that you can’t answer my questions about how your own speculations concerning purpose fit in with the history of life, and you refuse to consider a hypothesis (not a supposition but a suggestion) which answers those questions. The sense of wonder and appreciation applies every bit as much to my hypothesis as it does to yours, so here are the suggestions in their theistic form. Why is there life? Because God wanted to create life. Why did God want to create life? Because he wanted to create a spectacle that he could watch. How did he do it? He created an autonomous mechanism which enabled living cells to change themselves into all kinds of wonderful creatures, including humans. How much of this was planned? The design of the autonomous intelligent cell was entirely his, and his plan was to create a system of changing environments which provided both challenges and opportunities for his autonomous cell communities to adapt to or exploit, so that there would be an ever changing variety of life. But he also left himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. For some people, the human brain is so unique that it must have been the result of a dabble. Some people may think that Chixculub was another dabble. But the variety of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct is the result of autonomous intelligences, exploiting or not exploiting, coping or not coping with environmental changes. We do not have to ask unanswerable questions such as why God planned the whale and the weaverbird’s nest (he didn’t), why he adopted such a roundabout way of producing the brain of Homo sapiens (he didn’t, though he may have dabbled), whether he did or did not control every single environmental change, whether his powers are limited, why he remains hidden if he wants contact with humans etc., because they are all covered by a simple proposal: what we see is what he wanted – namely an ever changing spectacle. That provides both purpose and, in our case and perhaps also in his, a sense of wonder and appreciation. So once again, please tell us which of your “unanswerable questions” this hypothesis fails to answer.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 03, 2017, 14:22 (2390 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Don't you realize your paragraph is supposition piled on supposition to explain in your mind what is miraculous material. Why is there any life? Why did the human brain appear? If you look at it from a sense of wonder and appreciation purpose can appear. If you then say to yourself it all requires planning, that planning must come from a miraculous mind. It is all very logical to me. I see the coherence you can't find.
dhw: You keep talking of purpose, but you admit that you can’t answer my questions about how your own speculations concerning purpose fit in with the history of life, and you refuse to consider a hypothesis (not a supposition but a suggestion) which answers those questions. The sense of wonder and appreciation applies every bit as much to my hypothesis as it does to yours, so here are the suggestions in their theistic form. Why is there life? Because God wanted to create life. Why did God want to create life? Because he wanted to create a spectacle that he could watch. How did he do it? He created an autonomous mechanism which enabled living cells to change themselves into all kinds of wonderful creatures, including humans. How much of this was planned? The design of the autonomous intelligent cell was entirely his, and his plan was to create a system of changing environments which provided both challenges and opportunities for his autonomous cell communities to adapt to or exploit, so that there would be an ever changing variety of life. But he also left himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. For some people, the human brain is so unique that it must have been the result of a dabble. Some people may think that Chixculub was another dabble. But the variety of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct is the result of autonomous intelligences, exploiting or not exploiting, coping or not coping with environmental changes. We do not have to ask unanswerable questions such as why God planned the whale and the weaverbird’s nest (he didn’t), why he adopted such a roundabout way of producing the brain of Homo sapiens (he didn’t, though he may have dabbled), whether he did or did not control every single environmental change, whether his powers are limited, why he remains hidden if he wants contact with humans etc., because they are all covered by a simple proposal: what we see is what he wanted – namely an ever changing spectacle. That provides both purpose and, in our case and perhaps also in his, a sense of wonder and appreciation. So once again, please tell us which of your “unanswerable questions” this hypothesis fails to answer.
You have created an inventive scenario that fits the facts, no question. But it defines a different motive for God than those who believe in Him would ever want to accept. Since it fits, it is a possible interpretation, but that is not proof. My proof to myself gets into the issue of design complexity, which I constantly present here and you admit its importance and then appear to gloss it over in your theories. The complexity requires design by a planning mind is my constant point. I'll stick with it.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: You have created an inventive scenario that fits the facts, no question. But it defines a different motive for God than those who believe in Him would ever want to accept. Since it fits, it is a possible interpretation, but that is not proof. My proof to myself gets into the issue of design complexity, which I constantly present here and you admit its importance and then appear to gloss it over in your theories. The complexity requires design by a planning mind is my constant point. I'll stick with it.
Thank you for your first sentence. You have always rejected organized religion and identified your beliefs with panentheism, which most religious people have probably never heard of, so I would suggest that even for you, it’s more important to find explanations that fit the facts than to follow what other believers accept. In any case my hypothesis is very much in line with Deism, which proposes that God lets his creation pursue its own course. Neither your hypothesis nor mine is proven. If it were, there would be no discussion. I have never glossed over the issue of complexity, which is why my hypothesis leaves room for God. The issue is whether your God created a mechanism that was capable of creating the complexities that have given rise to the history of life on Earth. The answer is we don’t know. Your answer appears to be that although it fits the facts, unlike your own hypothesis, it doesn’t fit your interpretation of how God’s mind works.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 04, 2017, 19:04 (2389 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have created an inventive scenario that fits the facts, no question. But it defines a different motive for God than those who believe in Him would ever want to accept. Since it fits, it is a possible interpretation, but that is not proof. My proof to myself gets into the issue of design complexity, which I constantly present here and you admit its importance and then appear to gloss it over in your theories. The complexity requires design by a planning mind is my constant point. I'll stick with it.
dhw: Thank you for your first sentence. You have always rejected organized religion and identified your beliefs with panentheism, which most religious people have probably never heard of, so I would suggest that even for you, it’s more important to find explanations that fit the facts than to follow what other believers accept. In any case my hypothesis is very much in line with Deism, which proposes that God lets his creation pursue its own course. Neither your hypothesis nor mine is proven. If it were, there would be no discussion. I have never glossed over the issue of complexity, which is why my hypothesis leaves room for God. The issue is whether your God created a mechanism that was capable of creating the complexities that have given rise to the history of life on Earth. The answer is we don’t know. Your answer appears to be that although it fits the facts, unlike your own hypothesis, it doesn’t fit your interpretation of how God’s mind works.
Your summary certainly defines our differences.
Evolution, survival and adaptation
DAVID: You have created an inventive scenario that fits the facts, no question. But it defines a different motive for God than those who believe in Him would ever want to accept. Since it fits, it is a possible interpretation, but that is not proof. My proof to myself gets into the issue of design complexity, which I constantly present here and you admit its importance and then appear to gloss it over in your theories. The complexity requires design by a planning mind is my constant point. I'll stick with it.
dhw: Thank you for your first sentence. You have always rejected organized religion and identified your beliefs with panentheism, which most religious people have probably never heard of, so I would suggest that even for you, it’s more important to find explanations that fit the facts than to follow what other believers accept. In any case my hypothesis is very much in line with Deism, which proposes that God lets his creation pursue its own course. Neither your hypothesis nor mine is proven. If it were, there would be no discussion. I have never glossed over the issue of complexity, which is why my hypothesis leaves room for God. The issue is whether your God created a mechanism that was capable of creating the complexities that have given rise to the history of life on Earth. The answer is we don’t know. Your answer appears to be that although it fits the facts, unlike your own hypothesis, it doesn’t fit your interpretation of how God’s mind works.
DAVID: Your summary certainly defines our differences.
The basic difference being that my hypothesis, unlike your own, fits the facts but not your interpretation of how your God’s mind works. I’ll settle for that.
Evolution, survival and adaptation; fast fish
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 08, 2018, 15:50 (2081 days ago) @ dhw
Reproduction from birth to performance in 14 days. Amazing adaptation:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/fish-goes-from-egg-to-maturity-in-just-14-days
"The turquoise killifish (Nothobranchius furzeri) from Africa can reach sexual maturity in just 14 days, making it the fastest maturing vertebrate on record.
"The species has a stop-start life history strategy suited to life in the ephemeral pools and puddles of the savannahs of Africa. Tiny embryos in a state of inactivity known as diapause survive in dry sediments, and spring to life when rain falls. A short life cycle of rapid maturation and breeding ensues before the puddles dry.
***
"The killifish life-cycle has been studied extensively in laboratory conditions, and the maturation period has ranged from 18 days to as long as 10 weeks. Reichard and his team decided to observe the fish in its natural habitat, southern Mozambique.
"The team collected fish from eight separate pools between January and May 2016, within three weeks of the pools first finning with rainwater. They used a combination of otolith (ear bone) ageing and careful examination of gonads of both sexes.
"The findings, published in the journal Current Biology, reveal that Nothobranchius furzeri is capable of reaching sexual maturity just 14 days after hatching, the fastest rate of sexual maturation recorded for any vertebrate.
"In the lab, killifish which reach sexual maturity in a short time span such as 18 days deteriorate rapidly after breeding and only live for only four to six months. The species pays the price of rapid maturity with a shorter lifespan. In the wild, the strategy means that even a pool that dried out after three weeks was able to support one entire life cycle.
"This type of life history strategy, with an embryo sealed in a protective case, is more commonly seen in invertebrates such as sand shrimp and other small animals.
“'The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."
Comment: If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.
Evolution, survival and adaptation; fast fish
QUOTE: “'The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."
David’s comment: If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.
A fascinating example of how cell communities can adapt to all kinds of environments. Slightly spoilt by the unnecessary reference to Darwin’s gradualism, which you and I have long since rejected. If you want to go on flogging dead horses, then what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the killifish 3.8 billion years ago or leapt in to specially design it, as he apparently did with the weaverbird’s nest, because it was essential to the balance of nature so that life could continue until he was able to design the brain of Homo sapiens?
Evolution, survival and adaptation; fast fish
by David Turell , Thursday, August 09, 2018, 18:58 (2080 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “'The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."
David’s comment: If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.
dhw: A fascinating example of how cell communities can adapt to all kinds of environments. Slightly spoilt by the unnecessary reference to Darwin’s gradualism, which you and I have long since rejected. If you want to go on flogging dead horses, then what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the killifish 3.8 billion years ago or leapt in to specially design it, as he apparently did with the weaverbird’s nest, because it was essential to the balance of nature so that life could continue until he was able to design the brain of Homo sapiens?
I said design was a distinct possibility
Evolution, survival and adaptation; fast fish
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 10, 2018, 13:31 (2079 days ago) @ David Turell
QUOTE: “'The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."
David’s comment: If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.
dhw: A fascinating example of how cell communities can adapt to all kinds of environments. Slightly spoilt by the unnecessary reference to Darwin’s gradualism, which you and I have long since rejected. If you want to go on flogging dead horses, then what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the killifish 3.8 billion years ago or leapt in to specially design it, as he apparently did with the weaverbird’s nest, because it was essential to the balance of nature so that life could continue until he was able to design the brain of Homo sapiens?
David: I said design was a distinct possibility
Oh, the snark is strong with you. From a biblical perspective, each stage of create was followed with "and God saw that it was good"(lit. Functional). Reading through the order of operations, which match our scientific observations, each stage had to be functionally complete and working, prior to moving on to the next. In other words, the damn weaver birds were working as they needed to work long, long before humans came on the scene. Humans were created, at least according to the account, as care takers. In other words, the weaver birds were not created for us, we were created for them, and all other creatures.
The Bibles version of a ruler is that of a servant. The King is the servant of their subjects as much as he is a ruler. For once, I would absolutely love to see how data is interpreted without the human-centric arrogance. Everything was not created for us. It was created for as a gift for Jesus, and we were created as caretakers of that gift, and because of that, Jesus was 'especially fond of us.
The point is, if you are going to make the attempt at looking at the universe through the lens of creation, exploring that possibility, have the decency to give it as much thought and attention as you do other possible explanations, considering the source material as well as the science. Otherwise, you're just giving lip service to it without making any real attempt to understand that perspective.
Over the years, I have watched as creation was discussed, but all sources of the creation narrative were summarily dismissed without consideration, yet dozens of philosophers of science were read and studied in depth, and their studies given great weight. I personally feel that, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, if you are going to consider a view, intellectual integrity requires us to consider the ENTIRE view, not just the parts of it we choose.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution, survival and adaptation; fast fish
by David Turell , Friday, August 10, 2018, 14:53 (2079 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
QUOTE: “'The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."
David’s comment: If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.
dhw: A fascinating example of how cell communities can adapt to all kinds of environments. Slightly spoilt by the unnecessary reference to Darwin’s gradualism, which you and I have long since rejected. If you want to go on flogging dead horses, then what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the killifish 3.8 billion years ago or leapt in to specially design it, as he apparently did with the weaverbird’s nest, because it was essential to the balance of nature so that life could continue until he was able to design the brain of Homo sapiens?
David: I said design was a distinct possibility
Tony: Oh, the snark is strong with you. From a biblical perspective, each stage of create was followed with "and God saw that it was good"(lit. Functional). Reading through the order of operations, which match our scientific observations, each stage had to be functionally complete and working, prior to moving on to the next. In other words, the damn weaver birds were working as they needed to work long, long before humans came on the scene. Humans were created, at least according to the account, as care takers. In other words, the weaver birds were not created for us, we were created for them, and all other creatures.The Bibles version of a ruler is that of a servant. The King is the servant of their subjects as much as he is a ruler. For once, I would absolutely love to see how data is interpreted without the human-centric arrogance. Everything was not created for us. It was created for as a gift for Jesus, and we were created as caretakers of that gift, and because of that, Jesus was 'especially fond of us.
The point is, if you are going to make the attempt at looking at the universe through the lens of creation, exploring that possibility, have the decency to give it as much thought and attention as you do other possible explanations, considering the source material as well as the science. Otherwise, you're just giving lip service to it without making any real attempt to understand that perspective.
Over the years, I have watched as creation was discussed, but all sources of the creation narrative were summarily dismissed without consideration, yet dozens of philosophers of science were read and studied in depth, and their studies given great weight. I personally feel that, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, if you are going to consider a view, intellectual integrity requires us to consider the ENTIRE view, not just the parts of it we choose.
Biblically correct and supports my design theory.
Evolution, monarch adaptation to toxic milkweed
by David Turell , Thursday, October 03, 2019, 20:33 (1660 days ago) @ David Turell
A poisonous plant is the only food for their caterpillars. It took three different mutations to do it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-monarch-butterflies-evolved-to-eat-a-poi...
"The monarch butterfly’s colorful caterpillars, for example, devour milkweed with gusto—in fact, it is the only thing they ever eat. They can tolerate this food source because of a peculiarity in a crucial protein in their bodies, a sodium pump, that the cardenolide toxins usually interfere with.
"All animals have this pump. It’s essential for physiological recovery after heart muscle cells contract or nerve cells fire—events that are triggered when sodium floods into the cells, causing an electrical discharge. After the firing and contracting is done, the cells must clean up, and so they turn on their sodium pumps and expel the sodium. This restores the electrical balance and resets the cell to its usual state, ready again for action.
"Cardenolides are noxious because they bind to key parts of these pumps and prevent them from doing their job. This makes animal hearts beat stronger and stronger, often ending in cardiac arrest.
***
“'They needed to get the mutations in the right order,” Whiteman says. First, a mutation of small effect would have altered the structure of the sodium pump to provide some resistance, but also some neurological problems. The second mutation would have amended the pump structure slightly, thereby fixing that problem. By so doing, it would have prepared conditions for the third mutation—the one with the heftiest antitoxin effect. By itself, that third mutation would have created intolerable neurological issues. But with the second mutation already in place, all would be well, or at least much better.
“'Biologists call this a constrained adaptive walk,” says Whiteman, “where one mutation is followed by another, in a predictable order, setting a species, or more than one, on a trajectory to higher fitness.” (my bold)
***
"The monarchs’ evolutionary innovation had an ecological ripple effect. Not only did resistance to the toxin open up a whole new source of food, but it also allowed the butterflies to repel predators by storing the toxins in their bodies."
Comment: three specific mutations are needed, and note my bold, must appear in specific order to evolve. Not by chance; only a designer can do this. And for survival all three mutations had to be present for the caterpillars to survive. And if the taste is very noxious to most insects, it must taste good for these guys, which means more mutations must be present or the three mutations also make it taste good.
Evolution, monarch adaptation to toxic milkweed
QUOTES: They needed to get the mutations in the right order,” Whiteman says. First, a mutation of small effect would have altered the structure of the sodium pump to provide some resistance, but also some neurological problems. The second mutation would have amended the pump structure slightly, thereby fixing that problem. By so doing, it would have prepared conditions for the third mutation—the one with the heftiest antitoxin effect. By itself, that third mutation would have created intolerable neurological issues. But with the second mutation already in place, all would be well, or at least much better.
“'Biologists call this a constrained adaptive walk,” says Whiteman, “where one mutation is followed by another, in a predictable order, setting a species, or more than one, on a trajectory to higher fitness.” (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: three specific mutations are needed, and note my bold, must appear in specific order to evolve. Not by chance; only a designer can do this. And for survival all three mutations had to be present for the caterpillars to survive. And if the taste is very noxious to most insects, it must taste good for these guys, which means more mutations must be present or the three mutations also make it taste good.
I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.
Evolution, monarch adaptation to toxic milkweed
by David Turell , Friday, October 04, 2019, 18:11 (1659 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: They needed to get the mutations in the right order,” Whiteman says. First, a mutation of small effect would have altered the structure of the sodium pump to provide some resistance, but also some neurological problems. The second mutation would have amended the pump structure slightly, thereby fixing that problem. By so doing, it would have prepared conditions for the third mutation—the one with the heftiest antitoxin effect. By itself, that third mutation would have created intolerable neurological issues. But with the second mutation already in place, all would be well, or at least much better.
“'Biologists call this a constrained adaptive walk,” says Whiteman, “where one mutation is followed by another, in a predictable order, setting a species, or more than one, on a trajectory to higher fitness.” (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: three specific mutations are needed, and note my bold, must appear in specific order to evolve. Not by chance; only a designer can do this. And for survival all three mutations had to be present for the caterpillars to survive. And if the taste is very noxious to most insects, it must taste good for these guys, which means more mutations must be present or the three mutations also make it taste good.
dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.
That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.
Evolution, monarch adaptation to toxic milkweed
DAVID: three specific mutations are needed, and note my bold, must appear in specific order to evolve. Not by chance; only a designer can do this. And for survival all three mutations had to be present for the caterpillars to survive. And if the taste is very noxious to most insects, it must taste good for these guys, which means more mutations must be present or the three mutations also make it taste good.
dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.
DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.
Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic. (See also "David’s theory of evolution”)
Evolution, monarch adaptation to toxic milkweed
by David Turell , Saturday, October 05, 2019, 18:27 (1658 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: three specific mutations are needed, and note my bold, must appear in specific order to evolve. Not by chance; only a designer can do this. And for survival all three mutations had to be present for the caterpillars to survive. And if the taste is very noxious to most insects, it must taste good for these guys, which means more mutations must be present or the three mutations also make it taste good.
dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.
DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.
dhw: Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic. (See also "David’s theory of evolution”)
You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 14, 2017, 19:06 (2409 days ago) @ dhw
As frogs appeared and dispersed around the world there was a slow and steady adaptation to new environments, not rapid change:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170913193106.htm
"Evolutionary biologists long have supposed that when species colonize new geographic regions they often develop new traits and adaptations to deal with their fresh surroundings. They branch from their ancestors and multiply in numbers of species.
***
"New research from the University of Kansas appearing in Royal Society Biology Letters shows, in contrast to expectations, "the rapid global range expansion of true frogs was not associated with increased net-diversification."
"First, we had to identify where these true frogs came from and when they started their dispersal all over the world," said lead author Chan Kin Onn, a doctoral student at KU's Biodiversity Institute. "We found a distinct pattern. The origin of these frogs was Indochina -- on the map today, it's most of mainland Asia, including Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma. True frogs dispersed throughout every continent except Antarctica from there. That's not a new idea. But we found that a lot of this dispersal happened during a short period of time -- it was during the late Eocene, about 40 million years ago. That hadn't really been identified, until now."
"Next, Chan and co-author Rafe Brown, curator-in-charge of the KU Biodiversity Institute's Herpetology Division, looked to see if this rapid dispersal of true frogs worldwide triggered a matching eruption of speciation.
"'That was our expectation," Chan said. "We thought they'd take off into all this new habitat and resources, with no competition -- and boom, you'd have a lot of new species. But we found the exact opposite was true. In most of the groups, nothing happened. There was no increase in speciation. In one of the groups, diversification significantly slowed down. That was the reverse of what was expected."
***
"'Using data from paleontological studies, we can loosely place a fossil where in the phylogeny it belongs and can put a time stamp on that point," Chan said. "That's where calibration happens, each fossil is sort of like an anchor point. You can imagine with a really big phylogeny, the more anchor points or calibration points the better your time estimate."
"Through this process, the KU researchers concluded true frogs didn't become one of the most biodiverse frog families due to dispersing into new ranges, or due to filling a gap created by a catastrophic die-off (such as the Eocene-Oligocene Extinction Event that triggered widespread extinctions from marine invertebrates to mammals in Asia and Europe).
Rather, the rich diversity of species in the Ranidae family comes from millions of years' worth of continual evolution influenced by a host of different environs.
"'Our conclusion is kind of anticlimactic, but it's cool because it goes against expectations," Chan said. "We show the reason for species richness was just a really steady accumulation of species through time -- there wasn't a big event that caused this family to diversify like crazy.'"
Comment: This contrasts with other rapid evolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion or the sudden bush of hominins. Either evolution is not a consistent progressive mechanism at all times or there is a monkey in the works, God, who picks and chooses when advances happen.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID's comment: This contrasts with other rapid evolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion or the sudden bush of hominins. Either evolution is not a consistent progressive mechanism at all times or there is a monkey in the works, God, who picks and chooses when advances happen.
Could it not be that different local environments require minor changes (finches’ beaks, froggy fiddles) or major changes (when whales switch from land to water), whereas major widespread environmental changes (the Cambrian) spark major innovations?
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 15, 2017, 15:07 (2408 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: This contrasts with other rapid evolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion or the sudden bush of hominins. Either evolution is not a consistent progressive mechanism at all times or there is a monkey in the works, God, who picks and chooses when advances happen.
dhw: Could it not be that different local environments require minor changes (finches’ beaks, froggy fiddles) or major changes (when whales switch from land to water), whereas major widespread environmental changes (the Cambrian) spark major innovations?
You and I will always differ on where the spark comes from. The increase in oxygen provided the energy for the complex animals of the Cambrian to appear. It did not require their appearance. As for the hominin bush, as savannah appeared only the pre-homos bothered to come down from the trees, but 23 million years ago monkey lumbar spines were showing preparatory changes while still in the trees. It seems to me only God can provides the push to advance.
Evolution: frog adaptation
dhw: Could it not be that different local environments require minor changes (finches’ beaks, froggy fiddles) or major changes (when whales switch from land to water), whereas major widespread environmental changes (the Cambrian) spark major innovations?
DAVID: You and I will always differ on where the spark comes from. The increase in oxygen provided the energy for the complex animals of the Cambrian to appear. It did not require their appearance.
As we have agreed a thousand times, no appearance was “required” beyond that of bacteria. That is why I go beyond survival to improvement. New conditions present new opportunities, and these were provided by the increase in oxygen.
DAVID: As for the hominin bush, as savannah appeared only the pre-homos bothered to come down from the trees, but 23 million years ago monkey lumbar spines were showing preparatory changes while still in the trees. It seems to me only God can provide the push to advance.
As I keep pointing out, evolution takes place in individual organisms. The emergence of one species from another does not mean the preceding species dies out. Pre-homos diverged from their ape ancestors, who stayed in the trees. That is the process of common descent we both believe in. We have no idea what lumbar-changing monkeys were up to 23 million years ago. Maybe they spent 50% of their time in the trees and 50% on the ground. Most of the changes you focus on are saltations (only God can do them), but now we have preparatory work, which clearly indicates a gradual process (and only God can do that too). If your God’s prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain, do you really think he was incapable of doing it without millions of years of “preparatory” work?
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 16, 2017, 14:59 (2407 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You and I will always differ on where the spark comes from. The increase in oxygen provided the energy for the complex animals of the Cambrian to appear. It did not require their appearance.dhw: As we have agreed a thousand times, no appearance was “required” beyond that of bacteria. That is why I go beyond survival to improvement. New conditions present new opportunities, and these were provided by the increase in oxygen.
But as the frogs show, new opportunities does not mean they are always taken.
DAVID: As for the hominin bush, as savannah appeared only the pre-homos bothered to come down from the trees, but 23 million years ago monkey lumbar spines were showing preparatory changes while still in the trees. It seems to me only God can provide the push to advance.dhw: As I keep pointing out, evolution takes place in individual organisms. The emergence of one species from another does not mean the preceding species dies out. Pre-homos diverged from their ape ancestors, who stayed in the trees. That is the process of common descent we both believe in. We have no idea what lumbar-changing monkeys were up to 23 million years ago. Maybe they spent 50% of their time in the trees and 50% on the ground. Most of the changes you focus on are saltations (only God can do them), but now we have preparatory work, which clearly indicates a gradual process (and only God can do that too). If your God’s prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain, do you really think he was incapable of doing it without millions of years of “preparatory” work?
Since we do not see direct creation but evolution, that must be God's preference. His ability to directly create is seen in saltations of irreducibly complex mechanisms.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: You and I will always differ on where the spark comes from. The increase in oxygen provided the energy for the complex animals of the Cambrian to appear. It did not require their appearance.
dhw: As we have agreed a thousand times, no appearance was “required” beyond that of bacteria. That is why I go beyond survival to improvement. New conditions present new opportunities, and these were provided by the increase in oxygen.
DAVID: But as the frogs show, new opportunities does not mean they are always taken.
If my hypothesis is correct, evolution depends on the intelligence of the cell communities that all individual organisms consist of. Some will exploit opportunities to innovate, and some will remain as they are, and some will die out.
Dhw: If your God’s prime purpose was to produce Homo sapiens and his brain, do you really think he was incapable of doing it without millions of years of “preparatory” work?
DAVID: Since we do not see direct creation but evolution, that must be God's preference. His ability to directly create is seen in saltations of irreducibly complex mechanisms.
Since we see the evolution of apes to hominins to humans to sapiens instead of direct creation of sapiens, and we see the evolution of pre-whales to whales, and we see the evolution of countless other species, lifestyles and natural wonders with no conceivable connection to the brain of Homo sapiens, perhaps it was your God’s preference to let evolution run its own course.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 17, 2017, 15:19 (2406 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Since we do not see direct creation but evolution, that must be God's preference. His ability to directly create is seen in saltations of irreducibly complex mechanisms.
dhw: Since we see the evolution of apes to hominins to humans to sapiens instead of direct creation of sapiens, and we see the evolution of pre-whales to whales, and we see the evolution of countless other species, lifestyles and natural wonders with no conceivable connection to the brain of Homo sapiens, perhaps it was your God’s preference to let evolution run its own course.
Your proposal ignores the obvious increasing complexity shown in evolution, which requires foresight and planning by a designing mind, an evolution which ends in the human brain, the most complex evolved organ so far. Animals do not have the demonstrated ability to change autonomously beyond minor adaptations.
Evolution: frog adaptation
dhw: Since we see the evolution of apes to hominins to humans to sapiens instead of direct creation of sapiens, and we see the evolution of pre-whales to whales, and we see the evolution of countless other species, lifestyles and natural wonders with no conceivable connection to the brain of Homo sapiens, perhaps it was your God’s preference to let evolution run its own course.
DAVID: Your proposal ignores the obvious increasing complexity shown in evolution, which requires foresight and planning by a designing mind, an evolution which ends in the human brain, the most complex evolved organ so far. Animals do not have the demonstrated ability to change autonomously beyond minor adaptations.
Once again: my proposal attributes the obvious increasing complexity to a process of innovation that requires a perhaps God-given intelligence to respond to and exploit new opportunities. I have no trouble accepting that the human brain is the most complex evolved organ so far. That doesn’t mean your God designed life and evolution for the sake of the human brain. I have agreed many times that the capacity for major adaptations and innovations has not been demonstrated, which is why it is a hypothesis, as unproven as (though far more logical than) the hypothesis that an unknown, hidden and sourceless intelligence preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale, monarch butterflies’ reproduction and navigation, and weaverbirds’ nests in order to produce the human brain.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 18, 2017, 15:34 (2405 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Since we see the evolution of apes to hominins to humans to sapiens instead of direct creation of sapiens, and we see the evolution of pre-whales to whales, and we see the evolution of countless other species, lifestyles and natural wonders with no conceivable connection to the brain of Homo sapiens, perhaps it was your God’s preference to let evolution run its own course.
DAVID: Your proposal ignores the obvious increasing complexity shown in evolution, which requires foresight and planning by a designing mind, an evolution which ends in the human brain, the most complex evolved organ so far. Animals do not have the demonstrated ability to change autonomously beyond minor adaptations.
dhw: Once again: my proposal attributes the obvious increasing complexity to a process of innovation that requires a perhaps God-given intelligence to respond to and exploit new opportunities. I have no trouble accepting that the human brain is the most complex evolved organ so far. That doesn’t mean your God designed life and evolution for the sake of the human brain. I have agreed many times that the capacity for major adaptations and innovations has not been demonstrated, which is why it is a hypothesis, as unproven as (though far more logical than) the hypothesis that an unknown, hidden and sourceless intelligence preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale, monarch butterflies’ reproduction and navigation, and weaverbirds’ nests in order to produce the human brain.
Note my bold: do you agree intelligent planning is required for the increasing complexity?
Evolution: frog adaptation
dhw: Once again: my proposal attributes the obvious increasing complexity to a process of innovation that requires a perhaps God-given intelligence to respond to and exploit new opportunities. I have no trouble accepting that the human brain is the most complex evolved organ so far. That doesn’t mean your God designed life and evolution for the sake of the human brain. I have agreed many times that the capacity for major adaptations and innovations has not been demonstrated, which is why it is a hypothesis, as unproven as (though far more logical than) the hypothesis that an unknown, hidden and sourceless intelligence preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale, monarch butterflies’ reproduction and navigation, and weaverbirds’ nests in order to produce the human brain.
DAVID: Note my bold: do you agree intelligent planning is required for the increasing complexity?
No. The whole point of my hypothesis is that organisms RESPOND to challenges and opportunities by using their perhaps God-given intelligence. It may even be that some opportunities are discovered by chance (particularly in the case of natural wonders), but even then it takes intelligence to recognize the benefits of a chance discovery and build on them. The key to my hypothesis is intelligent RESPONSE, not crystal ball gazing followed by planning followed by the actual events that demand or allow the physical change, which may or may not entail an increase in complexity.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 14:54 (2404 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Once again: my proposal attributes the obvious increasing complexity to a process of innovation that requires a perhaps God-given intelligence to respond to and exploit new opportunities. I have no trouble accepting that the human brain is the most complex evolved organ so far. That doesn’t mean your God designed life and evolution for the sake of the human brain. I have agreed many times that the capacity for major adaptations and innovations has not been demonstrated, which is why it is a hypothesis, as unproven as (though far more logical than) the hypothesis that an unknown, hidden and sourceless intelligence preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale, monarch butterflies’ reproduction and navigation, and weaverbirds’ nests in order to produce the human brain.
DAVID: Note my bold: do you agree intelligent planning is required for the increasing complexity?
dhw: No. The whole point of my hypothesis is that organisms RESPOND to challenges and opportunities by using their perhaps God-given intelligence. It may even be that some opportunities are discovered by chance (particularly in the case of natural wonders), but even then it takes intelligence to recognize the benefits of a chance discovery and build on them. The key to my hypothesis is intelligent RESPONSE, not crystal ball gazing followed by planning followed by the actual events that demand or allow the physical change, which may or may not entail an increase in complexity.
Once again you are skipping over the issue of gaps in the fossil record. Even the few intermediate forms are giant leaps in form and function. You do not answer how this is covered. My answer is foresight and planning to look at a current goal.. No crystal ball fuzziness required.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: Note my bold: do you agree intelligent planning is required for the increasing complexity?
dhw: No. The whole point of my hypothesis is that organisms RESPOND to challenges and opportunities by using their perhaps God-given intelligence. It may even be that some opportunities are discovered by chance (particularly in the case of natural wonders), but even then it takes intelligence to recognize the benefits of a chance discovery and build on them. The key to my hypothesis is intelligent RESPONSE, not crystal ball gazing followed by planning followed by the actual events that demand or allow the physical change, which may or may not entail an increase in complexity.
DAVID: Once again you are skipping over the issue of gaps in the fossil record. Even the few intermediate forms are giant leaps in form and function. You do not answer how this is covered. My answer is foresight and planning to look at a current goal.. No crystal ball fuzziness required.
You can’t plan unless you know what you are planning for, i.e. future conditions. That is crystal ball gazing, unless you are arguing that your God preprogrammed every environmental change in the history of evolution.
The gaps are saltations, i.e. major adaptations or innovations with no known intermediate stages. These are the great mystery of evolution. Your hypothesis is that your God preprogrammed every single one 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled them personally, even though his primary aim was to produce the human brain. My hypothesis is that cell communities have the intelligence (possibly God-given) to design their own major adaptations or innovations. You’ve heard all this a hundred times over, so why you regard it as “skipping the issue” of gaps, i.e. of saltatory major adaptations or innovations, I don’t know.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 20, 2017, 14:59 (2403 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Note my bold: do you agree intelligent planning is required for the increasing complexity?
dhw: No. The whole point of my hypothesis is that organisms RESPOND to challenges and opportunities by using their perhaps God-given intelligence. It may even be that some opportunities are discovered by chance (particularly in the case of natural wonders), but even then it takes intelligence to recognize the benefits of a chance discovery and build on them. The key to my hypothesis is intelligent RESPONSE, not crystal ball gazing followed by planning followed by the actual events that demand or allow the physical change, which may or may not entail an increase in complexity.
DAVID: Once again you are skipping over the issue of gaps in the fossil record. Even the few intermediate forms are giant leaps in form and function. You do not answer how this is covered. My answer is foresight and planning to look at a current goal.. No crystal ball fuzziness required.
dhw: You can’t plan unless you know what you are planning for, i.e. future conditions. That is crystal ball gazing, unless you are arguing that your God preprogrammed every environmental change in the history of evolution.
The gaps are saltations, i.e. major adaptations or innovations with no known intermediate stages. These are the great mystery of evolution. Your hypothesis is that your God preprogrammed every single one 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled them personally, even though his primary aim was to produce the human brain. My hypothesis is that cell communities have the intelligence (possibly God-given) to design their own major adaptations or innovations. You’ve heard all this a hundred times over, so why you regard it as “skipping the issue” of gaps, i.e. of saltatory major adaptations or innovations, I don’t know.
You skip over the point as usual. Please look at the whales. We both know exactly what conditions have to be planned for to have an air breathing mammal enter water as a full time environment. You constantly overlook the issue of purpose. Darwinism doesn't know where it is going. Evolution is either chance or knows where it is going. Whether you realize it or not, you start your thinking from a chance approach.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: Once again you are skipping over the issue of gaps in the fossil record. Even the few intermediate forms are giant leaps in form and function. You do not answer how this is covered. My answer is foresight and planning to look at a current goal.. No crystal ball fuzziness required.
dhw: You can’t plan unless you know what you are planning for, i.e. future conditions. That is crystal ball gazing, unless you are arguing that your God preprogrammed every environmental change in the history of evolution.
The gaps are saltations, i.e. major adaptations or innovations with no known intermediate stages. These are the great mystery of evolution. Your hypothesis is that your God preprogrammed every single one 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled them personally, even though his primary aim was to produce the human brain. My hypothesis is that cell communities have the intelligence (possibly God-given) to design their own major adaptations or innovations. You’ve heard all this a hundred times over, so why you regard it as “skipping the issue” of gaps, i.e. of saltatory major adaptations or innovations, I don’t know.
DAVID: You skip over the point as usual. Please look at the whales. We both know exactly what conditions have to be planned for to have an air breathing mammal enter water as a full time environment. You constantly overlook the issue of purpose. Darwinism doesn't know where it is going. Evolution is either chance or knows where it is going. Whether you realize it or not, you start your thinking from a chance approach.
You start with the assumption that the whale entered the water fully equipped for aquatic life (although incomprehensibly for you, it took your God eight stages and millions of years to perfect the equipment). From my perspective, this is the wrong starting point. Pre-whale would have entered the water to explore. From then on, each stage would have been an improvement, as it adapted to life in the water, which was its purpose. You yourself keep admitting that you don’t know the purpose of the eight-stage whale, let alone how it links up with what you keep saying is God’s primary purpose, the production of the brain of Homo sapiens. As for my thinking, it starts with the unknown factor of how life originated, and I cannot believe in chance or in God, which is why I remain agnostic. From the moment living forms appear, I regard them as pursuing the purposes of survival and/or improvement, and the only chance element is environmental change. If God exists, I suspect that his purpose was to produce a show for himself (but this need not mean detachment – he could have feelings just like ours). If he does not exist, the universe has no purpose, but organisms have their own purposes, as above. I don’t think I can express it any more clearly.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 21, 2017, 15:12 (2402 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You skip over the point as usual. Please look at the whales. We both know exactly what conditions have to be planned for to have an air breathing mammal enter water as a full time environment. You constantly overlook the issue of purpose. Darwinism doesn't know where it is going. Evolution is either chance or knows where it is going. Whether you realize it or not, you start your thinking from a chance approach.dhw: You start with the assumption that the whale entered the water fully equipped for aquatic life (although incomprehensibly for you, it took your God eight stages and millions of years to perfect the equipment). From my perspective, this is the wrong starting point. Pre-whale would have entered the water to explore. From then on, each stage would have been an improvement, as it adapted to life in the water, which was its purpose. You yourself keep admitting that you don’t know the purpose of the eight-stage whale, let alone how it links up with what you keep saying is God’s primary purpose, the production of the brain of Homo sapiens. As for my thinking, it starts with the unknown factor of how life originated, and I cannot believe in chance or in God, which is why I remain agnostic. From the moment living forms appear, I regard them as pursuing the purposes of survival and/or improvement, and the only chance element is environmental change. If God exists, I suspect that his purpose was to produce a show for himself (but this need not mean detachment – he could have feelings just like ours). If he does not exist, the universe has no purpose, but organisms have their own purposes, as above. I don’t think I can express it any more clearly.
Again skipping over the clear problem. Your pre-whale wishes to live in water. He has purpose. Now he needs to design some changes so he can achieve his goal. He has to understand what is required in order to modify. He needs to see needs in his future role. You gloss over this entire problem of how " [they] pursu[e] the purposes of survival and/or improvement". Something must be acting with foresight to cover the large gaps in form and physiology that the fossil record shows. Your cover your nebulous concept with the word "pursue" or "pursuing". We know that only a mind can plan. This is the basis of the ID philosophy. You could accept that and not include God.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: Again skipping over the clear problem. Your pre-whale wishes to live in water. He has purpose. Now he needs to design some changes so he can achieve his goal. He has to understand what is required in order to modify. He needs to see needs in his future role.
He, or rather his cell communities, must design changes, and they have to understand the problems, but this does not relate to the future. To put it in concrete terms: legs are not as useful in water as fins. The pre-whale is in the water. The cell communities work out a way of changing the legs to fins, just as cell communities work out ways of changing short beaks into long beaks (your epigenetic changes). This is not future planning. It is adjusting to present conditions.
DAVID: You gloss over this entire problem of how " [they] pursu[e] the purposes of survival and/or improvement". Something must be acting with foresight to cover the large gaps in form and physiology that the fossil record shows. Your cover your nebulous concept with the word "pursue" or "pursuing".
There is no glossing over. We know from minor adaptations that organisms react to their present circumstances, and change accordingly. They do not look into a crystal ball and forecast the conditions that will require them to change. You accept this for minor but not for major changes. What we don’t know is the mechanism that enables them to accomplish the latter. You say it is a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or direct dabbling by your God. I propose that it is the same cellular intelligence that enables them to accomplish the minor changes.
DAVID: We know that only a mind can plan. This is the basis of the ID philosophy. You could accept that and not include God.
I accept that only intelligence of some kind can produce the minor and major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in the great evolutionary bush of life. I also accept the possibility that this intelligence was invented by your God. I do not accept that these adaptations and innovations must be planned in advance.
Meanwhile, you continue to gloss over the dislocation between your God’s so-called prime purpose and the higgledy-piggledy bush, which includes the story of the whale, plus the problem of why your all-powerful God needed eight stages and millions of years to come up with his final version of the whale, as well as the huge problem of the extent to which your planning God plans all the environmental changes, local and global, that trigger organismal change.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, September 22, 2017, 15:11 (2401 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We know that only a mind can plan. This is the basis of the ID philosophy. You could accept that and not include God.dhw: I accept that only intelligence of some kind can produce the minor and major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in the great evolutionary bush of life. I also accept the possibility that this intelligence was invented by your God. I do not accept that these adaptations and innovations must be planned in advance.
Meanwhile, you continue to gloss over the dislocation between your God’s so-called prime purpose and the higgledy-piggledy bush, which includes the story of the whale, plus the problem of why your all-powerful God needed eight stages and millions of years to come up with his final version of the whale, as well as the huge problem of the extent to which your planning God plans all the environmental changes, local and global, that trigger organismal change.
If nothing is planned in advance to accommodate required change, can you explain the latest buildings in London? As for God's methods, I simply accept that He evolves solutions.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: We know that only a mind can plan. This is the basis of the ID philosophy. You could accept that and not include God.
dhw: I accept that only intelligence of some kind can produce the minor and major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in the great evolutionary bush of life. I also accept the possibility that this intelligence was invented by your God. I do not accept that these adaptations and innovations must be planned in advance.
Meanwhile, you continue to gloss over the dislocation between your God’s so-called prime purpose and the higgledy-piggledy bush, which includes the story of the whale, plus the problem of why your all-powerful God needed eight stages and millions of years to come up with his final version of the whale, as well as the huge problem of the extent to which your planning God plans all the environmental changes, local and global, that trigger organismal change.
DAVID: If nothing is planned in advance to accommodate required change, can you explain the latest buildings in London? As for God's methods, I simply accept that He evolves solutions.
I have never said that humans do not plan in advance. So do many animals. I don’t know why you think the process of evolution is the same as the process of building houses. Houses, in case you hadn’t noticed, are inanimate, inorganic objects which as far as we know are incapable of reproducing themselves and of communicating with one another and of taking decisions. In that respect they are no different from birds’ nests and anthills. There is absolutely no parallel between the inorganic products of intelligence and the organic changes which organisms undergo during the process of evolution. You insist that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in advance. I propose that intelligent organisms (cell communities) responded to the challenges and opportunities offered by a changing environment. My hypothesis provides an answer to some of the questions that your hypothesis engenders, which are summarized above and which you continue to gloss over.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, September 23, 2017, 14:45 (2400 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We know that only a mind can plan. This is the basis of the ID philosophy. You could accept that and not include God.
dhw: I accept that only intelligence of some kind can produce the minor and major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in the great evolutionary bush of life. I also accept the possibility that this intelligence was invented by your God. I do not accept that these adaptations and innovations must be planned in advance.
Meanwhile, you continue to gloss over the dislocation between your God’s so-called prime purpose and the higgledy-piggledy bush, which includes the story of the whale, plus the problem of why your all-powerful God needed eight stages and millions of years to come up with his final version of the whale, as well as the huge problem of the extent to which your planning God plans all the environmental changes, local and global, that trigger organismal change.DAVID: If nothing is planned in advance to accommodate required change, can you explain the latest buildings in London? As for God's methods, I simply accept that He evolves solutions.
dhw: I have never said that humans do not plan in advance. So do many animals. I don’t know why you think the process of evolution is the same as the process of building houses. Houses, in case you hadn’t noticed, are inanimate, inorganic objects which as far as we know are incapable of reproducing themselves and of communicating with one another and of taking decisions. In that respect they are no different from birds’ nests and anthills. There is absolutely no parallel between the inorganic products of intelligence and the organic changes which organisms undergo during the process of evolution. You insist that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in advance. I propose that intelligent organisms (cell communities) responded to the challenges and opportunities offered by a changing environment. My hypothesis provides an answer to some of the questions that your hypothesis engenders, which are summarized above and which you continue to gloss over.
It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize the need for planning the changes that must occur within the gaps in the fossil record. I'm not glossing. I see the need for intelligent planning. You simply do not. Of course speciation is due to 'challenges and opportunities'. I'm suggesting a portion of the requirements, planning with foresight and then changing. Nothing else will work.
Evolution: frog adaptation
dhw: There is absolutely no parallel between the inorganic products of intelligence and the organic changes which organisms undergo during the process of evolution. You insist that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in advance. I propose that intelligent organisms (cell communities) responded to the challenges and opportunities offered by a changing environment. My hypothesis provides an answer to some of the questions that your hypothesis engenders, which are summarized above and which you continue to gloss over.
DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize the need for planning the changes that must occur within the gaps in the fossil record. I'm not glossing. I see the need for intelligent planning. You simply do not. Of course speciation is due to 'challenges and opportunities'. I'm suggesting a portion of the requirements, planning with foresight and then changing. Nothing else will work.
I’m delighted at your recognition of the fact that speciation is due to challenges and opportunities. It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize that these challenges and opportunities must arise before organisms change. Why would a pre-whale’s legs change to fins before it even found out that life in the water was better for it than life on land? The very idea of your all-powerful God fiddling with it in advance, and then doing seven more fiddles over the next few million years (“Oops, forgot the blowhole!”) as he perfects the process, while all the time actually wanting to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, stretches credulity to snapping point. But NB, my hypothesis is not atheistic, just in case you scurry back to origins. The (hypothetical) mechanism that would enable organisms to respond to (as opposed to prepare for) challenges and opportunities may have been your God’s invention.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Sunday, September 24, 2017, 14:50 (2399 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize the need for planning the changes that must occur within the gaps in the fossil record. I'm not glossing. I see the need for intelligent planning. You simply do not. Of course speciation is due to 'challenges and opportunities'. I'm suggesting a portion of the requirements, planning with foresight and then changing. Nothing else will work.
dhw: I’m delighted at your recognition of the fact that speciation is due to challenges and opportunities. It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize that these challenges and opportunities must arise before organisms change. Why would a pre-whale’s legs change to fins before it even found out that life in the water was better for it than life on land? The very idea of your all-powerful God fiddling with it in advance, and then doing seven more fiddles over the next few million years (“Oops, forgot the blowhole!”) as he perfects the process, while all the time actually wanting to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, stretches credulity to snapping point. But NB, my hypothesis is not atheistic, just in case you scurry back to origins. The (hypothetical) mechanism that would enable organisms to respond to (as opposed to prepare for) challenges and opportunities may have been your God’s invention.
But I'll stick with the requirement that changes required by challenges and opportunities require foresight and planning to jump the gaps. Thank you for noting God might have helped. And note you have never answered the problem of the gaps as exemplified by the Cambrian animals.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize the need for planning the changes that must occur within the gaps in the fossil record. I'm not glossing. I see the need for intelligent planning. You simply do not. Of course speciation is due to 'challenges and opportunities'. I'm suggesting a portion of the requirements, planning with foresight and then changing. Nothing else will work.
dhw: I’m delighted at your recognition of the fact that speciation is due to challenges and opportunities. It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize that these challenges and opportunities must arise before organisms change. Why would a pre-whale’s legs change to fins before it even found out that life in the water was better for it than life on land? The very idea of your all-powerful God fiddling with it in advance, and then doing seven more fiddles over the next few million years (“Oops, forgot the blowhole!”) as he perfects the process, while all the time actually wanting to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, stretches credulity to snapping point. But NB, my hypothesis is not atheistic, just in case you scurry back to origins. The (hypothetical) mechanism that would enable organisms to respond to (as opposed to prepare for) challenges and opportunities may have been your God’s invention.
DAVID: But I'll stick with the requirement that changes required by challenges and opportunities require foresight and planning to jump the gaps. Thank you for noting God might have helped. And note you have never answered the problem of the gaps as exemplified by the Cambrian animals.
So you will stick with your “explanation” that you don’t know why your God prepared pre-whales for life in the water eight different times over several million years, although his prime purpose was to create the human brain. My hypothesis is not that God “helped” but that if he exists, he provided the mechanism enabling organisms to help themselves. The problem of the Cambrian gaps is solved if the autonomous mechanism for minor adaptations is also capable of major adaptations and innovations in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by changes in the environment. I accept that this is the big “IF”. The problem is also solved if there is an unknown, sourceless, intelligent mind that preprogrammed every single environmental change, major adaptation and innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping down to Earth to do the necessary. That is also a big “IF”.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Monday, September 25, 2017, 16:13 (2398 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But I'll stick with the requirement that changes required by challenges and opportunities require foresight and planning to jump the gaps. Thank you for noting God might have helped. And note you have never answered the problem of the gaps as exemplified by the Cambrian animals.dhw: So you will stick with your “explanation” that you don’t know why your God prepared pre-whales for life in the water eight different times over several million years, although his prime purpose was to create the human brain. My hypothesis is not that God “helped” but that if he exists, he provided the mechanism enabling organisms to help themselves. The problem of the Cambrian gaps is solved if the autonomous mechanism for minor adaptations is also capable of major adaptations and innovations in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by changes in the environment. I accept that this is the big “IF”. The problem is also solved if there is an unknown, sourceless, intelligent mind that preprogrammed every single environmental change, major adaptation and innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping down to Earth to do the necessary. That is also a big “IF”.
Yes big IF's. But those are the only two choices. The Cambrian gap was Darwin's biggest bugaboo. The sudden appearance of such complex organisms require enormous elements of foresight and planning. Within our experience we know that only a planning mind can accomplish such developments. That mind must exist.
Evolution: frog adaptation
dhw: (under “Trees induce ants…” Another agreement. Today is a red letter day! Now we agree that bacteria are conscious, and that organisms have an autonomous, possibly God-given mechanism through which they can make changes to themselves without any input from your God. Therefore “God did it” could mean that he did it by providing cells/cell communities with the intelligence to create ALL the adaptations and innovations that have taken place throughout evolution.
DAVID: That is a jump in possibilities that I cannot accept. The gaps in evolution require foresight and planning that only a planning mind can provide.
Dhw (on this thread): So you will stick with your “explanation” that you don’t know why your God prepared pre-whales for life in the water eight different times over several million years, although his prime purpose was to create the human brain. […] The problem of the Cambrian gaps is solved if the autonomous mechanism for minor adaptations is also capable of major adaptations and innovations in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by changes in the environment. I accept that this is the big “IF”. The problem is also solved if there is an unknown, sourceless, intelligent mind that preprogrammed every single environmental change, major adaptation and innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping down to Earth to do the necessary. That is also a big “IF”.
DAVID: Yes big IF's. But those are the only two choices. The Cambrian gap was Darwin's biggest bugaboo. The sudden appearance of such complex organisms require enormous elements of foresight and planning. Within our experience we know that only a planning mind can accomplish such developments. That mind must exist.
We have no experience of such developments. None of us were around at the time, and so we do not “know” anything. We speculate. Why should it be beyond the bounds of possibility that your all-powerful God could invent a mechanism capable of autonomous innovation? Besides, we should not forget that your hypothesis is not confined to Cambrian gaps, or are you now withdrawing your insistence that only your God could have designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, the parasitic wasp etc.?
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 17:19 (2397 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes big IF's. But those are the only two choices. The Cambrian gap was Darwin's biggest bugaboo. The sudden appearance of such complex organisms require enormous elements of foresight and planning. Within our experience we know that only a planning mind can accomplish such developments. That mind must exist.dhw: We have no experience of such developments. None of us were around at the time, and so we do not “know” anything. We speculate. Why should it be beyond the bounds of possibility that your all-powerful God could invent a mechanism capable of autonomous innovation? Besides, we should not forget that your hypothesis is not confined to Cambrian gaps, or are you now withdrawing your insistence that only your God could have designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, the parasitic wasp etc.?
I think God stepped in at many levels. I've not changed. I don 't know why it is so important to you that God gave organisms an inventive mechanism. It is just an other way for God to be in control. I use God's control as signifying a purpose in how evolution plays out. Are you trying to get rid of purpose?
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: Yes big IF's. But those are the only two choices. The Cambrian gap was Darwin's biggest bugaboo. The sudden appearance of such complex organisms require enormous elements of foresight and planning. Within our experience we know that only a planning mind can accomplish such developments. That mind must exist.
dhw: We have no experience of such developments. None of us were around at the time, and so we do not “know” anything. We speculate. Why should it be beyond the bounds of possibility that your all-powerful God could invent a mechanism capable of autonomous innovation? Besides, we should not forget that your hypothesis is not confined to Cambrian gaps, or are you now withdrawing your insistence that only your God could have designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, the parasitic wasp etc.?
DAVID: I think God stepped in at many levels. I've not changed. I don't know why it is so important to you that God gave organisms an inventive mechanism. It is just an other way for God to be in control. I use God's control as signifying a purpose in how evolution plays out. Are you trying to get rid of purpose?
We have spent years discussing your proposal that your God’s prime purpose was to create the brain of Homo sapiens – a hypothesis that throws up so many illogicalities in relation to the higgledy-piggledy bush of life that even you admit to not understanding much of it. I am proposing that instead of your God controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, he set the wheels in motion by creating an autonomous inventive mechanism (though he could dabble if he wished to). We have just devoted several posts to discussing my suggestion that by doing so he created a show that he watches and is interested in. That is a purpose to which you have agreed (with the strange proviso that you don't know what watching and interest mean to God). It also explains the higgledy-piggledy bush. At last you have recognized that my hypothesis does not exclude your God or limit his powers other than when he decides to let organisms (including humans) control themselves. What it does do is offer an explanation of evolution that eliminates all the illogicalities and unanswered questions that bedevil your own hypothesis. To echo your post: I don’t know why it is so important to you to have your God designing the weaverbird’s nest.
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 27, 2017, 17:25 (2396 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes big IF's. But those are the only two choices. The Cambrian gap was Darwin's biggest bugaboo. The sudden appearance of such complex organisms require enormous elements of foresight and planning. Within our experience we know that only a planning mind can accomplish such developments. That mind must exist.
dhw: We have no experience of such developments. None of us were around at the time, and so we do not “know” anything. We speculate. Why should it be beyond the bounds of possibility that your all-powerful God could invent a mechanism capable of autonomous innovation? Besides, we should not forget that your hypothesis is not confined to Cambrian gaps, or are you now withdrawing your insistence that only your God could have designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, the parasitic wasp etc.?
DAVID: I think God stepped in at many levels. I've not changed. I don't know why it is so important to you that God gave organisms an inventive mechanism. It is just an other way for God to be in control. I use God's control as signifying a purpose in how evolution plays out. Are you trying to get rid of purpose?
dhw: We have spent years discussing your proposal that your God’s prime purpose was to create the brain of Homo sapiens – a hypothesis that throws up so many illogicalities in relation to the higgledy-piggledy bush of life that even you admit to not understanding much of it. I am proposing that instead of your God controlling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, he set the wheels in motion by creating an autonomous inventive mechanism (though he could dabble if he wished to). We have just devoted several posts to discussing my suggestion that by doing so he created a show that he watches and is interested in. That is a purpose to which you have agreed (with the strange proviso that you don't know what watching and interest mean to God). It also explains the higgledy-piggledy bush. At last you have recognized that my hypothesis does not exclude your God or limit his powers other than when he decides to let organisms (including humans) control themselves. What it does do is offer an explanation of evolution that eliminates all the illogicalities and unanswered questions that bedevil your own hypothesis. To echo your post: I don’t know why it is so important to you to have your God designing the weaverbird’s nest.
Once again you have God giving organisms the ability to speciate as an alternative to my approach. At the same time you have allowed God to dabble. This means in your thinking God can control all of evolution if He wishes. But at the same time you propose He lets things run along producing what the organisms wish to invent. So basically you are inventing God in two ways! I chose one approach. I don't think you can have it both ways. But since you don't accept God, I'm not surprised. My bush is balance of nature, which explanation satisfies me. It is required.
Evolution: frog adaptation
DAVID: Once again you have God giving organisms the ability to speciate as an alternative to my approach. At the same time you have allowed God to dabble. This means in your thinking God can control all of evolution if He wishes. But at the same time you propose He lets things run along producing what the organisms wish to invent. So basically you are inventing God in two ways! I chose one approach. I don't think you can have it both ways. But since you don't accept God, I'm not surprised. My bush is balance of nature, which explanation satisfies me. It is required.
My non-aceptance/non-rejection of your God has nothing to do with the way we think he might have operated. You have now agreed that he has created a show which he watches with interest in his own special way. As the all-powerful creator, of course he can let the show run itself or he can interfere if he feels like it. There is nothing contradictory in this. Humans use such options all the time as circumstances change. But your “one approach” entails a show which has the prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens, while at the same time it also entails your God specially creating the whale in eight different stages, designing the weaverbird’s nest, equipping moths and frogs with poisons that won’t harm them, preparing monarch butterflies for their migration, plus millions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which have come and gone. Clearly they have nothing to do with producing the brain of Homo sapiens, and you have agreed that “balance of nature” means nothing more than that life goes on, regardless of whether humans are there or not. So could it be that you are now saying your God specially designs all these things for the sake of the show (of which humans are simply one part), which he watches with interest in his own special way?
Evolution: frog adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, September 28, 2017, 14:34 (2395 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Once again you have God giving organisms the ability to speciate as an alternative to my approach. At the same time you have allowed God to dabble. This means in your thinking God can control all of evolution if He wishes. But at the same time you propose He lets things run along producing what the organisms wish to invent. So basically you are inventing God in two ways! I chose one approach. I don't think you can have it both ways. But since you don't accept God, I'm not surprised. My bush is balance of nature, which explanation satisfies me. It is required.
dhw: My non-aceptance/non-rejection of your God has nothing to do with the way we think he might have operated. You have now agreed that he has created a show which he watches with interest in his own special way. As the all-powerful creator, of course he can let the show run itself or he can interfere if he feels like it. There is nothing contradictory in this. Humans use such options all the time as circumstances change. But your “one approach” entails a show which has the prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens, while at the same time it also entails your God specially creating the whale in eight different stages, designing the weaverbird’s nest, equipping moths and frogs with poisons that won’t harm them, preparing monarch butterflies for their migration, plus millions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which have come and gone. Clearly they have nothing to do with producing the brain of Homo sapiens, and you have agreed that “balance of nature” means nothing more than that life goes on, regardless of whether humans are there or not. So could it be that you are now saying your God specially designs all these things for the sake of the show (of which humans are simply one part), which he watches with interest in his own special way?
I've not changed and neither have you. Balance of nature is absolutely necessary to produce the human brain, exactly to keep solve the issue of 'life goes on' by providing the necessary energy supply, The brain is the current endpoint of evolution. The possibility of a 'show' is your side issue. I see God full of purpose, not theatrics, which might be a favorite subject of yours as a playwright.
Evolution: networks of coevolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 18, 2017, 20:00 (2375 days ago) @ David Turell
The interaction of species fighting off or cooperating with other species create networks of relationships that affect each species evolution. This is a study of those networks:
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-rapid-environmental-species-vulnerable-extinction.html
"Coevolution, which occurs when species interact and adapt to each other, is often studied in the context of pair-wise interactions between mutually beneficial symbiotic partners. But many species have mutualistic interactions with multiple partners, leading to complex networks of interacting species.
***
"a group of ecologists and evolutionary biologists from five universities has attempted to understand how species coevolve within large webs of mutualistic species. The study yielded surprising findings about the relative importance of direct and indirect effects within such networks.
***
"Natural selection favors predators that are better at capturing prey, prey that have better defenses, and individuals that compete better against other species. Among mutualistic species, natural selection favors, for example, plants that are better at attracting pollinating insects and flower-visiting insects that are better at extracting pollen and nectar from flowers.
***
"Each web had, at one extreme, species that interact with only one other species and, at the other extreme, species that interact with many other species. When drawn as a network, each species is a node and each interaction between species is a line between two nodes. Each line is therefore a direct interaction between two species.
***
"Their analyses suggested two counterintuitive results. First, the stronger the importance of coevolutionary selection between partners, the greater the importance of indirect effects on overall evolution throughout the network. Second, in mutualisms involving multiple partners, the most specialized species—those species with the fewest direct partners—are more influenced by indirect effects than by their direct partners.
"These two results, together with other results reported in the paper, have many implications for the understanding of evolution and coevolution within webs of interacting species. Among the most important are two conclusions that link evolution, coevolution, and the rate of environmental change.
"With slow environmental change, the indirect effects of species on the evolution of other species may help mutualistic interactions persist over long periods of time. In contrast, rapid environmental change may slow the overall rate of evolution driven by direct interactions within large networks, making each species more vulnerable to extinction. With rapid environmental change, then, environments may change faster than species can adapt within large mutualistic networks.
"'The indirect effects serve to buffer the system under slow environmental change, keeping it stable. With the kinds of rapid environmental changes we're seeing now, however, this buffering effect can actually prevent species from adapting fast enough," Thompson said."
Comment: This research will help us understand more exactly how econiches work in balance of nature. It has been shown how top predators are essential. But so is cooperation. These complex networks must have existed since life began 3.6-3.8 billion years ago.
Evolution: chance, contingent or convergent
by David Turell , Friday, October 27, 2017, 01:28 (2366 days ago) @ David Turell
A new book presents it own argument:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631480-700-a-new-book-balances-two-powerful-ri...
"IT’S one of the biggest questions in biology: is the outcome of evolution deterministic and predictable? In particular, was the evolution of human beings, or something similar, inevitable?
"Jonathan Losos, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, approaches this through the contrasting views of the late Stephen Jay Gould and University of Cambridge palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris.
"Gould famously argued that if we “replayed the tape of life” we would get very different outcomes, because the pattern of evolution is unpredictable. In contrast, Conway Morris claims that convergent evolution – the idea that similar conditions produce similar adaptations – is “completely ubiquitous”.
***
"Losos does not explain the reasons behind Gould’s and Conway Morris’s ideas. Nor does he fully explore how their contrasting world views (Conway Morris is a devout Christian; Gould was a Marxist) influence their thinking.
***
"Losos’s conclusion is that neither Gould nor Conway Morris is right. Faced with similar selection pressures, similar populations will indeed often produce convergent evolutionary outcomes. Even distantly related groups, such as marsupials and placental mammals, may do this – think of the marsupial and placental moles, separated by over 150 million years.
"But the process isn’t ubiquitous. Sometimes, stuff happens and evolution goes a little crazy. In New Zealand, there were no terrestrial mammals (bats aside) until humans arrived, but in a striking example of non-convergent evolution, the islands’ birds did not evolve forms resembling mammals elsewhere that have a similar ecological niche and environment.
"Alongside the widespread phenomenon of convergent evolution, life produces many unique forms. The human lineage is one such.
"But before the reader can conclude that our uniqueness suggests we are the whole point of evolution, Losos plays his trump card: the duck-billed platypus.
"This monotreme mammal has hair and a beak, and lays eggs. Like ours, its lineage is unique in the fossil record. Losos concludes that humans are no more the end-point of evolution than is the platypus, with its singular and slightly comical assemblage of characteristics. Not all evolution is convergent, he argues, and uniqueness does not imply destiny. That seems about right."
Comment: Not right to me. The platypus is simply a side branch in the bush of life, just as I think whales are. As the author of this review notes 'life produces many unique forms'. I'm still with Conway Morris.
Evolution: trying to mutate a protein
by David Turell , Friday, November 10, 2017, 05:36 (2352 days ago) @ David Turell
Can a long series of mutations produce a desired protein. it seems the answer is no:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171102091113.htm
"Scientists theorized that they could manipulate a protein one mutation at a time and predict its evolution. They sought to prove it. And failed. They do think, however, that they've found a fundamental truth underlying unpredictability in a biological system.
***
"While we got a surprising negative result, we were able to say why," said Michael J. Harms, a professor in the UO Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and scientist in the Institute of Molecular Biology. "That is a positive. Our simple study provides confirmation of what many people in the field have observed repeatedly -- unpredictability. It appears it is universal."
"The research was a digital affair, done with computer simulations designed by UO doctoral student Zachary R. Sailer. He and Harms created a simple lattice protein, using an approach previously created in the Harms lab, with a random sequence of 12 amino acids. They then ran evolutionary simulations to optimize stability, a physical property of the protein.
"The goal was to use the effects of all 228 mutations known to be associated with the starting protein to predict these simulated trajectories: which mutation would occur, when, over time. The ability to project ahead faded fast after the first two mutations. After that, the anticipated trajectories went astray amid a growing number of rerouting probabilities.
"'The quality of your information actually decays over time," Sailer said. "As mutations accumulate, the effects of the mutations that you measured start to change so that you can't predict where you are going."
"In their paper, Sailer and Harms suggest that physics, particularly thermodynamics, is at play. Each mutation alters the protein in a small, but nonlinear way. This means that the effect of each mutation depends on all mutations that occurred before.
"'I think that what we showed, fundamentally, is that even if you know a lot about a system, about a protein, you cannot predict how it evolves because of the physics of the system," Harms said. "There are physical rules that limit evolution and its predictability.'"
Comment: I realize this is a computer simulation and might be open to human error in software. However, this is straightforward study and likely correct. Which raises the issue, if evolution is at the mercy of random mutation, how does any evolution occur at all? Perhaps God must HAVE to do it by Himself. The obvious appearance of purpose and directionality strongly suggests God is necessary.
Evolution: a giant nutrition step
by David Turell , Thursday, November 30, 2017, 00:38 (2332 days ago) @ David Turell
Snowball Earth set up a huge nutritional supply when it melted:
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/researchers-solve-one-of-the-greatest-mysteries-of-scie...
"He set the stage for how algae had such an impact by describing an event called Snowball Earth which took place 700 million years ago. It resulted in Earth being completely frozen over for 50 million years. But once the ice started to melt, a tremendous amount of nutrients was released:
"'The Earth was frozen over for 50 million years. Huge glaciers ground entire mountain ranges to powder that released nutrients, and when the snow melted during an extreme global heating event rivers washed torrents of nutrients into the ocean," elaborated Brocks.
"The rush of nutrients and the cooling of global temperatures created the right conditions for the growth and rapid propagation of algae. The ocean was no longer just full of bacteria, moving towards hosting more complex life forms. This set of an evolutionary chain reaction that resulted in you and me.
"'These large and nutritious organisms at the base of the food web provided the burst of energy required for the evolution of complex ecosystems, where increasingly large and complex animals, including humans, could thrive on Earth," proposed Brocks.
"The research team's co-lead Dr. Amber Jarrett, who found the ancient rocks that were dated to just after the Snowball Earth period, called their discovery "ground-breaking" --
"'In these rocks we discovered striking signals of molecular fossils," said Dr Jarrett. "We immediately knew that we had made a ground-breaking discovery that snowball Earth was directly involved in the evolution of large and complex life.'"
Comment: the usual overblown description, which assumes evolution just plowed ahead once nutrition appeared. It does not tell us how multicellularity appeared, but certainly the event supplied nutrients.
Evolution: whales and hippos related?
by David Turell , Thursday, March 15, 2018, 00:09 (2228 days ago) @ David Turell
This hew paper claims they are through a common ancestor:
https://www.livescience.com/102-cousins-whales-hippos.html
"if the idea of whales being mammals has always seemed a bit wild, then you'll probably be surprised to learn that the giant aquatic beasts are pretty closely related to the hippopotamus.
"One theory had been that hippos were related to pigs. Yet mounting evidence suggested they are closer to whales. A new study concludes that a four-footed semi-aquatic mammal that thrived for some 40 million years was a common ancestor to both whales and hippos.
"'The problem with hippos is, if you look at the general shape of the animal it could be related to horses, as the ancient Greeks thought, or pigs, as modern scientists thought, while molecular phylogeny shows a close relationship with whales," said Jean-Renaud Boisserie, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of California, Berkeley. "But cetaceans - whales, porpoises and dolphins - don't look anything like hippos."
"To complicate matters, there is a 40-million-year gap between fossils of early cetaceans and early hippos.
"Boisserie and colleagues in France say they've filled in the gap with fossils of a "water-loving animal" that evolved into two groups, early cetaceans and a group of four-legged animals called anthracotheres. The pig-like anthracotheres, which developed at least 37 distinct genera, died out less than 2.5 million years ago, leaving only one line: the hippopotamus.
"The analysis puts whales within a large group of cloven-hoofed mammals called Artiodactyla.
"That makes them relatives of cows, pigs, sheep, antelopes, camels and giraffes, too.
"The idea of whales and hippos being related has gained steam in recent years. Boisserie's team analyzed new and previous hippo, whale and anthracothere fossils to pin down anthracotheres as the missing link between hippos and cetaceans, they say.
"'Our study is the most complete to date, including lots of different taxa and a lot of new characteristics," Boisserie said. But leaving the case not quite shut, he added: "Our results are very robust and a good alternative to our findings is still to be formulated.'"
Comment: Makes sense. Hippos live in water. Buy at least they had the sense to not true to imitate fish.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
by David Turell , Monday, March 26, 2018, 23:14 (2216 days ago) @ David Turell
Yes they are, but other aquatic mammals have other ancestors, and they all come with constraints:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180326152405.htm
"Anyone who has witnessed majestic whales or lumbering elephant seals in person would be forgiven for associating ocean life with unlimited size in mammals, but new research reveals that mammal growth is actually more constrained in water than on land.
***
"the group found that aquatic mammal size is bounded at the small end by the need to retain heat and at the large end by difficulties getting enough food to survive.
***
"Instead, the group found that aquatic mammal size is bounded at the small end by the need to retain heat and at the large end by difficulties getting enough food to survive. The group published their findings March 26 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"'Many people have viewed going into the water as more freeing for mammals, but what we're seeing is that it's actually more constraining," said co-author Jonathan Payne, a professor of geological sciences at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "It's not that water allows you to be a big mammal, it's that you have to be a big mammal in water -- you don't have any other options."
"Although mammals that live in water share a similarly oblong body shape, they are not closely related. Rather, seals and sea lions are closely related to dogs, manatees share ancestry with elephants, and whales and dolphins are related to hippos and other hoofed mammals.
***
"From this analysis, the group found that once land animals take to the water, they evolve very quickly toward their new size, converging at around 1,000 pounds. Smaller ancestors like dog relatives increased in size more than larger ancestors like hippos to reach that optimal weight, suggesting that bigger is better for aquatic life, but only up to a point. The group points out that otters, which took to the water more recently, don't follow that trend, perhaps because many otter species still live much of their lives on land.
***
"The group argues that the larger size helps aquatic mammals retain heat in water that's lower than body temperature. "When you're very small, you lose heat back into the water so fast, there's no way to eat enough food to keep up," Payne said.
"They also suggest that metabolism increases with size more than an animal's ability to gather food, putting a boundary on how big aquatic mammals can grow. "Basically, animals are machines that require energy to operate. This need for energy places hard limits on what animals can do and how big they can be," said McClain, who was a co-author on the study.
***
"If otters are the exception at the small end, baleen whales prove the exception at the larger size. These whales expend much less energy on feeding than their toothed counterparts because they filter all their food, which makes them more efficient and allows them to grow larger than toothed whales.
"'The sperm whale seems to be the largest you can get without a new adaptation," Gearty said.
"'The only way to get as big as a baleen whale is to completely change how you're eating.'"
Comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 14:40 (2215 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
dhw: This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
So you think land animals convert to aquatic environment with an easy change to their physiology. It is very difficult and requires many new designed systems.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
dhw: This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
DAVID: So you think land animals convert to aquatic environment with an easy change to their physiology. It is very difficult and requires many new designed systems.
I don’t remember saying it was easy. I find all of nature’s wonders wonderful. Not easy. I find human technology wonderful too, but a long, long way from being easy. It’s truly amazing what intelligent beings can come up with, and I do not believe intelligence is confined to humans. And if God exists, I do not believe it is beyond his powers to endow cell communities with the intelligence to engineer their own ways of coping with the environment.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 28, 2018, 15:09 (2214 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
dhw: This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
DAVID: So you think land animals convert to aquatic environment with an easy change to their physiology. It is very difficult and requires many new designed systems.
dhw: I don’t remember saying it was easy. I find all of nature’s wonders wonderful. Not easy. I find human technology wonderful too, but a long, long way from being easy. It’s truly amazing what intelligent beings can come up with, and I do not believe intelligence is confined to humans. And if God exists, I do not believe it is beyond his powers to endow cell communities with the intelligence to engineer their own ways of coping with the environment.
I agree with guidelines and help in design.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
dhw: This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
DAVID: So you think land animals convert to aquatic environment with an easy change to their physiology. It is very difficult and requires many new designed systems.
dhw: I don’t remember saying it was easy. I find all of nature’s wonders wonderful. Not easy. I find human technology wonderful too, but a long, long way from being easy. It’s truly amazing what intelligent beings can come up with, and I do not believe intelligence is confined to humans. And if God exists, I do not believe it is beyond his powers to endow cell communities with the intelligence to engineer their own ways of coping with the environment.
DAVID: I agree with guidelines and help in design.
If you insist that organisms cannot cope with their environment unless they have guidelines and help, you refuse to consider the possibility that your God gave them the autonomous means to cope with their environment. There is no agreement. And among other titbits for you to savour is that your God guided and helped bad bacteria and viruses to do their dirty deeds.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
by David Turell , Thursday, March 29, 2018, 15:18 (2213 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: This study supports my contention that this is a strange and difficult way to evolve with all the new reasons shown.
dhw: This study supports my contention that organisms work out their own ways of coping with the environment, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with in order to keep life going for the sake of the human brain.
DAVID: So you think land animals convert to aquatic environment with an easy change to their physiology. It is very difficult and requires many new designed systems.
dhw: I don’t remember saying it was easy. I find all of nature’s wonders wonderful. Not easy. I find human technology wonderful too, but a long, long way from being easy. It’s truly amazing what intelligent beings can come up with, and I do not believe intelligence is confined to humans. And if God exists, I do not believe it is beyond his powers to endow cell communities with the intelligence to engineer their own ways of coping with the environment.
DAVID: I agree with guidelines and help in design.
dhw: If you insist that organisms cannot cope with their environment unless they have guidelines and help, you refuse to consider the possibility that your God gave them the autonomous means to cope with their environment. There is no agreement. And among other titbits for you to savour is that your God guided and helped bad bacteria and viruses to do their dirty deeds.
You are following the religious line that God does only good things. That is certainly not true, as I discussed in my first book. Just understanding how dangerous a place is the universe gives evidence.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
dhw: If you insist that organisms cannot cope with their environment unless they have guidelines and help, you refuse to consider the possibility that your God gave them the autonomous means to cope with their environment. There is no agreement. And among other titbits for you to savour is that your God guided and helped bad bacteria and viruses to do their dirty deeds.
DAVID: You are following the religious line that God does only good things. That is certainly not true, as I discussed in my first book. Just understanding how dangerous a place is the universe gives evidence.
I'm not following any line. If you believe your God deliberately created "bad things", that's up to you. But you are the one who said it raised an issue you can't resolve. :
DAVID: under “bacterial intelligence” Another non-religious thought is God created a such a strong driving force to produce life on Earth with bacteria that viruses also appeared and in each group nasty ones popped up, that then had to be controlled. Raises the issue of whether God is under total control or just well-intended? I have no way of knowing.
dhw: […] So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.
DAVID: Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.
Dhw: So your God may have purposefully added bad viruses and bacteria, or he may have lost control, or he may have deliberately sacrificed control to let evolution take its own course (you left out that alternative). Evidence is not clear. You are prepared to consider the possibility that he did not HAVE total control, and yet you are not prepared to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.
That is the point at issue, and still you refuse to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.
Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships
by David Turell , Friday, March 30, 2018, 14:47 (2212 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.
Dhw: So your God may have purposefully added bad viruses and bacteria, or he may have lost control, or he may have deliberately sacrificed control to let evolution take its own course (you left out that alternative). Evidence is not clear. You are prepared to consider the possibility that he did not HAVE total control, and yet you are not prepared to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.
dhw: That is the point at issue, and still you refuse to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.
I have never thought He was not in full control. My statement of viruses as a 'side effect' certainly suggests the option that His control was not complete, but that has two interpretations: He did mean to lose total control or He didn't mean it. Om balance He demonstrates extraordinary purpose which still support full control.
Evolution: baleen whales once had teeth
by David Turell , Thursday, May 10, 2018, 20:24 (2171 days ago) @ David Turell
They came from toothed animals and now have baleen filters to use for feeding. they look like a venitian blind set of slats:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-skull-early-baleen-whale.html
"Today's baleen whales (Mysticetes) support their massive bodies by filtering huge volumes of small prey from seawater using comb-like baleen in their mouths much like a sieve. But new evidence reported in the journal Current Biology on May 10 based on careful analysis of a 34-million-year-old whale skull from Antarctica—the second-oldest "baleen" whale ever found—suggests that early whales actually didn't have baleen at all. Their mouths were equipped instead with well-developed gums and teeth, which they apparently used to bite large prey.
"'Llanocetus denticrenatus is an ancient relative of our modern gentle giants, like humpback and blue whales," says Felix Marx of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. "Unlike them, however, it had teeth, and probably was a formidable predator."
"'Until recently, it was thought that filter feeding first emerged when whales still had teeth," adds R. Ewan Fordyce at the University of Otago in New Zealand. "Llanocetus shows that this was not the case."
***
"'Instead of a filter, it seems that Llanocetus simply had large gums and, judging from the way its teeth are worn, mainly fed by biting large prey," Marx says. "Even so, it was huge: at a total body length of around 8 meters, it rivals some living whales in size."
"The findings suggest that large gums in whales like Llanocetus gradually became more complex over evolutionary time and, ultimately, gave rise to baleen. That transition probably happened only after the teeth had already been lost and whales had switched from biting to sucking in small prey—as many whales and dolphins now do. Marx and Fordyce suggest that baleen most likely arose as a way to keep such small prey inside the mouth more effectively.
***
"Soft tissues, including baleen, normally rot away, making it difficult to study their evolution. As a result, researchers must rely on indicators preserved on the bones, such as tell-tale grooves or lumps indicating the position of a muscle, or holes for the passage of particular blood vessels and nerves.
"'Llanocetus presents a lucky combination, where the shape of the bones, small features suggesting the course of soft tissues, and tooth wear all combine to tell a clear story," Fordyce says. "Crucially, Llanocetus is also extremely old and lived at the very time when Mysticetes first appeared. As such, it provides a rare window into the earliest phase of their evolution."
"In the new study, Fordyce and Marx found that the broad rostrum of Llanocetus had sharp, widely spaced teeth with marked tooth wear suggesting that they were used to bite and shear prey. As in living Mysticetes, the palate bears many grooves, which have commonly been interpreted as evidence for baleen. However, the researchers showed that those grooves instead converged on the bony tooth sockets, suggesting a peri-dental blood supply to well-developed gums, rather than racks of baleen.
"The findings show that the evolution of filter feeding wasn't as straightforward as previously thought, the researchers say. They'd now like to sort out when filter feeding and baleen first evolved.
"'The giants of our modern ocean may be gentle, but their ancestors were anything but," Marx says. "Llanocetus was both large and a ferocious predator and probably had little in common with how modern whales behave.'"
Comment: Another example of the enormous changes that had to occur to produce today's whales
Evolution: insect explosion much like the Cambrian
by David Turell , Monday, May 14, 2018, 21:00 (2167 days ago) @ David Turell
There is a million year gap in insect evolution with several types appearing all at once, just like the Cambrian, with no known precursors:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-insect-fossil-gap-explained/?utm_...
"Yet there are none whatsoever in the known fossil record between 385 million and 325 million years ago. The earliest known insect fossil is a 385-million-year-old wingless creature that looks like a silverfish. But for the next 60 million years there is not so much as a single dragonfly, grasshopper or roach.
"This so-called hexapod gap has long vexed paleontologists, given that insects today are found in almost every imaginable land habitat. One hypothesis suggests that chokingly low oxygen levels kept insect diversity from soaring during the gap and that these creatures proliferated only once the life-giving gas increased.
"But advances in the understanding of atmospheric oxygen levels are challenging that idea, explains Sandra Schachat, a paleoentomologist at Stanford University, who led a recent study that modeled the gas's availability during the hexapod gap. Atmospheric oxygen at the time was much higher than once believed, according to the research.
***
"Schachat and her team combed through fossil information from a public paleontology database and realized there was something special about many of the insect fossils that came after the gap: they had wings. This was likely the trait that helped hexapod diversity take off; winged insects can zip away from predators and get at otherwise unreachable foods such as leaves and other insects. “The gap is simply the tail end of a larger interval in which insects are very rare on the landscape because wings had not yet originated,” Schachat says.
"The mystery now bugging Schachat is how insect wings evolved at all; the earliest flying insects found after the gap seem to have already been very diverse. “The two very first winged insects that we have in the fossil record—they're about as different from each other as you could imagine,” she says. The origins of wings, then, must lie within the gap itself. Lurking somewhere in it, there may be undiscovered fossils that could reveal how insects became the first animals to take to the skies."
Comment: Evolutionary theory now faces three gaps: the Cambrian explosion, the insect gap and the plant bloom, all preceded by time intervals in which no obvious precursor is present. It is very obvious evolution was not a gradual process but very much proceeded in a staccato fashion.
Evolution: arriving on land
by David Turell , Saturday, June 02, 2018, 18:39 (2148 days ago) @ David Turell
The mass Devonian extinction in the oceans may have driven partially air-breathing animals onto land by using estuaries:
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-stable-isotopes-earliest-tetrapods-euryhaline.html
"A team of researchers from several institutions in France and China has found evidence that some of the earliest creatures to walk on land likely emerged from estuaries or deltas. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes studying certain stable isotopes in fossil specimens to determine the salinity in which they lived.
"Back in 1929, a team of researchers discovered the fossilized remains of Ichthyostega, a tetrapod that was believed to be among the first creatures to walk on land. Since that time, similar types of remains have been found in places like Greenland and China. Study has shown the creatures were able to live both on land and in water—they had four legs, tails for swimming and gills. But until now, scientists reported difficulty in figuring out if the water they came from was fresh or salty (suggesting an ocean existence). In this new effort, the researchers tested 51 ancient fossilized tetrapod bones as a new way to find the answer to this question.
"The team studied sulfur and oxygen isotopes. Seawater has more sulfur-34 compared to sulfur-32 than freshwater. Since both wind up in the bones of creatures that live in water, the researchers studied the ratios in the fossilized bones. They found that the ratios fell closer to seawater. But in studying oxygen isotopes, they found that the creatures were also exposed to freshwater. The evidence suggests that the tetrapods lived part of the time in seawater and part of the time in freshwater. Such places today include estuaries and river deltas. To further bolster their theory, they tested modern creatures that live in such places and found a near match.
"Adding to the story, the fossilized remains have been dated back to approximately 365 million years ago, which was towards the end of the Devonian Period—just prior to the mass extinction of ocean dwelling creatures. The ability to live in both fresh water and sea water, the researchers note, would have given the tetrapods a leg up, so to speak—they would have been able to survive in both types of water and sometimes on land. "
Comment: why did seagoing animals have the ability to breath air in advance of the mass extinction? Good ,luck or God?
Evolution: arriving on land
DAVID’s comment: why did seagoing animals have the ability to breath air in advance of the mass extinction? Good luck or God?
Those that had already ventured onto land had already adapted to life out of the water, and those that hadn’t adapted went extinct. Sounds perfectly natural to me.
Evolution: arriving on land
by David Turell , Sunday, June 03, 2018, 18:46 (2147 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: why did seagoing animals have the ability to breath air in advance of the mass extinction? Good luck or God?
dhw: Those that had already ventured onto land had already adapted to life out of the water, and those that hadn’t adapted went extinct. Sounds perfectly natural to me.
You are assuming an advanced adaptation. Either an air bladder or rudimentary lungs must be available to stay awhile on land. How does adaptation occur in such an unfriendly environment? Multiple beneficial mutations are necessary. Not by chance.
Evolution: arriving on land
DAVID’s comment: why did seagoing animals have the ability to breath air in advance of the mass extinction? Good luck or God?
dhw: Those that had already ventured onto land had already adapted to life out of the water, and those that hadn’t adapted went extinct. Sounds perfectly natural to me.
DAVID: You are assuming an advanced adaptation. Either an air bladder or rudimentary lungs must be available to stay awhile on land. How does adaptation occur in such an unfriendly environment? Multiple beneficial mutations are necessary. Not by chance.
But these adaptations DID occur! And I am not saying they occurred by chance! And I keep repeating that all the cell communities of which organisms are composed must cooperate to enable such adaptations to occur. In most cases, the cell communities are incapable of mastering the “unfriendly environment”, and so they go extinct. According to you, your God either forecast each environmental change 3.8 billion years ago and provided a computer programme for 1% of organisms to switch on and be saved, or he said to himself: “Whoops, looks like there’s a mass extinction on the way. I’d better fiddle with a few critters so they can carry on breathing. Otherwise, life won’t survive until I’m able to design the sapiens brain.” But you have the right to believe what you will.
Evolution: arriving on land
by David Turell , Monday, June 04, 2018, 14:15 (2146 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: why did seagoing animals have the ability to breath air in advance of the mass extinction? Good luck or God?
dhw: Those that had already ventured onto land had already adapted to life out of the water, and those that hadn’t adapted went extinct. Sounds perfectly natural to me.
DAVID: You are assuming an advanced adaptation. Either an air bladder or rudimentary lungs must be available to stay awhile on land. How does adaptation occur in such an unfriendly environment? Multiple beneficial mutations are necessary. Not by chance.
dhw: But these adaptations DID occur! And I am not saying they occurred by chance! And I keep repeating that all the cell communities of which organisms are composed must cooperate to enable such adaptations to occur. In most cases, the cell communities are incapable of mastering the “unfriendly environment”, and so they go extinct. According to you, your God either forecast each environmental change 3.8 billion years ago and provided a computer programme for 1% of organisms to switch on and be saved, or he said to himself: “Whoops, looks like there’s a mass extinction on the way. I’d better fiddle with a few critters so they can carry on breathing. Otherwise, life won’t survive until I’m able to design the sapiens brain.” But you have the right to believe what you will.
Of course adaptations occurred. I have my thoughts and keep debating the one's you have a right to have.
Evolution: storm induced natural selection
by David Turell , Thursday, July 26, 2018, 21:12 (2094 days ago) @ David Turell
Studies of tree lizards after severe hurricanes shows how variation helps survival:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180726090037.htm
" biologists at Washington University in St. Louis have published a first-of-its-kind look at the physical characteristics of lizards that seem to make the difference between life and death in a hurricane,
***
"The team spent two days collecting just shy of 100 lizards on two separate islands, then measured their forelimbs, hindlimbs and core body lengths, and took pictures of their toe pads.
"The vital statistics of the survivors could be compared with the measurements of the general lizard population that had been collected before the storm.
"'The prediction was that if we saw any changes, they would be changes in the features that help lizards hold on -- they would be related to clinging ability," Donihue said. "For example, the sticky toe pads on their fingers and toes, maybe they would be larger."
"Comparing lizards collected before and after the storm, the researchers found that the survivor populations on both islands had larger toe pads on both their forelimbs and hindlimbs.
"The survivors had proportionately longer fore legs than the initial/pre-hurricane population, while the long bones in between their hips and knees on their back legs (their femurs) were shorter. The survivor population had smaller bodies, too. The observations were statistically significant and consistent at both island sites.
***
"The missing piece of the story is still a behavioral one. Researchers don't know what lizards actually do in the middle of a hurricane. Do they abandon their typical tree perches and go to the ground? Or do they try to seek cover in notches or crevices within the trees? Or do they just hang on?
"A pilot study exploring wind threshold provides some insight into this aspect of the lizard decision-making process.
"When the researchers exposed lizards from the survivor population to hurricane-force winds, the lizards almost uniformly swiveled around their perches to the side opposite from the wind source -- and just held on tight. As wind speeds increased, they lost hold with their hindlimbs first, and were left hanging by their forelimbs.
"It appears that lizards are built to cling, but because of their stance on the perch, their big hindlimbs make them vulnerable to getting pushed off by high winds. This could explain the pattern that survivor lizards have longer forelimbs and shorter hindlimbs after a hurricane, the researchers speculate."
Comment: This is just the result one would expect. We know populations vary and in this case the expected variation survived. A clear picture of the theory of variation and survival..
Evolution: first vertebrate bone structure
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 14:53 (2089 days ago) @ David Turell
Earliest form is analyzed and contains collagen like our bone now:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/boning-up-on-early-skeletons
"Palaeontologists have identified the oldest known form of bone, solving a 160-year-old mystery about the evolution of the human skeleton.
"Led by Joseph Keating from the University of Manchester in the UK, a team of researchers used high-energy X-rays to examine the fossilised skeletons of one of our oldest vertebrate relatives: ancient fish called heterostracans.
"The fish skeletons are made of aspidin, a tissue with a structure of crisscrossing tubes. Unlike anything found in modern vertebrates, it was thought to be a precursor to bones as we know them today.
“'For 160 years, scientists have wondered if aspidin is a transitional stage in the evolution of mineralised tissues,” explains Keating.
"Now, new findings published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution reveal that the tiny tubes are in fact openings that formerly held bundles of collagen, a type of protein found in skin and – critically – bones.
"The discovery places the origin of the vertebrate skeleton at an earlier date than previously assumed.
“'We show that [aspidin] is, in fact, a type of bone, and that all these tissues must have evolved millions of years earlier,” says co-author Phil Donoghue from the University of Bristol, UK.
Heterostracans are an extinct group of jawless fish that inhabited salt and fresh water habitats during the early to middle Palaeozoic era some 440 to 359 million years ago. In comparison, flowering plants appear in the fossil record around 140 million years ago, and modern humans just 200,000 years ago.
“'These findings change our view on the evolution of the skeleton,” says Donoghue."
Original article abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0624-1
"Bone is the key innovation underpinning the evolution of the vertebrate skeleton, yet its origin is mired by debate over interpretation of the most primitive bone-like tissue, aspidin. This has variously been interpreted as cellular bone, acellular bone, dentine or an intermediate of dentine and bone. The crux of the controversy is the nature of unmineralized spaces pervading the aspidin matrix, which have alternatively been interpreted as having housed cells, cell processes or Sharpey’s fibres. Discriminating between these hypotheses has been hindered by the limits of traditional histological methods. Here, we use synchrotron X-ray tomographic microscopy to reveal the nature of aspidin. We show that the spaces exhibit a linear morphology incompatible with interpretations that they represent voids left by cells or cell processes. Instead, these spaces represent intrinsic collagen fibre bundles that form a scaffold about which mineral was deposited. Aspidin is thus acellular dermal bone. We reject hypotheses that it is a type of dentine, cellular bone or transitional tissue. Our study suggests that the full repertoire of skeletal tissue types was established before the divergence of the earliest known skeletonizing vertebrates, indicating that the corresponding cell types evolved rapidly following the divergence of cyclostomes and gnathostomes."
Comment: Again punctuated evolution. A needed advance appears full blown. Only design fits.
Evolution: hummingbird evolution has gaps
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 18:35 (2089 days ago) @ David Turell
Now they are only in the Western Hemisphere, but they originated in the Eastern:
https://www.audubon.org/news/the-origins-hummingbirds-are-still-major-mystery
"Hummingbirds come in a jewel-like assortment of colors and are so dexterous, they can hover still for seconds and fly backward. They also have one of the most diverse avian families in the world, boasting about 350 known species across North and South America. Sunbirds, the prime nectar-feeding birds of the Old World, have fewer than 150.
"But once upon a time, tens of millions of years ago, hummingbirds did zip around the hills and forests of Europe. According to Jim McGuire, it all started about 42 million years ago, when hummingbirds broke away from the swifts, their closest living relatives. McGuire, an integrative biologist at University of California Berkeley, calculated this date by examining genetic variation across living hummingbird species and using that information to piece together an approximate evolutionary timeline.
"The plot, McGuire says, thickens at the 30- to 35-million-year mark. The oldest hummingbird fossils we’ve discovered come from this period—but they aren’t American. Instead, they were unearthed in southeastern Germany.
***
"Modern hummingbirds evolved in the Americas around 22 million years ago, according to McGuire’s estimates, but we don’t have any fossils from the West that are older than 10,000 years ago. “We basically have no fossil material we can use” in the New World to figure out how to connect the dots, says McGuire.
"Modern hummingbirds evolved in the Americas around 22 million years ago, according to McGuire’s estimates, but we don’t have any fossils from the West that are older than 10,000 years ago. “We basically have no fossil material we can use” in the New World to figure out how to connect the dots, says McGuire.
***
"Until scientists discover more fossils on both sides of the Atlantic, the hummingbird mystery is a tough one to solve. But what we do know about hummingbird evolution so far is fascinating. “Hummingbirds can be very resource-specific in terms of their needs; they evolve relatively quickly into actual separate species that look similar and have different needs and genetics,” says Geoff LeBaron, the Christmas Bird Count director for Audubon."
Comment: They had to migrate somehow.
Evolution: storm induced natural selection
by David Turell , Monday, April 27, 2020, 21:28 (1453 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study supports the relationship of big lizard pads and Caribbean hurricanes which we mentioned before:
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-hurricanes-evolution-island-lizards.html
"Lizard groups that more frequently experience hurricanes evolve larger toepads than those that experience relatively fewer hurricanes, according to a new analysis that spans 12 island populations of Anolis sagrei lizards and, separately, 188 Anolis species with ranges from Florida to Brazil.
"Scientists have known for a long time that lizards on the Caribbean islands have larger toepads than those on the mainland. But this physical difference has never been definitively linked to an evolutionary response to hurricanes. Hurricanes happen so infrequently that researchers used to think their effects would be erased by natural selection favoring normal conditions.
"'What we found is that hurricanes actually do have evolutionary effects on lizards that span both geographic and phylogenetic scales," said Colin Donihue, a postdoctoral fellow in biology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University. "We showed that hurricanes affect a single anole species in Turks & Caicos, and those effects are likely inherited to the next generation—suggesting an evolutionary change. The effects are paralleled across 12 island populations of a different anole species, and ultimately can be detected across an entire genus of very distantly related anole lizards."
***
"'Correcting for things like differences in body size, we found that island populations that had been hit by hurricanes more [frequently] had larger toepads," Donihue said. "Hurricanes seem to be having some sort of additive effect on the evolution of these lizards—that the more hurricanes you have, the larger toepads you have, on average."
"'Toepads might be a key trait for helping lizards hold on tight to the vegetation during storms," he said. "But there's probably a tradeoff between the traits that make you really good at surviving a hurricane and the traits that make you really good at being a lizard day in, day out."
Comment: It seems like a good theory. Bigger pads will hold on better in high wind speed and natural variation will allow those with bigger pads to survive.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 22:32 (2074 days ago) @ David Turell
A neat view parallel to my feelings:
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/inexplicable-species-and-the-theory-of-evolution/
"Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time. We now delve into the cellular level comparing chemical processes, electrical charges, and genetic differences. It seems to be a secret, but researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians. Note there are no half-fish/half-salamanders or one-third monkey/two-thirds humans, ever.
"Upon close inspection, the absence of transitions (smaller steps) is striking. We should be up to our collective elbows with transitional species that once came about by trial and error, and failed to survive. Not so. Even for whales, the largest animal alive. We’ve been told repeatedly that transitional forms will eventually be found, but that hasn’t happened and the problems are steadily increasing in our awareness. Saying that two fossils with similar appearances, yet found thousands of miles apart, are related, begs the question.
"Some whales can grow up to 100 feet long and weigh 200 tons. The rib cage of a blue whale is large enough to accommodate a minivan or small truck. Their hearts are the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. Every aspect is so massive. A few fossilized bones from their putative predecessors have been found. But the story is still mysterious, because of the changes required.
***
" Some modern paleontologists say the whale’s ancestor must be the hippopotamus. Maybe because they are mammals and linger in the water most of their lives? But, otherwise they are strikingly (impossibly) different. Other coastal animals, that are now extinct, are also cited, but none of them could survive a day or two at sea. Of interest, the whale’s tail moves up and down, not sideways like fish. And, whales never had scales.
"No one knows how blow holes came about, certainly not by small successive steps, or how the internal lungs became connected up to these holes in a way that prevents drowning. Or, how a massive communication center, found in their heads, came about. Or, how the ability to depressurize body segments during deep dives evolved. Calves are born tail first (they cannot go head first in case the process is too slow) and these newborns must rise to the surface immediately for air or else they will drown. The ability to swim must be present from the beginning. Trial and error would never have worked."
Comment: Exactly! And yet dhw tries to claim the animals entered the water and adapted, just to follow a food supply!
Evolution: whales defy explanation
DAVID: A neat view parallel to my feelings:
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/inexplicable-species-and-the-theory-of-evolution/
Just a couple of quotes to get the general gist:
"Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time. […] researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians.”
“A few fossilized bones from their putative predecessors have been found. But the story is still mysterious, because of the changes required.”
DAVID’s comment: Exactly! And yet dhw tries to claim the animals entered the water and adapted, just to follow a food supply!
Yes, I consider the theory that the animals had a good reason for entering the water, and then underwent different stages of adaptation, to be more convincing than your theory that your God either preprogrammed each stage 3.8 billion years ago, or fiddled with the pre-whales’ anatomy before sending them into the water, and then went on fiddling with their anatomy at the different stages you yourself have agreed took place. (Or are you now rejecting this example of common descent?) Perhaps you would just confirm that these are your two possible theories, and while you’re at it give us your own explanation as to WHY your God did it all in stages.
The article concludes:
Whales are not the only misfit to smooth transitions, just the largest. The number of exceptions may actually be equal to the number of species on this planet. Standouts are kangaroos, woodpeckers, platypuses, giraffes, butterflies, octopuses, skunks, bombardier beetles, the red tide, dolphins, fireflies, tardigrades, sloths, and all micro-organisms. Maybe viruses, too.
Something besides unguided evolution is going on. In actuality, all living organisms are likely exceptions. Just breeding a horse into a faster horse doesn’t eventually change it into something fast like a cheetah. It’s simply a faster horse. The same goes for pet dogs to guard dogs. It’s true, natural selection does happen in a variety of situations, but it doesn’t change a species into another.
An incomprehensibly intelligent engineer and designer must be responsible.
If all living organisms are likely exceptions, the author is rejecting common descent altogether. And yet there is sufficient evidence to have convinced you that common descent is true, so in what way is his "neat view" parallel to your feelings? He certainly hasn’t specified that he believes in your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programmes or even your dabbling. He merely falls back on the generalisation that speciation requires design – and both of us agree. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that’s why there are different theories. All three of us reject random mutations. You propose divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God). The author doesn’t offer us any theory at all. So where does that leave us? Since there is no consensus, “the story is still mysterious”, and if there weren’t gaps in all the theories, one of them would be fact and not theory.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 16, 2018, 12:41 (2073 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: If all living organisms are likely exceptions, the author is rejecting common descent altogether. And yet there is sufficient evidence to have convinced you that common descent is true, so in what way is his "neat view" parallel to your feelings? He certainly hasn’t specified that he believes in your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programmes or even your dabbling. He merely falls back on the generalisation that speciation requires design – and both of us agree. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that’s why there are different theories. All three of us reject random mutations. You propose divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God). The author doesn’t offer us any theory at all. So where does that leave us? Since there is no consensus, “the story is still mysterious”, and if there weren’t gaps in all the theories, one of them would be fact and not theory.
Note the authors comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and the implications for the two theories you mention here.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by David Turell , Thursday, August 16, 2018, 14:22 (2073 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: If all living organisms are likely exceptions, the author is rejecting common descent altogether. And yet there is sufficient evidence to have convinced you that common descent is true, so in what way is his "neat view" parallel to your feelings? He certainly hasn’t specified that he believes in your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programmes or even your dabbling. He merely falls back on the generalisation that speciation requires design – and both of us agree. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that’s why there are different theories. All three of us reject random mutations. You propose divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God). The author doesn’t offer us any theory at all. So where does that leave us? Since there is no consensus, “the story is still mysterious”, and if there weren’t gaps in all the theories, one of them would be fact and not theory.
Tony: Note the authors comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and the implications for the two theories you mention here.
If whales require design, there must be a designing mind to foresee all the reasons for the complex changes. On-board cells couldn't possibly have reasonably inventive ideas.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by David Turell , Thursday, August 16, 2018, 17:49 (2073 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: Exactly! And yet dhw tries to claim the animals entered the water and adapted, just to follow a food supply!
dhw: Yes, I consider the theory that the animals had a good reason for entering the water, and then underwent different stages of adaptation, to be more convincing than your theory that your God either preprogrammed each stage 3.8 billion years ago, or fiddled with the pre-whales’ anatomy before sending them into the water, and then went on fiddling with their anatomy at the different stages you yourself have agreed took place. (Or are you now rejecting this example of common descent?) Perhaps you would just confirm that these are your two possible theories, and while you’re at it give us your own explanation as to WHY your God did it all in stages.
Common descent dictates the whales came from some predecessor. We are not sure which one because there are no intermediate forms as the article notes. Your faith in cellular intelligence able to design complex stages of whale descent more than equals any faith in a designing mind.
dhw: The article concludes:Whales are not the only misfit to smooth transitions, just the largest. The number of exceptions may actually be equal to the number of species on this planet. Standouts are kangaroos, woodpeckers, platypuses, giraffes, butterflies, octopuses, skunks, bombardier beetles, the red tide, dolphins, fireflies, tardigrades, sloths, and all micro-organisms. Maybe viruses, too.
Something besides unguided evolution is going on. In actuality, all living organisms are likely exceptions. Just breeding a horse into a faster horse doesn’t eventually change it into something fast like a cheetah. It’s simply a faster horse. The same goes for pet dogs to guard dogs. It’s true, natural selection does happen in a variety of situations, but it doesn’t change a species into another.
An incomprehensibly intelligent engineer and designer must be responsible.If all living organisms are likely exceptions, the author is rejecting common descent altogether. And yet there is sufficient evidence to have convinced you that common descent is true, so in what way is his "neat view" parallel to your feelings? He certainly hasn’t specified that he believes in your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programmes or even your dabbling. He merely falls back on the generalisation that speciation requires design – and both of us agree. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that’s why there are different theories. All three of us reject random mutations. You propose divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God). The author doesn’t offer us any theory at all. So where does that leave us? Since there is no consensus, “the story is still mysterious”, and if there weren’t gaps in all the theories, one of them would be fact and not theory.
This is just the reason I've always bring up whales. They defy any naturally-based theory.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by David Turell , Thursday, August 16, 2018, 19:46 (2073 days ago) @ David Turell
It uses the same iron protein complex as the plant:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-herbivore-hijacks-nutrient-uptake-strategy.html
"Christelle Robert and Matthias Erb from the University of Bern had shown in the past that the corn rootworm is resistant to the most important class of maize defense metabolites, the benzoxazinoids. Robert demonstrated that rootworm larvae are even attracted by benzoxazinoids and can use these substances for their own defense against beneficial nematodes. However, until now, it was unclear which benzoxazinoids attract the rootworm. A combination of genetics, chemistry and behavioral ecology has now enabled the scientists to solve this puzzle: Rootworm larvae recognize specific iron complexes that are formed at the root surface when benzoxazinoids bind to iron.
***
"The roots of young maize plants release benzoxazinoids, which bind to iron and form complexes in the soil. The researchers found that these complexes increase iron availability for maize plants and thus improve plant growth. But the rootworm uses these exact same iron complexes too—rootworm larvae use the benzoxazinoid-iron complexes to guide them to the nutrient-rich crown roots of maize plants. At the same time, they ingest these complexes for their own needs.
"'The corn rootworm has evolved a clever strategy to exploit its host plant's ability to make iron biologically available. Tragically, this strategy enables the insect to severely damage maize plants and thereby cause massive crop failure," says Christelle Robert. "This behavior also poses a dilemma for plant breeders. In order to get rid of rootworms, they would have to reduce the release of benzoxazinoids in the roots. However, this would also undermine the plants' ability to absorb iron.
***
"The results of the study highlight the dilemma faced by plants when an herbivore breaks through and evolves tolerance to a defense. "Since benzoxazinoids function both in herbivore defense and nutrient uptake, it is difficult for the plant to immediately stop producing a defense compound that has so many other important functions.
***
" The fact that the Western corn rootworm is able to perceive iron complexes and to adjust its dietary behavior accordingly is also relevant for the understanding of food chains. "Many important trace elements are bound to organic molecules in nature. We therefore expect that other higher organisms also have the ability to perceive biologically available forms of trace elements and to ingest them to improve their nutrient balance," says Matthias Erb. "The Western corn rootworm is a frustrating, yet highly fascinating pest that has just taught us a new trick of nature.'"
Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 17, 2018, 01:24 (2072 days ago) @ David Turell
It uses the same iron protein complex as the plant:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-herbivore-hijacks-nutrient-uptake-strategy.html
"Christelle Robert and Matthias Erb from the University of Bern had shown in the past that the corn rootworm is resistant to the most important class of maize defense metabolites, the benzoxazinoids. Robert demonstrated that rootworm larvae are even attracted by benzoxazinoids and can use these substances for their own defense against beneficial nematodes. However, until now, it was unclear which benzoxazinoids attract the rootworm. A combination of genetics, chemistry and behavioral ecology has now enabled the scientists to solve this puzzle: Rootworm larvae recognize specific iron complexes that are formed at the root surface when benzoxazinoids bind to iron.
***
"The roots of young maize plants release benzoxazinoids, which bind to iron and form complexes in the soil. The researchers found that these complexes increase iron availability for maize plants and thus improve plant growth. But the rootworm uses these exact same iron complexes too—rootworm larvae use the benzoxazinoid-iron complexes to guide them to the nutrient-rich crown roots of maize plants. At the same time, they ingest these complexes for their own needs.
"'The corn rootworm has evolved a clever strategy to exploit its host plant's ability to make iron biologically available. Tragically, this strategy enables the insect to severely damage maize plants and thereby cause massive crop failure," says Christelle Robert. "This behavior also poses a dilemma for plant breeders. In order to get rid of rootworms, they would have to reduce the release of benzoxazinoids in the roots. However, this would also undermine the plants' ability to absorb iron.
***
"The results of the study highlight the dilemma faced by plants when an herbivore breaks through and evolves tolerance to a defense. "Since benzoxazinoids function both in herbivore defense and nutrient uptake, it is difficult for the plant to immediately stop producing a defense compound that has so many other important functions.
***
" The fact that the Western corn rootworm is able to perceive iron complexes and to adjust its dietary behavior accordingly is also relevant for the understanding of food chains. "Many important trace elements are bound to organic molecules in nature. We therefore expect that other higher organisms also have the ability to perceive biologically available forms of trace elements and to ingest them to improve their nutrient balance," says Matthias Erb. "The Western corn rootworm is a frustrating, yet highly fascinating pest that has just taught us a new trick of nature.'"
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.
Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, August 17, 2018, 15:15 (2072 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
" The fact that the Western corn rootworm is able to perceive iron complexes and to adjust its dietary behavior accordingly is also relevant for the understanding of food chains. "Many important trace elements are bound to organic molecules in nature. We therefore expect that other higher organisms also have the ability to perceive biologically available forms of trace elements and to ingest them to improve their nutrient balance," says Matthias Erb. "The Western corn rootworm is a frustrating, yet highly fascinating pest that has just taught us a new trick of nature.'"
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 17, 2018, 18:44 (2072 days ago) @ David Turell
" The fact that the Western corn rootworm is able to perceive iron complexes and to adjust its dietary behavior accordingly is also relevant for the understanding of food chains. "Many important trace elements are bound to organic molecules in nature. We therefore expect that other higher organisms also have the ability to perceive biologically available forms of trace elements and to ingest them to improve their nutrient balance," says Matthias Erb. "The Western corn rootworm is a frustrating, yet highly fascinating pest that has just taught us a new trick of nature.'"
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, August 17, 2018, 19:31 (2072 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Tony: There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
As for humans with iron-deficiency anemia they know they have lost energy, but they need a doctor to tell them to take iron. Less complex organisms must have recognition programs or they might not survive.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 17, 2018, 21:18 (2072 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Tony: There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
David: As for humans with iron-deficiency anemia they know they have lost energy, but they need a doctor to tell them to take iron. Less complex organisms must have recognition programs or they might not survive.
Then why do so many anemics crunch ice, or sensitivity to cooler temperatures? Not conciously recognizing the signals is not evidence of abscence.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by David Turell , Friday, August 17, 2018, 21:58 (2072 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Tony: There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
David: As for humans with iron-deficiency anemia they know they have lost energy, but they need a doctor to tell them to take iron. Less complex organisms must have recognition programs or they might not survive.
Tony: then why do so many anemics crunch ice, or sensitivity to cooler temperatures? Not conciously recognizing the signals is not evidence of abscence.
Never heard of ice crunching, but think blood makes it harder to keep warm.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 18, 2018, 06:16 (2071 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Tony: There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
David: As for humans with iron-deficiency anemia they know they have lost energy, but they need a doctor to tell them to take iron. Less complex organisms must have recognition programs or they might not survive.
Tony: then why do so many anemics crunch ice, or sensitivity to cooler temperatures? Not conciously recognizing the signals is not evidence of abscence.
David: Never heard of ice crunching, but think blood makes it harder to keep warm.
Craving and chewing ice (pagophagia) is often associated with iron deficiency, with or without anemia, although the reason is unclear. At least one study indicates that ice chewing might increase alertness in people with iron deficiency anemia.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: corn plant pest adaptation
by David Turell , Saturday, August 18, 2018, 15:04 (2071 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Tony: I am not so sure this is an 'adaptation'. If you consider that the root worm was programmed this way initially, but that corn was not really grown the way that we grow it today (in huge....huge..unbelievably huge) farms, then the most likely scenario is that this pre-existing trait is pestulant because the amount of iron released from the corn (and subsequently replenished by farmers through fertilizer) has led to a population control problem.Why would we find it surprising that animals are programmed for certain nutrient needs, and the methods of obtaining/tracking them? No one thinks it odd that mammals smell.
David: Ah, programming! All organisms need trace metals. Our hemoglobin with iron comes to mind. A nd the needs should be common.
Tony: There should also be common ways to find/detect those nutrients, as well as signalling paths that let us know we are deficient(thus triggering cravings)
David: As for humans with iron-deficiency anemia they know they have lost energy, but they need a doctor to tell them to take iron. Less complex organisms must have recognition programs or they might not survive.
Tony: then why do so many anemics crunch ice, or sensitivity to cooler temperatures? Not conciously recognizing the signals is not evidence of abscence.
David: Never heard of ice crunching, but thin blood makes it harder to keep warm.
Tony: PicaCraving and chewing ice (pagophagia) is often associated with iron deficiency, with or without anemia, although the reason is unclear. At least one study indicates that ice chewing might increase alertness in people with iron deficiency anemia.
Learning all the time. Great trivia.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
dhw: NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that’s why there are different theories. All three of us reject random mutations. You propose divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God). The author doesn’t offer us any theory at all. So where does that leave us? Since there is no consensus, “the story is still mysterious”, and if there weren’t gaps in all the theories, one of them would be fact and not theory.
DAVID: This is just the reason I've always bring up whales. They defy any naturally-based theory.
They also defy any supernaturally-based theory, as does the whole of evolution. You need faith to believe in any of the explanations offered.
TONY: Note the authors comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and the implications for the two theories you mention here.
There are several transitional fossils. Here is a website that traces the history:
The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution
www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
But of course that doesn’t explain what mechanism enables organisms to undergo such radical changes. Starting out from the basic premise of design, which is common to the two theories I have mentioned, please tell us your own theory.
DAVID: If whales require design, there must be a designing mind to foresee all the reasons for the complex changes. On-board cells couldn't possibly have reasonably inventive ideas.
Once again you insist that all the changes had to be foreseen, with your God initially fiddling with the anatomy before the pre-whale even entered the water. (Presumably the subsequent fiddles came after the pre-whale had entered the water. Did he realize bit by bit that his design could be improved?) My proposal is that the pre-whale had good reason to enter the water (food), and all the subsequent changes were made to improve its adaptation to aquatic life. Not foreseeing problems but reacting to problems.
DAVID: Your faith in cellular intelligence able to design complex stages of whale descent more than equals any faith in a designing mind.
It is a hypothesis not a faith, but if I had faith in a designing mind, I would have faith that the designing mind is perfectly capable of designing other designing minds in the form of cells/cell communities. We know that these adapt.*** The idea that they may also invent provides an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of life as we know it. The idea that your God personally preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago seems to me less likely as an explanation of that higgledy-piggledy history.
***Under “CORN PLANT PEST ADAPTATION”
DAVID’s comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
Yes indeed. It is amazing how even little larvae can work out their own ways to improve their chances of survival.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by David Turell , Friday, August 17, 2018, 15:26 (2072 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is just the reason I've always bring up whales. They defy any naturally-based theory.
They also defy any supernaturally-based theory, as does the whole of evolution. You need faith to believe in any of the explanations offered.
TONY: Note the authors comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and the implications for the two theories you mention here.
dhw: There are several transitional fossils. Here is a website that traces the history:
The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution
www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03But of course that doesn’t explain what mechanism enables organisms to undergo such radical changes. Starting out from the basic premise of design, which is common to the two theories I have mentioned, please tell us your own theory.
Thank you. 'Radical change' is the issue, and the requirement for design! The first orbiting humans were in a capsule that required much consideration aforethought before it was created. Note that whale changes are certainly a biological equivalent.
DAVID: If whales require design, there must be a designing mind to foresee all the reasons for the complex changes. On-board cells couldn't possibly have reasonably inventive ideas.dhw: Once again you insist that all the changes had to be foreseen, with your God initially fiddling with the anatomy before the pre-whale even entered the water. (Presumably the subsequent fiddles came after the pre-whale had entered the water. Did he realize bit by bit that his design could be improved?) My proposal is that the pre-whale had good reason to enter the water (food), and all the subsequent changes were made to improve its adaptation to aquatic life. Not foreseeing problems but reacting to problems.
But the fossil show giant changes, not explained by your just-so story.
DAVID: Your faith in cellular intelligence able to design complex stages of whale descent more than equals any faith in a designing mind.dhw: It is a hypothesis not a faith, but if I had faith in a designing mind, I would have faith that the designing mind is perfectly capable of designing other designing minds in the form of cells/cell communities. We know that these adapt.*** The idea that they may also invent provides an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of life as we know it. The idea that your God personally preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago seems to me less likely as an explanation of that higgledy-piggledy history.
You stick to it just as if it were faith.
***Under “CORN PLANT PEST ADAPTATION”
DAVID’s comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.dhw: Yes indeed. It is amazing how even little larvae can work out their own ways to improve their chances of survival.
Note Tony's programming comment.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
TONY: Note the authors comment on the lack of transitional fossils, and the implications for the two theories you mention here.
dhw: There are several transitional fossils. Here is a website that traces the history:
The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution
www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
But of course that doesn’t explain what mechanism enables organisms to undergo such radical changes. Starting out from the basic premise of design, which is common to the two theories I have mentioned, please tell us your own theory.
DAVID: Thank you. 'Radical change' is the issue, and the requirement for design! The first orbiting humans were in a capsule that required much consideration aforethought before it was created. Note that whale changes are certainly a biological equivalent.
I keep saying radical change is the issue, and I keep acknowledging the need for design, but not the kind of preprogrammed or dabbled design you propose. I suggest that if your God can invent a mechanism for human invention, he could also invent a mechanism for invention by other life forms.
DAVID: If whales require design, there must be a designing mind to foresee all the reasons for the complex changes. On-board cells couldn't possibly have reasonably inventive ideas.
dhw: Once again you insist that all the changes had to be foreseen, with your God initially fiddling with the anatomy before the pre-whale even entered the water. (Presumably the subsequent fiddles came after the pre-whale had entered the water. Did he realize bit by bit that his design could be improved?) My proposal is that the pre-whale had good reason to enter the water (food), and all the subsequent changes were made to improve its adaptation to aquatic life. Not foreseeing problems but reacting to problems.
DAVID: But the fossil show giant changes, not explained by your just-so story.
There is as yet no universally accepted story of any kind to explain giant changes, but that is no answer to my point that my hypothesis is based mainly on responses to environmental conditions and therefore NOT on foresight. I note that you do not answer my question concerning your God’s “foresight” in relation to the different stages of pre-whale evolution. Dismissing my hypothesis as a just-so story is on the same level as dismissing God as a delusion. Not a level I would wish to stay on.
***Under “CORN PLANT PEST ADAPTATION”
DAVID’s comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.
dhw: Yes indeed. It is amazing how even little larvae can work out their own ways to improve their chances of survival.
DAVID: Note Tony's programming comment.
I preferred your own “the larvae worked it out” comment. Delighted to have you on my side at last.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
by David Turell , Saturday, August 18, 2018, 15:25 (2071 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But the fossil show giant changes, not explained by your just-so story.
dhw: There is as yet no universally accepted story of any kind to explain giant changes, but that is no answer to my point that my hypothesis is based mainly on responses to environmental conditions and therefore NOT on foresight. I note that you do not answer my question concerning your God’s “foresight” in relation to the different stages of pre-whale evolution. Dismissing my hypothesis as a just-so story is on the same level as dismissing God as a delusion. Not a level I would wish to stay on.
Of course environmental changes will at times be a great influence. The gaps in the fossil story, if real, strongly suggest design, because of the complexity of the required changes. Your theory is highly suggestive of small stepwise alterations leading to the new forms
***Under “CORN PLANT PEST ADAPTATION”
DAVID’s comment: This is an amazing adaptation the larvae worked out.dhw: Yes indeed. It is amazing how even little larvae can work out their own ways to improve their chances of survival.
DAVID: Note Tony's programming comment.
dhw: I preferred your own “the larvae worked it out” comment. Delighted to have you on my side at last.
There may always be a designer.
Evolution: whales defy explanation
DAVID: But the fossil show giant changes, not explained by your just-so story.
dhw: There is as yet no universally accepted story of any kind to explain giant changes, but that is no answer to my point that my hypothesis is based mainly on responses to environmental conditions and therefore NOT on foresight. I note that you do not answer my question concerning your God’s “foresight” in relation to the different stages of pre-whale evolution. Dismissing my hypothesis as a just-so story is on the same level as dismissing God as a delusion. Not a level I would wish to stay on.
DAVID: Of course environmental changes will at times be a great influence. The gaps in the fossil story, if real, strongly suggest design, because of the complexity of the required changes. Your theory is highly suggestive of small stepwise alterations leading to the new forms.
Then perhaps you can agree that environmental influences may have occasioned the many changes to the pre-whale – as opposed to your God having prepared the pre-whale for entry into the water. I have no idea how many small steps were needed before any innovation reached its current form, and nor have you. Are you proposing that your God reached down and summoned all the then existing pre-whales to come ashore so that he could equip each of them with a blowhole? All part of his “foresight”, though he didn’t think of it when he first got them to enter the water?
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 17, 2018, 22:10 (2011 days ago) @ dhw
Like whales other lines are full of gaps:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004218301482
"The fossil record provides empirical patterns of morphological change through time and is central to the study of the tempo and mode of evolution. Here we apply likelihood-based time-series analyses to the near-continuous fossil record of Neogene planktonic foraminifera and reveal a morphological shift along the Truncorotalia lineage. Based on a geometric morphometric dataset of 1,459 specimens, spanning 5.9–4.5 Ma, we recover a shift in the mode of evolution from a disparate latest Miocene morphospace to a highly constrained early Pliocene morphospace. Our recovered dynamics are consistent with those stipulated by Simpson's quantum evolution and Eldredge-Gould's punctuated equilibria and supports previous suppositions that even within a single lineage, evolutionary dynamics require a multi-parameter model framework to describe. We show that foraminiferal lineages are not necessarily gradual and can experience significant and rapid transitions along their evolutionary trajectories and reaffirm the utility of multivariate datasets for their future research.
"Conclusion
We documented and assessed the evolutionary transition along Truncorotalia across the Miocene/Pliocene boundary using semilandmark morphometrics and time-series analyses. A potentially localized and rapid evolutionary shift between two end members of Truncorotalia, T. juanai and T. crassaformis, at 5.1–5.2 Ma reveals that the evolutionary dynamics were not gradual and rejects the notion of an intermediate form along the lineage (contraArnold, 1983, Cifelli and Scott, 1986). The transition between end members involved a major reduction in morphological diversity and a transition to a more constrained morphological stock. Furthermore, likelihood-based time-series analyses strengthen this hypothesis through rejection of simple gradual or random modes of evolution, in favor of shift models, which can be interpreted within the context of both Simpson's QE and Eldredge and Gould's PE. Through this study we hope to augment research into tempo and mode in planktonic foraminifera and highlight certain expectations of Simpson's theory, which are not explicit to PE. We envision that application of these methods by planktonic foraminiferal researchers will garnish further explicit tests of tempo and mode in this iconic fossil group."
Comment: Very complex article, but it shows that another species, like the whales, have huge gaps between phenotypes. Nothing looks gradual in evolution. Gaps always demand consideration of design.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Thursday, October 18, 2018, 00:51 (2011 days ago) @ David Turell
Another look at the sudden change in forms:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181017110950.htm
"Planktonic foraminifera (forams) -- tiny, shelled organisms that float in the sea -- left behind one of the most complete fossil records of evolutionary history in deep sea deposits. Consequently, evolutionists have a relatively sturdy grasp on when and how new lineages arose and developed their own unique features. However, a study publishing October 17 in the journal iScience reveals that one foram lineage evolved much more rapidly than everyone predicted, and researchers are looking beyond Darwin's original theories of gradual evolution to understand why.
"'It was an exciting moment. What our study and many others are starting to agree on is that evolution of forams is not necessarily gradual, as Darwin and more recent scientists thought," says first author Russell Bicknell, a palaeontologist at the University of New England's Palaeoscience Research Centre in Australia. "Life can exist for long periods of time exhibiting only minor changes followed by rapid, punctuated shifts."
***
"'The abrupt change in the shape of Truncorotalia's shell shows that foram lineages can evolve rapidly, explosively, and dramatically," says Bicknell. "That points to more complex evolutionary dynamics than previously thought and justifies a re-evaluation of the evolutionary dynamics of other foram lineages."
"The researchers think either of two post-Darwinian theories could describe the rapid changes they observed: punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution. Punctuated equilibrium describes short bursts and subsequent steady periods of morphological change within a lineage. The theory of quantum evolution describes broader, rapid splits into new families, orders, and classes. If the theory fits, the researchers have potentially observed quantum evolution at a species level for the first time. In either case, the researchers believe previous theories of gradual evolution in foram lineages need reassessment.
***
"'Evolution is so much more complicated than we think," says Bicknell. "How, when, and why evolutionary changes occur constantly surprise us. It is one of the reasons working in evolution is so much fun.'"
Comment: It is best to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution, because staying with his presumptions slows real research.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
DAVID: Very complex article, but it shows that another species, like the whales, have huge gaps between phenotypes. Nothing looks gradual in evolution. Gaps always demand consideration of design.
quote: The researchers think either of two post-Darwinian theories could describe the rapid changes they observed: punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution. Punctuated equilibrium describes short bursts and subsequent steady periods of morphological change within a lineage. The theory of quantum evolution describes broader, rapid splits into new families, orders, and classes. If the theory fits, the researchers have potentially observed quantum evolution at a species level for the first time. In either case, the researchers believe previous theories of gradual evolution in foram lineages need reassessment.
DAVID: It is best to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution, because staying with his presumptions slows real research.
It is best not to abandon a whole theory because you disagree with a part of that theory. I agree that it is best to abandon Darwin’s theory that evolution only proceeds gradually and nature does not make jumps. Even his "bulldog" Huxley disagreed with him, so what's new?
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 23, 2018, 15:14 (2005 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Very complex article, but it shows that another species, like the whales, have huge gaps between phenotypes. Nothing looks gradual in evolution. Gaps always demand consideration of design.
quote: The researchers think either of two post-Darwinian theories could describe the rapid changes they observed: punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution. Punctuated equilibrium describes short bursts and subsequent steady periods of morphological change within a lineage. The theory of quantum evolution describes broader, rapid splits into new families, orders, and classes. If the theory fits, the researchers have potentially observed quantum evolution at a species level for the first time. In either case, the researchers believe previous theories of gradual evolution in foram lineages need reassessment.
DAVID: It is best to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution, because staying with his presumptions slows real research.
dhw: It is best not to abandon a whole theory because you disagree with a part of that theory. I agree that it is best to abandon Darwin’s theory that evolution only proceeds gradually and nature does not make jumps. Even his "bulldog" Huxley disagreed with him, so what's new?
All that is left of Darwin is some form of common descent, and Tony disagrees with that.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
DAVID: It is best to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution, because staying with his presumptions slows real research.
dhw: It is best not to abandon a whole theory because you disagree with a part of that theory. I agree that it is best to abandon Darwin’s theory that evolution only proceeds gradually and nature does not make jumps. Even his "bulldog" Huxley disagreed with him, so what's new?
DAVID: All that is left of Darwin is some form of common descent, and Tony disagrees with that.
And you disagree with Tony, because you also believe in common descent. The dispute concerns how evolution works. You believe in a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme plus dabbling; Darwin believed in random mutations and gradualism; Huxley rejected gradualism and Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium; I hypothesize cellular intelligence. None of us have abandoned the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which is common descent.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 24, 2018, 18:40 (2004 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is best to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution, because staying with his presumptions slows real research.
dhw: It is best not to abandon a whole theory because you disagree with a part of that theory. I agree that it is best to abandon Darwin’s theory that evolution only proceeds gradually and nature does not make jumps. Even his "bulldog" Huxley disagreed with him, so what's new?
DAVID: All that is left of Darwin is some form of common descent, and Tony disagrees with that.
dhw: And you disagree with Tony, because you also believe in common descent. The dispute concerns how evolution works. You believe in a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme plus dabbling; Darwin believed in random mutations and gradualism; Huxley rejected gradualism and Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium; I hypothesize cellular intelligence. None of us have abandoned the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which is common descent.
All your reply does is agree with me. And you won't abandon Darwin as s patron saint for you. What Darwin failed to do is based on what he did not know. The concept of common descent was present before Darwin's work. The concept of evolution from simple to complex was made more popular by his book, although his method of advancing evolution is demonstrably wrong.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
dhw: Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.
DAVID: And how did life jump from ever present bacteria to complex forms? Not by chance.
dhw: I asked why you keep trotting out the same old “not needed” and “by design” arguments to single out the human brain, when the same arguments apply to every other multicellular organism and natural wonder you can think of. You respond by changing the subject.
DAVID: Subject not changed if the discussion is viewed in totality. Our brain is demonstrably beyond any need to drive its appearance. It is you who constantly revert to stresses and environmental changes as causing evolution, while I think it is planned. Environment plays a small role, if any to explain whales, bats, etc.
And etc. etc. etc. Nobody knows the causes of speciation, and that includes the causes that led to humans descending from tree-dwelling apes. But the idea that environmental change drove our ancestors to climb down from (possibly disappearing) trees, to adopt bipedalism and to exercise and thereby develop their brains in devising new ways to improve their chances of survival seems to me every bit as plausible as the idea that your God preprogrammed the process 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with their anatomy before they climbed down, and fiddled with their brains so that they could think up new strategies and, in due course, extend their thoughts to matters beyond their immediate needs.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Thursday, October 25, 2018, 18:46 (2003 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.
DAVID: And how did life jump from ever present bacteria to complex forms? Not by chance.
dhw: I asked why you keep trotting out the same old “not needed” and “by design” arguments to single out the human brain, when the same arguments apply to every other multicellular organism and natural wonder you can think of. You respond by changing the subject.
DAVID: Subject not changed if the discussion is viewed in totality. Our brain is demonstrably beyond any need to drive its appearance. It is you who constantly revert to stresses and environmental changes as causing evolution, while I think it is planned. Environment plays a small role, if any to explain whales, bats, etc.
dhw: And etc. etc. etc. Nobody knows the causes of speciation, and that includes the causes that led to humans descending from tree-dwelling apes. But the idea that environmental change drove our ancestors to climb down from (possibly disappearing) trees, to adopt bipedalism and to exercise and thereby develop their brains in devising new ways to improve their chances of survival seems to me every bit as plausible as the idea that your God preprogrammed the process 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with their anatomy before they climbed down, and fiddled with their brains so that they could think up new strategies and, in due course, extend their thoughts to matters beyond their immediate needs.
If other primates stayed in the trees and survive happily to this day, it is very difficult to see why a few dropped to the ground and they had to invent, or be helped by God, the complexities that are human beings. I obviously view the whole process totally differently than you.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
DAVID: Subject not changed if the discussion is viewed in totality. Our brain is demonstrably beyond any need to drive its appearance. It is you who constantly revert to stresses and environmental changes as causing evolution, while I think it is planned. Environment plays a small role, if any to explain whales, bats, etc.
dhw: And etc. etc. etc. Nobody knows the causes of speciation, and that includes the causes that led to humans descending from tree-dwelling apes. But the idea that environmental change drove our ancestors to climb down from (possibly disappearing) trees, to adopt bipedalism and to exercise and thereby develop their brains in devising new ways to improve their chances of survival seems to me every bit as plausible as the idea that your God preprogrammed the process 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with their anatomy before they climbed down, and fiddled with their brains so that they could think up new strategies and, in due course, extend their thoughts to matters beyond their immediate needs.
DAVID: If other primates stayed in the trees and survive happily to this day, it is very difficult to see why a few dropped to the ground and they had to invent, or be helped by God, the complexities that are human beings. I obviously view the whole process totally differently than you.
We are theorizing. There must have been a beginning. It is perfectly possible that in one location, the primates could not stay in the trees, whereas in other locations they could. So you have one group of primates forced to develop a new way of life, while the rest carry on as before. Just as some land-dwelling organisms took up marine life, and some sea-dwelling organisms took up land life, always depending on local conditions. Why do you find this less logical than your God preparing one group of primates/land-dwelling/sea-dwelling organisms for life in conditions that don’t yet exist? (See "big brain birth canal" for more details.)
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Friday, October 26, 2018, 15:24 (2002 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Subject not changed if the discussion is viewed in totality. Our brain is demonstrably beyond any need to drive its appearance. It is you who constantly revert to stresses and environmental changes as causing evolution, while I think it is planned. Environment plays a small role, if any to explain whales, bats, etc.
dhw: And etc. etc. etc. Nobody knows the causes of speciation, and that includes the causes that led to humans descending from tree-dwelling apes. But the idea that environmental change drove our ancestors to climb down from (possibly disappearing) trees, to adopt bipedalism and to exercise and thereby develop their brains in devising new ways to improve their chances of survival seems to me every bit as plausible as the idea that your God preprogrammed the process 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to fiddle with their anatomy before they climbed down, and fiddled with their brains so that they could think up new strategies and, in due course, extend their thoughts to matters beyond their immediate needs.
DAVID: If other primates stayed in the trees and survive happily to this day, it is very difficult to see why a few dropped to the ground and they had to invent, or be helped by God, the complexities that are human beings. I obviously view the whole process totally differently than you.
dhw: We are theorizing. There must have been a beginning. It is perfectly possible that in one location, the primates could not stay in the trees, whereas in other locations they could. So you have one group of primates forced to develop a new way of life, while the rest carry on as before. Just as some land-dwelling organisms took up marine life, and some sea-dwelling organisms took up land life, always depending on local conditions. Why do you find this less logical than your God preparing one group of primates/land-dwelling/sea-dwelling organisms for life in conditions that don’t yet exist? (See "big brain birth canal" for more details.)
As usual you are blithely ignoring the complex design changes in phenotype that are required, as the animal leaves land, and miraculously grows fins. Or drops out of the trees and is suddenly bipedal. Actually Lucy was both tree and ground capable, a true transition form, but even at that her differences from apes is enormous. the usual gap that requires design and a designer.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
DAVID: If other primates stayed in the trees and survive happily to this day, it is very difficult to see why a few dropped to the ground and they had to invent, or be helped by God, the complexities that are human beings. I obviously view the whole process totally differently than you.
dhw: We are theorizing. There must have been a beginning. It is perfectly possible that in one location, the primates could not stay in the trees, whereas in other locations they could. So you have one group of primates forced to develop a new way of life, while the rest carry on as before. Just as some land-dwelling organisms took up marine life, and some sea-dwelling organisms took up land life, always depending on local conditions. Why do you find this less logical than your God preparing one group of primates/land-dwelling/sea-dwelling organisms for life in conditions that don’t yet exist? (See "big brain birth canal" for more details.)
DAVID: As usual you are blithely ignoring the complex design changes in phenotype that are required, as the animal leaves land, and miraculously grows fins. Or drops out of the trees and is suddenly bipedal. Actually Lucy was both tree and ground capable, a true transition form, but even at that her differences from apes is enormous. the usual gap that requires design and a designer.
I am not blithely ignoring anything. You asked why some primates descended and others didn’t. I have offered you an explanation which you have completely ignored, preferring to confine the discussion to complex design changes. Nobody can explain the complex changes that lead to speciation, and so we theorize. The fact that we have found transitional forms is evidence for common descent.
Evolution: more gaps in foraminifera
by David Turell , Saturday, October 27, 2018, 19:30 (2001 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If other primates stayed in the trees and survive happily to this day, it is very difficult to see why a few dropped to the ground and they had to invent, or be helped by God, the complexities that are human beings. I obviously view the whole process totally differently than you.
dhw: We are theorizing. There must have been a beginning. It is perfectly possible that in one location, the primates could not stay in the trees, whereas in other locations they could. So you have one group of primates forced to develop a new way of life, while the rest carry on as before. Just as some land-dwelling organisms took up marine life, and some sea-dwelling organisms took up land life, always depending on local conditions. Why do you find this less logical than your God preparing one group of primates/land-dwelling/sea-dwelling organisms for life in conditions that don’t yet exist? (See "big brain birth canal" for more details.)
DAVID: As usual you are blithely ignoring the complex design changes in phenotype that are required, as the animal leaves land, and miraculously grows fins. Or drops out of the trees and is suddenly bipedal. Actually Lucy was both tree and ground capable, a true transition form, but even at that her differences from apes is enormous. the usual gap that requires design and a designer.
dhw: I am not blithely ignoring anything. You asked why some primates descended and others didn’t. I have offered you an explanation which you have completely ignored, preferring to confine the discussion to complex design changes. Nobody can explain the complex changes that lead to speciation, and so we theorize. The fact that we have found transitional forms is evidence for common descent.
Agreed
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens
by David Turell , Thursday, November 29, 2018, 22:54 (1968 days ago) @ David Turell
The way some whales feed they don't need teeth:
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-whales-lost-teeth-evolving-hair-like.html
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens
by David Turell , Friday, November 30, 2018, 15:06 (1967 days ago) @ David Turell
David: The way some whales feed they don't need teeth:
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-whales-lost-teeth-evolving-hair-like.html
For some reason the excerpts didn't publish. From a different article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2186912-prehistoric-whales-used-to-simply-suck-the...
Whales were once all toothed predators. Around 36 million years ago, a group of them evolved to lose their teeth. We don’t know what drove that evolutionary trend, but it ultimately gave rise to today’s filter-feeding whales, including blue whales and humpback whales, that use baleen bristles in their mouths to remove tiny prey from the water.
Scientists haven’t been able to precisely reconstruct what happened during whales’ transition from teeth-bearing to filter-feeding – but they had assumed that the filter-feeding system emerged before the whales lost all their teeth.
***
Using CT scans, the team found the extinct whale (Maiabalae nanesbittae) had no alveoli – teeth sockets. It also had a different mouth structure than baleen-bearing whales, meaning it had no ability to filter-feed either.
“[The whale] represents a surprising intermediate stage between modern filter-feeding whales and their toothed ancestors,” Peredo says. “Our study makes it very unlikely that teeth and baleen existed at the same time in the same animals.”
Peredo suggests baleen might have appeared 23 million years ago, about 10 million years after whales lost their teeth.
But how did M. nanesbittae capture prey? Peredo says this whale was probably a suction-feeder like modern salmon and trout. The whale has an enlarged bone in the back of its mouth, resembling those observed in suction-feeding fish. Such bones help the mouth muscles generate a strong sucking force.
The transformation from a biter to a suction-feeder then into a filter-feeder also tells us about when whale diets changed. Sucking and biting are techniques that work best when the animal aims to take one target at a time, whereas filter-feeding targets bulk quantity of tiny organisms.
“There’s a good chance that [filter-feeding] is more energetically efficient,” Peredo says. “It seems to be a successful body plan for marine mammals.”
Comment: When a mammal enters a new environment to live the changes have to be very complex and enormous. Just hopping into the water doesn't work. Losing teeth and gaining a filter system isn't done stepwise. It has to be designed.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 05, 2018, 19:45 (1962 days ago) @ David Turell
More of the story:
https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/AHmSTNVdqD4tXAggdgZ0WLZykDI?reason=norrinuser
"No creature on Earth is as successful an eater as the baleen whale. By swimming through clouds of krill with their mouths open wide, then sorting food from water by filtering it through a curtain of bony bristles, these cetaceans have grown bigger than any animal in the history of the planet. The largest dinosaur would have been dwarfed by the average 300,000-pound blue whale. Massive woolly mammoths would have swooned to see rorquals swallow half a million calories in a single mouthful.
***
"The first whales had jaws full of teeth, like their four-legged ancestors that abandoned the land for the ocean about 50 million years ago. But chewing, at least the way we do it, is not an effective strategy for dining at sea.
“'The rules of engagement are totally different underwater,” Pyenson told me. Whales “can’t use claws to subdue prey. . . . They don’t have opposable thumbs.” Imagine trying to munch on a meal you couldn’t even hold.
"For that reason, most of today’s whales that have teeth, such as dolphins and beluga, are suction feeders. They use their pearly whites to grab onto prey, then take advantage of the temporary pressure differential created when they open their mouths to slurp the food down their gullets.
"But this strategy entails spending a lot of time chasing single large prey, Pyenson said. So sometime around 30 million years ago, when a changing ocean environment probably led to a surge in planktonic organisms, whales picked up a new technique — swimming through a mass of many millions of small critters.
"This “lunge feeding” technique is the “largest biomechanical event on the planet,” Pyenson said. And it’s a genius way to eat. “It’s got a huge return on investment.”
"Baleen is essential to this strategy. But the origins of this structure — which is made from keratin, like hair and nails, rather than dentin and enamel, like teeth — have long been a mystery. Did early whales have both baleen and teeth? How long were they munchers before they became gulpers?
"In a new study in the journal Current Biology, Pyenson and his colleague, Carlos Mauricio Peredo, offer a clue: The newly discovered prehistoric whale Maiabalaena nesbittae, which lived about 33 million years ago, didn’t have teeth or baleen. To Pyenson, this suggests that the ancestors of today’s baleen whales totally gave up on teeth in favor of suction feeding, setting the stage for the rise of baleen a few million years later."
Comment: All by Darwin magic, of course. what happened takes a lot of planning and design.This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
QUOTE: “So sometime around 30 million years ago, when a changing ocean environment probably led to a surge in planktonic organisms, whales picked up a new technique — swimming through a mass of many millions of small critters.”
The newly discovered prehistoric whale Maiabalaena nesbittae, which lived about 33 million years ago, didn’t have teeth or baleen. To Pyenson, this suggests that the ancestors of today’s baleen whales totally gave up on teeth in favor of suction feeding, setting the stage for the rise of baleen a few million years later."
DAVID: All by Darwin magic, of course. what happened takes a lot of planning and design. This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
And this discussion also suggests that the whole process took place in response to environmental change, as opposed to your theory that your God preprogrammes or dabbles change in advance of environmental change. Two hypotheses for you: 1) your God took away the teeth of pre-baleen whales, told them to go away and suction feed, and then a few million years later dabbled with all of them to insert baleens, because all this was essential to keep life going until he could produce humans; 2) pre-baleen whales took to suction feeding in response to the changing ocean environment and so they didn’t need their teeth, which then disappeared, and a few million years later the cell communities used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to adapt existing structures to improve the whale’s method of feeding.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
by David Turell , Thursday, December 06, 2018, 18:26 (1961 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “So sometime around 30 million years ago, when a changing ocean environment probably led to a surge in planktonic organisms, whales picked up a new technique — swimming through a mass of many millions of small critters.”
The newly discovered prehistoric whale Maiabalaena nesbittae, which lived about 33 million years ago, didn’t have teeth or baleen. To Pyenson, this suggests that the ancestors of today’s baleen whales totally gave up on teeth in favor of suction feeding, setting the stage for the rise of baleen a few million years later."DAVID: All by Darwin magic, of course. what happened takes a lot of planning and design. This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
dhw: And this discussion also suggests that the whole process took place in response to environmental change, as opposed to your theory that your God preprogrammes or dabbles change in advance of environmental change. Two hypotheses for you: 1) your God took away the teeth of pre-baleen whales, told them to go away and suction feed, and then a few million years later dabbled with all of them to insert baleens, because all this was essential to keep life going until he could produce humans; 2) pre-baleen whales took to suction feeding in response to the changing ocean environment and so they didn’t need their teeth, which then disappeared, and a few million years later the cell communities used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to adapt existing structures to improve the whale’s method of feeding.
Of course a Darwin-based article will present your line of reasoning, which always avoids the need for design engineering.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
DAVID: This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
dhw: And this discussion also suggests that the whole process took place in response to environmental change, as opposed to your theory that your God preprogrammes or dabbles change in advance of environmental change. Two hypotheses for you: 1) your God took away the teeth of pre-baleen whales, told them to go away and suction feed, and then a few million years later dabbled with all of them to insert baleens, because all this was essential to keep life going until he could produce humans; 2) pre-baleen whales took to suction feeding in response to the changing ocean environment and so they didn’t need their teeth, which then disappeared, and a few million years later the cell communities used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to adapt existing structures to improve the whale’s method of feeding.
DAVID: Of course a Darwin-based article will present your line of reasoning, which always avoids the need for design engineering.
Sorry, but “Darwin-based” is no defence of hypothesis 1). My line of reasoning never avoids the need for “design engineering”. Its theistic version simply offers the possibility that your God gave cells/cell communities the ability to do their own designing – not in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
by David Turell , Friday, December 07, 2018, 18:13 (1960 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
dhw: And this discussion also suggests that the whole process took place in response to environmental change, as opposed to your theory that your God preprogrammes or dabbles change in advance of environmental change. Two hypotheses for you: 1) your God took away the teeth of pre-baleen whales, told them to go away and suction feed, and then a few million years later dabbled with all of them to insert baleens, because all this was essential to keep life going until he could produce humans; 2) pre-baleen whales took to suction feeding in response to the changing ocean environment and so they didn’t need their teeth, which then disappeared, and a few million years later the cell communities used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to adapt existing structures to improve the whale’s method of feeding.
DAVID: Of course a Darwin-based article will present your line of reasoning, which always avoids the need for design engineering.
dhw: Sorry, but “Darwin-based” is no defence of hypothesis 1). My line of reasoning never avoids the need for “design engineering”. Its theistic version simply offers the possibility that your God gave cells/cell communities the ability to do their own designing – not in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them.
Why you constantly think God would give up control of one of His projects puzzles me. We can make up anything about God we want, but our only clues about God's thoughts are the results of His works, and then working backwards in our reasoning. I certainly don't reason like you do.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
DAVID: This discussion suggests that baleens came from hair follicle genes. How did they get to work from within the jaw?
dhw: And this discussion also suggests that the whole process took place in response to environmental change, as opposed to your theory that your God preprogrammes or dabbles change in advance of environmental change. Two hypotheses for you: 1) your God took away the teeth of pre-baleen whales, told them to go away and suction feed, and then a few million years later dabbled with all of them to insert baleens, because all this was essential to keep life going until he could produce humans; 2) pre-baleen whales took to suction feeding in response to the changing ocean environment and so they didn’t need their teeth, which then disappeared, and a few million years later the cell communities used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to adapt existing structures to improve the whale’s method of feeding.
DAVID: Of course a Darwin-based article will present your line of reasoning, which always avoids the need for design engineering.
dhw: Sorry, but “Darwin-based” is no defence of hypothesis 1). My line of reasoning never avoids the need for “design engineering”. Its theistic version simply offers the possibility that your God gave cells/cell communities the ability to do their own designing – not in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them.
DAVID: Why you constantly think God would give up control of one of His projects puzzles me. We can make up anything about God we want, but our only clues about God's thoughts are the results of His works, and then working backwards in our reasoning. I certainly don't reason like you do.
You tell me I always avoid the need for design engineering, I explain that I never ignore it, and so you switch back to the question of control, which has already been dealt with umpteen times! Ah well, round we go. Yes indeed, we work backwards from the results, which are millions and millions of life forms, econiches etc. etc. extant and extinct. You reason that your God’s motive for this diversity was to provide food to keep life going. And you then reason that his sole purpose for doing so was to produce H. sapiens, so that we would think about him and he could have a relationship with us, although he is always in full control and you simply don’t know why he chose this roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Why would he want to give up control? Perhaps because – as you have often said – he is hidden but watches us with interest, and it is more interesting to watch the unpredictable than to watch everything do precisely what you have prearranged for it to do. (But he can still dabble if he wants to.) This reading of God’s mind is an alternative to your own, as described above, and – to anticipate the next leap backwards – is no more “humanizing” than your own.
Evolution: whale teeth and baleens; another article
by David Turell , Saturday, December 08, 2018, 21:57 (1959 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course a Darwin-based article will present your line of reasoning, which always avoids the need for design engineering.
dhw: Sorry, but “Darwin-based” is no defence of hypothesis 1). My line of reasoning never avoids the need for “design engineering”. Its theistic version simply offers the possibility that your God gave cells/cell communities the ability to do their own designing – not in anticipation of changing conditions but in response to them.
DAVID: Why you constantly think God would give up control of one of His projects puzzles me. We can make up anything about God we want, but our only clues about God's thoughts are the results of His works, and then working backwards in our reasoning. I certainly don't reason like you do.
dhw; You tell me I always avoid the need for design engineering, I explain that I never ignore it, and so you switch back to the question of control, which has already been dealt with umpteen times! Ah well, round we go. Yes indeed, we work backwards from the results, which are millions and millions of life forms, econiches etc. etc. extant and extinct. You reason that your God’s motive for this diversity was to provide food to keep life going. And you then reason that his sole purpose for doing so was to produce H. sapiens, so that we would think about him and he could have a relationship with us, although he is always in full control and you simply don’t know why he chose this roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Why would he want to give up control? Perhaps because – as you have often said – he is hidden but watches us with interest, and it is more interesting to watch the unpredictable than to watch everything do precisely what you have prearranged for it to do. (But he can still dabble if he wants to.) This reading of God’s mind is an alternative to your own, as described above, and – to anticipate the next leap backwards – is no more “humanizing” than your own.
He arranged for us to have free will. That gives Him plenty to watch if He wants to watch. I don't know if He wants to watch. Why should I know why He chose evolution as His methodology?
I can only take reasons from what I see. You want to know more than we can know.
Evolution: animal, vegetable or both?
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 05, 2019, 17:46 (1900 days ago) @ dhw
Exactly what has been found in planktons:
https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2019/mixing-it-web-life
"After some groundbreaking experiments, Stoecker was one of the first scientists to describe how these types of plankton not only hunted their prey, but also sequestered the chloroplasts of their food sources and used them to get energy from sunlight. “I was very excited to find that they really were photosynthetic,” she says.
"Traditionally, marine microplankton had been divided similarly to species on land. You had plant-like phytoplankton, such as algae, and animal-like zooplankton that ate the phytoplankton. What Stoecker found was that some of these organisms were somewhere in the middle: They could eat like animals when food was present and photosynthesize like plants in the light. “If you think about it, it can be the best of both worlds,” says marine ecologist Dave A. Caron of the University of Southern California.
"Today, there’s growing realization that these in-between beasties — dubbed mixotrophs — are not only widespread but also play vital roles in the ecology of the oceans.
"At first, mixotrophs were considered a rarity of nature and no more than an evolutionary curiosity, but it soon became clear that they were widespread and abundant. In her first samples, Stoecker reported that more than a third of ciliates had chlorophyll in them. With time, more and more planktonic species that were previously considered either phytoplankton or zooplankton came to be recognized as mixotrophs.
"Scientists know now that there are myriad mixotrophs in the ocean and they come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, as well as in two main types. There are constitutive mixotrophs, whose own physiology permits production of energy from the sunlight. And there are non-constitutive mixotrophs, like Stoecker’s Strombidium and L. strobila, that must steal photosynthetic organelles from their prey, or keep whole algae hostage within them, in order to do it.
"It took a long time for anyone but plankton biologists to be especially interested in mixotrophs, says Stoecker, now at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science. But in the last decade, as evidence of their abundance and diversity builds up, their pivotal role in the marine ecosystem has become clearer.
***
"In a free-for-all frenzy, mixotrophs eat algae, animal-like plankton and each other, and are placed in the lower, broad base of food-web pyramids. The importance of their role in the ocean came to light when scientists started including mixotrophy in food web models — simulations of how the food web works under different conditions. What they found is that the survival of bigger organisms depends heavily on mixotrophs.
“'It’s basically redefining marine ecology,” says Mitra. “The base of the food web has practically changed.”
***
"As much as we know about mixotrophs now, “there’s still a big unknown,” says Stoecker. “In the ocean, in general, we still don’t know how many mixotrophs there are and how active they are.” Researchers are now studying the role mixotrophs play in Arctic regions and in other oceanic conditions.
"Scientists are also working on developing new methods to study the creatures’ physiology. But perhaps the biggest task has been reanalyzing species of plankton to check for mixotrophy since, historically, scientists would only classify plankton as plant-like or animal-like. “We were only studying half of it,” says Mitra. “We had to go back and reclassify the whole protist kingdom.” Advances in DNA sequencing technologies are making this endeavor easier, while also resolving the distribution and location of mixotrophs in the global oceans.
Comment: The bush of life gets bushier. This is no surprise. Photosynthesis appears in many forms.
Evolution: there is not enough time for Darwin to work
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2019, 04:40 (1886 days ago) @ dhw
Like the Wistar Institute meeting in 1967, current math calculations say Darwin cannot work and the fossil record supports them:
https://world.wng.org/2019/02/if_rocks_could_talk
"German paleontologist Günter Bechly, former curator of the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, is a world expert on fossilized dragonflies. He has discovered more than 170 new species, and 11 new genera have been named after him.
"Why dragonflies? When I was researching in the tropics, I simply discovered that I loved these animals and found them very interesting: aquatic larvae with helicopterlike flight, compound eyes, beautiful colors, and strange, intricate mating behavior.
"In what ways do they add to the case for intelligent design? One way is their sudden appearance in the fossil record with fully formed wing articulation. Another evidence concerns the reproductive system in suborders of dragonflies. While the organs in each suborder are constructed from the same basic parts, in each one a different part of the system has the function of sperm transmission—a parallel development in which it appears the same kind of solution was derived independently in several instances. It indicates a kind of design template used several times, as an engineer would use to build different motor engines, using the same parts. (my bold)
"Their mouths are interesting? Larvae have prehensile mouths that can be thrust forward like a chameleon’s tongue. To do that, they must be partially detached from the head. How this happened at each intermediate state, as the Darwinian process would require—to be a viable state with an adaptive advantage—is very hard to imagine.
***
"Could the overwhelming percentage of biologists who reject ID be wrong? The problem is that, of the biologists who reject ID, 98 percent don’t work on the actual underpinnings of the neo-Darwinian theory. They simply learn the theory at university, accept it as true, and apply the theory to detailed problems: They study whether the East African locust is related more closely to the Asian or Australian locust, but they don’t think about the mathematical feasibility of the neo-Darwinian process. The few theoretical biologists who work on the underpinnings of the theory have mostly become critical of the neo-Darwinian process.
***
"How would you encourage someone entering the field of biology today? Be open-minded, read both sides, and don’t be indoctrinated by propaganda. Weigh all the evidence and then look for the best explanation of the evidence. Those who see that the standard Darwinian picture might be wrong should attend a Discovery Institute summer seminar to meet the scientists and ask critical questions. But I would also advise staying undercover until their career is a bit settled, because the risk to ruin their career is real, as I and many others have encountered.
"What areas of biology are particularly compelling for the future? One is the whole field of genetics, where you see the striking phenomena of overlapping genes where the same strands of DNA are used to code different genes. It’s like a book that you can read backwards and forwards and it still makes sense. This is nearly unbelievable to believe with a Darwinian process.
***
"What are your current projects? I’m working on discontinuities in the fossil record and explosion like events in the history of life. Not just the Cambrian explosion, but all over the history of life you see new body plans and complex new structures appearing out of nowhere without the kind of gradual transitions you should find according to Darwinian predictions.
"You’re working on the “waiting time problem”? Darwinian evolutionists seek confirmation in the fossil record and population genetics. But if you combine these two fields, you find that the time necessary for certain transitions would be at least 10 times longer than the time available. Michael Behe used mathematical modeling to study mutations where we have empirical data: for example, mosquito resistance to malaria drugs. Applying that model to a vertebrate species with a smaller population size and longer generational turnover, we find the time needed to get a single coordinated mutation is much longer than the existence of the entire universe.
"Just not enough time? A mathematician is doing the modeling, I’m establishing the fossil dating and windows of time. Molecular biologists and biochemists are working on the genetic underpinnings. We want to show that across nature and through all eras of Earth history, this time problem is everywhere and is the rule, not the exception. This refutes Darwinism. If Darwinism is still upheld as the ruling paradigm, it will be in spite of the contradictory, conflicting evidence."
Comment: Just like Wistar, but with more sudden appearances now in the fossil record. Note my bold. More evidence for my theory that God uses patterns. Bechly and I are similar converts. It just takes unbiased thought.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Friday, November 23, 2018, 20:22 (1974 days ago) @ David Turell
Bacteria play a role in every activity in the body, as the microbiome is studied and the influences the bacteria create is recognized:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/should-evolution-treat-our-microbes-as-part-of-us-20181120/
“'We’ve underestimated the potential contribution of microbes to traits we’ve been studying for decades or centuries,” said Kevin Theis, a microbiologist at Wayne State University who studies the paste-making microbes of the hyena. “If the genes for these important traits are actually in the microbiome and not the animal itself, then we need to take a systems-level approach and look at the host-microbe system as a whole.”
"Look closely enough at any plant or animal and you will discover a riot of bacteria, fungi and viruses forming a complex and interconnected ecosystem. A recent explosion of research reveals how deeply we rely on our microbial patterns to keep our bodies functioning, raising profound questions about what it means to be an individual.
***
"Some biologists are calling for a radical upgrade of evolutionary theory, arguing that prevailing ideas, developed from the study of bigger, more easily understood organisms, don’t fit nicely into this new world. Others contend that existing theory just needs to be applied more carefully. All agree that the micro and macro worlds are inescapably interdependent, and that biologists must explore the frontier of their interconnections.
***
"Holobionts and hologenomes are “incontrovertible realities of nature,” wrote Theis and his colleagues in the journal mSystems. Hologenomes contain vastly more genes than the host genome alone, and since at least a fraction of the microbial genes have significant bearing on the survival and reproduction of the host, we need to consider the hologenome as a possible unit of selection if we want to understand the evolution of the holobiont.
***
"Proponents of this hologenomic concept of evolution argue that if there is a fidelity across generations between hosts and microbes, then the holobiont embodies a coming together of numerous, disparate evolutionary lineages into a singular being, a coalition of many that contributes to the functional integrity of the whole. Only when considering the holobiont as a single entity capable of being shaped as a unit by natural selection can we make sense of its complexities.
***
"Typically, human babies not born by cesarean section acquire their mother’s vaginal microbes en route to the outside world. Mom’s microbes also rub off on a baby through close contact and breastfeeding. Although eventually the microbial community changes as the child moves more freely through the world, these early microbes play an outsize role in immune system development.
***
"Strassmann argues that focusing solely on what’s happening in the holobiont misses much of the microbes’ story. Many host-associated microbes spend significant chunks of their lives outside their host, in an environment where they’re subject to very different selection pressures. The holobiont idea, she says, puts blinders on our understanding of the evolution of these microbes, focusing attention on the host environment and neglecting other habitats that could shape a microbe’s character.
"Critics of holobiont-centered theories are not discounting the importance of studying the interconnections between microbes and hosts, but they think the holobiont framework is almost always misleading. They envision the holobiont as an ecological community, not an evolutionary individual. The knowledge that symbiotic relationships with microbes are important “doesn’t mean we have to completely forget what we know about how evolution and natural selection operate,” Strassmann said."
Comment: the article continues with debate about the meaning of this approach as if offers a new avenue to thinking about evolution. What occurs to me is we can see a new role for bacteria which have persisted since the beginning of life and perhaps this is the reason why they have remained so active in the process of evolving. They take new roles to play at all stages. They create immediate adaptations, for example, in digestion, but it is certainly obvious they do not design giant changes.
Evolution: microbiome of coral
by David Turell , Saturday, November 24, 2018, 19:20 (1973 days ago) @ David Turell
Bacteria and other organisms are everywhere and obviously play a role in evolution as microbiomes:
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-corals-microbiomes-evolved.html
"Corals and the microbes they host evolved together, new research by Oregon State University shows.
***
"Modern corals are home to a complex composition of dinoflagellates, fungi, bacteria and archaea that together make up the coral microbiome. Shifts in microbiome composition are connected to changes in coral health.
"'Likely the ancestral corals also harbored complex microbial communities but there's a lot we don't know about how these coral-microbe symbioses evolved or the key factors influencing microbial communities in modern corals," Vega Thurber said. "Certain species of corals have distinct microbiomes, to the point where that occurred at some point in their evolutionary history. Not 400 million years ago, but there are specific groups of microbes that do show very strong evidence of evolving with their hosts more recently."
***
"On a lot of different scales, the more similar the coral hosts, the more similar the microbial communities are—both the whole community and particular microbes," McMinds said. "We collected samples from as many kinds of corals as was possible. For every sample set, we looked at the corals' tissue, skeleton and mucus to see what microbes were there."
"To do that, the researchers sequenced the 16S rRNA gene. The gene is present in every living organism, McMinds explains, but is slightly different. He likened it to a "molecular bar code" of each organism it belongs to.
"From there, the scientists could look for patterns between different corals' microbial communities and determine whether co-evolution of the corals and their microbiomes had taken place.
"'We found strong support for coral-microbe 'phylosymbiosis,' in which coral microbiome composition and richness is reflected in coral host's evolutionary history," Vega Thurber said. "When speciation for modern reef-building coral families began between roughly 25 million and 65 years ago, that was accompanied by large changes in microbiome richness. And changes continued to accumulate during more recent speciation events."
***
"It was something of a surprise to researchers to find that the microbial communities of the corals' calcium carbonate skeletons showed greater microbiome richness compared to the tissue and mucus microbiomes. Also, the skeletal microbiomes displayed the strongest signal of long-term phylosymbiosis—a pattern in which the diversification of a related group of host organisms correlates with changes in dissimilarities among their microbiomes.
"'We originally thought corals would show signs of phylosymbiosis throughout their entire phylogenetic history, and the results support that for the skeleton and tissue but not the mucus," McMinds said. "Despite variability in the chemical composition of mucus between species and significant host-specificity in the mucus microbiome, host specificity was limited to relatively recent divergences.'"
Comment: This line of research is just beginning, but there is no question that life
may have started with bacteria, but they have remained active to influence evolution over time in the multicellular forms that followed them..
Evolution: speciation through hybridization
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 19:20 (1683 days ago) @ David Turell
New findings suggest this may be a more rapid mechanism than chance mutations and natural selection:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-hybrid-species-remix-old-genes-creatively-20190910/
"Classically, the origin of new species is a slow, gradual process dependent on random mutations that build a bigger beak or a sexier song. If this novel trait helps a subpopulation exploit a new ecological niche or makes its members less likely to mate with neighboring populations, a new species may be born. As lineages remain isolated from one another, their diverging genomes accumulate differences that become increasingly incompatible. When speciation is complete, the genomes are so different that they don’t work when combined in a hybrid, producing infertile or unfit “dead ends.”
"Yet that is precisely the opposite of what Seehausen and his colleagues say is happening in many rapidly diverging species. Combinatorial speciation, they argue, explains how the genetic novelty for speciation can arise so quickly and is consistent with discoveries that hybridization is more commonplace than previously thought. Other biologists urge caution, however, because we simply don’t know enough about the evolutionary consequences of hybridization across the tree of life. They argue that there are too many known examples of extensive hybridization failing to create new species for anyone to speculate too boldly about the importance of combinatorial modes of speciation.
"The three authors’ views are shaped by their work on one of nature’s most explosive species radiations — that of African cichlid fish. In just 150,000 years, well over 700 species have radiated into a technicolor panoply of shapes, sizes and ecologies. Since Lake Victoria formed 15,000 years ago, about 500 species have diversified within its shores, making it an ideal system for biologists trying to understand the early stages of speciation.
***
"... some parts of the Lake Victoria cichlid genomes more closely resemble that of the Nile species while others are closer to the Congo one. “They’re a genetic mosaic of these two species that hybridized at the origin of Lake Victoria cichlids,” she said. Those mosaic genomes seeded the ancestral hybrid swarm with enough genetic variation from the parental lineages to fuel the fishes’ rapid spread and speciation.
***
"The ancient admixture event that prompted the diversification of African cichlids is just one of the ways old alleles can be recombined to help form new species. Combinatorial speciation encompasses the classic mechanism of hybrid speciation that farmers and gardeners know so well: In plants, it’s common for hybridization to immediately create a new species that is reproductively isolated from its parents.
***
"The list of species groups with similar patterns goes on — Darwin’s finches, the apple maggot fly, capuchino seedeaters, Hawaiian silverswords. The scientists who work on these systems have long recognized the potential importance of hybridization in their radiations.
"But Marques and his colleagues suggest that the accumulated genomic evidence warrants the introduction of “combinatorial speciation” as a new term to frame future research. The word “combinatorial,” Marques said, seemed to best describe the crucial “generation of new combinations from existing variation, which is really the commonality.”
***
“'Hybridization is really common, and much of the time it just might be neutral or deleterious gene flow,” she said. But even if we knew how helpful or harmful it is, that wouldn’t enable us to pinpoint its importance in speciation compared with, say, the gradual accumulation of genetic incompatibilities. And while some crosses between species yield hybrids that are viable and fertile, even closely related species sometimes turn out to be highly incompatible. “There is a lot we don’t understand about the genetic interactions impacting hybrids, let alone the interplay between the genetics of hybrids and their environments,” she said.
"Evolutionary biologists can find it satisfying when grand, unifying theories seem to suggest themselves from the data. But biology is messy. “These processes may just end up being quite system specific,” Schumer said."
Comment: A new concept, obviously not fully accepted.
Evolution: speciation through hybridization
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 20:11 (1612 days ago) @ David Turell
A study of evolution through hybridization in butterflies:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03521-4?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...
"The data allowed Grishin’s team to build an evolutionary tree detailing the relationships of all the butterflies, as well as to determine the pace at which new species formed. The team suggests that fast-diversifying groups of butterflies are those that swap genes with close relatives through interbreeding — a phenomenon that could extend to other organisms.
***
"The tree also revealed that some groups of butterflies have evolved faster than others. Two of the fastest-evolving groups, commonly known as the blues and the whites, have developed highly specialized interactions with other organisms that might explain their rapid evolution, say Grishin’s team. The blues, or Polyommatinae, form symbiotic relationships with ants, whereas whites, or Pierini, have developed adaptations to feed on mustard plants that are toxic to many other insects.
***
"An analysis of genes shared by multiple species also showed that these diverse groups were more likely to have acquired genes through interbreeding between species, rather than from a distant ancestor. Many of the genes that are swapped between species are thought to be involved in mate recognition and other factors that can cause species splits. Grishin says that by spreading such genes, interbreeding — rather than the gradual accrual of new mutations — could be helping to drive the evolution of butterfly species."
Comment: All this study shows is minor speciation by hybridization. There are 30 animal phyla and butterflies are a huge family with subspecies at the bottom of the tree. When we discuss speciation, what I am really referring to is a real advance to a new level with a different sort of organism. In our short time on Earth we really cannot see it and have no idea how the Cambrian Explosion can occur, which ended with 30 final phyla,shrunk from about 56 originals.
Evolution: early snakes had hind legs
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 20:36 (1612 days ago) @ David Turell
Since there were legs in the Cambrian this is no surprise:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossils-snakes-lost-legs.html
"The fossil discoveries published in Science Advances have revealed they possessed hind legs during the first 70 million years of their evolution.
"They also provide details about how the flexible skull of snakes evolved from their lizard ancestors.
"The evolution of the snake body has captivated researchers for a long time—representing one of the most dramatic examples of the vertebrate body's ability to adapt—but a limited fossil record has obscured our understanding of their early evolution until now.
"Dr. Alessandro Palci, from Flinders University, was part of the international research team that performed high-resolution (CT) scanning and light microscopy of the preserved skulls of Najash to reveal substantial new anatomical data on the early evolution of snakes.
"'Snakes are famously legless, but then so are many lizards. What truly sets snakes apart is their highly mobile skull, which allows them to swallow large prey items. For a long time we have been lacking detailed information about the transition from the relatively rigid skull of a lizard to the super flexible skull of snakes".
"'Najash has the most complete, three-dimensionally preserved skull of any ancient snake, and this is providing an amazing amount of new information on how the head of snakes evolved. It has some, but not all of the flexible joints found in the skull of modern snakes. Its middle ear is intermediate between that of lizards and living snakes, and unlike all living snakes it retains a well-developed cheekbone, which again is reminiscent of that of lizards."
***
"The new snake family tree also reveals that snakes possessed small but perfectly formed hind legs for the first 70 million years of their evolution.
"'These primitive snakes with little legs weren't just a transient evolutionary stage on the way to something better. Rather, they had a highly successful body plan that persisted across many millions of years, and diversified into a range of terrestrial, burowing and aquatic niches," says Professor Lee."
Comment: a logical finding
Evolution: fossil footprints
by David Turell , Saturday, August 22, 2020, 22:24 (1336 days ago) @ David Turell
Of vertebrate footprints 313 million years ago:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200821120756.htm
"Paleontological research has confirmed a series of recently discovered fossils tracks are the oldest recorded tracks of their kind to date within Grand Canyon National Park. In 2016, Norwegian geology professor, Allan Krill, was hiking with his students when he made a surprising discovery. Lying next to the trail, in plain view of the many hikers, was a boulder containing conspicuous fossil footprints.
***
"'These are by far the oldest vertebrate tracks in Grand Canyon, which is known for its abundant fossil tracks" says Rowland. "More significantly," he added, "they are among the oldest tracks on Earth of shelled-egg-laying animals, such as reptiles, and the earliest evidence of vertebrate animals walking in sand dunes."
"The track-bearing boulder fell from a nearby cliff-exposure of the Manakacha Formation. The presence of a detailed geologic map of the strata along the Bright Angel Trail, together with previous studies of the age of the Manakacha Formation, allowed the researchers to pin down the age of the tracks quite precisely to 313 +/- 0. 5 million years.
"The researchers' reconstruction of this animal's footfall sequence reveals a distinctive gait called a lateral-sequence walk, in which the legs on one side of the animal move in succession, the rear leg followed by the foreleg, alternating with the movement of the two legs on the opposite side. "Living species of tetrapods―dogs and cats, for example―routinely use a lateral-sequence gait when they walk slowly," says Rowland. "The Bright Angel Trail tracks document the use of this gait very early in the history of vertebrate animals. We previously had no information about that." Also revealed by the trackways is the earliest-known utilization of sand dunes by vertebrate animals."
Comment: The canyon is filled with fossils. I made several trips there , hiked Bright Angel four times, the last with my wife Susan. I've not only learned to identify many layers , was shown 200 million year old worm borings by our geologist guide. These tracks are from pre-primate animals
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Thursday, March 28, 2019, 17:10 (1849 days ago) @ David Turell
The microbiome works importantly across the entire bush of life:
https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion--individuals-are-greater-than-the...
It is widely accepted that all animals and plants host diverse microbial communities that are vitally important for their functioning and survival. In many cases, these microbiomes can be at least partially heritable, being passed from parent to offspring. Thus, when environmental changes occur, we would expect to see alterations not only in hosts’ physiology over subsequent generations, but also in their microbiomes.
Husband-and-wife team Eugene Rosenberg and Ilana Zilber-Rosenberg of Tel Aviv University in Israel were the first researchers to propose this concept (FEMS Microbiol Rev, 32:723–35, 2008). A host organism and its resident microbes—the so-called holobiont—functions as a whole on multiple levels, they argued, from the gene and chromosome to the organism’s anatomy and physiology, and acts as an independent unit of selection.
A famous example of this concept is the relationship between corals and their symbionts, the zooxanthellae. Researchers have demonstrated that some corals can evolve to tolerate higher water temperatures by changing the makeup of their symbiont communities. Because microbes have much shorter generation times than coral polyps, the genetic composition of the symbiont populations can evolve much more rapidly than that of their hosts, and these changes can confer higher tolerance on the holobiont unit.
Over the last decade, it has become evident that the idea of the evolutionary concept of the hologenome, which views the holobiont as the unit of selection, can be applied across the tree of life, with examples cropping up in plants and insects. This revelation motivated us to explore the relevance of the microbiome to the adaptation of so-called poikilothermic animals, which are unable to maintain a stable body temperature using internal mechanisms. Specifically, we set out to answer whether host selection for an environmental stressor such as cold exposure results in selection of fishes’ associated microbes.
We bred tropical blue tilapia, which are typically found in marine environments with high water temperatures of 24–28 °C. Over three generations, we selected for fish whose siblings had high survival rates in low-temperature conditions. We then compared the gut microbiomes of genetically cold-resistant fish to those of cold-sensitive fish. Despite having never experienced low-temperature environments themselves, these two groups had different gut microbiomes as a result of the selection. Moreover, when we challenged all these fish in low-temperature conditions, cold-resistant fish’s gut microbiomes were more stable, as were the fish’s transcriptomes. Thus, our selection regime shaped both the host and its associated microbiome to be more resilient to drops in temperature (eLife, 7:e36398, 2018).
These findings are no doubt just one example of coordination between a host and its microbes. As the evolutionary concept of the hologenome matures, researchers will likely document many more plant and animal communities that evolve with their microbiomes. It remains to be determined whether a microbiome’s compositional changes directly affect its host’s physiological response to changing environmental conditions. But the hologenome concept will undoubtedly influence our understanding of the evolution and ecology of all organisms.
Comment: This is why bacteria never stopped existing.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: The microbiome works importantly across the entire bush of life:
https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion--individuals-are-greater-than-the...
QUOTE:These findings are no doubt just one example of coordination between a host and its microbes. As the evolutionary concept of the hologenome matures, researchers will likely document many more plant and animal communities that evolve with their microbiomes. It remains to be determined whether a microbiome’s compositional changes directly affect its host’s physiological response to changing environmental conditions. But the holo¬genome concept will undoubtedly influence our understanding of the evolution and ecology of all organisms.
If we bear in mind that the “host” actually consists of cell communities, then it becomes blindingly obvious that the behaviour of the plant or animal “community” must be the result of coordination between all its cells as they respond to changing environmental conditions. This is what I take to be the “hologenome concept”, and is the basis of the hypothesis that evolution has occurred through “coordination between the host and its microbes” as they respond to changes in the environment.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 02, 2019, 15:48 (1844 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The microbiome works importantly across the entire bush of life:
https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion--individuals-are-greater-than-the...QUOTE:These findings are no doubt just one example of coordination between a host and its microbes. As the evolutionary concept of the hologenome matures, researchers will likely document many more plant and animal communities that evolve with their microbiomes. It remains to be determined whether a microbiome’s compositional changes directly affect its host’s physiological response to changing environmental conditions. But the holo¬genome concept will undoubtedly influence our understanding of the evolution and ecology of all organisms.
dhw: If we bear in mind that the “host” actually consists of cell communities, then it becomes blindingly obvious that the behaviour of the plant or animal “community” must be the result of coordination between all its cells as they respond to changing environmental conditions. This is what I take to be the “hologenome concept”, and is the basis of the hypothesis that evolution has occurred through “coordination between the host and its microbes” as they respond to changes in the environment.
Obviously , as previously stated, bacteria have stayed around to play a major role in evolution.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role: nitrogen
by David Turell , Saturday, April 20, 2019, 02:07 (1826 days ago) @ David Turell
Nitrogen is most of the atmosphere but is rare in the ground and is a major molecule in many protein molecules. Bacteria have a major role in fixing the nitrogen into the ground where it can be used by living organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-fuel-cells-bacteria.html
"The exchange of nitrogen between the atmosphere and organic matter is crucial for life on Earth because nitrogen is a major component of essential molecules such as proteins and DNA. One major route for this exchange, discovered only in the 1990s, is the anammox pathway found in certain bacteria. It proceeds via hydrazine, a highly reactive substance used by humans as a rocket fuel. Researchers now describe the structure of the enzyme performing the last step in this process: turning hydrazine into nitrogen gas and harvesting the energy set free in this way. The results, which were just published in Science Advances, show an unprecedented network of heme groups for handling the large number of electrons released during the chemical conversion.
"A number of bacteria perform such conversions and contribute to the biochemical nitrogen cycle (image) by producing more reactive forms of nitrogen.
"In the 1990s, scientists discovered a bacterial process called anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox). "We now believe this process is responsible for 30 to 70 percent of the yearly nitrogen removal from the oceans," explains Thomas Barends,...."Due to this characteristic, anammox bacteria are used in sustainable wastewater treatment all over the world," Cornelia Welte of Radboud University adds. During this process, bacteria convert nitrites and ammonia into dinitrogen (N2) and water, while generating energy for the cell. The molecule hydrazine is produced in an intermediate step. Hydrazine is a common component of rocket fuel, but its use by bacteria as a metabolic fuel is rather exotic—and surprising in living organisms because of its high toxicity. Welte: "So far, hydrazine has only been found in anammox and not in other bacteria." Until recently, little was known about how these bacteria harness the energy released during the hydrazine conversion.
" Previously the research group and their collaborators have described the structures of the enzymes hydrazine synthase and hydroxylamine oxidoreductase. The researchers now further unravel the anammox puzzle by describing the crystal structure of hydrazine dehydrogenase, the enzyme involved in the conversion of toxic hydrazine to harmless dinitrogen gas. "Both the use of hydrazine as well as the structure of hydrazine dehydrogenase are quite unique, making it important to uncover the biological process in detail," Welte explains.
***
"'One could compare the HDH complex to a fuel cell with electrical outlets that only fit certain types of plugs," says Thomas Barends, describing the structure and mechanism of HDH. The 'fuel' hydrazine enters the protein complex through a channel on the outside. The enzyme then catalyzes the conversion of hydrazine into nitrogen gas through an unprecedentedly large network of 192 heme groups. Then the electrons are carried to other parts of the bacterium, like the transfer of current to electrical consumers. These consumers then generate the cell's energy.
"'We are now working on finding the protein that takes up the electrons stored in the heme network," says Mohd Akram, postdoc in the Barends group and first author of the paper. From the structure they observed they expect that only small proteins can enter the complex, take up the electrons in a hollow space inside, and leave again. Selecting which proteins can access the electrons may help ensure the electrons are brought to the right place to be used for energy generation in the cell. "
Comment: Another very important process bacteria must produce for life to exist. Since it uses a strange toxic hydrazine molecule the origin of this process must provide protection for the producing bacteria and must invent two very complex enzymes. Why did these bacteria develop this process, which is not necessary for their survival? Good engineering by God? Not by chance.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Monday, August 31, 2020, 20:21 (1327 days ago) @ David Turell
An enzyme that has been fixing inorganic carbon for billion s of years:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-link-evolutionary-history-carbon-fixing-protein.html
"A team led by researchers at the University of California, Davis, has discovered a missing link in the evolution of photosynthesis and carbon fixation. Dating back more than 2.4 billion years, a newly discovered form of the plant enzyme rubisco could give new insight into plant evolution and breeding.
"Rubisco is the most abundant enzyme on the planet. Present in plants, cyanobacteria (also known as blue-green algae) and other photosynthetic organisms, it's central to the process of carbon fixation and is one of Earth's oldest carbon-fixing enzymes.
"'It's the primary driver for producing food, so it can take CO2 from the atmosphere and fix that into sugar for plants and other photosynthetic organisms to use. It's the primary driving enzyme for feeding carbon into life that way," said Doug Banda, a postdoctoral scholar in the lab of Patrick Shih, assistant professor of plant biology in the UC Davis College of Biological Sciences.
"Form I rubisco evolved over 2.4 billion years ago before the Great Oxygenation Event, when cyanobacteria transformed the Earth's atmosphere by producing oxygen through photosynthesis. Rubisco's ties to this ancient event make it important to scientists studying the evolution of life.
"In a study appearing Aug. 31 in Nature Plants, Banda and researchers from UC Davis, UC Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report the discovery of a previously unknown relative of form I rubisco, one that they suspect diverged from form I rubisco prior to the evolution of cyanobacteria.
"The new version, called form I-prime rubisco, was found through genome sequencing of environmental samples and synthesized in the lab. Form I-prime rubisco gives researchers new insights into the structural evolution of form I rubisco, potentially providing clues as to how this enzyme changed the planet.
***
"Form I rubisco is built from eight core large molecular subunits with eight small subunits perched on top and bottom. Each piece of the structure is important to photosynthesis and carbon fixation. Like form I rubisco, form I-prime rubisco is built from eight large subunits. However, it does not possess the small subunits previously thought essential.
"'The discovery of an octameric rubisco that forms without small subunits allows us to ask evolutionary questions about what life would've looked like without the functionality imparted by small subunits," said Banda. "Specifically, we found that form I-prime enzymes had to evolve fortified interactions in the absence of small subunits, which enabled structural stability in a time when Earth's atmosphere was rapidly changing."
"According to the researchers, form I-prime rubisco represents a missing link in evolutionary history. Since form I rubisco converts inorganic carbon into plant biomass, further research on its structure and functionality could lead to innovations in agriculture production."
Comment: Once again a study into enzymes, giant molecules that are especially adept at driving important reactions and because of their size require design.
Evolution: very early oxygen use
by David Turell , Friday, February 26, 2021, 15:12 (1148 days ago) @ David Turell
Before the great oxidation event:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/first-organism-use-oxygen-may-have-appeared-sur...
"The first organisms to “breathe” oxygen—or at least use it—appeared 3.1 billion years ago, according to a new genetic analysis of dozens of families of microbes. The find is surprising because the Great Oxidation Event, which filled Earth’s atmosphere with the precious gas, didn’t occur until some 500 million years later.
"The advent of proteins that can use oxygen, Shih and others say, marks a key step in the emergence of aerobic microbes, which are those able to harness oxygen. “The transition from a world that was mostly anaerobic to one that was mostly aerobic was one of the major innovations in life,” says Tim Lyons, a biogeochemist at UC Riverside.
"Scientists broadly agree that Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans were all but devoid of oxygen gas. But there are signs that there was some oxygen around. Geochemists, for example, have found mineral deposits dated to about 3 billion years ago that they argue could only have formed in the presence of oxygen. And some evidence suggests cyanobacteria, the earliest photosynthetic organisms to release oxygen gas as a waste product—although not use it—may have arisen as early as 3.5 billion years ago.
***
"...they turned to a long-used approach that tracks the likely mutation rate of proteins to construct a “molecular clock.” The clock enabled them to pin down when each of these enzymes likely evolved. Of the 130 families of organisms they studied, Jabłońska and Tawfik were able to date 36 with high confidence.
“'We saw something quite striking,” Tawfik says: a “clear burst” of microbes using oxygen between 3 billion and 3.1 billion years ago. Twenty-two of the 36 families appear to have emerged at that time, while 12 came later, and only two seemed to come before, the team reports today in Nature Ecology & Evolution.
***
"Overall, the analysis suggests that about 3.1 billion years ago, an organism they dub the last universal oxygen ancestor emerged, Tawfik says. That ancestor in turn gave rise to aerobes that were able to take advantage of the increased energy output that oxygen use enabled. Eventually, this led to multicellular organisms, animals, and us.
"If that transition did occur about 3 billion years ago, it suggests oxygen-using organisms didn’t immediately sweep across the planet. Rather, the ability to use oxygen likely evolved in small pockets that slowly spread over hundreds of millions of years. And only when they became abundant enough did these organisms modify Earth’s environment enough to produce enough oxygen to lead to the Great Oxidation Event."
Comment: The best way to use energy is by burning it with oxygen. But oxygen is so dangerous a full compliment of anti-oxidants must be developed to control its use. This has to be designed because oxygen is so difficult to handle
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Saturday, August 10, 2019, 22:34 (1714 days ago) @ David Turell
Bacteria have always been round and are found to have a very expanded role, well beyond what was previously thought. They make tiny proteins that have been missed before:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808152543.htm
"...there's mounting evidence that many aspects of our health are closely intertwined with the composition and hardiness of our microscopic compatriots, though exactly how is still mostly unclear.
"...researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have discovered that these microbial hitchhikers -- collectively known as the human microbiome -- are churning out tens of thousands of proteins so small that they've gone unnoticed in previous studies. The proteins belong to more than 4,000 new biological families predicted to be involved in, among other processes, the warfare waged among different bacterial strains as they vie for primacy in coveted biological niches, the cell-to-cell communication between microbes and their unwitting hosts, and the critical day-to-day housekeeping duties that keep the bacteria happy and healthy.
"Because they are so small -- fewer than 50 amino acids in length -- it's likely the proteins fold into unique shapes that represent previously unidentified biological building blocks. If the shapes and functions of these proteins can be recreated in the lab, they could help researchers advance scientific understanding of how the microbiome affects human health and pave the way for new drug discovery.
***
"It might be intimidating for the uninitiated to think too deeply about the vast numbers of bacteria that live on and in each of us. They account for far more cells in and on the human body than actual human cells do. Yet these tiny passengers are rarely malicious. Instead, they help with our digestion, supplement our diet and generally keep us running at our peak. But in many cases, it's been difficult to pick apart the molecular minutiae behind this partnership. (my bold)
***
"To tackle the problem, Sberro decided to compare potential small-protein-coding genes among many different microbes and samples. Those that were identified repeatedly in several species and samples were more likely to be true positives, she thought. When she applied the analysis to large data sets, Sberro found not the hundreds of genes she and Bhatt had expected, but tens of thousands. The proteins predicted to be encoded by the genes could be sorted into more than 4,000 related groups, or families, likely to be involved in key biological processes such as intercellular communication and warfare, as well as maintenance tasks necessary to keep the bacteria healthy.
***
"The researchers confirmed the genes encoded true proteins by showing they are transcribed into RNA and shuttled to the ribosome for translation -- key steps in the protein-making pathway in all organisms. They are now working with collaborators to learn more about the proteins' functions and to identify those that might be important to the bacteria fighting for space in our teeming intestinal carpet. Such proteins might serve as new antibiotics or drugs for human use, they believe.
"'Small proteins can be synthesized rapidly and could be used by the bacteria as biological switches to toggle between functional states or to trigger specific reactions in other cells," Bhatt said. "They are also easier to study and manipulate than larger proteins, which could facilitate drug development. We anticipate this to be a valuable new area of biology for study.'"
Comment: Bacteria have been obviously kept around since the beginning of life since they are seen to contribute to so many beneficial functions. It looks like a very well-designed plan to me. Imagine, your microbiome might weigh more than he rest of you!
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: Bacteria have always been round and are found to have a very expanded role, well beyond what was previously thought. They make tiny proteins that have been missed before:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808152543.htm
QUOTE: "...there's mounting evidence that many aspects of our health are closely intertwined with the composition and hardiness of our microscopic compatriots, though exactly how is still mostly unclear.
DAVID: Bacteria have been obviously kept around since the beginning of life since they are seen to contribute to so many beneficial functions. It looks like a very well-designed plan to me. […]
They also contribute to multiple diseases. All part of the well-designed plan? But of far more significance to me is the fact that all multicellular organisms consist of communities that work together. This is Lynn Margulis’s theory of cooperation as being the crucial factor in evolution. We must remember that every single bacterium is concerned with its survival – whether we judge its methods to be fair or foul. Each of us is a community of communities, and it is not difficult to envisage how this may have arisen through individual intelligences combining to form every combination known to us, whether extant or extinct. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or otherwise of God, because it is the process that constitutes Chapter Two of life, not Chapter One. Chapter One deals with the origin, and has everything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Sunday, August 11, 2019, 15:35 (1713 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Bacteria have always been round and are found to have a very expanded role, well beyond what was previously thought. They make tiny proteins that have been missed before:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190808152543.htmQUOTE: "...there's mounting evidence that many aspects of our health are closely intertwined with the composition and hardiness of our microscopic compatriots, though exactly how is still mostly unclear.
DAVID: Bacteria have been obviously kept around since the beginning of life since they are seen to contribute to so many beneficial functions. It looks like a very well-designed plan to me. […]
dhw: They also contribute to multiple diseases. All part of the well-designed plan? But of far more significance to me is the fact that all multicellular organisms consist of communities that work together. This is Lynn Margulis’s theory of cooperation as being the crucial factor in evolution. We must remember that every single bacterium is concerned with its survival – whether we judge its methods to be fair or foul. Each of us is a community of communities, and it is not difficult to envisage how this may have arisen through individual intelligences combining to form every combination known to us, whether extant or extinct. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or otherwise of God, because it is the process that constitutes Chapter Two of life, not Chapter One. Chapter One deals with the origin, and has everything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
But it is in Chapter One that bacteria appear at the start of life along with a proliferation of other one-celled forms. Note they compete and fight with each other from the beginning, which means Darwin's point about continuous competition always plays a major role, and human diseases are a result. But at the same time bacteria are very importantly beneficial. So why can't it all part of God's planning?
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: Bacteria have been obviously kept around since the beginning of life since they are seen to contribute to so many beneficial functions. It looks like a very well-designed plan to me. […]
dhw: They also contribute to multiple diseases. All part of the well-designed plan? But of far more significance to me is the fact that all multicellular organisms consist of communities that work together. This is Lynn Margulis’s theory of cooperation as being the crucial factor in evolution. We must remember that every single bacterium is concerned with its survival – whether we judge its methods to be fair or foul. Each of us is a community of communities, and it is not difficult to envisage how this may have arisen through individual intelligences combining to form every combination known to us, whether extant or extinct. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or otherwise of God, because it is the process that constitutes Chapter Two of life, not Chapter One. Chapter One deals with the origin, and has everything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
DAVID: But it is in Chapter One that bacteria appear at the start of life along with a proliferation of other one-celled forms. Note they compete and fight with each other from the beginning, which means Darwin's point about continuous competition always plays a major role, and human diseases are a result. But at the same time bacteria are very importantly beneficial. So why can't it all part of God's planning?
This is a jumble of observations. Bacteria remain bacteria. Chapter Two is the arrival of multicellular organisms which result from single cells cooperating to create new forms of life – i.e. the history of evolution, for those of us who believe in it. My point about diseases was simply to redress the balance, since you only mentioned beneficial functions, but you are right: disease may have been part of your God’s plan. We can’t read his mind. None of this alters the fact that we are a community of communities, in which cells cooperate to produce a functioning whole, and since many scientists support the theory of bacterial and cellular intelligence (as championed by Margulis), it is perfectly possible that multicellular life (Chapter Two) evolved as a result of these individual organisms pooling their perhaps God-given (Chapter One) intelligences.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Monday, August 12, 2019, 15:29 (1712 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Bacteria have been obviously kept around since the beginning of life since they are seen to contribute to so many beneficial functions. It looks like a very well-designed plan to me. […]
dhw: They also contribute to multiple diseases. All part of the well-designed plan? But of far more significance to me is the fact that all multicellular organisms consist of communities that work together. This is Lynn Margulis’s theory of cooperation as being the crucial factor in evolution. We must remember that every single bacterium is concerned with its survival – whether we judge its methods to be fair or foul. Each of us is a community of communities, and it is not difficult to envisage how this may have arisen through individual intelligences combining to form every combination known to us, whether extant or extinct. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or otherwise of God, because it is the process that constitutes Chapter Two of life, not Chapter One. Chapter One deals with the origin, and has everything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
DAVID: But it is in Chapter One that bacteria appear at the start of life along with a proliferation of other one-celled forms. Note they compete and fight with each other from the beginning, which means Darwin's point about continuous competition always plays a major role, and human diseases are a result. But at the same time bacteria are very importantly beneficial. So why can't it all part of God's planning?
dhw: This is a jumble of observations. Bacteria remain bacteria. Chapter Two is the arrival of multicellular organisms which result from single cells cooperating to create new forms of life – i.e. the history of evolution, for those of us who believe in it. My point about diseases was simply to redress the balance, since you only mentioned beneficial functions, but you are right: disease may have been part of your God’s plan. We can’t read his mind. None of this alters the fact that we are a community of communities, in which cells cooperate to produce a functioning whole, and since many scientists support the theory of bacterial and cellular intelligence (as championed by Margulis), it is perfectly possible that multicellular life (Chapter Two) evolved as a result of these individual organisms pooling their perhaps God-given (Chapter One) intelligences.
Note my entry today about a particular Archaea which finally cultured supports your comment
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
dhw: ...we are a community of communities, in which cells cooperate to produce a functioning whole, and since many scientists support the theory of bacterial and cellular intelligence (as championed by Margulis), it is perfectly possible that multicellular life (Chapter Two) evolved as a result of these individual organisms pooling their perhaps God-given (Chapter One) intelligences.
DAVID: Note my entry today about a particular Archaea which finally cultured supports your comment.
Thank you. Herewith my comment on your entry:
DAVID (Under "origin of eukaryotes"): Still not well understood, but an amazing advance in studying descendants of early life
And yet more evidence for Margulis’ theory of endosymbiosis, leading to her much wider theory that evolution has come about through cooperation between cells, which she regarded as being intelligent.
Under “Reality”:
dhw: “We are talking about molecular biology, and lots of organisms use chemical signals to communicate. These include bacteria, which are single cells. Many scientists agree that they are sentient, communicative, cooperative, decision-making, and therefore intelligent. Of course their “consciousness” is not comparable to ours, but David’s theory that 3.8 billion years ago his God preprogrammed every single bacterial response to every single new problem for the rest of time seems to me less likely than the (theistic) theory that his God gave them the intelligence to work out their own solutions. This would also apply to our own cell communities which at some time in the past cooperated to produce every individual organ in our bodies, and which continue (now mainly automatically) to cooperate in enabling those organs to function. (See also below.)
DAVID: And I reply it all can be automatic, based on instructions the organisms or cells carry.
Which, I repeat, means that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the very first cells with programmes for every single development in the history of evolution, including every solution to every problem bacteria will ever face. Yes, it “can be” so – just as there “can be” an invisible teapot orbiting the sun (Bertrand Russell).
Under “Magic embryology: what guides cell development, placement?”
QUOTE: “The gene does not exist in a vacuum,” Saunders said. “And we’re realizing more and more that the mechanical environment in which those genes are operating matters” — including for decisions about cell fate."
DAVID: It is obvious embryonic cells are controlled by chemical and physical influences. but an overall body plan has to exist. Darwin does not explain the development of embryology in any of his theories. It is magical and strongly suggests that only design fits.
This article shows how embryology mirrors the whole process of evolution. Of course cells/cell communities respond to their environment, whether internal or external, and adjust accordingly. If they didn’t, they would not survive. I agree that only design fits, but every single species – which you and I believe descended from former species – has introduced new features, which means the embryo has inherited the innovations which the cell communities have newly designed (or in your theory were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago). Yes, an overall body plan has to exist, but it also had to be invented in the first place, as each species either adjusted to or exploited the environment. I agree that once it has been established, the process has to work more or less automatically – just as factory workers must follow given procedures (though that does not mean they are automatons) – but the process itself was first introduced by the cell communities of the preceding organism, and that could not have been automatic because it deviated from its inheritance. Divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, the result of chance mutations, or the product of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence?
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 15:02 (1711 days ago) @ dhw
Under “Reality”:
dhw: “We are talking about molecular biology, and lots of organisms use chemical signals to communicate. These include bacteria, which are single cells. Many scientists agree that they are sentient, communicative, cooperative, decision-making, and therefore intelligent. Of course their “consciousness” is not comparable to ours, but David’s theory that 3.8 billion years ago his God preprogrammed every single bacterial response to every single new problem for the rest of time seems to me less likely than the (theistic) theory that his God gave them the intelligence to work out their own solutions. This would also apply to our own cell communities which at some time in the past cooperated to produce every individual organ in our bodies, and which continue (now mainly automatically) to cooperate in enabling those organs to function. (See also below.)
DAVID: And I reply it all can be automatic, based on instructions the organisms or cells carry.
dhw: Which, I repeat, means that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the very first cells with programmes for every single development in the history of evolution, including every solution to every problem bacteria will ever face. Yes, it “can be” so – just as there “can be” an invisible teapot orbiting the sun (Bertrand Russell).
Or God steps in at many steps to adjust designs.
Under “Magic embryology: what guides cell development, placement?”QUOTE: “The gene does not exist in a vacuum,” Saunders said. “And we’re realizing more and more that the mechanical environment in which those genes are operating matters” — including for decisions about cell fate."
DAVID: It is obvious embryonic cells are controlled by chemical and physical influences. but an overall body plan has to exist. Darwin does not explain the development of embryology in any of his theories. It is magical and strongly suggests that only design fits.
dhw; This article shows how embryology mirrors the whole process of evolution. Of course cells/cell communities respond to their environment, whether internal or external, and adjust accordingly. If they didn’t, they would not survive. I agree that only design fits, but every single species – which you and I believe descended from former species – has introduced new features, which means the embryo has inherited the innovations which the cell communities have newly designed (or in your theory were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago). Yes, an overall body plan has to exist, but it also had to be invented in the first place, as each species either adjusted to or exploited the environment. I agree that once it has been established, the process has to work more or less automatically – just as factory workers must follow given procedures (though that does not mean they are automatons) – but the process itself was first introduced by the cell communities of the preceding organism, and that could not have been automatic because it deviated from its inheritance. Divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, the result of chance mutations, or the product of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence?
I note your agreement in regard to the need for design in bold above. Complex design requires complex thought. Cell committees do not fit the requirement. Your cellular theory fits only tiny modifications, not major alterations, as in whale evolution.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: […] it all can be automatic, based on instructions the organisms or cells carry.
dhw: Which, I repeat, means that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the very first cells with programmes for every single development in the history of evolution, including every solution to every problem bacteria will ever face. Yes, it “can be” so – just as there “can be” an invisible teapot orbiting the sun (Bertrand Russell).
DAVID: Or God steps in at many steps to adjust designs.
I thought you were happy to dispense with the dabbling. Under “God’s divine nature”: “My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author’s viewpoint that dabbling is not required.” Which means you can easily accept that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single life form etc., and every single solution to every problem bacteria would ever face.
Under “Magic embryology: what guides cell development, placement?”
dhw: This article shows how embryology mirrors the whole process of evolution. Of course cells/cell communities respond to their environment, whether internal or external, and adjust accordingly. If they didn’t, they would not survive. I agree that only design fits, [David’s bold] but every single species – which you and I believe descended from former species – has introduced new features, which means the embryo has inherited the innovations which the cell communities have newly designed (or in your theory were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago). Yes, an overall body plan has to exist, but it also had to be invented in the first place, as each species either adjusted to or exploited the environment. I agree that once it has been established, the process has to work more or less automatically – just as factory workers must follow given procedures (though that does not mean they are automatons) – but the process itself was first introduced by the cell communities of the preceding organism, and that could not have been automatic because it deviated from its inheritance. Divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, the result of chance mutations, or the product of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence?[/i][dhw’s bold]
DAVID: I note your agreement in regard to the need for design in bold above. Complex design requires complex thought. Cell committees do not fit the requirement. Your cellular theory fits only tiny modifications, not major alterations, as in whale evolution.
Yes, I agree that the complexities require design, and I disagree with your authoritative statement that cell communities are incapable of it. You don’t know that, and nor do I. It’s a theory, also promulgated by Shapiro, following on from the findings of such scientific luminaries as Margulis and McClintock, who were pioneers in the field of cellular intelligence. I ended my post with three possible explanations, now bolded. I really don’t know why you consider the first to be more credible than the third.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 16:42 (1710 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: […] it all can be automatic, based on instructions the organisms or cells carry.
dhw: Which, I repeat, means that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the very first cells with programmes for every single development in the history of evolution, including every solution to every problem bacteria will ever face. Yes, it “can be” so – just as there “can be” an invisible teapot orbiting the sun (Bertrand Russell).
DAVID: Or God steps in at many steps to adjust designs.
dhw: I thought you were happy to dispense with the dabbling. Under “God’s divine nature”: “My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author’s viewpoint that dabbling is not required.” Which means you can easily accept that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single life form etc., and every single solution to every problem bacteria would ever face.
My theories have to have flexibility. Dabbling cannot be absolutely ruled out.
Under “Magic embryology: what guides cell development, placement?”dhw: This article shows how embryology mirrors the whole process of evolution. Of course cells/cell communities respond to their environment, whether internal or external, and adjust accordingly. If they didn’t, they would not survive. I agree that only design fits, [David’s bold] but every single species – which you and I believe descended from former species – has introduced new features, which means the embryo has inherited the innovations which the cell communities have newly designed (or in your theory were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago). Yes, an overall body plan has to exist, but it also had to be invented in the first place, as each species either adjusted to or exploited the environment. I agree that once it has been established, the process has to work more or less automatically – just as factory workers must follow given procedures (though that does not mean they are automatons) – but the process itself was first introduced by the cell communities of the preceding organism, and that could not have been automatic because it deviated from its inheritance. Divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, the result of chance mutations, or the product of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence?[/i][dhw’s bold]
DAVID: I note your agreement in regard to the need for design in bold above. Complex design requires complex thought. Cell committees do not fit the requirement. Your cellular theory fits only tiny modifications, not major alterations, as in whale evolution.
dhw: Yes, I agree that the complexities require design, and I disagree with your authoritative statement that cell communities are incapable of it. You don’t know that, and nor do I. It’s a theory, also promulgated by Shapiro, following on from the findings of such scientific luminaries as Margulis and McClintock, who were pioneers in the field of cellular intelligence. I ended my post with three possible explanations, now bolded. I really don’t know why you consider the first to be more credible than the third.
Shapiro and the others considered cellular intelligence to allow for minor adaptations. You are the one stretching it to major species modification. Not likely since so much advanced design is required
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
dhw: I thought you were happy to dispense with the dabbling. Under “God’s divine nature”: “My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author’s viewpoint that dabbling is not required.” Which means you can easily accept that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single life form etc., and every single solution to every problem bacteria would ever face.
DAVID: My theories have to have flexibility. Dabbling cannot be absolutely ruled out.
Ah, good to hear that your fixed beliefs are flexible, apart from those we keep discussing under “Unanswered questions”!
dhw: Yes, I agree that the complexities require design, and I disagree with your authoritative statement that cell communities are incapable of it. You don’t know that, and nor do I. It’s a theory, also promulgated by Shapiro, following on from the findings of such scientific luminaries as Margulis and McClintock, who were pioneers in the field of cellular intelligence. I ended my post with three possible explanations, now bolded. I really don’t know why you consider the first to be more credible than the third.
DAVID: Shapiro and the others considered cellular intelligence to allow for minor adaptations. You are the one stretching it to major species modification. Not likely since so much advanced design is required.
Since both Shapiro and McClintock champion(ed) the concept of cellular intelligence, how do you think Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” works?
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering
Shapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These "directed" changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro's interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.
In the 1992 Genetica paper that introduced the concept, Shapiro begins by listing three lessons from molecular genetics:
• there is a surprising amount of genetic conservation across taxonomic boundaries,
• the mosaic structure of the genome results in multiple nonlocal genes having multiple phylogenic effects, and, drawing on the work of his friend and collaborator Barbara McClintock,
• the existence of multiple cellular mechanisms (including mobile genetic elements) that can restructure DNA.
From these, Shapiro concludes:
It can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.[1]
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Thursday, August 15, 2019, 19:45 (1709 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I thought you were happy to dispense with the dabbling. Under “God’s divine nature”: “My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author’s viewpoint that dabbling is not required.” Which means you can easily accept that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single life form etc., and every single solution to every problem bacteria would ever face.
DAVID: My theories have to have flexibility. Dabbling cannot be absolutely ruled out.
dhw: Ah, good to hear that your fixed beliefs are flexible, apart from those we keep discussing under “Unanswered questions”!
dhw: Yes, I agree that the complexities require design, and I disagree with your authoritative statement that cell communities are incapable of it. You don’t know that, and nor do I. It’s a theory, also promulgated by Shapiro, following on from the findings of such scientific luminaries as Margulis and McClintock, who were pioneers in the field of cellular intelligence. I ended my post with three possible explanations, now bolded. I really don’t know why you consider the first to be more credible than the third.
DAVID: Shapiro and the others considered cellular intelligence to allow for minor adaptations. You are the one stretching it to major species modification. Not likely since so much advanced design is required.
dhw; Since both Shapiro and McClintock champion(ed) the concept of cellular intelligence, how do you think Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” works?
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineeringShapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These "directed" changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro's interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.
In the 1992 Genetica paper that introduced the concept, Shapiro begins by listing three lessons from molecular genetics:
• there is a surprising amount of genetic conservation across taxonomic boundaries,
• the mosaic structure of the genome results in multiple nonlocal genes having multiple phylogenic effects, and, drawing on the work of his friend and collaborator Barbara McClintock,
• the existence of multiple cellular mechanisms (including mobile genetic elements) that can restructure DNA.
From these, Shapiro concludes:
It can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.[1]
All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: Shapiro and the others considered cellular intelligence to allow for minor adaptations. You are the one stretching it to major species modification. Not likely since so much advanced design is required.
dhw; Since both Shapiro and McClintock champion(ed) the concept of cellular intelligence, how do you think Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” works?
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering
Shapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These "directed" changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro's interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.
In the 1992 Genetica paper that introduced the concept, Shapiro begins by listing three lessons from molecular genetics:
• there is a surprising amount of genetic conservation across taxonomic boundaries,
• the mosaic structure of the genome results in multiple nonlocal genes having multiple phylogenic effects, and, drawing on the work of his friend and collaborator Barbara McClintock,
• the existence of multiple cellular mechanisms (including mobile genetic elements) that can restructure DNA.
From these, Shapiro concludes:
It can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.[1]
DAVID: All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.
His theory is not confined to small modifications! Same source:
"Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution."
Novelty, not small modifications. But of course it’s an unproven theory – just as your divine preprogramming and dabbling is an unproven theory. You refuse to consider it, though, because it conflicts with your fixed belief.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Friday, August 16, 2019, 18:45 (1708 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Shapiro and the others considered cellular intelligence to allow for minor adaptations. You are the one stretching it to major species modification. Not likely since so much advanced design is required.
dhw; Since both Shapiro and McClintock champion(ed) the concept of cellular intelligence, how do you think Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” works?
Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_genetic_engineering
Shapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These "directed" changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro's interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.
In the 1992 Genetica paper that introduced the concept, Shapiro begins by listing three lessons from molecular genetics:
• there is a surprising amount of genetic conservation across taxonomic boundaries,
• the mosaic structure of the genome results in multiple nonlocal genes having multiple phylogenic effects, and, drawing on the work of his friend and collaborator Barbara McClintock,
• the existence of multiple cellular mechanisms (including mobile genetic elements) that can restructure DNA.
From these, Shapiro concludes:
It can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.[1]DAVID: All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.
dhw: His theory is not confined to small modifications! Same source:
"Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution."
All based on bacterial studies and therefore an unproven extrapolation. I've read the book.
dhw: Novelty, not small modifications. But of course it’s an unproven theory – just as your divine preprogramming and dabbling is an unproven theory. You refuse to consider it, though, because it conflicts with your fixed belief.
You are unfixed and I am fixed. That is why we debate.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
DAVID: All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.
dhw: His [Shapiro’s] theory is not confined to small modifications! Same source:
"Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution."
DAVID: All based on bacterial studies and therefore an unproven extrapolation. I've read the book.
Then you should have known that his theory was not confined to “small modifications” but to novelty, which is what enables evolution to progress. And I keep acknowledging, as below, that ALL the theories are unproven, including your own. If they were proven, they would be facts.
dhw: Novelty, not small modifications. But of course it’s an unproven theory – just as your divine preprogramming and dabbling is an unproven theory. You refuse to consider it, though, because it conflicts with your fixed belief.
DAVID: You are unfixed and I am fixed. That is why we debate.
On that we can agree!
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Saturday, August 17, 2019, 19:07 (1707 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: All true, but only covers small modifications in his research which is limited within bacteria and nothing more. Please note that most scientific journals do not accept quotes from Wikipedia which is notoriously slanted by biases that are entered from a multitude of uncontrolled sources. But what you presented is OK.
dhw: His [Shapiro’s] theory is not confined to small modifications! Same source:
"Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a class of process proposed by molecular biologist James Shapiro to account for novelty created in the course of biological evolution."DAVID: All based on bacterial studies and therefore an unproven extrapolation. I've read the book.
dhw: Then you should have known that his theory was not confined to “small modifications” but to novelty, which is what enables evolution to progress. And I keep acknowledging, as below, that ALL the theories are unproven, including your own. If they were proven, they would be facts.
dhw: Novelty, not small modifications. But of course it’s an unproven theory – just as your divine preprogramming and dabbling is an unproven theory. You refuse to consider it, though, because it conflicts with your fixed belief.
DAVID: You are unfixed and I am fixed. That is why we debate.
dhw: On that we can agree!
So the debate will continue 
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial gut role:
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 30, 2019, 22:01 (1633 days ago) @ David Turell
Each person has his own biome in his gut:
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-survive-human-gut-bacteria-genetic.html
"Bacteria living in people's intestines pump out toxins to deter microbial intruders. But each person's gut comes with its own set of toxins—an individualized "passcode" microbes must solve to survive, scientists report October 30, 2019, in the journal Nature.
"The findings suggest that there's not a one-size-fits-all approach to probiotics or live biotherapeutics, the microbial supplements that promote the growth of healthy bacteria, says study coauthor Joseph Mougous, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Investigator
***
{"The human gut is rife with bacteria. Feces contains about 100 billion bacterial cells per gram, and gut bacteria outnumber human cells 10 to 1. These microbes, collectively called the gut microbiome, take on all sorts of maintenance-type work, Mougous says. They digest food, keep the gut's surface intact, provide vitamins, and kick bad bacteria out. "The gut microbiome is very important for human health—that much we certainly know," he says.
"Over the last decade, Mougous's team has worked out the details of a bacterial defense mechanism called the type VI secretion system. It's like a molecular syringe that slams toxins into neighboring cells. The toxins break down cell walls, cleave membranes, and chew up cells' energy source. "They're pretty insidious," he says.
"Bacteria use immunity genes to neutralize these toxins and protect themselves. Invaders that lack the right genes get booted from the gut. Mougous's team had thought that toxin and immunity genes came together in pairs, like a lock and key. But an analysis of data from more than 1,000 human fecal samples revealed something surprising.
"Immunity genes from the gut bacteria Bacteroides fragilis vastly outnumbered toxin genes. All those extra immunity genes, the team discovered, actually belonged to other bacteria. Those bacteria had stolen B. fragilis's genes to protect themselves from its toxins. That means the genes must be crucial for bacteria to survive in the gut, Mougous says—something scientists hadn't known before.
"Mougous's team, including microbiologist Benjamin Ross, worked with UW's Elhanan Borenstein on the genomic analysis. Borenstein has since moved to Tel Aviv University, and Ross is now at Dartmouth College. "This collaboration was a lot of fun because it took both of our groups into new areas," Mougous says.
"Experiments in the lab showed that the immunity genes cluster together on stretches of DNA that can jump from bacterial strain to bacterial strain. In lab dishes and in living mice, bacteria given these genes immediately became resistant to B. fragilis's toxins.
"What's more, human fecal samples had unique combinations of toxin and immunity genes, the team found. "So what it takes to survive in one person's microbiome might not be the same in another person's microbiome," Mougous says."
Comment: Bacteria have been around ever since life started. Previous articles and this one show the important roles they still play. Start life and continue to help it.
Evolution: the newly-found bacterial role:
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 18:56 (1438 days ago) @ David Turell
They are here to stimulate the immune system, when it is not being stimulated, keeping it on the ready:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05-microbiome-immune.html
"Working alongside colleagues in Mainz, Bern, Hannover and Bonn, researchers ... were able to show how the microbiome helps to render the immune system capable of responding to pathogens. If microbiome-derived signals are absent, relevant mediators are not released, resulting in a failure to activate metabolic processes in certain immune cells. According to the researchers' report, which has been published in Cell, this leaves the relevant cells without the necessary fuel to mount an immune response.
***
"Presence of an infection triggers the body's immune response. A key role in this process is played by conventional dendritic cells (CDCs). These form part of the body's innate immune system and carry a range of pattern recognition receptors that enable them to detect invading pathogens quickly. The cells' initial response involves the release of cytokines, signaling proteins that attract immune cells to the site of infection. At the same time, these cells also use phagocytosis to engulf and digest invasive pathogens, after which they present individual particles as antigens on their cell surface. This, in turn, leads to the activation of T cells, which form part of the adaptive immune system, and results in a targeted immune response. In contrast, when T cell activation is triggered by CDCs presenting endogenous antigens, it leads to a faulty and undesirable immune response and results in autoimmune diseases.
"The team of researchers led by Prof. Diefenbach found that CDCs are incapable of triggering immune responses in sterile conditions (i.e., in germ-free mice). The researchers concluded that CDCs must receive information while the cell is in its basal state, which is characterized by the absence of infection, and that this information must derive from the microbiome. These microbiome-derived signals prime CDCs for a future response against pathogens.
"'We want to understand the nature of the microbiome's continuous effects on CDC function," says Prof. Diefenbach. "In this study, we were able to show that in their basal state, these specialist immune cells are subject to the uninterrupted microbiome-controlled signaling of type I interferons (IFN-I)."
"Interferons are cytokines, special signaling molecules known to play a role in antiviral activity. "Until now, we had known only little about the role of IFN-I in the basal state. CDCs that do not receive this IFN-I signaling during the basal state cannot fulfill the physiological functions they perform as part of the body's fight against pathogens," says the microbiologist. Study results suggest that the microbiome controls the immune system's fitness. It exerts this control by bringing the immune system to a state of 'readiness' in order to speed up its response to pathogens.
***
"Describing the researchers' observations, the study's first author, Laura Schaupp, says, "Interestingly, when we looked at CDCs from germ-free animals and those without IFN-I signaling, we were able to observe low levels of expression among genes involved in the mitochondrial respiratory chain. Further analyses revealed that the cellular metabolism of CDCs from germ-free animals is dysfunctional, making them unable to initiate an immune response. The cells effectively lack the fuel needed to respond to pathogens." This suggests that the microbiome is of crucial importance to the functioning of CDCs. It appears essential to the ability of CDCs to mount an effective response to bacterial or viral infections, including responses mediated by T cells."
Comment: We see an other reason why bacteria were at the start and are still here to manage readiness for immune systems, even when they are idle without a challenge. Looks like a great plan to me.
Evolution: ribosomes flexible, ancient
by David Turell , Saturday, November 17, 2018, 19:10 (1980 days ago) @ David Turell
By cut and past this study altered ribosomes radically and they still worked with the conclusion they were very flexible at the start of life:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181112095934.htm
"This experiment had a good chance of crashing. Instead, it delivered whopping evidence to corroborate the earliest evolution of the translational system, the mechanisms which make life out of our genes. The study swapped out all its magnesium, tabula rasa, and showed that the system, centering on the ribosome, would have thrived basically as it is today 4 billion years ago at the earliest foundations of life on Earth.
***
"In the system inside cells that translates genetic code into life, he replaced about 1,000 essential linchpins with primitive substitutes to see if the translational system would survive and function. It seemed impossible, yet it worked swimmingly, and Bray had compelling evidence that the great builder of proteins was active in the harsh conditions in which it evolved 4 billion years ago.
"The experiment's success reaffirmed the translational system's place at the earliest foundations of life on Earth.
"Every living thing exists because the translational system receives messages from DNA delivered to it by RNA and translates the messages into proteins. The system centers on a cellular machine called the ribosome, which is made of multiple large molecules of RNA and protein and is ubiquitous in life as we know it.
***
"In today's ribosome, and in the whole translational system, they are magnesium ions, and Bray's experiment replaced them all with iron ions and manganese ions, which were overabundant on primordial Earth. Williams and Jennifer Glass, the principal investigators in the new study, also had their doubts this was doable.
"I thought, 'It's not going to work, but we might as well try the moonshot'," said Williams who has led similar work before but on simpler molecules. "The fact that swapping out all the magnesium in the translational system actually worked was mind-boggling."
"That's because in living systems today, magnesium helps shape ribosomes by holding them together. Magnesium is also needed for some 20 additional enzymes of the translational system. It's one reason why dietary magnesium (Mg) is so important.
"The number of different things magnesium does in the ribosome and in the translational system is just enormous," said Williams. "There are so many types of catalytic activities in translation, and magnesium is involved in almost all of them."
***
"Bray incubated ribosomes in the presence of magnesium, iron, or manganese inside a special chamber with an artificial atmosphere devoid of oxygen, like the Earth four billion years ago.
"He found that the magnesium replacement went far beyond atoms in the ribosome.
"Surrounding the ribosome is also a huge cloud of magnesium atoms. It's called an atmosphere, or shell, and engulfs it completely. I replaced everything, including that, and the whole system still worked."
"Eons down the road, the evolution of the translational system in the presence of magnesium may have given it an adaptive advantage. As oxygen levels on Earth rose, binding up free manganese and iron, and making them less available to biology, magnesium probably comfortably assumed the thousands of roles it occupies in the translational system today.
Comment: This theoretical conclusion from this study supports the concept of initial design which was flexible enough to use what metals were available at different points in the Earth's evolution
Evolution: very early whale with useful legs
by David Turell , Thursday, April 04, 2019, 22:34 (1842 days ago) @ dhw
Found in Peru and dates from 43 million years ago:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2198740-amazing-four-legged-fossil-shows-how-walki...
"A fossil of a 43-million-year-old whale that was still able to walk on land on four legs has been found in Peru. It is the first amphibious whale found in the southern hemisphere, and suggests that whales managed to swim across the South Atlantic early in their evolution.
"The 3-metre-long animal looked a bit like an otter or a beaver, with four legs and a large tail for swimming.
“'It was still capable of bearing its weight on its limbs,” says Olivier Lambert at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, a member of the team that made the discovery. “It was intermediate between fully walking and fully aquatic.”
"Whales started evolving in South Asia around 50 million years ago, from a dog-like creature related to deer and hippos. As they became more aquatic, these early whales began spreading along coasts.
"Fossils of semi-aquatic whales have recently been found in West Africa. The latest discovery suggests that these early whales managed to swim from there to South America at least 43 million years ago.
"At the time, the West African coast was just 1200 kilometres from what is now Brazil, and there was a westward current. But it would still have taken a week or two to make the crossing. That may suggest that these whales were already capable of surviving without fresh water, and of sleeping at sea.
"They soon reached North America too, where fossil teeth dating to around 41 million years ago have been found.
"'The last common ancestor of all modern whales and dolphins lived 37 million years ago, so the new discovery may be one of the ancestors of modern whales. However, it is far more likely to be a cousin – a member of a side branch that died off," says Lambert."
Comment: Being able to handle both terrestrial and aqueous life gave it access to both styles of living as predators. I still want to know why they became totally aquatic with all the attendant physiological adaptations that were required to be solved.
Evolution: very early whale with useful legs
DAVID: Being able to handle both terrestrial and aqueous life gave it access to both styles of living as predators. I still want to know why they became totally aquatic with all the attendant physiological adaptations that were required to be solved.
Yet another link in the whale chain. May I suggest that over the course of time, the whale’s ancestors found life at sea to be more productive than life on land, and consequently the cell communities that form legs restructured themselves to form flippers, which are better adapted to life in the water. All the other changes would have taken place in the same way and for the same reason. Too obvious? I find this considerably more convincing than the theory that your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, and I would also like to know why he left these particular pre-whales with legs but gave them a tail.
Thank you for all the other articles. I don’t feel that there is any need for me to comment, other than to register my appreciation for this ongoing education.
Evolution: very early whale with useful legs
by David Turell , Friday, April 05, 2019, 15:06 (1841 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Being able to handle both terrestrial and aqueous life gave it access to both styles of living as predators. I still want to know why they became totally aquatic with all the attendant physiological adaptations that were required to be solved.
dhw: Yet another link in the whale chain. May I suggest that over the course of time, the whale’s ancestors found life at sea to be more productive than life on land, and consequently the cell communities that form legs restructured themselves to form flippers, which are better adapted to life in the water. All the other changes would have taken place in the same way and for the same reason. Too obvious? I find this considerably more convincing than the theory that your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, and I would also like to know why he left these particular pre-whales with legs but gave them a tail.
Thank you for all the other articles. I don’t feel that there is any need for me to comment, other than to register my appreciation for this ongoing education.
Yes, it is a fascinating transitional form, but never answers my eternal question: Why bother with all the attendant physiological changes required to be invented or designed.
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2019, 00:27 (1667 days ago) @ David Turell
It is quite a list:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/why-don-t-whales-have-saliva?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Mas...
On land, hair is often a necessary part of an organism’s heat regulation strategy, but in water it can cause drag, leading to inefficient swimming and all that comes with it, such as poor predator avoidance. In this case, the loss of genes producing keratin actually helped to adapt to the new environment.
In this study, the scientists discovered 85 genes that had been deactivated by mutations in both extant cetacean clades; odontocetes (toothed whales) and mysticetes (baleen whales).
***
Of the 85 genes identified, 62 have never been reported and the researchers have identified eight genes specifically that are likely to have been involved in the adaptation of the stem lineage to a fully aquatic lifestyle. These are implicated in a wide range of traits, from sleep to saliva.
Two of the lost genes, called F12 and KLKB1, were associated with blood coagulation. While these are vital on land, in the water they could lead to dangerous clotting inside the blood vessels, known as thrombosis.
F12, for example, causes clotting when it encounters foreign surfaces in the body. Losing this gene may have been beneficial for cetaceans because “nitrogen microbubbles, which readily form in the blood upon repeated breath-hold diving, may act as foreign F12-activating surfaces entailing harmful thrombus formation.”
Other lost genes help to reduce the chance of genetic mutation caused by DNA repair mechanisms working to rectify damage done by the high oxygen levels in the blood necessary for deep diving.
Loss of the genes MAP3K19 and SEC14L3 might help prevent scarring and the resulting loss of elasticity in cetacean lungs which, unlike humans and other terrestrial mammals, collapse during deep diving and explosively expand upon resurfacing. This elasticity helps cetaceans to renew 90% of the air in their lungs in a single breath.
The gene SLC4A9 is partly responsible for the production of saliva in terrestrial mammals, but your average dolphin or whale has little need of spittle which is why it has been lost in cetaceans.
Saliva helps to lubricate the mouth, break down starch and facilitate taste, all of which are less important in an aquatic environment. Who needs oral lubrication when your meal comes with a mouthful of seawater?
Beyond that, write the authors “the hyperosmotic marine environment necessitates strict housekeeping of freshwater resources in marine species; thus, freshwater loss via saliva secretion may be detrimental.”
Cetacean ancestors, as mammals who need air to breathe, also faced issues with regards to the mammalian sleep cycle. Just as humans tend to avoid napping face-down in puddles, cetaceans can’t just fall asleep in the ocean.
So the creatures of the cetacean stem lineage had to find a way to balance the need for sleep with the restriction of their new aquatic environment. As a result, they have a unique adaptation called ‘unihemispheric sleep’, which “allows one brain hemisphere to sleep while the awake hemisphere coordinates movement for surfacing.”
This adaptation was facilitated by the loss of several genes involved in the production and reception of the sleep hormone melatonin. This helped to “decouple sleep-wake patterns from daytime,” which, argue the researchers, “may have been a precondition to adopt unihemispheric sleep as the exclusive sleep pattern.” (my bold)
Comment: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me god prepared them.
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
QUOTE: “So the creatures of the cetacean stem lineage had to find a way to balance the need for sleep with the restriction of their new aquatic environment. As a result, they have a unique adaptation called ‘unihemispheric sleep’, which “allows one brain hemisphere to sleep while the awake hemisphere coordinates movement for surfacing.”
This adaptation was facilitated by the loss of several genes involved in the production and reception of the sleep hormone melatonin. This helped to “decouple sleep-wake patterns from daytime,” which, argue the researchers, “may have been a precondition to adopt unihemispheric sleep as the exclusive sleep pattern.[/b]” (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me god prepared them.
Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2019, 22:50 (1666 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “So the creatures of the cetacean stem lineage had to find a way to balance the need for sleep with the restriction of their new aquatic environment. As a result, they have a unique adaptation called ‘unihemispheric sleep’, which “allows one brain hemisphere to sleep while the awake hemisphere coordinates movement for surfacing.”
This adaptation was facilitated by the loss of several genes involved in the production and reception of the sleep hormone melatonin. This helped to “decouple sleep-wake patterns from daytime,” which, argue the researchers, “may have been a precondition to adopt unihemispheric sleep as the exclusive sleep pattern.[/b]” (DAVID’s bold)DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me God prepared them.
dhw: Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
Your explanation tells us some just-so stories. Finding dry land does not explain what God must have programmed. How did whales tell melatonin to go away? Same issue: why bother with whales in the first place? Answer, because they are a major part of of the ecosystem of the ocean
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me God prepared them.
dhw: Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
DAVID: Your explanation tells us some just-so stories. Finding dry land does not explain what God must have programmed.
That is your “just-so story”, and I don’t know where you get your “must have” from! In any case, why is it “just-so” that initially some whales would have drowned but others could have found a place to sleep?
DAVID: How did whales tell melatonin to go away?
They didn’t. It went away of its own accord when its sleep-inducing properties were no longer effective or needed, just as the flipper would have lost its legginess, and the toothless whale would have lost its teeth.
DAVID: Same issue: why bother with whales in the first place? Answer, because they are a major part of the ecosystem of the ocean.
Every organism plays/played a part in every ecosystem extant and extinct. The question is why your God bothered if the only species he wanted was H. sapiens. But of course that is “explained” by your God’s inexplicable decision not to design the only species he wanted for 3.X billion years, and therefore having or needing to invent all sorts of organisms to eat or be eaten by one another in order to “cover the time”.
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
by David Turell , Saturday, September 28, 2019, 18:30 (1665 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me God prepared them.
dhw: Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
DAVID: Your explanation tells us some just-so stories. Finding dry land does not explain what God must have programmed.
dhw: That is your “just-so story”, and I don’t know where you get your “must have” from! In any case, why is it “just-so” that initially some whales would have drowned but others could have found a place to sleep?
The point is not finding a place to sleep! It is how do you learn to sleep while in a total water environment? The result is half a brain asleep, no melatonin, and still take a breath now and then. For me it is designed from the beginning. logically, it cannot be learned as a gradual adaptation.
DAVID: How did whales tell melatonin to go away?dhw: They didn’t. It went away of its own accord when its sleep-inducing properties were no longer effective or needed, just as the flipper would have lost its legginess, and the toothless whale would have lost its teeth.
Your faith in gradual adaptations is amazing.
DAVID: Same issue: why bother with whales in the first place? Answer, because they are a major part of the ecosystem of the ocean.dhw: Every organism plays/played a part in every ecosystem extant and extinct. The question is why your God bothered if the only species he wanted was H. sapiens. But of course that is “explained” by your God’s inexplicable decision not to design the only species he wanted for 3.X billion years, and therefore having or needing to invent all sorts of organisms to eat or be eaten by one another in order to “cover the time”.
You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me God prepared them.
dhw: Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
DAVID: Your explanation tells us some just-so stories. Finding dry land does not explain what God must have programmed.
dhw: That is your “just-so story”, and I don’t know where you get your “must have” from! In any case, why is it “just-so” that initially some whales would have drowned but others could have found a place to sleep?
DAVID:The point is not finding a place to sleep! It is how do you learn to sleep while in a total water environment? The result is half a brain asleep, no melatonin, and still take a breath now and then. For me it is designed from the beginning. logically, it cannot be learned as a gradual adaptation.
One moment you have your God taking 2O million years to develop sapiens’ vertebrae because it had to be done step by step, and the next you have him either coming down from heaven and literally overnight changing every sleepy pre-whale into a half-sleepy whale, or he provided the first cells with a programme to accomplish the same operation. And this was done because he had to cover the time he had decided to take before designing H. sapiens bit by bit. No wonder you have come up with the following conclusion:
DAVID: You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.
Correction: you try to make God illogical to fit your fixed belief in his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. So be it, but please don’t tell us that your theory is logical because it fits in with God’s illogicality!
Evolution: whale adaptive losses and changes
by David Turell , Sunday, September 29, 2019, 19:43 (1664 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Interesting complex changes, and one can imagine some of these adaptations while learning to become aquatic, but note my bold. How does a whale learn to sleep with half a brain active while living in the water, without drowning during the process of adaptation? For me God prepared them.
dhw: Nobody knows, but I suggest that, as with every other adaptation, the cells worked out a solution to improve performance or to cope with new conditions. It’s not beyond the scope of reason that initially some whales did drown if they strayed too far away from land, and others swam till they found dry land to sleep on. Loss of melatonin would then be the result of training the body to do without sleep for long periods. But the eventual half and half compromise would be the solution that worked best and hence survived by natural selection. Certainly no more fanciful than your God preprogramming the first cells with the whole history of whale stages, bacteria solutions, monarch butterfly migration, weaverbird nesting etc., all to cover the time he’d decided to wait before pursuing his one and only goal!
DAVID: Your explanation tells us some just-so stories. Finding dry land does not explain what God must have programmed.
dhw: That is your “just-so story”, and I don’t know where you get your “must have” from! In any case, why is it “just-so” that initially some whales would have drowned but others could have found a place to sleep?
DAVID:The point is not finding a place to sleep! It is how do you learn to sleep while in a total water environment? The result is half a brain asleep, no melatonin, and still take a breath now and then. For me it is designed from the beginning. logically, it cannot be learned as a gradual adaptation.
dhw: One moment you have your God taking 2O million years to develop sapiens’ vertebrae because it had to be done step by step, and the next you have him either coming down from heaven and literally overnight changing every sleepy pre-whale into a half-sleepy whale, or he provided the first cells with a programme to accomplish the same operation. And this was done because he had to cover the time he had decided to take before designing H. sapiens bit by bit. No wonder you have come up with the following conclusion:
DAVID: You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.
dhw: Correction: you try to make God illogical to fit your fixed belief in his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. So be it, but please don’t tell us that your theory is logical because it fits in with God’s illogicality!
God is not illogical. As the Creator, He does what He wants, making big or small steps, and we see the results in the history, which we then can try to interpret.
Evolution: whale echolocation ability
by David Turell , Friday, November 01, 2019, 21:19 (1631 days ago) @ David Turell
It is puffs of air, not causing much energy:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-echolocation-cheap-deep-diving-whales.html
"Many whales and dolphins, including the champion deep-diving beaked whales, use echolocation, the ability to locate objects by reflected sound, to find food in the dark of the deep ocean. Scientists have not been able to agree on how much energy this remarkable sensing ability takes, until now.
***
"In a throwback to terrestrial ancestors, whales use air to make their intense echolocation click sounds and this raises a problem for deep divers. Air compresses with depth so that at 700m deep, where pilot whales hunt, a lung-full of air has shrunk to 1.5% of its volume. But the new study shows that pilot whales use tiny amounts of air to make each click so this volume goes a long way. Even so, whales need to capture the air used by each click and recycle it, like a SCUBA rebreather, to be able to echolocate throughout their dives.
***
"To rise to this challenge, the international team attached miniature computers to whales with suction cups to record the close-in sound of the echolocation clicks.
"Dr. Mark Johnson, a researcher at the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, commented: "There was a eureka moment when we realized that the sound of each click changes gradually as whales echolocate depending on how much air is used."
"Professor Peter Madsen from the Department of Bioscience at Aarhus University added: "This meant that we could measure for the first time just how little air whales use to make each click. Even though these whales can detect prey at tens or even hundreds of meters, the small air volumes mean that echolocation doesn't take much energy."
"To study deep-diving pilot whales, the team went to Tenerife in the Canary Islands. Dr. Natacha Aguilar de Soto of the University of La Laguna, a co-author on the paper, said: "This study gives us a glimpse of the incredible evolutionary developments that allow pilot whales to hunt efficiently in the dark. But their reliance on sound makes them vulnerable to the noise from boats that we are adding to the ocean.'"
Comment: A very clever adaptation using land-based air breathing. Note the illustrated mechanism diagram. Another complex adaptation which makes me wonder, why bother to enter the water.
Evolution: blue whale adaptive cardiac changes
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 01:52 (1606 days ago) @ David Turell
It is well known from previous whale studies that the bigger whales have slower heart beats. I learned this while still a fellow in cardiology. Thsi study about a blue whale illustrates another of the intense complications a whale designer has to overcome:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/scientists-record-a-blue-whale-s-heartbeat?utm_sourc...
"Scientists have recorded the heart rate of a blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in the wild and found considerable extremes in how fast it beats.
"When the whale dove for food, its heart rate dropped as low as two beats per minute, but back at the water’s surface it sped up to nearly 40.
"This suggests it is working at its limit, write Jeremy Goldbogen, from Stanford University,
***
"And it could explain why the world’s largest animal – with a heart weighing as much as a car – doesn’t get any bigger. Its heart wouldn’t be able to sustain higher energy needs.
"Body size is intimately related to physiological functions, an observation known as allometry.
"The quest to understand this has led researchers like Goldbogen and colleagues to explore the limits of body mass.
“From the smallest shrews to the largest whales, physiological performance at the extremes may shed light on constraints to body size,” they write.
***
"Once they managed to decipher the data, the researchers found the lowest rate averaged four to eight beats per minute, up to 50% lower than predicted. The upper rate averaged 25 to 37 beats, nearly outpacing predictions.
"When blue whales dive for krill, their main food source, their heart slows down to lower the rate of oxygen store depletion as well as its own oxygen needs.
"Goldbogen and colleagues found that the extremely low rate at the bottom of the dive increased by 2.5-fold as the whale powerfully ascended in a feeding lunge, then gradually decreased while it glided to filter the water out from the catch.
"It rose to near maximum capacity when the whale resurfaced to replenish its oxygen stores.
The researchers think this explains why the whale’s heart has a high yielding, stretchy aortic arch, to accommodate blood pumped out by the heart and keep it flowing between beats."
Comment: This is a huge whale. So a huge heart is required. But the circulatory changes in heart rate are vital to this animal's life style. Note the amazingly different aortic arch construction. What is also amazing is that they grew to this size from smaller whales to become the largest animal ever on the planet. Since there are eight to nine stages in whale development from land animals, how did this happen? Those eight to nine stages are fossil gaps. Each larger size required more and more cardiac and circulatory changes. We know humans can adapt to a small degree to deep diving. I presented studies here. Only design can do this. By the way the article notes heart rate is related to body size. A hummingbird's heart can reach 1,000 per minute!
Evolution: new transitional whale
by David Turell , Thursday, December 12, 2019, 15:13 (1590 days ago) @ dhw
There were transitional changes in the spine/hip area:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-whale-fossil-helps-detail-how-mam...
"Whales don’t swim like fish do. Instead of moving their tales side-to-side like a shark or a sunfish, the marine mammals pump their tails up-and-down to propel themselves forward. But over 50 million years ago, the earliest whales had legs and could walk on land. Adapting to life in the sea required a new way of moving, and a fossil uncovered in Egypt helps estimate the time when whales became primarily tail-powered swimmers.
***
"All told, the paleontologists uncovered almost the entire spine, part of the skull, and pieces of the arms and legs. “It was very clear from the shape and the size of the vertebrae and appendages that this whale is new in this area,” Zalmout says. Further study indicated that the mammal was a species not seen anywhere else in the world.
"Named Aegicetus gehennae, the ancient swimmer stands out from others found in Wadi Al-Hitan, which fall into one of two groups. Some earlier whales could swim with a combination of paddling limbs and undulating their spines, not unlike otters. Other whales, like Basilosaurus, lived in the sea full time and swam with tails only. Aegicetus fits between the two, representing a moment when whales were just switching to exclusively tail-driven locomotion.
***
"The key feature in this fossil, Zalmout and co-authors point out, is the relationship between the hips and the spine. The earliest whales had hips attached to the spine, just like any terrestrial mammal. This configuration helped the hind limbs support the animal’s weight on land. But in Aegicetus and other whales that came later, the hips are decoupled from the spine and suspended by the flesh of the body. The tight fusion of vertebrae at the hip-spine connection—called the sacrum—also became unfused and more flexible. These whales could no longer paddle with their legs and relied more on undulating their spines to move through the water. The shift indicates two things: that these whales were spending most, if not all, of their time in the water where weight-supporting legs weren’t needed, and that these beasts swam by principally using their tails.
"Not that Aegicetus was much like a modern orca or sperm whale. The fossil whale, which weighed almost a ton (or about a sixth the weight of the biggest orcas), still had jaws set with different types of teeth instead of the simple cones of today’s dolphins. Nor did Aegicetus swim just like its living relatives."
Comment: Another partial step as whales adapted more fully to living in water, which required an enormous number of physical and physiological changes.
Evolution: food supply limits whale size
by David Turell , Thursday, December 12, 2019, 20:08 (1590 days ago) @ David Turell
It seems to depend on being able to eat enough:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-limits-ocean-heavyweights-prey-curb.html
"'Blue whales and sperm whales are not just kind of big," said Nicholas Pyenson, curator of fossil marine mammals at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. "They are among the biggest animals ever to have evolved. They rival and, in some cases, exceed the heaviest dinosaurs. That's pretty spectacular. But why aren't they bigger?"
***
"'Energy is a key currency for all life, and we wanted to know how energy gain compares to energy use in foraging whales with different body sizes and feeding strategies," Goldbogen said. "The ratio of energy gain relative to energy use reveals a whale's foraging efficiency and that provides clues as to why different whales are big and why they aren't bigger."
The relationship between body size and energetic payoff, they found, depended on what feeding strategy a whale had evolved to use—whether a whale was a filter feeder that gulps down schools of prey and strains them from ocean water in their mouth or, instead, a toothed hunter that catches prey individually.
"Blue whales, humpbacks and other filter-feeding whales use baleen—rows of flexible hair-like plates in their mouths—to strain krill and other small prey from ocean water. They seek out dense patches of their prey and almost always, the data showed, consume more calories than they expend when they feed. For filter-feeding whales, large size is no impediment to foraging: blue whales, fin whales and humpback whales, the largest whales in this study, achieved greater energy payoff during feeding events than any other whale in the study.
"Toothed whales, instead, use echolocation to forage and are limited to feeding on one prey target at a time. They must also dive deeper than other whales to find the largest and most abundant prey, like deep-sea squid and fish. Few other warm-blooded predators can access the parts of the ocean where large toothed whales feed. Below 1,000 feet, Pyenson said, "there's nothing else down there except all the squid you can eat." But squid must be chased, and that, the data showed, takes a lot of energy—especially for the biggest toothed whales. In some cases, the largest toothed whales did not eat enough food during a dive to make up for the energy they spent getting there. "They literally can't eat enough to achieve a higher energetic payoff before they have to return to the surface and breathe," Pyenson said.
"Sperm whales, which can be up to 60 feet long, are not only larger than any other of today's toothed whales, but are also bigger than all of their fossil ancestors. That makes sense, Pyenson said, because based on the relative energy efficiencies that the team calculated for different-sized toothed whales, "being a sperm whale today is really pushing a serious biological limit." The team's calculations suggest that sperm whales would not be able to find enough of the largest squid prey to maintain their body size if they were any larger—there simply are not enough large squid in the ocean to sustain bigger sperm whales.
"In contrast, large filter-feeding whales are not limited in their body size by the availability of their prey in the same way as toothed whales. Filter-feeding whales feed on small but very abundant krill prey that flourish at high population densities for short periods of time in specific parts of the world. As a result, Goldbogen, Pyenson and colleagues speculate that the seasonal availability of their abundant prey is what ultimately limits size in today's filter-feeding ocean giants like fin whales and blue whales.
"'The largest baleen whale species must reap the energy gains of krill patches in only a few of the most productive summer months at high latitudes," Goldbogen said. "Highly efficient filter-feeding strategies mean that these whales can build up fat stores that can then power their migrations across ocean basins to breeding grounds at lower latitudes that are leaner and provide much less food."
"The new study underscores the precarious position that all whales hold within their ecosystems. "You have to wonder just how perilous it is for whales living on an energetic knife's edge," Pyenson said—particularly in the face of climate change, overfishing and other threats to the oceans.
"If you're a blue whale and your only prey item is krill, and something causes krill populations to go into decline, then you are at an evolutionary dead end because you would not be able to eat enough to sustain yourself," he said. "It's a good reason for us to try to better understand these predator-prey relationships.'" (my bold)
Comment: Very educational study of whale size limits. They can evolve to a dangerous size for their continuing existence. My bold is a major point. Top predators control ecosystems unless or until they eat themselves out of a job, or prey disappear. The bush of life requires active econiches/systems
Evolution: possible role of stem cells (promised find)
by David Turell , Thursday, December 12, 2019, 20:40 (1590 days ago) @ David Turell
Special different stem cells may have driven human brain size and specialization evolution:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/09/131646/stem-cell-research-hints-evolution-human-brain
"The human cerebral cortex contains 16 billion neurons, wired together into arcane, layered circuits responsible for everything from our ability to walk and talk to our sense of nostalgia and drive to dream of the future. In the course of human evolution, the cortex has expanded as much as 1,000-fold, but how this occurred is still a mystery to scientists.
"Now, researchers at UC San Francisco have succeeded in mapping the genetic signature of a unique group of stem cells in the human brain that seem to generate most of the neurons in our massive cerebral cortex.
***
"Until recently, most of what scientists knew about this process came from studies of model organisms such as mice, where nearly all neurons are produced by stem cells called ventricular radial glia (vRGs) that inhabit a fertile layer of tissue deep in the brain called the ventricular zone (VZ). But recent insights suggested that the development of the human cortex might have some additional wrinkles.
"In 2010, Kriegstein’s lab discovered a new type of neural stem cell in the human brain, which they dubbed outer radial glia (oRGs) because these cells reside farther away from the nurturing ventricles, in an outer layer of the subventricular zone (oSVZ). To the researchers’ surprise, further investigations revealed that during the peak of cortical development in humans, most of the neuron production was happening in the oSVZ rather than the familiar VZ.
***
"The gene activity profiles also provided several novel insights into the biology of outer radial glia. For example, researchers had previously been puzzled as to how oRG cells could maintain their generative vitality so far away from the nurturing VZ. “In the mouse, as cells move away from the ventricles, they lose their ability to differentiate into neurons,” Kriegstein explained.
"But the new data reveals that oRGs bring a support group with them: The cells express genes for surface markers and molecular signals that enhance their own ability to proliferate, the researchers found.
'
“This is a surprising new feature of their biology,” Pollen said. “They generate their own stem cell niche.”
"The researchers used their new molecular insights to isolate oRGs in culture for the first time, and showed that these cells are prolific neuron factories. In contrast to mouse vRGs, which produce 10 to 100 daughter cells during brain development, a single human oRG can produce thousands of daughter neurons, as well as glial cells—non-neuronal brain cells increasingly recognized as being responsible for a broad array of maintenance functions in the brain.
"The discovery of human oRGs’ self-renewing niche and remarkable generative capacity reinforces the idea that these cells may have been responsible for the expansion of the cerebral cortex in our primate ancestors, the researchers said."
Comment: It is logical that stem cells must play a major role in speciation, since they are the creators of functional cells. We still don't understand why or how the new stem cells arrived on the scene.
Evolution: food supply limits whale size
DAVID (under “new transitional whale”):There were transitional changes in the spine/hip area:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-whale-fossil-helps-detail-how-mam...
DAVID: Another partial step as whales adapted more fully to living in water, which required an enormous number of physical and physiological changes.
So would you say these enormous physical changes were the result of whales adapting itty-bitty more fully to living in water, or do you think your God preprogrammed each individual change 3.8 billion years ago or kept popping in to do a new dabble in his effort to cover the time until he turned to the itty-bitty evolution of H. sapiens?
QUOTE: "If you're a blue whale and your only prey item is krill, and something causes krill populations to go into decline, then you are at an evolutionary dead end because you would not be able to eat enough to sustain yourself," he said. "It's a good reason for us to try to better understand these predator-prey relationships.'" (David’s bold)
DAVID: Very educational study of whale size limits. They can evolve to a dangerous size for their continuing existence. My bold is a major point. Top predators control ecosystems unless or until they eat themselves out of a job, or prey disappear. The bush of life requires active econiches/systems.
Of course it does. Every single organism that has ever lived depends or depended on econiches that provide food. Could anyone possibly disagree? (NB this subject has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory that a God personally designed every econiche for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens. Thank you for keeping the two subjects separate.)
Evolution: food supply limits whale size
by David Turell , Friday, December 13, 2019, 13:52 (1589 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (under “new transitional whale”):There were transitional changes in the spine/hip area:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-whale-fossil-helps-detail-how-mam...DAVID: Another partial step as whales adapted more fully to living in water, which required an enormous number of physical and physiological changes.
dhw: So would you say these enormous physical changes were the result of whales adapting itty-bitty more fully to living in water, or do you think your God preprogrammed each individual change 3.8 billion years ago or kept popping in to do a new dabble in his effort to cover the time until he turned to the itty-bitty evolution of H. sapiens?
What I believe is God guided evolution constantly or with much pre-programming or pre-planning.
QUOTE: "If you're a blue whale and your only prey item is krill, and something causes krill populations to go into decline, then you are at an evolutionary dead end because you would not be able to eat enough to sustain yourself," he said. "It's a good reason for us to try to better understand these predator-prey relationships.'" (David’s bold)DAVID: Very educational study of whale size limits. They can evolve to a dangerous size for their continuing existence. My bold is a major point. Top predators control ecosystems unless or until they eat themselves out of a job, or prey disappear. The bush of life requires active econiches/systems.
dhw: Of course it does. Every single organism that has ever lived depends or depended on econiches that provide food. Could anyone possibly disagree? (NB this subject has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory that a God personally designed every econiche for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens. Thank you for keeping the two subjects separate.)
What allows such huge size is buoyancy. No strain on bones and joints..
Evolution: genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 19, 2020, 22:54 (1339 days ago) @ David Turell
Fins to hands:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-lungfish-fins-reveal-limbs-evolved.html
"An international team of biologists based at the University of Konstanz (Germany)... has determined how limbs have evolved from fins using embryos of the Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) for their study. The Australian lungfish is the closest living fish relative of tetrapods and is often considered a "living fossil" as it still resembles the fishes that were around at the time when the first four-limbed vertebrates began to walk on land. For these reasons the fins of lungfish provide a better reference to study the evolutionary transition of fins into limbs than any other extant fish species.
"The team's research, which is reported in the latest issue of Science Advances, shows that a primitive hand is present in lungfish fins but at the same time suggests that the unique anatomy of limbs with digits only evolved during the rise of tetrapods through changes in embryonic development.
"To solve the puzzle of how limbs emerged from fins during evolution researchers have focused on embryonic development. "During embryogenesis, a suite of 'architect' genes shapes an amorphous group of precursor cells into fully grown limbs," explains Dr. Joost Woltering, first author on the study and an assistant professor in the Evolutionary Biology group at the University of Konstanz led by Professor Axel Meyer. The very same "architect" genes also drive fin development. However, because evolutionary changes have occurred in the activity of these genes, the developmental process produces fins in fish and limbs in tetrapods.
"To compare this process in fins and limbs, the team studied such "architect" genes in the embryos of the Australian lungfish. "Amazingly, what we discovered is that the gene specifying the hand in limbs (hoxa13) is activated in a similar skeletal region in lungfish fins," explains Woltering. Importantly, this domain has never been observed in the fins of other fish that are more distantly related to tetrapods. "This finding clearly indicates that a primitive hand was already present in the ancestors of land animals." (my bold)
"The lungfish "hand," in spite of this modern genetic signature, only partially resembles the anatomy of tetrapod hands because it lacks fingers or toes. To understand the genetic basis for this difference the team went on to analyze additional genes known to be associated with the formation of digits, finding that one gene important for the formation of fingers and toes (hoxd13—a "sister gene" to the above-mentioned hoxa13) appeared to be switched on differently in fins.
"During tetrapod limb development, the hoxd13 gene is switched on in a dynamic manner. It first becomes activated in the developing pinky finger and then expands all the way throughout the future hand towards the thumb. This process coordinates the correct formation of all five fingers. While Joost Woltering's team observed a similar activation pattern of this gene in lungfish fins, it did not show this expansion but only remained activated in exactly one half of the fin. Additional differences were found for genes that are normally switched off in digits. In lungfish fins these genes remain active, but on the opposite side of the domain where hoxd13 is activated.
"'All of this goes to show that while lungfish fins unexpectedly have a primitive hand in common with tetrapods, the fins of our ancestors also needed an evolutionary 'finishing touch' to produce limbs. In this sense it looks as if the hand was there first, only to be complemented with digits later during evolution," says Woltering. One influential hypothesis regarding the evolution of limbs first put forward by early 20th-century paleontologists Thomas Westoll and William Gregory, and in the 1980s famously developed further by Neil Shubin, postulates that fingers and toes arose through an expansion of the skeletal elements on one side of the fins of the tetrapod ancestor. This inferred expansion of fin elements corresponds exactly to the differences the team found in the expansion of the digit genes between lungfish fins and tetrapod limbs. The team's observations on the activation and deactivation of limb "architect" genes in lungfish fins thus provides evidence in support of this classical transformational model."
Comment: All courses in comparative anatomy show that from fish onward, we all have the same design pattern in the skeleton. As might be supposed muscle patterns are similar as are digestive organs. Note my bold. This study clearly shows earlier organisms are the templates for future more advanced organisms. This fits with my theory God created evolution by preplanning in the genome. Also reinforced by Behe's finding advances are created by deletion of earlier DNA.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, February 11, 2021, 15:58 (1163 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 16:10
Fish had genes leading to land life:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/fish-had-genes-adapt-life-land-while-they-were-...
"Together, the studies suggest that in terms of genes, the aquatic precursors of four-limbed land animals, or tetrapods, were well-prepared. They were pre-equipped with genes that could be turned to making limbs, efficient air-breathing lungs, and nervous systems tuned to the challenges of life on land.
“'All these studies tell us that the origin of tetrapods was something waiting to happen,” says Borja Esteve-Altava, an evolutionary biologist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. Genetically, “Everything necessary was already there” before vertebrates came ashore, nearly 400 million years ago. (my bold)
***
"In the trio of studies published last week in Cell, genes in living fish took the place of fossils as a way to peer back in time. One set of clues came from studies of mutagenized zebrafish, a favorite model for studying development. M. Brent Hawkins, then a Harvard University graduate student and now a postdoc, was shocked to discover zebrafish mutants with two bones resembling the forelimb bones of land animals in their front fins, complete with muscles, joints, and blood vessels. The finding is “quite spectacular,” says Marie-Andrée Akimenko, a developmental biologist at the University of Ottawa.
"Two mutated genes, vav2 and waslb, were responsible for the transformation. Both genes code for proteins that are part of a pathway controlling the activity of Hox11 proteins, regulatory molecules that guide the formation of the two forearm bones in mammals, among other functions.
***
"Other genetic clues come from living representatives of ancient fish lineages. Only two groups of the lobe-finned fish are alive today: lungfish and coelacanths. About 400 million years ago, they diverged from the line of lobe-finned fish that gave rise to tetrapods 30 million years later.
***
"The groundwork for terrestrial traits like limbs and lungs was laid deep in the fish family tree. Genes for such traits found in both lobe-finned and ray-finned fishes must also have been present in their common ancestor.
"None of the sequenced fish is on the precise branch that led to tetrapods. Yet all have much of the genetic equipment needed for life on land, including most of the genes and regulatory DNA needed to build limbs. For example, all the fish sequenced have a regulatory element that helps form synovial joints, which make fins and limbs flexible and are essential for terrestrial locomotion. The fish also have 11 genes that are needed to build lungs and that work the same way in the bichir’s lungs as they do in humans. One is for a pulmonary surfactant, a lubricating secretion that helps lungs expand and contract. Both the ray-finned fishes and the lobe-finned lungfish also apparently have a regulatory element that helps shape the right ventricle of the heart to deliver oxygen more efficiently.
"The findings show that “a lot of things we think are just in land animals are also in fish,” says Gage Crump, a developmental biologist at the University of Southern California. Finding all those genes in both lobe-finned and ray-finned fish means those genetic pathways must have been present in their common ancestor, some 425 million years ago. “It is surprising that some of these elements are so conserved for such a long evolutionary time,” Zhang says.
***
"The genome of the lungfish offers a glimpse of later adaptations along the path to terrestrial life. It includes additional pulmonary surfactant genes that the ray-finned fishes lack, as well as DNA for specifying five toes, connecting nerves to limb muscles, and for sensitizing the brain to react fast. All those genes were previously thought to be unique to tetrapods.
"Putting it all together, Wang and Zhang think the transition to land involved three key steps. The ability to breathe air occasionally appeared in the common ancestor to ray-and lobe-finned fish, about 425 million years ago. Then surfactant genes, new nervous system genes, and other innovations enabled lobe-finned fish to leave the water temporarily. Finally, after the African lungfish split off from the lobe fins, the common ancestor of land vertebrates acquired other respiratory and locomotive refinements needed to live out of water.
"Rather than building new structures and genetic pathways just when vertebrates moved onto land, evolution apparently was thrifty, using existing genes to adapt to the opportunities offered by terrestrial habitats. “[The studies] show the extent to which the fish-tetrapod transition was achieved by modifying existing molecular systems, rather than creating new ones,” says Per Ahlberg, a paleontologist at Uppsala University."
Comment: note my bold, as science validates my theory that DNA is prepared for major advances. dhw sneers at my proposal that DNA has built-in planning for future major advances such as fish climbing into terrestrial life. This article is proof-positive the DNA setup for rapid advances is present. It explains the fossil gaps Gould tried to explain.
Evolution:strange DNA shapes increase mutation rate
by David Turell , Thursday, February 11, 2021, 19:23 (1163 days ago) @ David Turell
A new finding:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210209121031.htm
"DNA sequences that can fold into shapes other than the classic double helix tend to have higher mutation rates than other regions in the human genome. New research shows that the elevated mutation rate in these sequences plays a major role in determining regional variation in mutation rates across the genome.
***
"'But, as much as 13% of the human genome can fold into different conformations called 'non-B DNA.' We wanted to explore what role, if any, this non-B DNA played in variation that we see in mutation rates among different regions of the genome."
"Non-B DNA can fold into a number of different conformations depending on the underlying DNA sequence. Examples include G-quadruplexes, Z-DNA, H-DNA, slipped strands, and various other conformations. Recent research has revealed that non-B DNA plays critical roles in cellular processes, including the replication of the genome and the transcription of DNA into RNA, and that mutations in non-B sequences are associated with genetic diseases.
***
"For most types of non-B DNA, the team found increased mutation rates. The differences were enough that non-B DNA mutation rates impacted regional variation in their immediate surroundings. These differences also helped explain a large portion of the variation that can be seen along the genome at the scale of millions of nucleotides.
"When we look at all the known factors that influence regional variation in mutation rates across the genome, non-B DNA is the largest contributor," said Francesca Chiaromonte,
***
"The results also have evolutionary implications.
"'We know that natural selection can impact variation in the genome, so for this study we only looked at regions of the genome that we think are not under the influence of selection," said Yi-Fei Huang, assistant professor of biology at Penn State and one of the leaders of the research team. "This allows us to establish a baseline mutation rate for each type of non-B DNA that in the future we could potentially use to help identify signatures of natural selection in these sequences." (my bold)
***
"'Mutations are usually thought to be so rare, that when we see the same mutation in different individuals, the assumption is that those individuals shared an ancestor who passed the mutation to them both," said Makova, a Penn State Cancer Institute researcher. "But it's possible that the mutation rate is so high in some of these non-B DNA regions that the same mutation could occur independently in several different individuals. If this is true, it would change how we think about evolution.'"
Comment: So again we see mutations that have no relation to required adaptation/survival as Darwinists insist must drive evolution. My bold notes their statement that they think there are areas of DNA where selection cannot work. That whole thought surprises me as I don't understand how they know some parts of DNA cannot be changed. Natural selection can only react passively on what DNA presents. A puzzle. The other puzzling statement is in the last paragraph where they do not seem to recognize the concept of convergence, which is known to cause simultaneous similar DNA changes in different individuals.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
QUOTE: “'All these studies tell us that the origin of tetrapods was something waiting to happen.” (David's bold)
"
QUOTE: "The ability to breathe air occasionally appeared in the common ancestor to ray-and lobe-finned fish, about 425 million years ago. Then surfactant genes, new nervous system genes, and other innovations enabled lobe-finned fish to leave the water temporarily. Finally, after the African lungfish split off from the lobe fins, the common ancestor of land vertebrates acquired other respiratory and locomotive refinements needed to live out of water."
DAVID: note my bold, as science validates my theory that DNA is prepared for major advances. dhw sneers at my proposal that DNA has built-in planning for future major advances such as fish climbing into terrestrial life. This article is proof-positive the DNA setup for rapid advances is present. It explains the fossil gaps Gould tried to explain.
It had to be prepared for major advances, i.e. the mechanism had to be present – otherwise, if all life has descended from the first cells, the major advances could never have happened! But look at the paragraph I’ve quoted. It offers a complete history – “occasionally”, using existing genes, then new genes and other innovations (but still only temporarily on land), and then more “respiratory and locomotive refinements”, all of which enabled the fish to live permanently on land. I don’t know how “rapid” this process was, but it could have taken millions of years and of generations of organisms adapting to new environments. What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for occasional air breathing, then another for lots of new genes later on, and then another for more refinements? Or did he keep popping in? “I’ll give you some genes for occasional breathing…”. Then a few million years later: “Here are some new ones for you, for temporary breathing.” “Then a few million years later: “Have some more and go and live permanently on dry land.”
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, February 12, 2021, 15:38 (1162 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “'All these studies tell us that the origin of tetrapods was something waiting to happen.” (David's bold)
"
QUOTE: "The ability to breathe air occasionally appeared in the common ancestor to ray-and lobe-finned fish, about 425 million years ago. Then surfactant genes, new nervous system genes, and other innovations enabled lobe-finned fish to leave the water temporarily. Finally, after the African lungfish split off from the lobe fins, the common ancestor of land vertebrates acquired other respiratory and locomotive refinements needed to live out of water."DAVID: note my bold, as science validates my theory that DNA is prepared for major advances. dhw sneers at my proposal that DNA has built-in planning for future major advances such as fish climbing into terrestrial life. This article is proof-positive the DNA setup for rapid advances is present. It explains the fossil gaps Gould tried to explain.
dhw: It had to be prepared for major advances, i.e. the mechanism had to be present – otherwise, if all life has descended from the first cells, the major advances could never have happened! But look at the paragraph I’ve quoted. It offers a complete history – “occasionally”, using existing genes, then new genes and other innovations (but still only temporarily on land), and then more “respiratory and locomotive refinements”, all of which enabled the fish to live permanently on land. I don’t know how “rapid” this process was, but it could have taken millions of years and of generations of organisms adapting to new environments. What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for occasional air breathing, then another for lots of new genes later on, and then another for more refinements? Or did he keep popping in? “I’ll give you some genes for occasional breathing…”. Then a few million years later: “Here are some new ones for you, for temporary breathing.” “Then a few million years later: “Have some more and go and live permanently on dry land.”
My bold of a scientist's 'waiting to happen" quote tells the story. The existing DNA allowed the advances to happen. You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? Designed or by chance? Speed of change is not the issue you try to raise. The quote you used simply describes what happened, not 'why' there was a preparation mechanism for advances. Designer is implied, strongly.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: dhw sneers at my proposal that DNA has built-in planning for future major advances such as fish climbing into terrestrial life. This article is proof-positive the DNA setup for rapid advances is present. It explains the fossil gaps Gould tried to explain.
dhw: It had to be prepared for major advances, i.e. the mechanism had to be present – otherwise, if all life has descended from the first cells, the major advances could never have happened! […] What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for occasional air breathing? […] Or did he keep popping in? […]
DAVID: My bold of a scientist's 'waiting to happen" quote tells the story. The existing DNA allowed the advances to happen. You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? […] Designer is implied, strongly.
Thank you for at last agreeing that the MECHANISM for change was already present in the first DNA. No need for millions of computer programmes or divine dabbling. How often do you want me to repeat that nobody knows the origin of life or of this mechanism, but God is one possibility, chance is another, and a form of panpsychism is another, but I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, February 13, 2021, 18:04 (1161 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: dhw sneers at my proposal that DNA has built-in planning for future major advances such as fish climbing into terrestrial life. This article is proof-positive the DNA setup for rapid advances is present. It explains the fossil gaps Gould tried to explain.
dhw: It had to be prepared for major advances, i.e. the mechanism had to be present – otherwise, if all life has descended from the first cells, the major advances could never have happened! […] What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for occasional air breathing? […] Or did he keep popping in? […]
DAVID: My bold of a scientist's 'waiting to happen" quote tells the story. The existing DNA allowed the advances to happen. You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? […] Designer is implied, strongly.
dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that the MECHANISM for change was already present in the first DNA. No need for millions of computer programmes or divine dabbling. How often do you want me to repeat that nobody knows the origin of life or of this mechanism, but God is one possibility, chance is another, and a form of panpsychism is another, but I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
'
Poised on the picket fence as usual.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
Transferred from the Neanderthal post, since you tried to use that as evidence of your God changing human brains in anticipation of new requirements.
DAVID: …the article's inference is our brains were very different 315,000 years ago when we appeared, with those 61 genes, and long before our current productions. Sure looks like an anticipated-usage preparation.
Quote: …. [the team] first compared the genomes of modern humans with those of Neanderthals and Denisovans—another archaic human—reconstructed from excavated bones. They found 61 genes for which modern humans all had one version and the archaic humans had another.
Again this is confusing. When did the 61 different genes come into existence? Did the team examine the brain of sapiens fossils from the time of co-existence or from today? It sounds as if it’s from today, in which case we have no idea exactly when the new genes appeared. In any case, we have been over this a thousand times: nobody knows how brain changes occurred in the past. But we agreed that there was a long period of stasis between the arrival of the sapiens brain and the burst of activity that produced our current advanced civilization. This is consistent with the even longer periods of stasis that occurred between earlier stages of brain change. I have proposed that each brain change is the result of some new activity or requirement (as proven by changes that take place in the modern brain), whereas you propose your God stepped in and performed operations on groups of hominins and homos before they engaged in new activities. I really don’t know why we have to go over all this again.
Xxxxxx
DAVID: My bold of a scientist's 'waiting to happen" quote tells the story. The existing DNA allowed the advances to happen. You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? […] Designer is implied, strongly.
dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that the MECHANISM for change was already present in the first DNA. No need for millions of computer programmes or divine dabbling. How often do you want me to repeat that nobody knows the origin of life or of this mechanism, but God is one possibility, chance is another, and a form of panpsychism is another, but I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
DAVID: Poised on the picket fence as usual.
Yes of course. Meanwhile, you are glossing over a truly momentous development in your thinking: that “the mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria”. No need for a 3.8-billion-year programme for every individual advance, and no need for your God to perform millions of operations.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, February 14, 2021, 17:47 (1160 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, February 14, 2021, 18:20
Transferred from the Neanderthal post, since you tried to use that as evidence of your God changing human brains in anticipation of new requirements.
DAVID: …the article's inference is our brains were very different 315,000 years ago when we appeared, with those 61 genes, and long before our current productions. Sure looks like an anticipated-usage preparation.
Quote: …. [the team] first compared the genomes of modern humans with those of Neanderthals and Denisovans—another archaic human—reconstructed from excavated bones. They found 61 genes for which modern humans all had one version and the archaic humans had another.Again this is confusing. When did the 61 different genes come into existence? Did the team examine the brain of sapiens fossils from the time of co-existence or from today? It sounds as if it’s from today, in which case we have no idea exactly when the new genes appeared.
Total subterfuge. We appeared with different brains about 250,000 years after Neanderthals. Undoubtedly we had very different brain genes at that point. That they may have modified somewhat since our arrival is totally beside the point. We were never Neanderthal
dhw: In any case, we have been over this a thousand times: nobody knows how brain changes occurred in the past. But we agreed that there was a long period of stasis between the arrival of the sapiens brain and the burst of activity that produced our current advanced civilization. This is consistent with the even longer periods of stasis that occurred between earlier stages of brain change. I have proposed that each brain change is the result of some new activity or requirement (as proven by changes that take place in the modern brain), whereas you propose your God stepped in and performed operations on groups of hominins and homos before they engaged in new activities. I really don’t know why we have to go over all this again.
The point is preparatory changes in DNA
XxxxxxDAVID: My bold of a scientist's 'waiting to happen" quote tells the story. The existing DNA allowed the advances to happen. You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? […] Designer is implied, strongly.
dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that the MECHANISM for change was already present in the first DNA. No need for millions of computer programmes or divine dabbling. How often do you want me to repeat that nobody knows the origin of life or of this mechanism, but God is one possibility, chance is another, and a form of panpsychism is another, but I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
DAVID: Poised on the picket fence as usual.
dhw: Yes of course. Meanwhile, you are glossing over a truly momentous development in your thinking: that “the mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria”. No need for a 3.8-billion-year programme for every individual advance, and no need for your God to perform millions of operations.
My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
Any evidence of advanced preparation in preceding DNA puts totally aside the Darwinoid interpretation of evolution as a totally purposeless chance advancing process. These preparations definitely show a planning designer.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: We appeared with different brains about 250,000 years after Neanderthals. Undoubtedly we had very different brain genes at that point. That they may have modified somewhat since our arrival is totally beside the point. We were never Neanderthal.
Neanderthals died out about 40,000 years ago, and interbred with sapiens. I’m asking when the 61 different sapiens genes might have appeared. I’m not saying we were once Neanderthal!
dhw: In any case, we have been over this a thousand times: nobody knows how brain changes occurred in the past. But we agreed that there was a long period of stasis between the arrival of the sapiens brain and the burst of activity that produced our current advanced civilization. This is consistent with the even longer periods of stasis that occurred between earlier stages of brain change. I have proposed that each brain change is the result of some new activity or requirement (as evidenced by changes that take place in the modern brain), whereas you propose your God stepped in and performed operations on groups of hominins and homos before they engaged in new activities. I really don’t know why we have to go over all this again.
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
The point is that sapiens has some genes that were not present in Neanderthal. Nobody says anything about “preparatory”. I’m trying to work out what the article is meant to prove. As far as our discussions are concerned, I have simply repeated and summarized the views already expressed on the whole subject.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
My apologies for repeating this. I left out the second part earlier.
DAVID: We appeared with different brains about 250,000 years after Neanderthals. Undoubtedly we had very different brain genes at that point. That they may have modified somewhat since our arrival is totally beside the point. We were never Neanderthal.
Neanderthals died out about 40,000 years ago, and interbred with sapiens. I’m asking when the 61 different sapiens genes might have appeared. I’m not saying we were once Neanderthal!
dhw: In any case, we have been over this a thousand times: nobody knows how brain changes occurred in the past. But we agreed that there was a long period of stasis between the arrival of the sapiens brain and the burst of activity that produced our current advanced civilization. This is consistent with the even longer periods of stasis that occurred between earlier stages of brain change. I have proposed that each brain change is the result of some new activity or requirement (as evidenced by changes that take place in the modern brain), whereas you propose your God stepped in and performed operations on groups of hominins and homos before they engaged in new activities. I really don’t know why we have to go over all this again.
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
The point is that sapiens has some genes that were not present in Neanderthal. Nobody says anything about “preparatory”. I’m trying to work out what the article is meant to prove. As far as our discussions are concerned, I have simply repeated and summarized the views already expressed on the whole subject.
Xxxxxx
DAVID: You have not answered the real issue, how did it happen that a mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria? […] Designer is implied, strongly. […]
dhw:[…]. Meanwhile, you are glossing over a truly momentous development in your thinking: that “the mechanism for advance was present undoubtedly in the first bacteria”. No need for a 3.8-billion-year programme for every individual advance, and no need for your God to perform millions of operations.
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Any evidence of advanced preparation in preceding DNA puts totally aside the Darwinoid interpretation of evolution as a totally purposeless chance advancing process. These preparations definitely show a planning designer.
We are not talking about the purpose or non-purpose of evolution, but about the mechanism that enables bacteria to solve new problems and life forms to change into different life forms. Previously you have limited yourself to either a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every solution and every innovation, or your God personally stepping in to perform operations or deliver lectures to the lucky few. I have proposed a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that would enable bacteria and all life forms to solve problems and design their own innovations. I agree with you that this mechanism may well have been designed by a designer, and I suggest that his plan may have been to allow life forms a free hand, resulting in the vast diversity of the life forms that make up life’s history.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, February 15, 2021, 22:33 (1159 days ago) @ dhw
continuation:
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
Why teh question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution
DAVID: Any evidence of advanced preparation in preceding DNA puts totally aside the Darwinoid interpretation of evolution as a totally purposeless chance advancing process. These preparations definitely show a planning designer.dhw: We are not talking about the purpose or non-purpose of evolution, but about the mechanism that enables bacteria to solve new problems and life forms to change into different life forms. Previously you have limited yourself to either a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every solution and every innovation, or your God personally stepping in to perform operations or deliver lectures to the lucky few. I have proposed a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that would enable bacteria and all life forms to solve problems and design their own innovations. I agree with you that this mechanism may well have been designed by a designer, and I suggest that his plan may have been to allow life forms a free hand, resulting in the vast diversity of the life forms that make up life’s history.
'
You stick to your theory and it favors God I think.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
dhw: The point is that sapiens has some genes that were not present in Neanderthal. Nobody says anything about “preparatory”. I’m trying to work out what the article is meant to prove. As far as our discussions are concerned, I have simply repeated and summarized the views already expressed on the whole subject.
DAVID: But it only took 61 new genes to do the job. The article just proves the difference at the genetic level. And we learned to use the better brain much later than its appearance with those genes.
The fact that it only took 61 genes to make our brains different from Neanderthal brains tells us nothing about how or why or when the brain changed, and it certainly does not mean that your God changed them in preparation for anything. I have suggested that stasis is common to ALL stages of brain change and only ends when there are new activities or requirements. And finally, there is no evidence provided by the modern brain that changes take place in preparation for new activities.
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.
We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.
dhw: I agree with you that this mechanism may well have been designed by a designer, and I suggest that his plan may have been to allow life forms a free hand, resulting in the vast diversity of the life forms that make up life’s history.
DAVID: You stick to your theory and it favors God I think.
No it doesn’t. I have named three possible “first causes” and can believe in none of them. But if God exists, then I am offering you a theory concerning his possible motives and methods.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 17:44 (1158 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
DAVID: But it only took 61 new genes to do the job. The article just proves the difference at the genetic level. And we learned to use the better brain much later than its appearance with those genes.
dhw: The fact that it only took 61 genes to make our brains different from Neanderthal brains tells us nothing about how or why or when the brain changed, and it certainly does not mean that your God changed them in preparation for anything. I have suggested that stasis is common to ALL stages of brain change and only ends when there are new activities or requirements. And finally, there is no evidence provided by the modern brain that changes take place in preparation for new activities.
The facts are exactly the opposite. Sapiens big brains appeared over 300,000 year ago with no new use of them until the last 10-15,000 years ago. Why do big brains in any group appear before new use is learned?
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.
dhw: We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.
Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.
dhw: I agree with you that this mechanism may well have been designed by a designer, and I suggest that his plan may have been to allow life forms a free hand, resulting in the vast diversity of the life forms that make up life’s history.DAVID: You stick to your theory and it favors God I think.
dhw: No it doesn’t. I have named three possible “first causes” and can believe in none of them. But if God exists, then I am offering you a theory concerning his possible motives and methods.
You view His motives as very humanizing.
Evolution: always advancing or not?
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 18:20 (1158 days ago) @ David Turell
Not is the current finding:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-evolution-game-rock-paper-scissors.html
"If B is better than A, and C is better than B, it follows by the transitive property that C is better than A. And, yet, this is not always the case. Every kid is familiar with the Rock-Paper-Scissors game—the epitome of nontransitivity in which there is no clear hierarchy among the three choices, despite each two-way interaction having a clear winner: Paper beats Rock, Scissors beats Paper, and Rock beats Scissors.
"Evolution may be teeming with nontransitive interactions as well. While natural selection—the process by which organisms better adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and pass on their genes—can be observed over shorter time intervals, there is still debate about whether fitness gains accumulate over long evolutionary time scales. In other words, one might expect that successive adaptive events (like the two-way interactions of Rock-Paper-Scissors) would translate into a cumulative increase in fitness, resulting in the very latest generation always being more fit than its all of its genealogical ancestors. However, this turns out to not be true in every case.
"The evolutionary process, then, includes what are known as nontransitive interactions, sometimes producing organisms that are less fit than its ancestors. Experimental demonstrations of such nontransitivity, however, have been lacking.
***
"'Another misconception is that there is a single locus of selection," says Lang. "Multilevel selection—as its name implies—states that selection can act simultaneously on multiple levels of biological organization."
In the context of this experiment, multilevel selection was common, says Lang. "Selection acts across multiple levels of biological organization, from genes within a cell to individuals within a population. Selection at one level can impact fitness at another.
***
"By showing that nontransitive interactions can arise along a line of genealogical succession, the team's work has broad implications for the scientific community's understanding of evolutionary processes.
"'It resolves what evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to as 'the paradox of the first tier,' which is the failure to identify broad patterns of progress over long evolutionary time scales, despite clear evidence of selection acting over successive short time intervals," says Lang. "In addition, it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"
Comment: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward
Evolution: physical change in speciation, brain control
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 19:20 (1158 days ago) @ David Turell
Do dinosaurs with wings know how to fly or do they have to learn it. Partially formed wings cannot fly and can be a obviously severe impediment to survival: One should expect full proper wings all at once:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/random-evolution-doesnt-produce-algorithmic-functions-in...
"A bird does not fly just because it has wings; it needs a “flight” program in its brain. Explanations of the evolution of flight do not account for that.
***
"How can “a random process with no insight into the environment… increase information about that environment within evolving DNA sequences and/or artificial intelligence programs. By what mechanism can randomness ‘know’ anything?” Dr. Holloway’s challenge goes to the heart of the problem with the materialist worldview regarding origins, evolution, and ultimately intelligence.
***
"We have hardware for locomotion: ankles and feet. We need the know-how, the methods, the sequence of commands — the software — to operate that hardware. Feet don’t walk us, nor do they walk independently of us. Rather, we walk using feet. When the hardware changes, for example, if feet were to become roller skates, the software must change radically too.
***
"You must change your software to operate new or modified hardware. In the same way, when an animal’s biological hardware changes, that animal’s operating software must also change to match the hardware changes.
***
"Discussions of dinosaur-to-bird evolution talk about the hardware changes: scales became feathers, legs became wings, cold-blooded (exothermic) physiology became warm-blooded (endothermic) physiology, tooth-filled mouths became beaks, and so on. All of these monumental changes in hardware present enormous operational challenges that incremental mutations somehow solved over millions of years. But totally missing is any account of the evolution of the necessary software.
"Assume for the moment that unguided mutation could actually modify a reptile and install the wing apparatus, including all the muscles and feathers. For the early stubby proto-wing to give the modified reptile the “survival advantage” necessary to win in natural selection, the reptile must know how to use the proto-wing. A reptile with proto-wings instead of legs is like a human with roller skates instead of feet. The reptile must have the biological software to operate the proto-wings successfully. Whatever software the legged reptile had, it won’t operate a proto-wing. The stubby-winged reptile is worse off than his legged brothers and sisters, not better, and won’t win the natural selection prize.
***
"When walking or skating, we develop “muscle memory.” Our brains and nervous systems internalize the procedures for these tasks. We don’t think about them, we just engage them. The toddler toddles around looking for the kitten he wants to play with — and finds it prudently perched on a ledge out of arm’s reach. The toddler doesn’t think about having to walk while trying to carry out that intention. Doubtless, reptiles don’t think about walking, and birds don’t think about flying. They just expect the subroutines in their brains to carry out the tasks."
***
"...neo-Darwinism must explain not only how hardware features mutated into existence but also how the biological operating software came into existence and could then be modified successfully in dramatic ways.
***
"Materialist thinkers contend that every feature of brain, mind, and consciousness arose via cause-effect physics and chemistry accounted for by neo-Darwinism. In that case, they first need to explain how biological software is created and stored in animals, and then how such software can be mutated by accident just in time to operate new biological hardware. Solve those problems first, before claiming human consciousness is mere biochemistry."
Comment: Babies learn to walk. They have a completeness to start with. Brain plasticity takes over. The logic is new species must arrive with 'completeness' making all parts ready to go. New muscle arrangements must be matched with brain capacity that has plasticity to learn to control the new muscle uses. Half changes will not work. Only newly designed species logically fit the problem.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
Pre-planning
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
And:
DAVID: But it only took 61 new genes to do the job. The article just proves the difference at the genetic level. And we learned to use the better brain much later than its appearance with those genes.
dhw: The fact that it only took 61 genes to make our brains different from Neanderthal brains tells us nothing about how or why or when the brain changed, and it certainly does not mean that your God changed them in preparation for anything. I have suggested that stasis is common to ALL stages of brain change and only ends when there are new activities or requirements. And finally, there is no evidence provided by the modern brain that changes take place in preparation for new activities.
DAVID: The facts are exactly the opposite. Sapiens big brains appeared over 300,000 year ago with no new use of them until the last 10-15,000 years ago. Why do big brains in any group appear before new use is learned?
“Exactly the opposite”? The 285,000 years are the period of stasis, and I have just repeated my proposal that ALL stages of brain development have followed the same pattern: the brain changes when there are new activities or requirements. Once those activities are established and the requirements are fulfilled, THE BRAIN DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE. Hence stasis, until new activities and requirements require the next change.
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.
dhw: We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.
DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.
How many more times do you want me to quote the passages YOU quote in your own book?
“Living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation…Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”
Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 18:07 (1157 days ago) @ dhw
Pre-planning
DAVID: The point is preparatory changes in DNA.
And:
DAVID: But it only took 61 new genes to do the job. The article just proves the difference at the genetic level. And we learned to use the better brain much later than its appearance with those genes.dhw: The fact that it only took 61 genes to make our brains different from Neanderthal brains tells us nothing about how or why or when the brain changed, and it certainly does not mean that your God changed them in preparation for anything. I have suggested that stasis is common to ALL stages of brain change and only ends when there are new activities or requirements. And finally, there is no evidence provided by the modern brain that changes take place in preparation for new activities.
DAVID: The facts are exactly the opposite. Sapiens big brains appeared over 300,000 year ago with no new use of them until the last 10-15,000 years ago. Why do big brains in any group appear before new use is learned?
dhw: “Exactly the opposite”? The 285,000 years are the period of stasis, and I have just repeated my proposal that ALL stages of brain development have followed the same pattern: the brain changes when there are new activities or requirements. Once those activities are established and the requirements are fulfilled, THE BRAIN DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE. Hence stasis, until new activities and requirements require the next change.
You are presenting a giant brain waiting for future use, appearing and then just lying around for for 285,000 years for full use. You have not answered why so big so early. Early sapiens lived in a very similar way to erectus. What demanded such a large change if a drive cannot be identified as a requirement for living?
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.
dhw: We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.
DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.
dhw: How many more times do you want me to quote the passages YOU quote in your own book?
“Living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation…Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.
I don't pretend. I quoted him from his book. He and you extrapolate a theory from bacterial studies. His presentation the Royal Society was a more measured presentation. And I presented it here in the past. Perhaps you should refresh your memory.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: The 285,000 years are the period of stasis, and I have just repeated my proposal that ALL stages of brain development have followed the same pattern: the brain changes when there are new activities or requirements. Once those activities are established and the requirements are fulfilled, THE BRAIN DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE. Hence stasis, until new activities and requirements require the next change.
DAVID: You are presenting a giant brain waiting for future use, appearing and then just lying around for for 285,000 years for full use. You have not answered why so big so early. Early sapiens lived in a very similar way to erectus. What demanded such a large change if a drive cannot be identified as a requirement for living?
I don’t know why you simply ignore my explanation, although we’ve been over it so many times. Nobody knows the cause of brain expansion, but we know that each stage was followed by a period of stasis. You propose that your God popped in and operated on the brain, and then nothing happened for thousands of years because he operated in anticipation of later requirements. I wonder why he felt he had to do it so far in advance. I propose that each expansion was CAUSED by the brain responding to an unknown requirement, and once that requirement had been met, there was a long period of stasis until new requirements triggered a new expansion. And so an unknown requirement triggered the expansion to current giant size, and there were no new requirements until a few thousand years ago, but since the brain had reached a size beyond which it would have demanded major changes to the whole anatomy, the process of complexification took over from expansion, although we still see minor expansion of individual sections of the brain. Although we've been over this a dozen times, perhaps you should try once more to explain why you find this illogical.
DAVID: My pre-programming thought always included the concept that early bacteria contained coding for further advances, as shown in current research in a new entry today.
dhw: What do you mean by “coding”? Why have you switched from “mechanism”?
DAVID: Why the question. DNA is coding and DNA changes ran/runs evolution.
dhw: We don’t know what ran/runs evolution! You say God preprogrammes or personally dabbles the changes to DNA, but I - and certain scientists who are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I am – have suggested that there is a mechanism within the cell/cell community, i.e. the equivalent of a brain (possibly God-given) which organizes the changes.
DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.
dhw: How many more times do you want me to quote the passages YOU quote in your own book?
“Living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation…Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”
dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.
DAVID: I don't pretend. I quoted him from his book. He and you extrapolate a theory from bacterial studies.
He also used the research of other scientists – as do all theorists, including yourself. Besides, we are not discussing the truth of his theory but your accusation that I have distorted it. I have not.
DAVID: His presentation the Royal Society was a more measured presentation. And I presented it here in the past. Perhaps you should refresh your memory.
I remember it well, and there was nothing in his presentation to contradict his theory of cellular intelligence as the driving force behind evolutionary innovation. Perhaps you should refresh your memory. Alternatively, please pinpoint the passage in which he says he no longer believes that cells are cognitive entities which self-modify to produce evolutionary novelties.
Information delivery
DAVID: We are still on the outside looking in. We do not know the text of the messages or how they are interpreted by the cells. All we know is cells do talk to each other.
Essential if they are to “act and interact purposefully”, as Shapiro puts it.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, February 18, 2021, 17:55 (1156 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are presenting a giant brain waiting for future use, appearing and then just lying around for for 285,000 years for full use. You have not answered why so big so early. Early sapiens lived in a very similar way to erectus. What demanded such a large change if a drive cannot be identified as a requirement for living?
dhw: Nobody knows the cause of brain expansion, but we know that each stage was followed by a period of stasis. You propose that your God popped in and operated on the brain, and then nothing happened for thousands of years because he operated in anticipation of later requirements...I propose that each expansion was CAUSED by the brain responding to an unknown requirement, and once that requirement had been met, there was a long period of stasis until new requirements triggered a new expansion. And so an unknown requirement triggered the expansion to current giant size, and there were no new requirements until a few thousand years ago, but since the brain had reached a size beyond which it would have demanded major changes to the whole anatomy, the process of complexification took over from expansion, although we still see minor expansion of individual sections of the brain.
You totally ignore when the brain arrived in its roughly current size, few new brain uses were required as shown by the appearance of very few new artifacts. Also your implied stepwise enlargement never happened. Read the following article about our brain since Luther:
https://nautil.us/issue/96/rewired/martin-luther-rewired-your-brain?mc_cid=12a60281c6&a...
Actually don't bother. It simply describes Protestantism pushing reading for all and how our brains obviously changed by its designed plasticity.
DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.dhw: How many more times do you want me to quote the passages YOU quote in your own book?
“Living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation…Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.
DAVID: I don't pretend. I quoted him from his book. He and you extrapolate a theory from bacterial studies.
dhw: He also used the research of other scientists – as do all theorists, including yourself. Besides, we are not discussing the truth of his theory but your accusation that I have distorted it. I have not.
DAVID: His presentation the Royal Society was a more measured presentation. And I presented it here in the past. Perhaps you should refresh your memory.
dhw: I remember it well, and there was nothing in his presentation to contradict his theory of cellular intelligence as the driving force behind evolutionary innovation. Perhaps you should refresh your memory. Alternatively, please pinpoint the passage in which he says he no longer believes that cells are cognitive entities which self-modify to produce evolutionary novelties.
He never did that, as you well know. He simply softened the import of his theory.
Information deliveryDAVID: We are still on the outside looking in. We do not know the text of the messages or how they are interpreted by the cells. All we know is cells do talk to each other.
dhw: Essential if they are to “act and interact purposefully”, as Shapiro puts it.
And my theory, under implanted instructions.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: Nobody knows the cause of brain expansion, but we know that each stage was followed by a period of stasis. [I shan’t quote the rest, because you obviously didn’t read it properly, so I’ll try again below.]
DAVID: You totally ignore when the brain arrived in its roughly current size, few new brain uses were required as shown by the appearance of very few new artifacts. Also your implied stepwise enlargement never happened.
I don’t know how often you want me to repeat the line above: nobody knows the cause of brain expansion. For some reason you restrict yourself to the current brain, and you restrict yourself to artefacts. And stepwise enlargement refers to the different expansions from one species of human to another, not from sapiens to sapiens.
DAVID: Read the following article about our brain since Luther:
https://nautil.us/issue/96/rewired/martin-luther-rewired-your-brain?mc_cid=12a60281c6&a...
Actually don't bother. It simply describes Protestantism pushing reading for all and how our brains obviously changed by its designed plasticity.
I did bother, since your caveat illustrates a point that you desperately try to avoid, and which is repeated in the very first line of the article:
QUOTE: Your brain has been altered, neurologically rewired as you acquired a particular skill.
Rewiring in our brain is what we have called complexification, because the modern brain has stopped expanding. The principle could hardly be clearer: a particular skill results in changes to the brain. There is no known instance of the brain changing in preparation for a particular skill. Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears. The sapiens brain would also have resulted from some unknown requirement, and after a period of stasis, more new requirements were met, not by expansion (perhaps because further expansion would have been too damaging to the anatomy) but by complexification, and it is a known fact that the modern brain changes in response to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.
Shapiro
DAVID: Again stretching Shapiro's findings into your cellular intelligence theory.
dhw: (after quoting Shapiro’s theory): Please stop pretending that Shapiro does not mean what he says.
DAVID: His presentation the Royal Society was a more measured presentation. And I presented it here in the past. Perhaps you should refresh your memory.
dhw: I remember it well, and there was nothing in his presentation to contradict his theory of cellular intelligence as the driving force behind evolutionary innovation. Perhaps you should refresh your memory. Alternatively, please pinpoint the passage in which he says he no longer believes that cells are cognitive entities which self-modify to produce evolutionary novelties.
DAVID: He never did that, as you well know. He simply softened the import of his theory.
Then please stop pretending that I have stretched Shapiro’s theory, or that he did not mean what he said.
Behe
DAVID: Devolution does exist and is recognized by folks not at all related to ID. Much of the article discusses the difficulties in identifying the devolutionary mutations. Many articles are referenced in this review article. So, Behe's theory is well known outside ID.
dhw: The word used throughout this article is adaptation. Behe’s theory related to speciation, and I agree that there is no fixed dividing line between adaptation and speciation, but this does not alter the fact that in new conditions, some genes and traits will no longer be needed. That does not mean loss of traits CAUSES adaptation/speciation. It accompanies adaptation/speciation. So what are you hoping to prove?
DAVID: Obviously the article does not help us in knowing how speciation occurs. This is simply more information that adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.
I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.
DAVID: The oddity is in that adaptation seems to require loss of information or a rearrangement of information so necessary previously hidden information can appear. Proof: it appears necessary future information is planted beforehand, in anticipation of need, just what you reject.
My suggestion is that it does not REQUIRE loss of information (I don’t know why you’ve switched from genes to information) but is accompanied by the loss of information/genes that are no longer relevant to the organism’s situation. And you have forgotten the fact that the process is accompanied by NEW genes. (Initially, you even denied that there were any new genes!) NEW genes were not “planted beforehand”!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, February 19, 2021, 19:00 (1155 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat the line above: nobody knows the cause of brain expansion. For some reason you restrict yourself to the current brain, and you restrict yourself to artefacts. And stepwise enlargement refers to the different expansions from one species of human to another, not from sapiens to sapiens.
Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.
DAVID: Read the following article about our brain since Luther:
https://nautil.us/issue/96/rewired/martin-luther-rewired-your-brain?mc_cid=12a60281c6&a...
Actually don't bother. It simply describes Protestantism pushing reading for all and how our brains obviously changed by its designed plasticity.dhw: I did bother, since your caveat illustrates a point that you desperately try to avoid, and which is repeated in the very first line of the article:
QUOTE: Your brain has been altered, neurologically rewired as you acquired a particular skill.
That line I fully accept as describing built-in plasticity changes.
dhw: Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.
Simple. You have not explained a huge new brain appears with very little new to do. It is obviously designed for future use.
Behedhw: I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.
DAVID: The oddity is in that adaptation seems to require loss of information or a rearrangement of information so necessary previously hidden information can appear. Proof: it appears necessary future information is planted beforehand, in anticipation of need, just what you reject.
dhw: My suggestion is that it does not REQUIRE loss of information (I don’t know why you’ve switched from genes to information) but is accompanied by the loss of information/genes that are no longer relevant to the organism’s situation. And you have forgotten the fact that the process is accompanied by NEW genes. (Initially, you even denied that there were any new genes!) NEW genes were not “planted beforehand”!
Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat the line above: nobody knows the cause of brain expansion. For some reason you restrict yourself to the current brain, and you restrict yourself to artefacts. And stepwise enlargement refers to the different expansions from one species of human to another, not from sapiens to sapiens.
DAVID: Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.
There was no requirement to use it AFTER it had expanded – and that is why there was a period of stasis! And nobody knows why it expanded, but there could have been any number of causes – not just artefacts.
DAVID: Read the following article about our brain since Luther:
https://nautil.us/issue/96/rewired/martin-luther-rewired-your-brain?mc_cid=12a60281c6&a...
Actually don't bother. It simply describes Protestantism pushing reading for all and how our brains obviously changed by its designed plasticity.
dhw: I did bother, since your caveat illustrates a point that you desperately try to avoid, and which is repeated in the very first line of the article:
QUOTE: Your brain has been altered, neurologically rewired as you acquired a particular skill.
DAVID: That line I fully accept as describing built-in plasticity changes.
Of course the brain has to be plastic if it is going to change. The point is that it changes when it acquires a new skill. It does not change in anticipation of acquiring a new skill.
dhw: Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.
DAVID: Simple. You have not explained a huge new brain appears with very little new to do. It is obviously designed for future use.
How many more times? Nobody knows what caused the initial expansion! But whatever was the cause, there were no NEW requirements (or skills) for the next 285,000 years. Now please tell us why you think your God popped in to operate on a few brains if there was no need for him to do so for the next 285,000 years.
Behe
DAVID:...Adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.
dhw: I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.
DAVID: The oddity is in that adaptation seems to require loss of information or a rearrangement of information so necessary previously hidden information can appear. Proof: it appears necessary future information is planted beforehand, in anticipation of need, just what you reject.
dhw: My suggestion is that it does not REQUIRE loss of information (I don’t know why you’ve switched from genes to information) but is accompanied by the loss of information/genes that are no longer relevant to the organism’s situation. And you have forgotten the fact that the process is accompanied by NEW genes. (Initially, you even denied that there were any new genes!) NEW genes were not “planted beforehand”!
DAVID: Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.
The article talks of loss or deletion of genes and loss of function. Please explain why you think the loss of genes would have CAUSED adaptation rather than being the RESULT of adaptation (i.e. they were no longer needed), and please acknowledge that adaptation/speciation is accompanied by NEW genes.
Evolution: genomic evidence of parasitic help
by David Turell , Saturday, February 20, 2021, 15:36 (1154 days ago) @ dhw
Parasitic plants change genomes:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/794.7?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2021-02-18&am...
"Plants that parasitize other plants include species such as mistletoe and members of the endophytic family Rafflesiaceae, which have the largest flowers of any plant but no other recognizable external structures. The impact of extreme host dependency usually results in genome streamlining. Cai et al. assembled the genome of the parasitic Rafflesia Sapria himalayana, hosts of which include members of the grape family. This parasite shows rapid genome evolution that has resulted in extensive gene loss in the chloroplast and photosynthetic machinery but retention of key genes for other organs. Unexpectedly, it has gained extensive repeat regions, resulting in a substantially larger genome than its closest free-living relatives, which may reflect horizontal gene transfer occurring during ancestral host associations."
Comment: Viruses, also parasitic, act in the same way
Evolution: genomic evidence of parasitic help
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 20:37 (1151 days ago) @ David Turell
Mistletoe helps its host plant survive:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-parasitic-conspire-hosts-alive.html
"Like other plants, mistletoe is capable of using sunlight to create its own food, a process called photosynthesis. However, it prefers to siphon water and nutrients from other trees and shrubs, using "false roots" to invade its hosts.
"'Plants are autotrophic, they make their own food. Humans are heterotrophic, we eat it," explained UC Riverside plant-insect ecologist Paul Nabity. "Mistletoe are mostly heterotrophic, but they can switch if they want to."
"Nabity's team found when two mistletoes invade the same tree, they increase photosynthesis to get the nutrients they need, essentially sharing the tree and causing it less harm.
"'They seem to know when they're attacking the same host, and can reduce the virulence of their attack," Nabity said.
***
"When researchers removed one of two mistletoes from a branch, they saw the plant left behind did not increase its photosynthesis, and in some cases reduced its water intake.
"'It appears that the remaining mistletoe recognized it was no longer competing for resources," Nabity said.
"Often times, birds feed from and guard a fruiting mistletoe and in the process, defecate seeds into the same tree from which they came. A tree full of related mistletoes increases the parasite load for the host, though the infection may not be as severe as it otherwise would be if infected with unrelated plants.
"Nabity, who studies interactions between plants and insects, explained that communication among mistletoes is possible through a variety of methods. They are connected to a host's xylem, the tissue that trees use to move water and nutrients from the roots. It's possible the mistletoes send messages using the xylem. It's also possible they may "smell" one another.
"Plants produce chemical compounds and release them through their pores. These compounds evaporate quickly into the air, sending signals that can be received down wind.
"However it is that mistletoes communicate, Nabity says they doesn't necessarily need to be removed from infected trees.
"Forest managers have long maintained that removal will increase tree health. Though this may be true for an individual tree, mistletoe has an important role ecologically, benefitting birds and pollinators. It tends to flower in winter when nectar or pollen from many other plants is not yet available.
"Not only does mistletoe help other species, it may not hurt trees or shrubs as much as once feared."
Comment: It is not surprising that a parasite wants its host to survive. What this article really shows to me is the intricacy of the econiche in which the mistletoe plays an important role.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, February 20, 2021, 21:31 (1154 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.
dhw: There was no requirement to use it AFTER it had expanded – and that is why there was a period of stasis! And nobody knows why it expanded, but there could have been any number of causes – not just artefacts.
You are trying to disarm the impression that big brain, unused, brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression
dhw: Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.
Since each 200 cc expansion was followed later by very new artifacts, each expansion was in preparation of later use.
dhw: How many more times? Nobody knows what caused the initial expansion! But whatever was the cause, there were no NEW requirements (or skills) for the next 285,000 years. Now please tell us why you think your God popped in to operate on a few brains if there was no need for him to do so for the next 285,000 years.
You have the same problem for an answer. Why the delay? For me God planned it for us to learn to use over time. The real question: Why so big so early? You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain, but not any sort of driving force is known as you try to worm around in your explanations
BeheDAVID:...Adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.
dhw: I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.
DAVID: The oddity is in that adaptation seems to require loss of information or a rearrangement of information so necessary previously hidden information can appear. Proof: it appears necessary future information is planted beforehand, in anticipation of need, just what you reject.
dhw: My suggestion is that it does not REQUIRE loss of information (I don’t know why you’ve switched from genes to information) but is accompanied by the loss of information/genes that are no longer relevant to the organism’s situation. And you have forgotten the fact that the process is accompanied by NEW genes. (Initially, you even denied that there were any new genes!) NEW genes were not “planted beforehand”!
DAVID: Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.
dhw: The article talks of loss or deletion of genes and loss of function. Please explain why you think the loss of genes would have CAUSED adaptation rather than being the RESULT of adaptation (i.e. they were no longer needed), and please acknowledge that adaptation/speciation is accompanied by NEW genes.
Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Just note sapiens suddenly had 200 cc more frontal lobe with no existing requirement to use it, based on any new needs for required activities of daily living, in modern terminology.
dhw: There was no requirement to use it AFTER it had expanded – and that is why there was a period of stasis! And nobody knows why it expanded, but there could have been any number of causes – not just artefacts.
DAVID: You are trying to disarm the impression that big brain, unused, brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with your “analogy”. “All dressed up and nowhere to go” is your depiction of early sapiens: you say your God expanded the brain 315,000 years ago, but sapiens did nothing with it. Why did he expand it then if nothing was done with it for 280,000+ years? You simply refuse to consider the possibility that the pre-sapiens brain expanded 315,000 years ago as a RESULT of some new requirement (see next exchange) and then, just as with every earlier brain expansion, there was a period of stasis until the next new requirement arose, but then the brain didn’t expand (perhaps because that would have been too damaging to the rest of the body), and so it complexified instead, which is the process we are able to observe today.
dhw: Summary of my proposal: every brain change throughout hominin/homo history resulted from the effort to respond to something new: e.g. an idea, a change in conditions, a new discovery. Every expansion has been followed by a period of stasis until the next new requirement appears...Please explain why you find all this impossible to believe.
DAVID: Since each 200 cc expansion was followed later by very new artifacts, each expansion was in preparation of later use. And later,
DAVID: For me God planned it for us to learn to use over time.
Why do you say it was followed? The artefacts were found with the remains of the homos that made them. How can you possibly tell that the process of designing and making the artefacts was not the original cause of the expansion, just as in modern times it is the implementation of tasks that CAUSES complexification? (It is of course, perfectly feasible that in each earlier case complexification would have sufficed for new tasks, until eventually it reached the limits of its capacity, which then had to be increased.)
As for learning to use over time, how can you learn how to use something without there being any visible sign? Now it’s you who have your ancient sapiens mucking about with rockets! Earlier sapiens did not NEED to launch into new projects and ways of life – just as even today there are remote tribes who do not NEED central heating or to build cars and computers and rockets to Mars.
DAVID: You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain, but not any sort of driving force is known as you try to worm around in your explanations.
History does not know what caused the brain to expand. All we know is the brain changes when it meets new requirements. But I doubt if there are many historians who would tell you that an unknown power operated on a few brains 315,000 years ago, so that the brain-owners could learn how to use their brains by achieving nothing until 285,000+ years later.
Behe
DAVID:...Adaptation can result from loss of genes, as you note.
dhw: I did not note that at all. I said that adaptation can be ACCOMPANIED by (not result from) loss of genes, and I explained why.
DAVID: Genes are removed according to the article, which I have reread.
dhw: […] The article talks of loss or deletion of genes and loss of function. Please explain why you think the loss of genes would have CAUSED adaptation rather than being the RESULT of adaptation (i.e. they were no longer needed), and please acknowledge that adaptation/speciation is accompanied by NEW genes.
DAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.
Macaques smart
DAVID: Primate brains are used for planning and cleverness by their soul/owners. We souls are just bigger and better at it, because our bigger better brain allows it.
I wish you wouldn’t use these fascinating wonders to provoke yet more repetition of the dualism v materialism discussion. Yes, in dualism the soul uses the brain to implement its thoughts. Materialists will argue that the brain is responsible for the thoughts and the implementation. This natural wonder can be used to defend either view.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2021, 21:07 (1153 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are trying to disarm the impression that big brain, unused, brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression.
dhw: you say your God expanded the brain 315,000 years ago, but sapiens did nothing with it. Why did he expand it then if nothing was done with it for 280,000+ years? You simply refuse to consider the possibility that the pre-sapiens brain expanded 315,000 years ago as a RESULT of some new requirement
What new requirement? Each next stage of human development starting at Lucy (or similar) grew 200 cc average until it stopped at sapiens with 1,200+cc alj due to frontal and prefrontal enlargement. Very full use of big brains started only in the past 10,000+ years when we left caves. Each anticipatory enlargement forms the same pattern since Lucy. Are you proposing new chance small requirements each time? Doesn't the pattern fit a plan? I chose God's agency.
DAVID: You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain, but not any sort of driving force is known as you try to worm around in your explanations.dhw: History does not know what caused the brain to expand. All we know is the brain changes when it meets new requirements. But I doubt if there are many historians who would tell you that an unknown power operated on a few brains 315,000 years ago, so that the brain-owners could learn how to use their brains by achieving nothing until 285,000+ years later.'
You are offering atheistic historians to what purpose? To support your agnosticism? Theological historians would support me.
BeheDAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
dhw: It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.
That is not my impression of the article's import, having reread it.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You are trying to disarm the impression that big brain, unused, brings to anyone who thinks. "All dressed up and no place to go" is an obvious thought. Or, the earliest sapiens built a rocket for a moon launch, 315,000 years ago and just finally used it 50 years ago. This analogy fits as you wildly talk all around the obvious impression.
dhw: ...you say your God expanded the brain 315,000 years ago, but sapiens did nothing with it. Why did he expand it then if nothing was done with it for 280,000+ years? You simply refuse to consider the possibility that the pre-sapiens brain expanded 315,000 years ago as a RESULT of some new requirement.
DAVID: What new requirement? Each next stage of human development starting at Lucy (or similar) grew 200 cc average until it stopped at sapiens with 1,200+cc alj due to frontal and prefrontal enlargement. Very full use of big brains started only in the past 10,000+ years when we left caves. Each anticipatory enlargement forms the same pattern since Lucy. Are you proposing new chance small requirements each time? Doesn't the pattern fit a plan? I chose God's agency.
I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that NOBODY KNOWS what caused brain expansions, which is why we have different theories: new artefacts, new discoveries, changing conditions providing new problems to solve or opportunities to grasp. All we know for sure is that the modern brain changes when acquiring new skills or meeting new requirements, but now it has stopped expanding and complexifies instead. So maybe in the past, when brains were smaller, they expanded once their complexification capacity had been exceeded. It’s a theory – as is your belief that your God kept popping in to perform operations on sleeping groups of hominins and homos – but you have never yet explained why you find it inconceivable.
DAVID: You constantly stumble around not finding a natural driving cause and history tells us there was no need for such a big brain, but not any sort of driving force is known as you try to worm around in your explanations.
dhw: History does not know what caused the brain to expand. All we know is the brain changes when it meets new requirements. But I doubt if there are many historians who would tell you that an unknown power operated on a few brains 315,000 years ago, so that the brain-owners could learn how to use their brains by achieving nothing until 285,000+ years later.'
DAVID: You are offering atheistic historians to what purpose? To support your agnosticism? Theological historians would support me.
You do not have to be an atheist to support the theory I have proposed, and I have specifically focused on your illogical comments regarding the stasis: do you happen to know of any “theological historians” who argue that God operated on pre-sapiens brains 315,000 years ago so that the brain owners could learn how to use their brains by achieving nothing until approx. 305,000 (the figure keeps changing) years later?
Behe
DAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
dhw: It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.
DAVID: That is not my impression of the article's import, having reread it.
I am not asking about the article’s “import”. I am asking you to respond to my argument.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, February 22, 2021, 18:29 (1152 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What new requirement? Each next stage of human development starting at Lucy (or similar) grew 200 cc average until it stopped at sapiens with 1,200+cc alj due to frontal and prefrontal enlargement. Very full use of big brains started only in the past 10,000+ years when we left caves. Each anticipatory enlargement forms the same pattern since Lucy. Are you proposing new chance small requirements each time? Doesn't the pattern fit a plan? I chose God's agency.
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that NOBODY KNOWS what caused brain expansions, which is why we have different theories: new artefacts, new discoveries, changing conditions providing new problems to solve or opportunities to grasp. All we know for sure is that the modern brain changes when acquiring new skills or meeting new requirements, but now it has stopped expanding and complexifies instead. So maybe in the past, when brains were smaller, they expanded once their complexification capacity had been exceeded. It’s a theory – as is your belief that your God kept popping in to perform operations on sleeping groups of hominins and homos – but you have never yet explained why you find it inconceivable.
You are arguing for natural expansions, but cannot explain why each expansion is so large it exceeds all current needs and has to be used until complexification is all used up and then requires enlargement. This can obviously be interpreted as enlargement in anticipation of future need, the same as my theory. In my view such a response must come from a mind that can anticipate the future, not by natural chance. Therefore, I say God does it.
BeheDAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
dhw: It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.
DAVID: That is not my impression of the article's import, having reread it.
dhw: I am not asking about the article’s “import”. I am asking you to respond to my argument.
You constantly scurry around to protect Darwin. The article mainly discusses loss of genes, but does note new genes also contribute to changes. I've said that.
From the article showing major import:
"The existence of a category of alleles distinguished by a derived loss of biochemical function has been described by various names: “amorphic” (Muller 1932), “loss-of-function” (Jones 1972), “nonfunctional” (Nei and Roychoudhury 1973), “knockout” (Kulkarni et al. 1999),”null” (Engel et al. 1973), “pseudogene” (Jacq et al. 1977), or simply “gene loss” (Zimmer et al. 1980). Total gene loss is the most obvious case of loss of function. Comparisons of gene content between distantly related species have revealed considerable evidence for adaptation via complete deletion of genes or even entire sets of functionally related genes (Wang et al. 2006; Blomme et al. 2006; Will et al. 2010; McLean et al. 2011; Griesmann et al. 2018; van Velzen et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2018; Huelsmann et al. 2019; McGowen et al. 2020; Baggs et al. 2020). Pangenome analyses have revealed extensive gene content variation segregating within species. For example, the average Brachypodium distachyon genotype is missing almost half of the genes observed in the species pangenome (Gordon et al. 2017). Yet total gene loss is not the only means by which loss of function can occur. In their review of evolution by gene loss, Albalat and Cañestro (2016) point out that single mutations and many mutation types such as premature stop codons, frameshifts, splice site disruptions, and elimination of regulatory regions required for gene expression can have effects that are functionally indistinguishable from complete gene loss. Here we will discuss how the phenomenon of allelic heterogeneity—that numerous types of mutations can produce the same functionally analogous allele—is important for understanding the evolutionary dynamics and implications of adaptation by loss of function."
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You are arguing for natural expansions, but cannot explain why each expansion is so large it exceeds all current needs and has to be used until complexification is all used up and then requires enlargement. This can obviously be interpreted as enlargement in anticipation of future need, the same as my theory. In my view such a response must come from a mind that can anticipate the future, not by natural chance. Therefore, I say God does it.
We are going back over exactly the same ground as before. Neither chance nor anticipation is involved! So let me give you the same example as before, purely as an illustration. Small-brained homo is hunting. He knows it’s dangerous to come too close to the animal. He has an idea: a weapon he can throw from a distance. As we know from the modern brain, new skills cause changes to the brain. In designing, making, and learning how to use the new weapon, our small-brained homo causes changes to his own brain, and since his brain is so small, new cells are required to perform these tasks. Hence expansion. Once he has accomplished his task, he has no need of further expansion (i.e. there is stasis) until a new idea/circumstance/ opportunity/discovery again requires an increase in capacity, and so we have the next expansion. There is no "chance", and the small-brained homo’s brain did not expand in anticipation of making the new weapon – it expanded through the act of implementing the new idea. This is an illustration of how the process would work, and it rests firmly on the fact that we know the brain changes IN RESPONSE TO new requirements etc. But nobody knows what those requirements were in the dim and distant past. New artefacts are just ONE possibility. And to anticipate your next objection: there is NOTHING in this proposal that excludes your God, because nobody knows how this mechanism could have come into existence. Your God may have designed it.
Behe
DAVID: Yes, new genes happen, but loss of genes is also observed, and your question to me is is it chicken or egg first. New adaptation with loss of genes means loss of genes caused the adaptation as the authors imply in the article.
dhw: It "means" no such thing. Please tell us why it is impossible for new adaptations (and the acquisition of new genes) to make certain existing genes redundant.
DAVID: That is not my impression of the article's import, having reread it.
dhw: I am not asking about the article’s “import”. I am asking you to respond to my argument.
DAVID: You constantly scurry around to protect Darwin. The article mainly discusses loss of genes, but does note new genes also contribute to changes. I've said that.
It has nothing at all to do with Darwin. Please tell me why it is unreasonable to argue that new adaptations and the acquisition of new genes will make some old genes redundant. I don’t know why you’ve bothered to reproduce the whole article when all I’m asking is that you tell me why you reject what I have proposed. But I will extract one sentence from the article: “Total gene loss is the most obvious case of loss of function.” This is the nub of the argument, which you refuse to deal with. I suggest, as I did before, that adaptation results from new genes and changed functions of existing genes. LOSS OF FUNCTION means that when the organism adapts, there are genes which are no longer of any use, and so they are discarded. It does not mean that their uselessness is the CAUSE of adaptation! Please tell me what is wrong with my proposal.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 16:12 (1151 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are arguing for natural expansions, but cannot explain why each expansion is so large it exceeds all current needs and has to be used until complexification is all used up and then requires enlargement. This can obviously be interpreted as enlargement in anticipation of future need, the same as my theory. In my view such a response must come from a mind that can anticipate the future, not by natural chance. Therefore, I say God does it.
dhw: We are going back over exactly the same ground as before. Neither chance nor anticipation is involved! So let me give you the same example as before, purely as an illustration. Small-brained homo is hunting. He knows it’s dangerous to come too close to the animal. He has an idea: a weapon he can throw from a distance. As we know from the modern brain, new skills cause changes to the brain. In designing, making, and learning how to use the new weapon, our small-brained homo causes changes to his own brain, and since his brain is so small, new cells are required to perform these tasks. Hence expansion. Once he has accomplished his task, he has no need of further expansion (i.e. there is stasis) until a new idea/circumstance/ opportunity/discovery again requires an increase in capacity, and so we have the next expansion.
Your old proposal is thinking of a new weapon, a spear, enlarged the brain. All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
BeheDAVID: You constantly scurry around to protect Darwin. The article mainly discusses loss of genes, but does note new genes also contribute to changes. I've said that.
dhw: It has nothing at all to do with Darwin. Please tell me why it is unreasonable to argue that new adaptations and the acquisition of new genes will make some old genes redundant. I don’t know why you’ve bothered to reproduce the whole article when all I’m asking is that you tell me why you reject what I have proposed. But I will extract one sentence from the article: “Total gene loss is the most obvious case of loss of function.” This is the nub of the argument, which you refuse to deal with. I suggest, as I did before, that adaptation results from new genes and changed functions of existing genes. LOSS OF FUNCTION means that when the organism adapts, there are genes which are no longer of any use, and so they are discarded. It does not mean that their uselessness is the CAUSE of adaptation! Please tell me what is wrong with my proposal.
Talk around it all you wish, but what you have said is in adaptation genes (information) are discarded. I've agreed new genes may be added.
Back to Behe:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo49/darwinism-dissembled
Here’s a summation of the evolutionary picture that has emerged, according to Behe:
• The large majority of mutations are degradatory, meaning they’re mutations in which the gene is broken or blunted. Genetic information has been lost, not gained.
• Sometimes the degradation helps an organism survive.
• When the degradation confers a survival advantage, the mutation spreads throughout the population by natural selection.
In genetics, a loss of information generally translates into a loss of function, so it might seem counterintuitive to suppose that a degradatory mutation would confer a survival advantage. Behe gives several examples, though, of instances where damaged genes have been shown to aid survival. In the case of the sickle-cell gene, for example, a single amino acid change causes hemoglobin to behave in a way that inhibits growth of the malaria microbe. It’s a loss-of-function mutation, but it confers a survival advantage in malaria-prone regions.
Sickle cell is a prime example. Proper hemoglobin is damaged, degraded.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: We are going back over exactly the same ground as before. Neither chance nor anticipation is involved! So let me give you the same example as before, purely as an illustration. Small-brained homo is hunting. He knows it’s dangerous to come too close to the animal. He has an idea: a weapon he can throw from a distance. As we know from the modern brain, new skills cause changes to the brain. In designing, making, and learning how to use the new weapon, our small-brained homo causes changes to his own brain, and since his brain is so small, new cells are required to perform these tasks. Hence expansion. Once he has accomplished his task, he has no need of further expansion (i.e. there is stasis) until a new idea/circumstance/ opportunity/discovery again requires an increase in capacity, and so we have the next expansion.
DAVID: Your old proposal is thinking of a new weapon, a spear, enlarged the brain.
Not just thinking of it, but designing it and learning how to use it.
DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?
Behe
DAVID: You constantly scurry around to protect Darwin. The article mainly discusses loss of genes, but does note new genes also contribute to changes. I've said that.
dhw: It has nothing at all to do with Darwin. Please tell me why it is unreasonable to argue that new adaptations and the acquisition of new genes will make some old genes redundant. […] I will extract one sentence from the article: “Total gene loss is the most obvious case of loss of function.” This is the nub of the argument, which you refuse to deal with. I suggest, as I did before, that adaptation results from new genes and changed functions of existing genes. LOSS OF FUNCTION means that when the organism adapts, there are genes which are no longer of any use, and so they are discarded. It does not mean that their uselessness is the CAUSE of adaptation! Please tell me what is wrong with my proposal.
DAVID: Talk around it all you wish, but what you have said is in adaptation genes (information) are discarded. I've agreed new genes may be added.
I’m not talking round anything. I’m pointing out that adaptations and innovations will make certain genes unnecessary and so they will be discarded. That does not mean that the loss of genes CAUSES the adaptation/innovation
DAVID: Back to Behe:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo49/darwinism-dissembled
Here’s a summation of the evolutionary picture that has emerged, according to Behe:
• The large majority of mutations are degradatory, meaning they’re mutations in which the gene is broken or blunted. Genetic information has been lost, not gained.
• Sometimes the degradation helps an organism survive.
• When the degradation confers a survival advantage, the mutation spreads throughout the population by natural selection.
In genetics, a loss of information generally translates into a loss of function, so it might seem counterintuitive to suppose that a degradatory mutation would confer a survival advantage. Behe gives several examples, though, of instances where damaged genes have been shown to aid survival. In the case of the sickle-cell gene, for example, a single amino acid change causes hemoglobin to behave in a way that inhibits growth of the malaria microbe. It’s a loss-of-function mutation, but it confers a survival advantage in malaria-prone regions.
Sickle cell is a prime example. Proper hemoglobin is damaged, degraded.
We were not discussing mutations! This is getting absurd. A mutation is not a loss, it is a change, and sickle cells have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of adaptation and speciation. The sickle cell may have developed as a counter to malaria, but it is also the cause of sickness (anaemia)! (My wife had sickle cells, but fortunately only mildly). It’s good to hear you talk of the role survival plays in evolution, but you do yourself no favours by pretending that sickle cells and other examples of beneficial mutations somehow prove that the loss of genes causes adaptation and innovation.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 15:15 (1150 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your old proposal is thinking of a new weapon, a spear, enlarged the brain.
dhw:Not just thinking of it, but designing it and learning how to use it.
DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
dhw: Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?
Remember, my God obviously expanded in anticipation of need, as sapiens brain history shows.
BeheDAVID: Talk around it all you wish, but what you have said is in adaptation genes (information) are discarded. I've agreed new genes may be added.
I’m not talking round anything. I’m pointing out that adaptations and innovations will make certain genes unnecessary and so they will be discarded. That does not mean that the loss of genes CAUSES the adaptation/innovation
DAVID: Back to Behe:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo49/darwinism-dissembledHere’s a summation of the evolutionary picture that has emerged, according to Behe:
• The large majority of mutations are degradatory, meaning they’re mutations in which the gene is broken or blunted. Genetic information has been lost, not gained.
• Sometimes the degradation helps an organism survive.
• When the degradation confers a survival advantage, the mutation spreads throughout the population by natural selection.
In genetics, a loss of information generally translates into a loss of function, so it might seem counterintuitive to suppose that a degradatory mutation would confer a survival advantage. Behe gives several examples, though, of instances where damaged genes have been shown to aid survival. In the case of the sickle-cell gene, for example, a single amino acid change causes hemoglobin to behave in a way that inhibits growth of the malaria microbe. It’s a loss-of-function mutation, but it confers a survival advantage in malaria-prone regions.
Sickle cell is a prime example. Proper hemoglobin is damaged, degraded.
dhw: We were not discussing mutations! This is getting absurd. A mutation is not a loss, it is a change, and sickle cells have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of adaptation and speciation. The sickle cell may have developed as a counter to malaria, but it is also the cause of sickness (anaemia)! (My wife had sickle cells, but fortunately only mildly). It’s good to hear you talk of the role survival plays in evolution, but you do yourself no favours by pretending that sickle cells and other examples of beneficial mutations somehow prove that the loss of genes causes adaptation and innovation.
Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.
Evolution: cetaceans get much less cancer
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 22:34 (1150 days ago) @ David Turell
Thought to be due to a high mutation rate 0f protective genes:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/why-dont-whales-get-cancer/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Maste...
"Whales, dolphins and porpoises are the world’s largest and longest-living mammals – and they can resist cancer.
"Why these cetaceans and other large animals evade this scourge has long perplexed scientists, who reason that organisms with more cells should have a higher risk of cancerous mutations – a dilemma known as Peto’s paradox.
"A molecular study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, has now found cetaceans have rapidly evolving genes that suppress tumours.
"A team of international scientists from Chile, the UK and the US explored how natural selection drove the evolution of 1077 tumour suppressor genes in cetacean ancestors and compared them with those of 15 other mammal species, including humans.
"The turnover of the genes – the rate at which they were gained and lost through mutation– was nearly 2.4 times higher in cetaceans than most other mammals, and highest in baleen whales (filter-feeding species that include blue, humpback and right whales).
"The gene variants found in those mammals “could have favoured the evolution of their particular traits of anti-cancer resistance, gigantism and longevity,” write Daniela Tejada-Martinez, from the Universidad Austral de Chile, and co-authors.
"The study found signs of positive selection in genes regulating DNA-damage, tumour spreading and immunity. It also found 71 genes with duplications associated with fighting cancer, such as DNA repair, metabolism, cell death and ageing and 11 duplicate genes associated with longevity.
“'Overall, these results provide evolutionary evidence that natural selection in tumour suppressor genes could act on species with large body sizes and extended lifespan,” the authors write, “providing novel insights into the genetic basis of disease resistance.'”
Comment: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Your old proposal is thinking of a new weapon, a spear, enlarged the brain.
dhw: Not just thinking of it, but designing it and learning how to use it.
DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
dhw: Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?
DAVID: Remember, my God obviously expanded in anticipation of need, as sapiens brain history shows.
So your God popped in to perform an expansion operation on pre-sapiens, and they didn’t need it for 280,000+ years. I can’t help wondering why your God didn’t just pop in and do the operation when it was needed. Please don’t tell us that we needed 280,000+ years to learn how to use it, though we didn’t actually use it. Meanwhile, please do tell us why you find the above bolded section unreasonable.
DAVID (quoting Behe): Sickle cell is a prime example. Proper hemoglobin is damaged, degraded.
dhw: We were not discussing mutations! This is getting absurd. A mutation is not a loss, it is a change, and sickle cells have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of adaptation and speciation. The sickle cell may have developed as a counter to malaria, but it is also the cause of sickness (anaemia)! (My wife had sickle cells, but fortunately only mildly). It’s good to hear you talk of the role survival plays in evolution, but you do yourself no favours by pretending that sickle cells and other examples of beneficial mutations somehow prove that the loss of genes causes adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.
And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, February 25, 2021, 23:40 (1149 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
dhw: Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?
DAVID: Remember, my God obviously expanded in anticipation of need, as sapiens brain history shows.
dhw: So your God popped in to perform an expansion operation on pre-sapiens, and they didn’t need it for 280,000+ years. I can’t help wondering why your God didn’t just pop in and do the operation when it was needed. Please don’t tell us that we needed 280,000+ years to learn how to use it, though we didn’t actually use it. Meanwhile, please do tell us why you find the above bolded section unreasonable.
In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.
DAVID (quoting Behe): Sickle cell is a prime example. Proper hemoglobin is damaged, degraded.dhw: We were not discussing mutations! This is getting absurd. A mutation is not a loss, it is a change, and sickle cells have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of adaptation and speciation. The sickle cell may have developed as a counter to malaria, but it is also the cause of sickness (anaemia)! (My wife had sickle cells, but fortunately only mildly). It’s good to hear you talk of the role survival plays in evolution, but you do yourself no favours by pretending that sickle cells and other examples of beneficial mutations somehow prove that the loss of genes causes adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.
dhw: And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.
Because the article quoted gave the impression that like Behe loss of genes caused the adaptations. ID folks who led me to the article had the same impression. You don't like the implication so you will keep on struggling about it.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: All we know from our brain is that it stays the same size and complexifies. Since new organs build on past capacities I think it is reasonable to complexification mechanisms were present in all older smaller brains. No need for expansion.
dhw: Of course it’s reasonable to suppose that their brains complexified. But it is equally reasonable to suppose that since their brains were smaller, there was less capacity for complexification! And so when that capacity had been reached, more cells were needed. You have yourself pointed out that even within our modern brains, certain parts expand when needed. And why on earth would your God have expanded the smaller brain if the extra capacity was not needed?
DAVID: Remember, my God obviously expanded in anticipation of need, as sapiens brain history shows.
dhw: So your God popped in to perform an expansion operation on pre-sapiens, and they didn’t need it for 280,000+ years. I can’t help wondering why your God didn’t just pop in and do the operation when it was needed. Please don’t tell us that we needed 280,000+ years to learn how to use it, though we didn’t actually use it. Meanwhile, please do tell us why you find the above bolded section unreasonable.
DAVID: In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.
I know you believe God either programmed every single evolutionary change 3.8 billion years ago or stepped in to perform operations on millions of different individual life forms, including humans and their brains. But if you believe your God designed a mechanism that enabled brain cells to complexify without his popping in to operate on each individual brain, why can’t you believe that the same mechanism might enable brain cells to add to their number when they need to do so?
Behe
DAVID: Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.
dhw: And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.
DAVID: Because the article quoted gave the impression that like Behe loss of genes caused the adaptations. ID folks who led me to the article had the same impression. You don't like the implication so you will keep on struggling about it.
The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, February 26, 2021, 15:37 (1148 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.
dhw: I know you believe God either programmed every single evolutionary change 3.8 billion years ago or stepped in to perform operations on millions of different individual life forms, including humans and their brains. But if you believe your God designed a mechanism that enabled brain cells to complexify without his popping in to operate on each individual brain, why can’t you believe that the same mechanism might enable brain cells to add to their number when they need to do so?
Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
BeheDAVID: Your wife had sickle trait, which means from one parent. I'll stick with Behe's interpretation that the sickle mutation was obviously degrading proper hemoglobin shape.
dhw: And you totally ignore the subject of our discussion, which is “MORE GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF PRE-PLANNING”. We were not discussing mutations and sickle cells, but the theory that adaptation and speciation RESULT from loss of genes, whereas I suggest that loss of genes is the RESULT of successful adaptation and speciation, because the genes are no longer needed. Please explain why you reject this proposal.
DAVID: Because the article quoted gave the impression that like Behe loss of genes caused the adaptations. ID folks who led me to the article had the same impression. You don't like the implication so you will keep on struggling about it.
dhw: The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: In my opinion existing earlier brain cells don't know how to make the brain enlarge. It is your theory, not mine. I believe God did it.
dhw: I know you believe God either programmed every single evolutionary change 3.8 billion years ago or stepped in to perform operations on millions of different individual life forms, including humans and their brains. But if you believe your God designed a mechanism that enabled brain cells to complexify without his popping in to operate on each individual brain, why can’t you believe that the same mechanism might enable brain cells to add to their number when they need to do so?
DAVID: Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
“Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.
Behe
dhw: The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
DAVID: My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.
The mutation article had nothing to do with adaptation. The previous article did, and I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, February 27, 2021, 14:39 (1147 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
dhw: “Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.
You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. Your own bias overwhelms you.
Behedhw: The article discussed on Tuesday/Wednesday did not even mention adaptation. It was concerned with mutations and loss of function which might in some cases prove advantageous – hence the sickle cell. And you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
DAVID: My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.
dhw: The mutation article had nothing to do with adaptation. The previous article did, and I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.
Our view, like cell functions, is from the outside of the process. It is again 50/50 probability, and I chose Behe's interpretation.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
dhw: “Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.
DAVID: You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. Your own bias overwhelms you.
You said “willy-nilly”, and I said “to serve a particular purpose”! Of course they are in a special structural form, and of course they are designed! But instead of your God preprogramming every single new structural form 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to perform an operation on a group of sleeping homos to add the neurons necessary for tasks to be accomplished 280,000+ years later, we have intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) adding the neurons necessary to accomplish tasks in their here and now. Please explain why you think neurons designed to serve a particular purpose are “willy-nilly”, whereas neurons designed for some unknown future task are designed in a special structural form.
Behe
dhw: […] you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
DAVID: My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.
dhw: […] I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.
DAVID: Our view, like cell functions, is from the outside of the process. It is again 50/50 probability, and I chose Behe's interpretation.
The fact that you reject my theory that adaptation will RESULT in some genes losing their function and therefore being discarded (as opposed to their loss CAUSING adaptation) does not explain why you regard my theory as illogical.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, February 28, 2021, 15:27 (1146 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Because just adding neurons willy-nilly will not anticipate preparation for future use. 200 cc of brain must chav e special organization which is present in the forebrain with five tiers ranked.
dhw: “Adding neurons willy-nilly” is NOT what I am proposing! The neurons are added to serve a particular purpose – namely, to implement the new ideas or to cope with the new conditions which exceed the existing capacity. In our simple example, they are added as small-brained homo designs, makes and uses his new artefact. In your theory, however, your God pops in to operate on the brains of a few small-brained pre-sapiens in “anticipation” of something or the other that they will invent 280,000+ years later. THAT is willy-nilly.
DAVID: You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. Your own bias overwhelms you.
dhw: You said “willy-nilly”, and I said “to serve a particular purpose”! Of course they are in a special structural form, and of course they are designed! But instead of your God preprogramming every single new structural form 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to perform an operation on a group of sleeping homos to add the neurons necessary for tasks to be accomplished 280,000+ years later, we have intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) adding the neurons necessary to accomplish tasks in their here and now. Please explain why you think neurons designed to serve a particular purpose are “willy-nilly”, whereas neurons designed for some unknown future task are designed in a special structural form.
You are talking around the issue of design. Our frontal cortex has a very specific design which is required for us to be as mentally smart as we are. If erectus had this particular design of five tiered layers of neurons, sapiens would not have been needed. How did erectus' neurons know how to do this? Only God could do it as you reluctantly drag in the possibility. And finally there is no survival need for our particular brain, to kill your favorite reason for evolution.
Behedhw: […] you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it.
DAVID: My view is opposite: loss of genes causes the adaptation.
dhw: […] I know you believe that loss of genes causes adaptation. Now please explain why you find my counter-proposal (now bolded) illogical.
DAVID: Our view, like cell functions, is from the outside of the process. It is again 50/50 probability, and I chose Behe's interpretation.
dhw: The fact that you reject my theory that adaptation will RESULT in some genes losing their function and therefore being discarded (as opposed to their loss CAUSING adaptation) does not explain why you regard my theory as illogical.
Not illogical. A different view of existing thought as the article showed.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You didn't answer the concept the neurons have to be added in a special structural form, therefore by design. [...]
dhw: You said “willy-nilly”, and I said “to serve a particular purpose”! Of course they are in a special structural form, and of course they are designed! But instead of your God preprogramming every single new structural form 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to perform an operation on a group of sleeping homos to add the neurons necessary for tasks to be accomplished 280,000+ years later, we have intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) adding the neurons necessary to accomplish tasks in their here and now. Please explain why you think neurons designed to serve a particular purpose are “willy-nilly”, whereas neurons designed for some unknown future task are designed in a special structural form.
DAVID: You are talking around the issue of design. Our frontal cortex has a very specific design which is required for us to be as mentally smart as we are. If erectus had this particular design of five tiered layers of neurons, sapiens would not have been needed.
If all the smaller brained hominins and homos had had the bigger brains, then the bigger brains would not have been needed! My whole point is that smaller brains became bigger when more cells were needed to perform tasks which had never been performed before. There is no “issue of design”. The issue is your insistence that your God had to step in and perform operations in anticipation of new requirements, whereas I propose that cells designed their own restructuring and reinforcement (including the frontal cortex) in response to new requirements. That is to say, not "willy-nilly" - in contrast to your theory which has your God expanding brains for no particular reason 280,000+ years before sapiens thinks of something new to do with them.
DAVID: How did erectus' neurons know how to do this? Only God could do it as you reluctantly drag in the possibility.
I do not “reluctantly drag” God in. I am an agnostic. And I find it perfectly feasible that your God could have designed the intelligence which enables cells/cell communities to complexify (as you believe they do) and to add to their number when this is needed (which you refuse even to consider) .
DAVID: And finally there is no survival need for our particular brain, to kill your favorite reason for evolution.
As we have agreed over and over again, there was no “survival need” for any organism beyond bacteria. But as conditions changed, multicellular communities cooperated not only to survive (adaptation) but also to find new ways of improving their chances of survival (innovation). I have no doubt that the same process applied to the evolving human brain: the earliest humans would also have had survival as the main motive for their adaptations and inventions, and even today there are sapiens whose activities centre mainly on survival.
Behe
dhw: […] you still haven’t explained why you regard it as illogical to propose that a successful adaptation/innovation will result in some genes losing their original function and either changing their function or disappearing – i.e. loss of genes results from adaptation and does not cause it. […]
DAVID: Not illogical. A different view of existing thought as the article showed.
Thank you for accepting that my proposal is logical. We could have saved ourselves a few weeks of discussion if you had agreed from the outset, but it’s always pleasing to drag a yes out of you in the end!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 01, 2021, 15:59 (1145 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are talking around the issue of design. Our frontal cortex has a very specific design which is required for us to be as mentally smart as we are. If erectus had this particular design of five tiered layers of neurons, sapiens would not have been needed.
dhw: If all the smaller brained hominins and homos had had the bigger brains, then the bigger brains would not have been needed! My whole point is that smaller brains became bigger when more cells were needed to perform tasks which had never been performed before. There is no “issue of design”. The issue is your insistence that your God had to step in and perform operations in anticipation of new requirements, whereas I propose that cells designed their own restructuring and reinforcement (including the frontal cortex) in response to new requirements. That is to say, not "willy-nilly" - in contrast to your theory which has your God expanding brains for no particular reason 280,000+ years before sapiens thinks of something new to do with them.
You forgot to mention your fallback point the cells got an intelligence from God to invent the necessary changes. Design requires intellient anticipation of needs.
DAVID: How did erectus' neurons know how to do this? Only God could do it as you reluctantly drag in the possibility.dhw: I do not “reluctantly drag” God in. I am an agnostic. And I find it perfectly feasible that your God could have designed the intelligence which enables cells/cell communities to complexify (as you believe they do) and to add to their number when this is needed (which you refuse even to consider) .
You are so close to accepting God as the designer. I'll consider the hippocampus for providing new cells, the only place in the brain found to do it !!!
DAVID: And finally there is no survival need for our particular brain, to kill your favorite reason for evolution.dhw: As we have agreed over and over again, there was no “survival need” for any organism beyond bacteria. But as conditions changed, multicellular communities cooperated not only to survive (adaptation) but also to find new ways of improving their chances of survival (innovation). I have no doubt that the same process applied to the evolving human brain: the earliest humans would also have had survival as the main motive for their adaptations and inventions, and even today there are sapiens whose activities centre mainly on survival.
Of course we have to eat to survive, make money to eat, etc. We all have the motive. You are still struggling to save the Darwin concept of survival to cause evolution , while having given it up in your comment about bacteria who have always survived, as God planned.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: The issue is your insistence that your God had to step in and perform operations in anticipation of new requirements, whereas I propose that cells designed their own restructuring and reinforcement (including the frontal cortex) in response to new requirements. That is to say, not "willy-nilly" - in contrast to your theory which has your God expanding brains for no particular reason 280,000+ years before sapiens thinks of something new to do with them.
DAVID: You forgot to mention your fallback point the cells got an intelligence from God to invent the necessary changes. Design requires intellient anticipation of needs.
It is not a fallback point (I am an agnostic), but your response is a good way of avoiding all the points I have raised. In answer to your final remark, I do not believe that adaptation and innovation require gazing into a crystal ball. I believe that organisms adapt and innovate IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them, just as the human brain is known to RESPOND to new requirements and not to change in anticipation of them.
dhw: […] I find it perfectly feasible that your God could have designed the intelligence which enables cells/cell communities to complexify (as you believe they do) and to add to their number when this is needed (which you refuse even to consider).
DAVID: […] I'll consider the hippocampus for providing new cells, the only place in the brain found to do it !!!
[…] If the hippocampus can produce new cells, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the addition of cells in earlier brains followed the same procedure.
DAVID: And finally there is no survival need for our particular brain, to kill your favorite reason for evolution.
dhw: As we have agreed over and over again, there was no “survival need” for any organism beyond bacteria. But as conditions changed, multicellular communities cooperated not only to survive (adaptation) but also to find new ways of improving their chances of survival (innovation). I have no doubt that the same process applied to the evolving human brain: the earliest humans would also have had survival as the main motive for their adaptations and inventions, and even today there are sapiens whose activities centre mainly on survival.
DAVID: Of course we have to eat to survive, make money to eat, etc. We all have the motive. You are still struggling to save the Darwin concept of survival to cause evolution , while having given it up in your comment about bacteria who have always survived, as God planned.
I have not “given it up”, and the Darwin concept does not need “saving”. You have tried to conflate two forms of “survival”: 1) the continuation of life, for which you claim that the sapiens brain was not “needed”. I have pointed out that no other life form was “needed” for the continuation of life, since bacteria have survived, and so that argument can’t be used to justify your anthropocentrism. 2) I don’t see how you can possibly believe that the motive for adaptations is NOT to enable individual species to survive changes in their living conditions, and by the same token innovations cannot possibly survive if they do not fit in with living conditions. Here my proposal is that they improve chances of survival. Our prime example has always been pre-whale legs turning into flippers, as flippers offer a better chance of survival in the water.
Brain expansion
QUOTE: "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.
[…] 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.'"
DAVID: Note my last bold. ("To date, no unifying explanation has been proposed for the major phenomena in human prehistory." ) 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.
As usual, you think that by using the word “Darwin” you can automatically relieve yourself of the need to discuss the reasoning. We keep agreeing that nobody knows why the brain expanded. I would add “improving methods of survival” to “body energy conservation”, and I don’t think “evolutionary pressure” explains all the improvements that would have required additional brain cells. I would add new ideas and discoveries to the list of influences on human progress. The pre-sapiens brain would have expanded for precisely the same reasons. There is no topsy-turvy mish-mash – only your refusal to follow a perfectly straightforward argument: the brain expanded because it needed additional cells to RESPOND to new requirements.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 15:34 (1144 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You forgot to mention your fallback point the cells got an intelligence from God to invent the necessary changes. Design requires intelligent anticipation of needs.
dhw: It is not a fallback point (I am an agnostic), but your response is a good way of avoiding all the points I have raised. In answer to your final remark, I do not believe that adaptation and innovation require gazing into a crystal ball. I believe that organisms adapt and innovate IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them, just as the human brain is known to RESPOND to new requirements and not to change in anticipation of them.
Forgetting brain stasis. Our huge brain did nothing much for over 300,000 years. It obvoiusly came prepared for the future
dhw: […] I find it perfectly feasible that your God could have designed the intelligence which enables cells/cell communities to complexify (as you believe they do) and to add to their number when this is needed (which you refuse even to consider).DAVID: […] I'll consider the hippocampus for providing new cells, the only place in the brain found to do it !!!
dhw: […] If the hippocampus can produce new cells, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the addition of cells in earlier brains followed the same procedure.
You are confused. The hippocampus memory center is deep in the brain; the cells you want tp appear must rise in the frontal and prefrontal areas, but don't.
DAVID: Of course we have to eat to survive, make money to eat, etc. We all have the motive. You are still struggling to save the Darwin concept of survival to cause evolution , while having given it up in your comment about bacteria who have always survived, as God planned.dhw: You have tried to conflate two forms of “survival”: 1) the continuation of life, for which you claim that the sapiens brain was not “needed”. I have pointed out that no other life form was “needed” for the continuation of life, since bacteria have survived, and so that argument can’t be used to justify your anthropocentrism.
I make the opposite point. As bacteria have survived through all time of living organisms, why did evolution have to happen?
dhw: 2) I don’t see how you can possibly believe that the motive for adaptations is NOT to enable individual species to survive changes in their living conditions, and by the same token innovations cannot possibly survive if they do not fit in with living conditions. Here my proposal is that they improve chances of survival. Our prime example has always been pre-whale legs turning into flippers, as flippers offer a better chance of survival in the water.
I see a different God motive: securing that life does not disappear, the reverse of your thought. Survival never drives evolution
Brain expansion
DAVID: Note my last bold. ("To date, no unifying explanation has been proposed for the major phenomena in human prehistory." ) 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.
dhw: As usual, you think that by using the word “Darwin” you can automatically relieve yourself of the need to discuss the reasoning. We keep agreeing that nobody knows why the brain expanded. I would add “improving methods of survival” to “body energy conservation”, and I don’t think “evolutionary pressure” explains all the improvements that would have required additional brain cells. I would add new ideas and discoveries to the list of influences on human progress. The pre-sapiens brain would have expanded for precisely the same reasons. There is no topsy-turvy mish-mash – only your refusal to follow a perfectly straightforward argument: the brain expanded because it needed additional cells to RESPOND to new requirements.
Exactly the reverse of my view. I follow your argument and fully disagree. God gave us the giant brain in preparation for future use 315,000 years later. Your usual response has been to describe stasis but avoiding discussing its real meaning of foresight in preparation ..
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: I do not believe that adaptation and innovation require gazing into a crystal ball. I believe that organisms adapt and innovate IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them, just as the human brain is known to RESPOND to new requirements and not to change in anticipation of them.
DAVID: Forgetting brain stasis. Our huge brain did nothing much for over 300,000 years. It obvoiusly came prepared for the future.
And in response to the article which supports my theory, you wrote the same objection:
DAVID: God gave us the giant brain in preparation for future use 315,000 years later. Your usual response has been to describe stasis but avoiding discussing its real meaning of foresight in preparation.
Round we go. I keep disputing your interpretation of its "real meaning"! You have your God operating on a group of pre-sapiens for no immediate purpose, or “willy-nilly”, 300,000 years before they would need the extra cells. I have a group of pre-sapiens needing the cells to perform new tasks (= a “real meaning”, though we can only theorize about what the tasks might have been). That, I propose, is the CAUSE of expansion, but having performed the tasks, they did not have any further new requirements (as in all the earlier stages of expansion) for thousands of years.
dhw: […] I find it perfectly feasible that your God could have designed the intelligence which enables cells/cell communities to complexify (as you believe they do) and to add to their number when this is needed (which you refuse even to consider).
DAVID: […] I'll consider the hippocampus for providing new cells, the only place in the brain found to do it !!!
dhw: […] If the hippocampus can produce new cells, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the addition of cells in earlier brains followed the same procedure.
DAVID: You are confused. The hippocampus memory center is deep in the brain; the cells you want to appear must rise in the frontal and prefrontal areas, but don't.
Because they don’t need to! Complexification can cope. But in the early days, when complexification could not cope, all relevant sections of the brain would have required extra cells to perform new tasks. Why else would they have expanded? You have your God popping in to perform the necessary operations. I have the cell communities (as possibly designed by your God) doing exactly what we know they do now – namely, changing the existing brain. In their case through adding to their number – in our case through complexifying, except apparently in the hippocampus, where new cells are still required. Or do you think your God is still popping in to give your hippocampus the required number?
dhw: You have tried to conflate two forms of “survival”: 1) the continuation of life, for which you claim that the sapiens brain was not “needed”. I have pointed out that no other life form was “needed” for the continuation of life, since bacteria have survived, and so that argument can’t be used to justify your anthropocentrism.
DAVID: I make the opposite point. As bacteria have survived through all time of living organisms, why did evolution have to happen?
That is not the “opposite point”! You argue that evolution did not have to happen, and therefore your God must have made it happen in order to design H. sapiens! I then ask you why he designed all the millions of life forms which did not have to happen and which had no connection with humans, and you dodge the question.
dhw: 2) I don’t see how you can possibly believe that the motive for adaptations is NOT to enable individual species to survive changes in their living conditions, and by the same token innovations cannot possibly survive if they do not fit in with living conditions. Here my proposal is that they improve chances of survival. Our prime example has always been pre-whale legs turning into flippers, as flippers offer a better chance of survival in the water.
DAVID: I see a different God motive: securing that life does not disappear, the reverse of your thought. Survival never drives evolution.
It is not the reverse of my thought. It is No 1) above. And you try to ignore the fact that life consists of individual living organisms. It is not a being in itself. And individual living organisms adapt for the sole purpose of surviving. You tell us (under “Miscellany”) that flippers are not adaptation but speciation, to “allow mammals into living in water”. Thank you. I would suggest that the flippers therefore improved the whales’ chances of surviving in water. What other purpose did they serve, since you also tell us that they were not an advance but only a “side step” in evolution?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 16:15 (1143 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God gave us the giant brain in preparation for future use 315,000 years later. Your usual response has been to describe stasis but avoiding discussing its real meaning of foresight in preparation.
dhw: Round we go. I keep disputing your interpretation of its "real meaning"! You have your God operating on a group of pre-sapiens for no immediate purpose, or “willy-nilly”, 300,000 years before they would need the extra cells. I have a group of pre-sapiens needing the cells to perform new tasks (= a “real meaning”, though we can only theorize about what the tasks might have been). That, I propose, is the CAUSE of expansion, but having performed the tasks, they did not have any further new requirements (as in all the earlier stages of expansion) for thousands of years.
Again a description of some imagined minor event to create a huge brain, which wasn't used in full capacity for 300,000 years later. You haven't ever answered that obvious problem in logical interpretation.
dhw: […] If the hippocampus can produce new cells, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the addition of cells in earlier brains followed the same procedure.
DAVID: You are confused. The hippocampus memory center is deep in the brain; the cells you want to appear must rise in the frontal and prefrontal areas, but don't.
Because they don’t need to! Complexification can cope. But in the early days, when complexification could not cope, all relevant sections of the brain would have required extra cells to perform new tasks. Why else would they have expanded?
The brain obviously over expanded is my point you never answer, just ignore.
dhw: You have tried to conflate two forms of “survival”: 1) the continuation of life, for which you claim that the sapiens brain was not “needed”. I have pointed out that no other life form was “needed” for the continuation of life, since bacteria have survived, and so that argument can’t be used to justify your anthropocentrism.DAVID: I make the opposite point. As bacteria have survived through all time of living organisms, why did evolution have to happen?
dhw: That is not the “opposite point”! You argue that evolution did not have to happen, and therefore your God must have made it happen in order to design H. sapiens! I then ask you why he designed all the millions of life forms which did not have to happen and which had no connection with humans, and you dodge the question.
No dodge. He chose to evolve, but you refuse to accept that.
dhw: 2) I don’t see how you can possibly believe that the motive for adaptations is NOT to enable individual species to survive changes in their living conditions, and by the same token innovations cannot possibly survive if they do not fit in with living conditions. Here my proposal is that they improve chances of survival. Our prime example has always been pre-whale legs turning into flippers, as flippers offer a better chance of survival in the water.DAVID: I see a different God motive: securing that life does not disappear, the reverse of your thought. Survival never drives evolution.
dhw: It is not the reverse of my thought. It is No 1) above. And you try to ignore the fact that life consists of individual living organisms. It is not a being in itself. And individual living organisms adapt for the sole purpose of surviving. You tell us (under “Miscellany”) that flippers are not adaptation but speciation, to “allow mammals into living in water”. Thank you. I would suggest that the flippers therefore improved the whales’ chances of surviving in water. What other purpose did they serve, since you also tell us that they were not an advance but only a “side step” in evolution?
Difference: yes all beings adapt to survive, but God made the mechanism of being alive so tough life goes to every dangerous environment and survives. Survival does not drive evolution is my main point behind this discussion, a counter to Darwin theory.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: having performed the tasks, they [first sapiens] did not have any further new requirements (as in all the earlier stages of expansion) for thousands of years.
DAVID: Again a description of some imagined minor event to create a huge brain, which wasn't used in full capacity for 300,000 years later. You haven't ever answered that obvious problem in logical interpretation.
NOBODY knows the cause of the expansions. All we do know is that the modern brain undergoes changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. There is even one section of the modern brain that expands. Expansion in response to an unknown requirement followed by a period of no new requirements (as in all past examples of expansion) seems to me to be more logical than an unknown power called God operating on a group of brains 300,000 years before they needed to be expanded.
dhw: in the early days, when complexification could not cope, all relevant sections of the brain would have required extra cells to perform new tasks. Why else would they have expanded?
DAVID: The brain obviously over expanded is my point you never answer, just ignore.
What are you referring to? Shrinkage? Are you saying your God made a mistake, and gave us too big a brain? We dealt with that long ago. After the final expansion, complexification proved so efficient that certain cells were no longer needed.
survival
DAVID: As bacteria have survived through all time of living organisms, why did evolution have to happen?
dhw: […] You argue that evolution did not have to happen, and therefore your God must have made it happen in order to design H. sapiens! I then ask you why he designed all the millions of life forms which did not have to happen and which had no connection with humans, and you dodge the question.
DAVID: No dodge. He chose to evolve, but you refuse to accept that.
That is NOT what I refuse to accept! If he exists, then he chose the system of evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. But that does not mean (a) that he directly designed every species, and (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is what you dodge in post after post.
dhw: 2) I don’t see how you can possibly believe that the motive for adaptations is NOT to enable individual species to survive changes in their living conditions, […] Our prime example has always been pre-whale legs turning into flippers, as flippers offer a better chance of survival in the water.
DAVID: I see a different God motive: securing that life does not disappear, the reverse of your thought. Survival never drives evolution.
dhw: […] you try to ignore the fact that life consists of individual living organisms. It is not a being in itself. And individual living organisms adapt for the sole purpose of surviving. You tell us (under “Miscellany”) that flippers are not adaptation but speciation, to “allow mammals into living in water”. Thank you. I would suggest that the flippers therefore improved the whales’ chances of surviving in water. What other purpose did they serve, since you also tell us that they were not an advance but only a “side step” in evolution?
DAVID: Difference: yes all beings adapt to survive, but God made the mechanism of being alive so tough life goes to every dangerous environment and survives. Survival does not drive evolution is my main point behind this discussion, a counter to Darwin theory.
So the purpose of the mechanism your God designed was to enable all beings to survive, but the purpose for doing something is not a driving force? Once more, please tell us what OTHER purpose you think drove your God to design the whales’ flippers.
DAVID: God advances evolution according to his plan; He is the driving force, not survival. He has made sure the 'process of living' survives as shown by extremophiles.
These are not alternatives! The driving force is the motive. Again: What was the driving force behind the - or, if you like, God's -invention of the flipper?
Symbiosis by bacteria
DAVID: just another evidence that life has God-given methods to survive and that survival does not drive evolution.
So God has given life forms all the different means of survival which have led from bacteria to the brontosaurus, the duckbilled platypus and us, but the reason why he gave them the means of survival was not to enable them to survive. (Though oops, 99% of them have not survived.) Just to clarify, though – it’s the quest for survival that drives evolution, not “survival”, which is the hoped-for outcome of the quest.
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism.
I suggest that a particularly clever possum had a great idea, and lots of other life forms cottoned on or had the same idea. The purpose of the strategy: survival. Like other forms of adaptation, including physical changes that enable organisms to survive in a changing environment.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, March 04, 2021, 15:31 (1142 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again a description of some imagined minor event to create a huge brain, which wasn't used in full capacity for 300,000 years later. You haven't ever answered that obvious problem in logical interpretation.
dhw: ... Expansion in response to an unknown requirement followed by a period of no new requirements (as in all past examples of expansion) seems to me to be more logical than an unknown power called God operating on a group of brains 300,000 years before they needed to be expanded.
Again no answer to the impression the new-sized brain gives: giant with little to do. All dressed up and no where to go. You can't give a natural reason for 200 cc jumps, producing more capacity than required at the time of the jump.
survivalDAVID: No dodge. He chose to evolve, but you refuse to accept that.
dhw: That is NOT what I refuse to accept! If he exists, then he chose the system of evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. But that does not mean (a) that he directly designed every species, and (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is what you dodge in post after post.
No dodge. God designed every advancing level of evolutions complexities, eventually humans.
DAVID: Difference: yes all beings adapt to survive, but God made the mechanism of being alive so tough life goes to every dangerous environment and survives. Survival does not drive evolution is my main point behind this discussion, a counter to Darwin theory.dhw: So the purpose of the mechanism your God designed was to enable all beings to survive, but the purpose for doing something is not a driving force? Once more, please tell us what OTHER purpose you think drove your God to design the whales’ flippers.
So they could enter a watery environment, a new mode of living, survival not involved..
Symbiosis by bacteriaDAVID: just another evidence that life has God-given methods to survive and that survival does not drive evolution.
dhw: So God has given life forms all the different means of survival which have led from bacteria to the brontosaurus, the duckbilled platypus and us, but the reason why he gave them the means of survival was not to enable them to survive. (Though oops, 99% of them have not survived.) Just to clarify, though – it’s the quest for survival that drives evolution, not “survival”, which is the hoped-for outcome of the quest.
You forgot death is built in to make room, and the bush is big to be eaten for energy.
Playing possumQUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism.
dhw: I suggest that a particularly clever possum had a great idea, and lots of other life forms cottoned on or had the same idea. The purpose of the strategy: survival. Like other forms of adaptation, including physical changes that enable organisms to survive in a changing environment.
You didn't answer my questions, but assumed possums could reason, you usual response.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Again a description of some imagined minor event to create a huge brain, which wasn't used in full capacity for 300,000 years later. You haven't ever answered that obvious problem in logical interpretation.
dhw: ... Expansion in response to an unknown requirement followed by a period of no new requirements (as in all past examples of expansion) seems to me to be more logical than an unknown power called God operating on a group of brains 300,000 years before they needed to be expanded.
DAVID: Again no answer to the impression the new-sized brain gives: giant with little to do. All dressed up and no where to go. You can't give a natural reason for 200 cc jumps, producing more capacity than required at the time of the jump.
That is your own theory! It is you who have your God expanding the brain before expansion is required (sapiens was "all dressed up and nowhere to go” 300,000 years before the bigger brain was needed). I keep suggesting that there WERE natural reasons for the jumps (though nobody knows what they were, just as nobody knows how expansion happened): e.g. new ideas, inventions, environmental conditions, discoveries – which required additional capacity. Once that capacity had been acquired through meeting the new requirements, there was stasis until the next set of requirements exceeded the existing capacity. The sapiens expansion would have followed the same pattern: expansion to meet new requirements, and then stasis – but when new requirements arose, the brain increased its ability to complexify, presumably because further expansion would have entailed huge changes to the rest of the anatomy.
survival
DAVID: No dodge. He chose to evolve, but you refuse to accept that.
dhw: That is NOT what I refuse to accept! If he exists, then he chose the system of evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. But that does not mean (a) that he directly designed every species, and (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is what you dodge in post after post.
DAVID: No dodge. God designed every advancing level of evolutions complexities, eventually humans.
Still dodging! For the thousandth time: Why would your God have directly designed the brontosaurus, and the millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens?
DAVID: Difference: yes all beings adapt to survive, but God made the mechanism of being alive so tough life goes to every dangerous environment and survives. Survival does not drive evolution is my main point behind this discussion, a counter to Darwin theory.
dhw: So the purpose of the mechanism your God designed was to enable all beings to survive, but the purpose for doing something is not a driving force? Once more, please tell us what OTHER purpose you think drove your God to design the whales’ flippers.
DAVID: So they could enter a watery environment, a new mode of living, survival not involved.
How does a physical change enabling a life form to live in a new environment not involve surviving in the new environment?
Symbiosis by bacteria
DAVID: just another evidence that life has God-given methods to survive and that survival does not drive evolution.
dhw: So God has given life forms all the different means of survival which have led from bacteria to the brontosaurus, the duckbilled platypus and us, but the reason why he gave them the means of survival was not to enable them to survive. (Though oops, 99% of them have not survived.) Just to clarify, though – it’s the quest for survival that drives evolution, not “survival”, which is the hoped-for outcome of the quest.
DAVID: You forgot death is built in to make room, and the bush is big to be eaten for energy.
So your God gave life forms the ability to survive, but he also made sure they didn’t survive. My proposal is that if God exists, he gave them the mechanism for survival, and some succeeded in surviving by adapting or innovating (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs became flippers). The purpose of the adaptations and innovations was to enable the respective life forms to survive. You have agreed that it was NOT in order to advance evolution. So please tell us what other PURPOSE you can think of as the driving force behind the adaptations and innovations. As for the bush, ALL life forms require food, and so they devise new means of getting food or avoiding becoming food, i.e. to SURVIVE.
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism.
dhw: I suggest that a particularly clever possum had a great idea, and lots of other life
forms cottoned on or had the same idea. The purpose of the strategy: to "stay alive", which means to SURVIVE. Like other forms of adaptation, including physical changes that enable organisms to SURVIVE in a changing environment.
DAVID: You didn't answer my questions, but assumed possums could reason, you usual response.
The intelligence of possums IS my answer. And maybe your God designed the intelligence of possums and every other creature that uses strategies, lifestyles or physical adaptations in order to SURVIVE.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, March 05, 2021, 15:25 (1141 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again no answer to the impression the new-sized brain gives: giant with little to do. All dressed up and no where to go. You can't give a natural reason for 200 cc jumps, producing more capacity than required at the time of the jump.
dhw: ...I keep suggesting that there WERE natural reasons for the jumps (though nobody knows what they were, just as nobody knows how expansion happened): e.g. new ideas, inventions, environmental conditions, discoveries – which required additional capacity.
But this not ever explain, why vast overcapacity is created. You always ignore that point.
dhw: The sapiens expansion would have followed the same pattern: expansion to meet new requirements, and then stasis – but when new requirements arose, the brain increased its ability to complexify...
Complexification works because the huge brain had no need for further expansion. You explanation is a twisted escape from a logical view of the obviously anticipatory expansion.
survival
DAVID: No dodge. God designed every advancing level of evolutions complexities, eventually humans.
dhw: Still dodging! For the thousandth time: Why would your God have directly designed the brontosaurus, and the millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens?
Same weird twist. God chose to design/evolve all living forms with humans as His final goal.
dhw: So the purpose of the mechanism your God designed was to enable all beings to survive, but the purpose for doing something is not a driving force? Once more, please tell us what OTHER purpose you think drove your God to design the whales’ flippers.
DAVID: So they could enter a watery environment, a new mode of living, survival not involved.
dhw: How does a physical change enabling a life form to live in a new environment not involve surviving in the new environment?
Simple. God guarantees survival wherever life tries to exist. Survival does not drive evolution
Symbiosis by bacteriaDAVID: You forgot death is built in to make room, and the bush is big to be eaten for energy.
dhw: So your God gave life forms the ability to survive, but he also made sure they didn’t survive. My proposal is that if God exists, he gave them the mechanism for survival, and some succeeded in surviving by adapting or innovating (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs became flippers). The purpose of the adaptations and innovations was to enable the respective life forms to survive. You have agreed that it was NOT in order to advance evolution. So please tell us what other PURPOSE you can think of as the driving force behind the adaptations and innovations. As for the bush, ALL life forms require food, and so they devise new means of getting food or avoiding becoming food, i.e. to SURVIVE.
Life simply goes from one generation to the next, survival of forms guaranteed by God's designs.
Playing possumQUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism.
dhw: I suggest that a particularly clever possum had a great idea, and lots of other life forms cottoned on or had the same idea. The purpose of the strategy: to "stay alive", which means to SURVIVE. Like other forms of adaptation, including physical changes that enable organisms to SURVIVE in a changing environment.
DAVID: You didn't answer my questions, but assumed possums could reason, you usual response.
dhw: The intelligence of possums IS my answer. And maybe your God designed the intelligence of possums and every other creature that uses strategies, lifestyles or physical adaptations in order to SURVIVE.
You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Again no answer to the impression the new-sized brain gives: giant with little to do. All dressed up and no where to go. You can't give a natural reason for 200 cc jumps, producing more capacity than required at the time of the jump.
dhw: I keep suggesting that there WERE natural reasons for the jumps (though nobody knows what they were, just as nobody knows how expansion happened): e.g. new ideas, inventions, environmental conditions, discoveries – which required additional capacity.
DAVID: But this not ever explain, why vast overcapacity is created. You always ignore that point.
You always ignore my answers to that point, but what overcapacity are you talking about? Prior to sapiens, there is no overcapacity. Yet again: in my theory, the brain expands in order to meet a new requirement. Then there is stasis until the next idea, discovery etc. requires more cells. In the case of sapiens, the same process would have applied, but when the bigger brain had to meet new requirements 300,000 years later, it increased its capacity to complexify, presumably because further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy. If you are thinking of shrinkage, this occurred because the process of complexification became so efficient that certain cells were not required. Now please tell us what vast overcapacity you are referring to, and why you think your God created it.
DAVID: Complexification works because the huge brain had no need for further expansion. You explanation is a twisted escape from a logical view of the obviously anticipatory expansion.
Your explanation is a “twisted escape” from the known fact that the brain changes in response to new requirements and not in anticipation of them. I propose that the response in pre-sapiens was the addition of cells when they were needed. Sapiens’ response is complexification when it is needed, and I have offered a logical reason above why expansion was no longer possible, other than in isolated sections of the brain.
David's theory of evolution
DAVID: No dodge. God designed every advancing level of evolutions complexities, eventually humans.
dhw: Still dodging! For the thousandth time: Why would your God have directly designed the brontosaurus, and the millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens?
DAVID: Same weird twist. God chose to design/evolve all living forms with humans as His final goal.
Same deliberate dodge. How does your statement come to mean that every living form in life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” when 99% of forms had no connection with humans? (See also “theodicy”).
survival
dhw: So the purpose of the mechanism your God designed was to enable all beings to survive, but the purpose for doing something is not a driving force? Once more, please tell us what OTHER purpose you think drove your God to design the whales’ flippers.
DAVID: So they could enter a watery environment, a new mode of living, survival not involved.
dhw: How does a physical change enabling a life form to live in a new environment not involve surviving in the new environment?
DAVID: Simple. God guarantees survival wherever life tries to exist. Survival does not drive evolution.
Life does not try to exist. Organisms try to exist. And if organisms adapt to new environments, it means they try to go on existing. To go on existing = survival, even if that entails “a new mode of living”.
Symbiosis by bacteria
DAVID: You forgot death is built in to make room, and the bush is big to be eaten for energy.
dhw: So your God gave life forms the ability to survive, but he also made sure they didn’t survive. […] As for the bush, ALL life forms require food, and so they devise new means of getting food or avoiding becoming food, i.e. to SURVIVE.
DAVID: Life simply goes from one generation to the next, survival of forms guaranteed by God's designs.
99% of forms have not survived. And common descent indicates that life doesn’t simply go from one generation to the next, but it also branches out into new forms. Why? Because organisms look for new ways of surviving. Once more, please tell us why pre-whales’ legs became flippers, if it was not to enable them to improve their chances of survival in a new environment.
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism. […]
dhw: […] The intelligence of possums IS my answer. And maybe your God designed the intelligence of possums and every other creature that uses strategies, lifestyles or physical adaptations in order to SURVIVE.
DAVID: You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help.
I don’t know about “conceptualizing necessary time intervals”. I don’t think it requires super intelligence for an animal to perceive when the coast is clear. And YES in block capitals, I do believe that our fellow creatures are sentient. What makes you think they are not?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, March 06, 2021, 15:30 (1140 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But this not ever explain, why vast overcapacity is created. You always ignore that point.
dhw: You always ignore my answers to that point, but what overcapacity are you talking about? Now please tell us what vast overcapacity you are referring to, and why you think your God created it.
You apparently cannot recognize over-capacity when it exists in as newly arrived form of a brain. Your stasis discussion is entirely off point and simply descriptive of what happens next after the huge new form of brain arrives on the scene. It is as if yo0u bought a new small car with a 600 hp engine. For what purpose?>
David's theory of evolution
DAVID: No dodge. God designed every advancing level of evolutions complexities, eventually humans.
dhw: Still dodging! For the thousandth time: Why would your God have directly designed the brontosaurus, and the millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens?
DAVID: Same weird twist. God chose to design/evolve all living forms with humans as His final goal.
dhw: Same deliberate dodge. How does your statement come to mean that every living form in life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” when 99% of forms had no connection with humans? (See also “theodicy”).
Same weird chopping up of evolution into unrelated segments. Evolution proceeds from bacteria to humans without stopping. Under common descent we are direct results from bacteria.
Symbiosis by bacteria
DAVID: Life simply goes from one generation to the next, survival of forms guaranteed by God's designs.
dhw: 99% of forms have not survived. And common descent indicates that life doesn’t simply go from one generation to the next, but it also branches out into new forms. Why? Because organisms look for new ways of surviving. Once more, please tell us why pre-whales’ legs became flippers, if it was not to enable them to improve their chances of survival in a new environment.
Of course God had to give them flippers if they were to enter a watery environment.
Playing possumQUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism. […]
dhw: […] The intelligence of possums IS my answer. And maybe your God designed the intelligence of possums and every other creature that uses strategies, lifestyles or physical adaptations in order to SURVIVE.
DAVID: You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help.
dhw: I don’t know about “conceptualizing necessary time intervals”. I don’t think it requires super intelligence for an animal to perceive when the coast is clear. And YES in block capitals, I do believe that our fellow creatures are sentient. What makes you think they are not?
Sentient, yes, conceptualizing, no.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: But this not ever explain, why vast overcapacity is created. You always ignore that point.
dhw: You always ignore my answers to that point, but what overcapacity are you talking about? Now please tell us what vast overcapacity you are referring to, and why you think your God created it.
DAVID: You apparently cannot recognize over-capacity when it exists in as newly arrived form of a brain. Your stasis discussion is entirely off point and simply descriptive of what happens next after the huge new form of brain arrives on the scene. It is as if you bought a new small car with a 600 hp engine. For what purpose?
My point is that the brains were NOT oversized. Are you referring here only to H. sapiens, and are you referring to shrinkage? I have explained both ad nauseam. In my theory, the pre-sapiens brain, like all brains beforehand, needed to expand in order to meet unknown new requirements which the smaller brain could not meet. It expanded to the size needed for the new requirements, and although complexification would no doubt have taken place on a minor scale (as with all brains beforehand), it was not till 300,000 years later that new requirements required further changes, but as the brain had reached maximum size for the anatomy, complexification took over almost completely. And it was so efficient that some cells were no longer needed. Hence shrinkage. Now please tell us why your God produced what you consider to be oversized brains 300,000 years before they were needed! And please don’t say it was so that we could learn to use them, since obviously we didn’t learn to use them until 300,000 years later!
David's theory of evolution
DAVID: God chose to design/evolve all living forms with humans as His final goal.
dhw: Same deliberate dodge. How does your statement come to mean that every living form in life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” when 99% of forms had no connection with humans? (See also “theodicy”).
DAVID: Same weird chopping up of evolution into unrelated segments. Evolution proceeds from bacteria to humans without stopping. Under common descent we are direct results from bacteria.
You keep agreeing that evolution branches off into countless unrelated segments, or are you saying that lizards, which have no connection with mammals, were “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
Symbiosis by bacteria
AVID: Life simply goes from one generation to the next, survival of forms guaranteed by God's designs.
dhw: 99% of forms have not survived. And common descent indicates that life doesn’t simply go from one generation to the next, but it also branches out into new forms. Why? Because organisms look for new ways of surviving. Once more, please tell us why pre-whales’ legs became flippers, if it was not to enable them to improve their chances of survival in a new environment.
DAVID: Of course God had to give them flippers if they were to enter a watery environment.
I’ll skip the question of whether God did it or not, and simply ask you again whether you do or don’t agree that the purpose of the flippers was/is to enable whales to improve their chances of survival in the water. If not, what was their purpose?
Immortal bacteria
DAVID: two major points. Some forms are designed to be able to live forever. The need to survive does not drive evolution. That 99% are gone is of no import. And here must be adequate food supply for life to thrive.
The need to survive did not drive immortal bacteria to change into something else because they are fine as they are! Now please tell us what purpose adaptations serve if not to improve organisms' chances of surviving in new conditions. And please remember you said that whales’ flippers did not advance evolution. 99% of life forms unconnected with humans denote the absurdity of arguing that they were part of the goal of evolving humans. And there had to be adequate food for EVERY life form that ever lived, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: How is this learned, since it implies conceptual thinking? How is the length of time that one plays possum determined? Perhaps God designed this mechanism. […]
dhw: […] The intelligence of possums IS my answer. And maybe your God designed the intelligence of possums and every other creature that uses strategies, lifestyles or physical adaptations in order to SURVIVE.
DAVID: You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help.
dhw: I don’t know about “conceptualizing necessary time intervals”. I don’t think it requires super intelligence for an animal to perceive when the coast is clear. And YES in block capitals, I do believe that our fellow creatures are sentient. What makes you think they are not?
DAVID: Sentient, yes, conceptualizing, no.
I do not imagine possums dreaming up abstract ideas, if that’s what you mean. And I do not think they would need to. Acting dead and waiting till the danger has passed does not seem to me to require human levels of conceptualization.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 08, 2021, 01:11 (1138 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You apparently cannot recognize over-capacity when it exists in as newly arrived form of a brain. Your stasis discussion is entirely off point and simply descriptive of what happens next after the huge new form of brain arrives on the scene. It is as if you bought a new small car with a 600 hp engine. For what purpose?dhw: My point is that the brains were NOT oversized. Are you referring here only to H. sapiens, and are you referring to shrinkage? I have explained both ad nauseam. In my theory, the pre-sapiens brain, like all brains beforehand, needed to expand in order to meet unknown new requirements which the smaller brain could not meet. It expanded to the size needed for the new requirements,
You still miss the point. The new sapiens brain is way over expanded for the needs of that time as then proven by much latter massive use. You are totally twisted backwards in your view, which is why I discarded the remainder of your thought.
David's theory of evolution
DAVID: God chose to design/evolve all living forms with humans as His final goal.
dhw: Same deliberate dodge. How does your statement come to mean that every living form in life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” when 99% of forms had no connection with humans? (See also “theodicy”).
DAVID: Same weird chopping up of evolution into unrelated segments. Evolution proceeds from bacteria to humans without stopping. Under common descent we are direct results from bacteria.
dhw: You keep agreeing that evolution branches off into countless unrelated segments, or are you saying that lizards, which have no connection with mammals, were “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
'
Of course massive new branches for food supply.
Symbiosis by bacteria
DAVID: Of course God had to give them flippers if they were to enter a watery environment.
dhw: I’ll skip the question of whether God did it or not, and simply ask you again whether you do or don’t agree that the purpose of the flippers was/is to enable whales to improve their chances of survival in the water. If not, what was their purpose?
God provided survival in all environments is my point.
Immortal bacteriaDAVID: two major points. Some forms are designed to be able to live forever. The need to survive does not drive evolution. That 99% are gone is of no import. And here must be adequate food supply for life to thrive.
dhw: The need to survive did not drive immortal bacteria to change into something else because they are fine as they are! Now please tell us what purpose adaptations serve if not to improve organisms' chances of surviving in new conditions.
My only point is God guaranteed survival
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help.dhw: I don’t know about “conceptualizing necessary time intervals”. I don’t think it requires super intelligence for an animal to perceive when the coast is clear. And YES in block capitals, I do believe that our fellow creatures are sentient. What makes you think they are not?
DAVID: Sentient, yes, conceptualizing, no.
dhw: I do not imagine possums dreaming up abstract ideas, if that’s what you mean. And I do not think they would need to. Acting dead and waiting till the danger has passed does not seem to me to require human levels of conceptualization.
How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative??
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: In my theory, the pre-sapiens brain, like all brains beforehand, needed to expand in order to meet unknown new requirements which the smaller brain could not meet. It expanded to the size needed for the new requirements.
DAVID: You still miss the point. The new sapiens brain is way over expanded for the needs of that time as then proven by much latter massive use. You are totally twisted backwards in your view, which is why I discarded the remainder of your thought.
Of course you discard the remainder of my thought, because you persist in ignoring the fact that the modern brain complexifies instead of expanding any further.This suggests that once it had expanded, the volume met all requirements. It did not “overexpand”, and once again you have ignored my explanation of shrinkage. You also close your eyes to the fact that nobody knows the cause of ANY of the expansions that preceded our own. Hence the many different theories (new ideas, new artefacts, new environment, upright posture, new discoveries etc.). You simply have your God popping in to perform operations on existing brains, and you still haven’t told us why he would have “overexpanded” ours 300,000 years before we needed the capacity. (“Learning to use it” is meaningless since you tell us we didn’t use it until then.)
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: You keep agreeing that evolution branches off into countless unrelated segments, or are you saying that lizards, which have no connection with mammals, were “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
DAVID: Of course massive new branches for food supply.
Yes, yes, extinct life forms and their food supplies that had no connection with humans and yet were apparently specially designed as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans. In your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.”
Symbiosis by bacteria
dhw: I’ll …simply ask you again whether you do or don’t agree that the purpose of the flippers was/is to enable whales to improve their chances of survival in the water. If not, what was their purpose?
DAVID: God provided survival in all environments is my point.
That is not an answer. It’s MEANS of survival that are provided, and I’m asking this question because you insist that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.
Immortal bacteria
DAVID: two major points. Some forms are designed to be able to live forever. The need to survive does not drive evolution. That 99% are gone is of no import. And here must be adequate food supply for life to thrive.
dhw: The need to survive did not drive immortal bacteria to change into something else because they are fine as they are! Now please tell us what purpose adaptations serve if not to improve organisms' chances of surviving in new conditions. And please remember you said that whales’ flippers did not advance evolution. 99% of life forms unconnected with humans denote the absurdity of arguing that they were part of the goal of evolving humans. And there had to be adequate food for EVERY life form that ever lived, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.
DAVID: My only point is God guaranteed survival.
You made three other points, I answered them all, and you have ignored my answers.
Playing possum
QUOTE: “Playing dead seems to be a very good way to stay alive.'"
DAVID: You have possums conceptualizing necessary time intervals. How very sentient of them! I'll stick with God's help. [...]
dhw: [...] I do not imagine possums dreaming up abstract ideas, if that’s what you mean. And I do not think they would need to. Acting dead and waiting till the danger has passed does not seem to me to require human levels of conceptualization.
DAVID: How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative?
Because maybe one clever possum realized he could not outrun a predator, and hit on the brilliant idea of pretending to be dead. It worked. And when something works, it generally catches on. I find it hard to imagine your God watching with interest as an eagle prepares to swoop down, and then quickly sending instructions to the possum to lie down and close its eyes.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 08, 2021, 15:24 (1138 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You still miss the point. The new sapiens brain is way over expanded for the needs of that time as then proven by much latter massive use. You are totally twisted backwards in your view, which is why I discarded the remainder of your thought.
dhw: Of course you discard the remainder of my thought, because you persist in ignoring the fact that the modern brain complexifies instead of expanding any further. This suggests that once it had expanded, the volume met all requirements.
What requirements? They have to be the needs for that time period. However if we look at the difference between erectus and sapiens the current activities of daily living (a term used today about folks) the difference is slight. So a new model Volkswagen is not given a 650 hp engine, my point you've ignored.
dhw: It did not “overexpand”,
Yes, it probably did, like every other past smaller brain which is the best guess about previous expansions.
dhw: and once again you have ignored my explanation of shrinkage. ...You simply have your God popping in to perform operations on existing brains, and you still haven’t told us why he would have “overexpanded” ours 300,000 years before we needed the capacity. (“Learning to use it” is meaningless since you tell us we didn’t use it until then.)
Describing the history of the response and eventual use of our brain explains nothing except it came as too big for currents needs in its beginning.
David’s theory of evolutiondhw: You keep agreeing that evolution branches off into countless unrelated segments, or are you saying that lizards, which have no connection with mammals, were “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
DAVID: Of course massive new branches for food supply.
dhw: Yes, yes, extinct life forms and their food supplies that had no connection with humans and yet were apparently specially designed as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans. In your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.”
A truism that doesn't support your chopping up the process of evolution in to sergments.
Symbiosis by bacteriaDAVID: God provided survival in all environments is my point.
dhw: That is not an answer. It’s MEANS of survival that are provided, and I’m asking this question because you insist that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.
That is pure unproven speculative Darwinism.
Immortal bacteriaDAVID: two major points. Some forms are designed to be able to live forever. The need to survive does not drive evolution. That 99% are gone is of no import. And here must be adequate food supply for life to thrive.
dhw: The need to survive did not drive immortal bacteria to change into something else because they are fine as they are! Now please tell us what purpose adaptations serve if not to improve organisms' chances of surviving in new conditions. And please remember you said that whales’ flippers did not advance evolution. And there had to be adequate food for EVERY life form that ever lived,
DAVID: My only point is God guaranteed survival.
dhw: You made three other points, I answered them all, and you have ignored my answers
Which talked all around survival as guaranteed by God.
Playing possumDAVID: How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative?
dhw: Because maybe one clever possum realized he could not outrun a predator, and hit on the brilliant idea of pretending to be dead. It worked. And when something works, it generally catches on.
Now you have possums watching each other and reaching conceptual conclusions.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You still miss the point. The new sapiens brain is way over expanded for the needs of that time as then proven by much latter massive use. You are totally twisted backwards in your view, which is why I discarded the remainder of your thought.
dhw: Of course you discard the remainder of my thought, because you persist in ignoring the fact that the modern brain complexifies instead of expanding any further. This suggests that once it had expanded, the volume met all requirements.
DAVID: What requirements? They have to be the needs for that time period. However if we look at the difference between erectus and sapiens the current activities of daily living (a term used today about folks) the difference is slight. So a new model Volkswagen is not given a 650 hp engine, my point you've ignored.
I can't follow any of this! The current activities of daily living (prior to Covid) entail driving to work, flying across the world, using computers, switching on lights, watching TV, turning on the tap….How does this mean that there is only a slight difference between our current activities and those of erectus? And I don’t understand your VW image. Erectus had a brain capacity of 900-1200 cc. I propose that an unknown requirement (I gave you a list of theories in my last post) led to our expansion to 1350cc. The variation in erectus may also have been due to new requirements during his 2-million-year existence (e.g. new tools, new ideas – wasn’t erectus the first hunter-gatherer? - use of fire). Sapiens has only been around for approx. 315,000 years but once his brain had expanded (reason unknown, but plenty of different theories), there was a period – let’s say 300,000 years – in which nothing new happened. Then there was a burst of activity, but instead of the brain expanding (as erectus’s did), it complexified – presumably because further expansion would have required major anatomical changes. Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.
dhw: It did not “overexpand”.
DAVID: Yes, it probably did, like every other past smaller brain which is the best guess about previous expansions.
What is your criterion for “overexpansion”? The smaller brain expanded when its capacity was no longer sufficient to cope with new demands! Then it proved adequate until the next set of new requirements, and so it expanded again, but in our case it complexified. Shrinkage (which does suggest overexpansion) came about because complexification proved so efficient that some cells were not needed any more. We’ve been over this time and again, and you have never provided one single argument against the logic of this theory.
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: […] Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
DAVID: Of course massive new branches for food supply.
dhw: […] In your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.”
DAVID: A truism that doesn't support your chopping up the process of evolution in to segments.
I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.
Symbiosis by bacteria
dhw: […] Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.
DAVID: That is pure unproven speculative Darwinism.
Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment. If innovations and adaptations serve to improve chances of survival, then it is clearly absurd to say that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution, regardless of your dislike of anything Darwin might have proposed. Same again under “immortal bacteria”, so we can drop that example.
Playing possum
DAVID: How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative?
dhw: Because maybe one clever possum realized he could not outrun a predator, and hit on the brilliant idea of pretending to be dead. It worked. And when something works, it generally catches on.
DAVID: Now you have possums watching each other and reaching conceptual conclusions.
What exactly do you mean by “conceptual”? All life forms have developed strategies to improve their chances of survival. They must have originated at one time and been passed on. That doesn’t mean that flowers and insects and birds and fish and animals have at some time sat down to have a good think about what to do if….Once a strategy works, it is passed on to others in a group, or from generation to generation. What is your theory? 3.8 billion years ago, your God drew up a programme for the evolution of possums and their strategy of playing dead? Or do you think he popped in every time he felt like rescuing a possum?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 18:50 (1137 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What requirements? They have to be the needs for that time period. However if we look at the difference between erectus and sapiens the current activities of daily living (a term used today about folks) the difference is slight. So a new model Volkswagen is not given a 650 hp engine, my point you've ignored.
dhw: I can't follow any of this! The current activities of daily living
My apologies for garbling the meaning. I meant the changes in daily living for original sapiens was slight compared to erectus activities of that time period despite the new huge brain.
dhw: I propose that an unknown requirement (I gave you a list of theories in my last post) led to our expansion to 1350cc. The variation in erectus may also have been due to new requirements during his 2-million-year existence (e.g. new tools, new ideas – wasn’t erectus the first hunter-gatherer? - use of fire).
You make my case. Erectus led a simple life as did original sapiens. No need for big brain.
dhw: Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.
Simple concept: God anticipates needs all through evolution. Flippers given to pre-whales so thet can swim easily.
dhw: It did not “overexpand”.DAVID: Yes, it probably did, like every other past smaller brain which is the best guess about previous expansions.
dhw: What is your criterion for “overexpansion”? .. We’ve been over this time and again, and you have never provided one single argument against the logic of this theory.
Constant logical answer. Obviously too big for the needs of the time it appeared.
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: […] Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.DAVID: A truism that doesn't support your chopping up the process of evolution in to segments.
dhw: I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.
Really? Didn't humans have to evolve from previous forms, which also had to evolve?
Symbiosis by bacteriadhw: […] Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.
DAVID: That is pure unproven speculative Darwinism.
Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment.
My view is God provides for future survival as He designs new forma.
Playing possum
DAVID: How did possums arrive at the conclusion that playing dead would fool predators, when generally running away fast is the reasonable alternative?
dhw: Because maybe one clever possum realized he could not outrun a predator, and hit on the brilliant idea of pretending to be dead. It worked. And when something works, it generally catches on.
DAVID: Now you have possums watching each other and reaching conceptual conclusions.
dhw: What exactly do you mean by “conceptual”? All life forms have developed strategies to improve their chances of survival. They must have originated at one time and been passed on. That doesn’t mean that flowers and insects and birds and fish and animals have at some time sat down to have a good think about what to do if….Once a strategy works, it is passed on to others in a group, or from generation to generation.
So now you have a group of possums watching a successful escape by a single possum and adopting the method. Really?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: I propose that an unknown requirement (I gave you a list of theories in my last post) led to our expansion to 1350cc. The variation in erectus may also have been due to new requirements during his 2-million-year existence (e.g. new tools, new ideas – wasn’t erectus the first hunter-gatherer? - use of fire)…
DAVID: You make my case. Erectus led a simple life as did original sapiens. No need for big brain.
Erectus’s brain varied from 900cc to 1200cc – a range of 300 cc. Sapiens’ brain averages 1350 cc., an increase of 150 cc. I propose that all these increases would have been caused by new tools, ideas, discoveries etc. that required additional cells. Why do you think the invention of, for instance, a new tool or weapon would revolutionize the “simple” way of life? They needed the bigger brain to implement new ideas as an improvement to their still ”simple” way of life. A hunter with a new weapon is still a hunter.
dhw: Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.
DAVID: Simple concept: God anticipates needs all through evolution. Flippers given to pre-whales so thet can swim easily.
So do you think whales could have waited around for 300,000 years before they entered the water? That’s the argument you are using for the sapiens brain! Why did he give it to sapiens 300,000 years before they needed it? How about this for an amazing idea: both the sapiens brain expansion and the whale’s flipper constituted structural changes in response to new requirements – sapiens to implement a new idea, whale to improve its chances of survival in a new environment? Too logical for you?
Early Asia spread
QUOTE: ….while the tools at Attirampakkam may resemble Middle Paleolithic tools found elsewhere, that doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility that different peoples converged on similar solutions to common problems.
DAVID: Early homos either had massive wanderlust or environmental problems that drove them. Like convergence why could there not have been different populations with the same new concepts?
Agreed. All these widespread, larger brained sapiens and their tools suggest to me that we are getting closer and closer to the point at which we can say it is feasible that more sophisticated tool-making was the activity that first enlarged the pre-sapiens brain.
dhw: It did not “overexpand”.
DAVID: Yes, it probably did, like every other past smaller brain which is the best guess about previous expansions.
dhw: What is your criterion for “overexpansion”? [...]
DAVID: Constant logical answer. Obviously too big for the needs of the time it appeared.
Obviously proved adequate once it had appeared. But from then on, in the case of sapiens, when there was a new requirement, complexification took over from expansion.
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: […] Please stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
DAVID: A truism that doesn't support your chopping up the process of evolution in to segments.
dhw: I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.
DAVID: Really? Didn't humans have to evolve from previous forms, which also had to evolve?
Yes, that’s the 1% we’re talking about. I asked you to stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans (now bolded). And so you proceed to restrict evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
SURVIVAL
dhw: […] Were the new flippers “provided” as a new means of survival or not? If they were, then it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution.
DAVID: That is pure unproven speculative Darwinism.
dhw: Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment.
DAVID: My view is God provides for future survival as He designs new forma.
If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. You simply have your God inventing means of survival in advance instead of organisms doing it themselves when needed. The purpose is still survival.
Playing possum
DAVID: So now you have a group of possums watching a successful escape by a single possum and adopting the method. Really?
How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 15:00 (1136 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You make my case. Erectus led a simple life as did original sapiens. No need for big brain.
dhw: Erectus’s brain varied from 900cc to 1200cc – a range of 300 cc. Sapiens’ brain averages 1350 cc., an increase of 150 cc. I propose that all these increases would have been caused by new tools, ideas, discoveries etc. that required additional cells. Why do you think the invention of, for instance, a new tool or weapon would revolutionize the “simple” way of life? They needed the bigger brain to implement new ideas as an improvement to their still ”simple” way of life. A hunter with a new weapon is still a hunter.
You have not described any major change in lifestyle between erectus and sapiens that would require sure a large brain expansion, compared to the way it is massively used today. God anticipated that use.
dhw: Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.DAVID: Simple concept: God anticipates needs all through evolution. Flippers given to pre-whales so thet can swim easily.
dhw: So do you think whales could have waited around for 300,000 years before they entered the water? That’s the argument you are using for the sapiens brain!
Terrible comparison. a flipper has one use, a large brain very many.
David’s theory of evolutiondhw: I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.
DAVID: Really? Didn't humans have to evolve from previous forms, which also had to evolve?
dhw: Yes, that’s the 1% we’re talking about. I asked you to stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans (now bolded). And so you proceed to restrict evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
Not so. Everything came from bacteria. I just selected us as an example.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment.
DAVID: My view is God provides for future survival as He designs new forma.
dhw: If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. You simply have your God inventing means of survival in advance instead of organisms doing it themselves when needed. The purpose is still survival.
God's purpose was to produce humans.
Playing possumDAVID: So now you have a group of possums watching a successful escape by a single possum and adopting the method. Really?
dhw: How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?
God had to tach them somehow.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You make my case. Erectus led a simple life as did original sapiens. No need for big brain.
dhw: Erectus’s brain varied from 900cc to 1200cc – a range of 300 cc. Sapiens’ brain averages 1350 cc., an increase of 150 cc. I propose that all these increases would have been caused by new tools, ideas, discoveries etc. that required additional cells. Why do you think the invention of, for instance, a new tool or weapon would revolutionize the “simple” way of life? They needed the bigger brain to implement new ideas as an improvement to their still ”simple” way of life. A hunter with a new weapon is still a hunter.
DAVID: You have not described any major change in lifestyle between erectus and sapiens that would require sure a large brain expansion, compared to the way it is massively used today. God anticipated that use.
I have just said that there is no reason why the erectus and sapiens expansions should have changed the lifestyle: the hunter would still be a hunter. The massive use today of the existing brain has resulted in complexification, not expansion – presumably because the brain could not expand any more without major changes to the anatomy. And according to you, complexification is an autonomous process (no divine interference), so why shouldn’t he have made expansion an autonomous process too: cells add to their number or complexify as and when they need to – not before they need to?
dhw: Your only objection to this theory seems to be that we didn’t need our 1350cc brain for 300,000 years, but you can’t tell us why your God would have given it to us when we didn’t need it.
DAVID: Simple concept: God anticipates needs all through evolution. Flippers given to pre-whales so they can swim easily.
dhw: So do you think whales could have waited around for 300,000 years before they entered the water? That’s the argument you are using for the sapiens brain!
DAVID: Terrible comparison. a flipper has one use, a large brain very many.
You have completely missed the point. I am proposing that even if it were true that your God popped in to change legs to flippers, you would not have expected him to do so 300,000 years before the whale entered the water. So why would he pop in to expand the brain 300,000 years before the extra capacity was needed?
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: I do not “chop” evolution up into segments. I have it branching out into a vast bush, and 99% of the branches (including food supplies) did NOT lead to humans. And the obvious truth that past forms had no link to present forms should stop you once and for all from claiming that past forms were part of the goal to evolve present forms.
DAVID: Really? Didn't humans have to evolve from previous forms, which also had to evolve?
dhw: Yes, that’s the 1% we’re talking about. I asked you to stop restricting evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans (now bolded). And so you proceed to restrict evolution to the one line from bacteria to humans.
DAVID: Not so. Everything came from bacteria. I just selected us as an example.
I am not disputing evolution! You keep telling us that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans!
SURVIVAL
dhw: Please tell us what other purpose flippers serve if it is not to improve the chances of survival in a new environment.
DAVID: My view is God provides for future survival as He designs new forma.
dhw: If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. You simply have your God inventing means of survival in advance instead of organisms doing it themselves when needed. The purpose is still survival.
DAVID: God's purpose was to produce humans.
There you go again. God turned legs into flippers, and designed millions of life forms and their food supplies, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders because he wanted to design humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. And adaptation to new conditions has nothing to do with the quest for survival. Please let’s put an end to this discussion. It is becoming more and more nonsensical. 
Playing possum
dhw: How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?
DAVID: God had to teach them somehow.
You have only offered us these two methods, and I wonder how many even of your ID-ers, let alone the folk who have studied animal behaviour, would support the idea that animals, birds, insects etc. are incapable of making their own discoveries or designing their own survival strategies.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, March 11, 2021, 15:22 (1135 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have not described any major change in lifestyle between erectus and sapiens that would require sure a large brain expansion, compared to the way it is massively used today. God anticipated that use.
dhw: I have just said that there is no reason why the erectus and sapiens expansions should have changed the lifestyle: the hunter would still be a hunter. The massive use today of the existing brain has resulted in complexification, not expansion – presumably because the brain could not expand any more without major changes to the anatomy. And according to you, complexification is an autonomous process (no divine interference), so why shouldn’t he have made expansion an autonomous process too: cells add to their number or complexify as and when they need to – not before they need to?
Your only weak response is God let the neurons do it. It doesn't answer the question of why such a large jump in size while lifestyle requirements changes were minimal as you admit.
DAVID: Terrible comparison. a flipper has one use, a large brain very many.
dhw: You have completely missed the point. I am proposing that even if it were true that your God popped in to change legs to flippers, you would not have expected him to do so 300,000 years before the whale entered the water. So why would he pop in to expand the brain 300,000 years before the extra capacity was needed?
You have asked me the question I've posed to you. My answer is in logical anticipation of future use.
David’s theory of evolutiondhw: I am not disputing evolution! You keep telling us that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans!
Your same chopping up of evolution into segments. All branches evolved from bacteria. That is the original connection
SURVIVALdhw: If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. You simply have your God inventing means of survival in advance instead of organisms doing it themselves when needed. The purpose is still survival.
DAVID: God's purpose was to produce humans.
dhw: There you go again. God turned legs into flippers, and designed millions of life forms and their food supplies, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders because he wanted to design humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. And adaptation to new conditions has nothing to do with the quest for survival. Please let’s put an end to this discussion. It is becoming more and more nonsensical.
I start up only because you constantly reference your illogical objections
Playing possumdhw: How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?
DAVID: God had to teach them somehow.
dhw: You have only offered us these two methods, and I wonder how many even of your ID-ers, let alone the folk who have studied animal behaviour, would support the idea that animals, birds, insects etc. are incapable of making their own discoveries or designing their own survival strategies.
Back to the weaverbird nests. Even boy scouts would have trouble with some of the complex knots.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You have not described any major change in lifestyle between erectus and sapiens that would require sure a large brain expansion, compared to the way it is massively used today. God anticipated that use.
dhw: I have just said that there is no reason why the erectus and sapiens expansions should have changed the lifestyle: the hunter would still be a hunter. The massive use today of the existing brain has resulted in complexification, not expansion – presumably because the brain could not expand any more without major changes to the anatomy. And according to you, complexification is an autonomous process (no divine interference), so why shouldn’t he have made expansion an autonomous process too: cells add to their number or complexify as and when they need to – not before they need to?
DAVID: Your only weak response is God let the neurons do it. It doesn't answer the question of why such a large jump in size while lifestyle requirements changes were minimal as you admit.
According to you, your God lets the neurons complexify, so why not also let them multiply? Why is that weak? I keep repeating that NOBODY knows what caused ANY of the jumps in ANY of the hominin and homo brains. That is why we have different theories. And I keep repeating that whatever the cause (new tools, new weapons, new ideas, new environments, new discoveries), it did not have to change the lifestyles, which would still have been based almost exclusively on survival. You keep ignoring my example: a hunter with a new weapon will still be a hunter.
dhw: I am proposing that even if it were true that your God popped in to change legs to flippers, you would not have expected him to do so 300,000 years before the whale entered the water. So why would he pop in to expand the brain 300,000 years before the extra capacity was needed?
DAVID: You have asked me the question I've posed to you. My answer is in logical anticipation of future use.
Why have you inserted the word “logical”? What is logical about your God creating a large brain that is not going to be used for 300,000 years? My logical answer: the brain enlarged IN RESPONSE to a new requirement, and then remained the same until there was another new requirement which also needed greater capacity.
David’s theory of evolution
dhw: I am not disputing evolution! You keep telling us that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans!
DAVID: Your same chopping up of evolution into segments. All branches evolved from bacteria. That is the original connection.
There is no chopping. All branches evolved from bacteria, but branches branched out into more and more branches, and humans are not directly descended from 99% of those branches. That is what makes nonsense of your claim that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans”. Or will you now tell us how, for instance, the lizard/dinosaur branch formed part of the goal of designing humans?
SURVIVAL
dhw: If the purpose is future survival, it is clearly absurd to argue that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. [..]
DAVID: God's purpose was to produce humans.
dhw: There you go again. God turned legs into flippers, and designed millions of life forms and their food supplies, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders because he wanted to design humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. And adaptation to new conditions has nothing to do with the quest for survival. Please let’s put an end to this discussion. It is becoming more and more nonsensical.
DAVID: I start up only because you constantly reference your illogical objections.
My objections are to the logic of your theories: 1) that your God had only one goal (humans) but designed millions of extinct life forms as part of his goal, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. This is illogical. 2) Organs which are designed to improve an organism’s chances of survival are evidence that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. This is illogical.
Playing possum
dhw: How do you think strategies originate and then survive? They have to start somewhere, and then they have to be passed on by example, communication, education (perhaps you didn’t know that parent animals teach their young) etc. Or do you think your God preprogrammed the first cells 3.8 billion years ago to pass on a design for possums plus their play-dead strategy, or does he keep popping in to give possums refresher courses?
DAVID: God had to teach them somehow.
dhw: You have only offered us these two methods, and I wonder how many even of your ID-ers, let alone the folk who have studied animal behaviour, would support the idea that animals, birds, insects etc. are incapable of making their own discoveries or designing their own survival strategies.
DAVID: Back to the weaverbird nests. Even boy scouts would have trouble with some of the complex knots.
So 3.8 billion years ago, your God preprogrammed the arrival of possums and their play-dead strategy, and he preprogrammed weaverbirds and their ability to tie complicated knots? Or did he pop in to give courses to possums and weaverbirds, all as part of his goal to design humans? Any alternatives?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, March 12, 2021, 18:20 (1134 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your only weak response is God let the neurons do it. It doesn't answer the question of why such a large jump in size while lifestyle requirements changes were minimal as you admit.
dhw: According to you, your God lets the neurons complexify, so why not also let them multiply? Why is that weak? ... You keep ignoring my example: a hunter with a new weapon will still be a hunter.
Inventing a spear is a tiny use of the sapiens brain as evidenced by today. The neurons have a God-given program to follow to complexify networks
DAVID: You have asked me the question I've posed to you. My answer is in logical anticipation of future use.dhw: Why have you inserted the word “logical”? What is logical about your God creating a large brain that is not going to be used for 300,000 years? My logical answer: the brain enlarged IN RESPONSE to a new requirement, and then remained the same until there was another new requirement which also needed greater capacity.
All you point out is tiny requirements the obviously don't require the neew size. And you are wrong, the brain neve enlarged again after 300,000 years
David’s theory of evolutionDAVID: Your same chopping up of evolution into segments. All branches evolved from bacteria. That is the original connection.
dhw: There is no chopping. All branches evolved from bacteria, but branches branched out into more and more branches, and humans are not directly descended from 99% of those branches. That is what makes nonsense of your claim that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans”. Or will you now tell us how, for instance, the lizard/dinosaur branch formed part of the goal of designing humans?
The huge bush supplies food for all, eve nteh l izzard branch.
SURVIVALDAVID: I start up only because you constantly reference your illogical objections.
dhw; My objections are to the logic of your theories: 1) that your God had only one goal (humans) but designed millions of extinct life forms as part of his goal, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. This is illogical. 2) Organs which are designed to improve an organism’s chances of survival are evidence that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. This is illogical.
My obvious previous point: God designs to guarantee survival. God drives evolution, not nature
Playing possum
DAVID: Back to the weaverbird nests. Even boy scouts would have trouble with some of the complex knots.dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago, your God preprogrammed the arrival of possums and their play-dead strategy, and he preprogrammed weaverbirds and their ability to tie complicated knots? Or did he pop in to give courses to possums and weaverbirds, all as part of his goal to design humans? Any alternatives?
God designs to guarantee survival. God drives evolution, not nature, as above
Evolution: how do new proteins develop for use
by David Turell , Friday, March 12, 2021, 23:04 (1134 days ago) @ David Turell
Proteins in life are large and complex in form in order to deliver the proper necessary fuctions:
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-proteins.html
"That completely new proteins—and, with them, new properties—can emerge practically out of nothing, was inconceivable for decades, in line with what the Greek philosopher Parmenides said: "Nothing can emerge from nothing" (ex nihilo nihil fit). Working with colleagues from the U.S. and Australia, researchers from the University of Münster (Germany) have now reconstructed how evolution forms the structure and function of a newly emerged protein in flies.
***
"It had been assumed up to now that new proteins emerge from already existing proteins—by a duplication of the underlying genes and by a series of small mutations in one or both gene copies. In the past ten years, however, a new understanding of protein evolution has come about: proteins can also develop from so-called non-coding DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)—in other words, from that part of the genetic material which does not normally produce proteins—and can subsequently develop into functional cell components. This is surprising for several reasons: for many years, it had been assumed that, in order to be functional, proteins had to take on a highly developed geometrical form (a 3D structure). It had further been assumed that such a form could not develop from a gene emerging at random, but would require a complex combination of amino-acids enabling this protein to exist in its functional form.
"Despite decades of trying, researchers worldwide have not yet succeeded in constructing proteins with the desired 3D structures and functions, which means that the "code" for the formation of a functioning protein is essentially unknown...Despite decades of trying, researchers worldwide have not yet succeeded in constructing proteins with the desired 3D structures and functions, which means that the "code" for the formation of a functioning protein is essentially unknown... proteins are constantly being formed de novo (anew)—i.e. without any related precursor protein going through a selection process.
"The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.
***
"The results match up with several other current studies, which have shown that the genomic elements from which protein-coding genes emerge are activated frequently—tens of thousands of times in each individual. These fragments are then sorted through the process of evolutionary selection. The ones which are useless or harmful—the vast majority—are quickly discarded. But those which are neutral, or are slightly beneficial, can be optimized over millions of years and changed into something useful."
Comment: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Your only weak response is God let the neurons do it. It doesn't answer the question of why such a large jump in size while lifestyle requirements changes were minimal as you admit.
dhw: According to you, your God lets the neurons complexify, so why not also let them multiply? Why is that weak? ... You keep ignoring my example: a hunter with a new weapon will still be a hunter.
DAVID: Inventing a spear is a tiny use of the sapiens brain as evidenced by today. The neurons have a God-given program to follow to complexify networks.
Your point was that there was no change in lifestyle, and I have explained why, so you now you switch the subject. Sapiens did not invent the spear, which in its day would have been a major development. Improvements in artefacts are solid evidence of progress, and they accompany expansion of brains. Why are you downgrading them? Your proposal is that your God stepped in to enlarge the early brain so that the new generation of homos could invent the spear (or whatever the invention was). I say it was the implementation of the new idea that caused the brain to expand. I don’t understand your final sentence. If new requirements such as reading complexify the brain, what programme are the neurons following? My theistic proposal is that your God invented the mechanism which enables cells to complexify in response to new demands. In previous posts I seem to remember you agreeing that complexification was an autonomous process. Are you now saying your God preprogrammed the neurons specifically to respond to the task of reading?
DAVID (re God’s reason for a 300,000-year gap): You have asked me the question I've posed to you. My answer is in logical anticipation of future use.
dhw: Why have you inserted the word “logical”? What is logical about your God creating a large brain that is not going to be used for 300,000 years? My logical answer: the brain enlarged IN RESPONSE to a new requirement, and then remained the same until there was another new requirement which also needed greater capacity.
DAVID: All you point out is tiny requirements the obviously don't require the neew size. And you are wrong, the brain neve enlarged again after 300,000 years.
My apologies – I inadvertently switched from the sapiens brain to ALL previous brains. Please substitute “another new requirement which now needed complexification, as the brain had reached its maximum size.” In previous homos, new requirements such as new tools, weapons, ideas, environments, discoveries, required greater capacity. You have never called them tiny before. Your argument was always that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the enlargements IN ADVANCE of homos producing whatever was new.
David’s theory of evolution
DAVID: Your same chopping up of evolution into segments. All branches evolved from bacteria. That is the original connection.
dhw: There is no chopping. All branches evolved from bacteria, but branches branched out into more and more branches, and humans are not directly descended from 99% of those branches. That is what makes nonsense of your claim that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans”. Or will you now tell us how, for instance, the lizard/dinosaur branch formed part of the goal of designing humans?
DAVID: The huge bush supplies food for all, even the lizard branch.
We do not eat dinosaurs! Why do you keep ignoring your own clear statements? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
SURVIVAL
DAVID: I start up only because you constantly reference your illogical objections.
dhw: My objections are to the logic of your theories: 1) that your God had only one goal (humans) but designed millions of extinct life forms as part of his goal, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. This is illogical. 2) Organs which are designed to improve an organism’s chances of survival are evidence that the quest for survival plays no part in evolution. This is illogical.
DAVID: My obvious previous point: God designs to guarantee survival. God drives evolution, not nature. [You repeat this in your explanation of the possum’s strategy of playing dead and the weaverbird tying knots.]
Why have you brought Nature into the discussion? You have told us that your God “provides for future survival as He designs new forms.” Taking flippers as our example, this can only mean that he designed flippers in order to guarantee the survival of the organism that got the flippers. So how can you possibly argue that survival plays no part in evolution? Your God’s reason for designing the flippers was to enable the whale to survive!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, March 13, 2021, 15:32 (1133 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Inventing a spear is a tiny use of the sapiens brain as evidenced by today. The neurons have a God-given program to follow to complexify networks.
Your point was that there was no change in lifestyle, and I have explained ... I don’t understand your final sentence. If new requirements such as reading complexify the brain, what programme are the neurons following? My theistic proposal is that your God invented the mechanism which enables cells to complexify in response to new demands. In previous posts I seem to remember you agreeing that complexification was an autonomous process. Are you now saying your God preprogrammed the neurons specifically to respond to the task of reading?
Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program. I used the spear as a simple example, not historically.
DAVID: All you point out is tiny requirements the obviously don't require the new size. And you are wrong, the brain never enlarged again after 300,000 years.dhw: My apologies – I inadvertently switched from the sapiens brain to ALL previous brains. Please substitute “another new requirement which now needed complexification, as the brain had reached its maximum size.” In previous homos, new requirements such as new tools, weapons, ideas, environments, discoveries, required greater capacity. You have never called them tiny before. Your argument was always that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the enlargements IN ADVANCE of homos producing whatever was new.
Obvious: inventing a spear is not a major mental achievement like General Relativity.
David’s theory of evolutionDAVID: The huge bush supplies food for all, even the lizard branch.
dhw: We do not eat dinosaurs! Why do you keep ignoring your own clear statements? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
I know that as well as you do. The point you constantly denigrate is the continuity of evolution from bacteria to now in common descent.
SURVIVAL
DAVID: My obvious previous point: God designs to guarantee survival. God drives evolution, not nature. [You repeat this in your explanation of the possum’s strategy of playing dead and the weaverbird tying knots.]
dhw: Why have you brought Nature into the discussion? You have told us that your God “provides for future survival as He designs new forms.” Taking flippers as our example, this can only mean that he designed flippers in order to guarantee the survival of the organism that got the flippers. So how can you possibly argue that survival plays no part in evolution? Your God’s reason for designing the flippers was to enable the whale to survive!
I'm saying Darwin's theory that the drive for survival drives evolution is false. God designs the proper advances to guarantee survival. Quite a difference from your attempts to explain changes like flippers.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: [..] The neurons have a God-given program to follow to complexify networks.
dhw: If new requirements such as reading complexify the brain, what programme are the neurons following? […] In previous posts I seem to remember you agreeing that complexification was an autonomous process. Are you now saying your God preprogrammed the neurons specifically to respond to the task of reading?
DAVID: Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program. [..]
That is NOT specifically in response to the task of reading! You are now repeating my theistic version of my theory: your God created the mechanism whereby cells complexify to “handle new uses”: for example, in a process of cause and effect, the brain complexifies as the illiterate person learns to read (NOT in anticipation of the learning). I agree that past brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
dhw: In previous homos, new requirements such as new tools, weapons, ideas, environments, discoveries, required greater capacity. You have never called them tiny before. Your argument was always that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the enlargements IN ADVANCE of homos producing whatever was new.
DAVID: Obvious: inventing a spear is not a major mental achievement like General Relativity.
No one would dispute that modern human brain power has advanced immeasurably from that of our ancestors! How does that prove that the invention of what was then a revolutionary advance in technology did not require an expansion of brain capacity? If today you saw a chimp manufacturing a spear, you’d be flabbergasted. In its time, the spear was an amazing achievement.
David’s theory of evolution
DAVID: The huge bush supplies food for all, even the lizard branch.
dhw: We do not eat dinosaurs! Why do you keep ignoring your own clear statements? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
DAVID: I know that as well as you do. The point you constantly denigrate is the continuity of evolution from bacteria to now in common descent.
Of course I don’t denigrate common descent! What I denigrate is the argument that every single branch of life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans”, although 99% of the life forms and their food supplies had NO CONNECTION with humans. You keep trying to edit your own theory to leave this out. Please stop it.
SURVIVAL
dhw: […] Your God’s reason for designing the flippers was to enable the whale to survive!
DAVID:I'm saying Darwin's theory that the drive for survival drives evolution is false. God designs the proper advances to guarantee survival. Quite a difference from your attempts to explain changes like flippers.
Even if your God did design the flipper, the purpose is the driving force behind any action, and if the purpose was survival, then it is illogical to say that survival of the whale was not the driving force behind your God’s evolutionary action. Why else would he have designed the flipper? Please answer.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, March 14, 2021, 14:46 (1132 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program. [..]
dhw" That is NOT specifically in response to the task of reading! You are now repeating my theistic version of my theory: ... I agree that past brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.
dhw: In previous homos, new requirements such as new tools, weapons, ideas, environments, discoveries, required greater capacity. You have never called them tiny before. Your argument was always that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the enlargements IN ADVANCE of homos producing whatever was new.DAVID: Obvious: inventing a spear is not a major mental achievement like General Relativity.
dhw: No one would dispute that modern human brain power has advanced immeasurably from that of our ancestors! How does that prove that the invention of what was then a revolutionary advance in technology did not require an expansion of brain capacity? If today you saw a chimp manufacturing a spear, you’d be flabbergasted. In its time, the spear was an amazing achievement.
Of course a new weapon at a time of few useful weapons would 'look' big. To do it our new huge brain was barely used, the point you dance around: why so big if hardly used to full capacity.
David’s theory of evolutionDAVID: I know that as well as you do. The point you constantly denigrate is the continuity of evolution from bacteria to now in common descent.
Of course I don’t denigrate common descent! What I denigrate is the argument that every single branch of life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans”, although 99% of the life forms and their food supplies had NO CONNECTION with humans. You keep trying to edit your own theory to leave this out. Please stop it.
Stop chopping up evolution. Common descent means all are connected in its continuity.
God chose to evolve us from bacteria.
SURVIVALdhw: […] Your God’s reason for designing the flippers was to enable the whale to survive!
DAVID:I'm saying Darwin's theory that the drive for survival drives evolution is false. God designs the proper advances to guarantee survival. Quite a difference from your attempts to explain changes like flippers.
dhw: Even if your God did design the flipper, the purpose is the driving force behind any action, and if the purpose was survival, then it is illogical to say that survival of the whale was not the driving force behind your God’s evolutionary action. Why else would he have designed the flipper? Please answer.
My point is God guarantees survival by preparing all new organisms/species with a proper design of parts to fit whatever new environmental challenges the new organism will meet. Simply God is the driving force for evolution and survival is obviously a necessary part
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program. [..]
dhw: I agree thatpast brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.
You have misread my post. PAST brains would have had the same mechanism for autonomous complexification, and so I am proposing that the same mechanism would have been used to expand PAST brains when their capacity for complexification could not meet PAST requirements. Hence the following:
dhw: In previous homos, new requirements such as new tools, weapons, ideas, environments, discoveries, required greater capacity. You have never called them tiny before. Your argument was always that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the enlargements IN ADVANCE of homos producing whatever was new.
DAVID: Obvious: inventing a spear is not a major mental achievement like General Relativity.
dhw: No one would dispute that modern human brain power has advanced immeasurably from that of our ancestors! How does that prove that the invention of what was then a revolutionary advance in technology did not require an expansion of brain capacity? If today you saw a chimp manufacturing a spear, you’d be flabbergasted. In its time, the spear was an amazing achievement.
DAVID: Of course a new weapon at a time of few useful weapons would 'look' big. To do it our new huge brain was barely used, the point you dance around: why so big if hardly used to full capacity.
It wasn’t our new huge brain that invented the spear! You are completely missing the point. Nobody knows what caused earlier expansions or the sapiens expansion. We have used the spear as a simple example. If heidelbergensis invented it, it was a huge step forward in technology, and perhaps that was the cause of his expanded brain. If not the spear, then go back to every artefact that has ever been found: artefacts are the only solid evidence of progress accompanying earlier expansions, but above I have given you a list of other possible causes. As for our huge new brain being barely used after the initial expansion, I have explained it umpteen times: once the new requirement had been met, there were no new requirements for 300,000 years, and when new ideas did occur, instead of the brain expanding, it complexified (perhaps because it had reached its maximum size). It is you who “dance” round the problem, because you cannot tell us why your God would have expanded the brain if it was not going to be required for another 300,000 years. Your only theory is that we had to learn to use it, although how you can learn to use something and yet produce nothing is beyond my understanding.
David’s theory of evolution
DAVID: The point you constantly denigrate is the continuity of evolution from bacteria to now in common descent.
dhw: Of course I don’t denigrate common descent! What I denigrate is the argument that every single branch of life’s history was “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans”, although 99% of the life forms and their food supplies had NO CONNECTION with humans. You keep trying to edit your own theory to leave this out. Please stop it.
DAVID: Stop chopping up evolution. Common descent means all are connected in its continuity. God chose to evolve us from bacteria.
I am not chopping up evolution. It branched out, and 99% of its branches had no connection with humans. THAT is why it is absurd to argue that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans”.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Even if your God did design the flipper, the purpose is the driving force behind any action, and if the purpose was survival, then it is illogical to say that survival of the whale was not the driving force behind your God’s evolutionary action. Why else would he have designed the flipper? Please answer.
DAVID: My point is God guarantees survival by preparing all new organisms/species with a proper design of parts to fit whatever new environmental challenges the new organism will meet. Simply God is the driving force for evolution and survival is obviously a necessary part.
No problem, then. In your theory, God is the driving force who designs all the innovations, and the purpose of the innovations is to improve organisms’ chances of survival in changing environments. And so when you wrote “survival never drives evolution”, you only meant that God designs all the innovations, the purpose of which is survival. Survival as the purpose of evolutionary innovation is therefore exactly the same as in Darwin’s theory.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 15, 2021, 14:45 (1131 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I agree thatpast brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.
dhw: You have misread my post. PAST brains would have had the same mechanism for autonomous complexification, and so I am proposing that the same mechanism would have been used to expand PAST brains when their capacity for complexification could not meet PAST requirements.
Not misread. The bolded is dead wrong as stated above.
DAVID: Of course a new weapon at a time of few useful weapons would 'look' big. To do it our new huge brain was barely used, the point you dance around: why so big if hardly used to full capacity.
dhw: It wasn’t our new huge brain that invented the spear! You are completely missing the point.
My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.
dhw: It is you who “dance” round the problem, because you cannot tell us why your God would have expanded the brain if it was not going to be required for another 300,000 years. Your only theory is that we had to learn to use it, although how you can learn to use something and yet produce nothing is beyond my understanding.
My statement that a designing God anticipate future use of the brain answers the question. Stasis is your problem not mine. Why does a brain naturally way over-expand? You have no natural answer, which why you scream about my bringing up natural causes in recent posts.
SURVIVALdhw: Even if your God did design the flipper, the purpose is the driving force behind any action, and if the purpose was survival, then it is illogical to say that survival of the whale was not the driving force behind your God’s evolutionary action. Why else would he have designed the flipper? Please answer.
DAVID: My point is God guarantees survival by preparing all new organisms/species with a proper design of parts to fit whatever new environmental challenges the new organism will meet. Simply God is the driving force for evolution and survival is obviously a necessary part.
dhw: No problem, then. In your theory, God is the driving force who designs all the innovations, and the purpose of the innovations is to improve organisms’ chances of survival in changing environments. And so when you wrote “survival never drives evolution”, you only meant that God designs all the innovations, the purpose of which is survival. Survival as the purpose of evolutionary innovation is therefore exactly the same as in Darwin’s theory.
Complete opposite: Difference in driving force is the issue you miss. God drives evolution, guarantees survival while Darwin says the need for survival drives evolution.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: I agree that past brains would have had the same programme for AUTONOMOUS complexification. And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.
dhw: You have misread my post. PAST brains would have had the same mechanism for autonomous complexification, and so I am proposing that the same mechanism would have been used to expand PAST brains when their capacity for complexification could not meet PAST requirements.
DAVID: Not misread. The bolded is dead wrong as stated above.
I was agreeing with your statement: “Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program.[/b]” (I say AUTONOMOUS because if complexification can handle new uses, it doesn't need God to keep popping in with instructions for each new use.) How can it be dead right on Sunday and dead wrong on Monday?
DAVID: Of course a new weapon at a time of few useful weapons would 'look' big. To do it our new huge brain was barely used, the point you dance around: why so big if hardly used to full capacity.
dhw: It wasn’t our new huge brain that invented the spear! You are completely missing the point.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.
Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
dhw: It is you who “dance” round the problem [stasis], because you cannot tell us why your God would have expanded the brain if it was not going to be required for another 300,000 years. Your only theory is that we had to learn to use it, although how you can learn to use something and yet produce nothing is beyond my understanding.
DAVID: My statement that a designing God anticipate future use of the brain answers the question. Stasis is your problem not mine. Why does a brain naturally way over-expand? You have no natural answer, which why you scream about my bringing up natural causes in recent posts.
Your statement does not explain anything! Why operate on the brain 300,000 years before any change is needed? And why do you harp on about overexpansion? Nobody knows why any stage of the brain expanded to its past or present sizes, but I gave you a list of possible causes. Once the sapiens brain had met its unknown new requirement, there were no more new requirements for 300,000 years. But then the brain did not expand. Instead it complexified, and complexification was so efficient that some of the cells required 315,000 years ago were no longer needed (= shrinkage). Now please tell us why you think your God overexpanded our brain 300,000 years before any change was needed, apart from hhis metaphorically gazing into his crystal ball.
SURVIVAL
dhw: In your theory, God is the driving force who designs all the innovations, and the purpose of the innovations is to improve organisms’ chances of survival in changing environments. And so when you wrote “survival never drives evolution”, you only meant that God designs all the innovations, the purpose of which is survival. Survival as the purpose of evolutionary innovation is therefore exactly the same as in Darwin’s theory.
DAVID: Complete opposite: Difference in driving force is the issue you miss. God drives evolution, guarantees survival while Darwin says the need for survival drives evolution.
Nothing “guarantees” survival, since 99% of species have died out. You are once again conflating “life” with living organisms. Innovations take place in living organisms, not so that life can go on in no matter what form. If your God’s purpose in replacing pre-whales’ legs with flippers was to improve their chances of surviving in water, then the purpose of the evolutionary innovation was survival, which is precisely what Darwin argues. We are having a non-argument here. We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 18:24 (1130 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons.
dhw: I was agreeing with your statement: “Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program.[/b]” (I say AUTONOMOUS because if complexification can handle new uses, it doesn't need God to keep popping in with instructions for each new use.) How can it be dead right on Sunday and dead wrong on Monday?
To clear it up: Your statement of added neurons was incorrect as it applied to the study on illiterate Italian women, who had thickening in the Cortex and visual areas, regions that don't add neurons. In London cabbies where only memory is required, the hippocampus thickened and is presumed to have added neurons. Therefore, in most activities requiring complex brain activities in several areas more axon connections do the complexification, not new neurons. Consider the violinist: Some hippocampal enlargement is reasonable, but all the visual, aural and muscular activity creates axonal complexity in other regions.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.
dhw: Your statement does not explain anything! Why operate on the brain 300,000 years before any change is needed? And why do you harp on about overexpansion? Nobody knows why any stage of the brain expanded to its past or present sizes, but I gave you a list of possible causes. Once the sapiens brain had met its unknown new requirement, there were no more new requirements for 300,000 years. But then the brain did not expand. Instead it complexified, and complexification was so efficient that some of the cells required 315,000 years ago were no longer needed (= shrinkage). Now please tell us why you think your God overexpanded our brain 300,000 years before any change was needed, apart from his metaphorically gazing into his crystal ball.
You can't explain a natural cause of such a big brain appearing with so little to do. You've never presented cogent answer, just describe what we know happened as above. God anticipates usage as He designs advances in evolution.
SURVIVALdhw: In your theory, God is the driving force who designs all the innovations, and the purpose of the innovations is to improve organisms’ chances of survival in changing environments. And so when you wrote “survival never drives evolution”, you only meant that God designs all the innovations, the purpose of which is survival. Survival as the purpose of evolutionary innovation is therefore exactly the same as in Darwin’s theory.
DAVID: Complete opposite: Difference in driving force is the issue you miss. God drives evolution, guarantees survival while Darwin says the need for survival drives evolution.
dhw: Nothing “guarantees” survival, since 99% of species have died out. You are once again conflating “life” with living organisms. Innovations take place in living organisms, not so that life can go on in no matter what form. If your God’s purpose in replacing pre-whales’ legs with flippers was to improve their chances of surviving in water, then the purpose of the evolutionary innovation was survival, which is precisely what Darwin argues. We are having a non-argument here. We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me.
The concept 'life' is represented by living organisms, so that is my shorthand usage. You can keep Darwin theory for yourself. All I accept is common descent from original Archaea.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You are backwards. In our brain almost all neurons are present from the beginning. Complexification involves increasing axon networking, not neurons. Only the hippocampus adds neurons. […] The bolded is dead wrong…
dhw: I was agreeing with your statement: “Yes, God programmed our neurons to complexify in our big brain as necessary to handle new uses. And I think past brains had the same program.” (I say AUTONOMOUS because if complexification can handle new uses, it doesn't need God to keep popping in with instructions for each new use.) How can it be dead right on Sunday and dead wrong on Monday?
DAVID: To clear it up: Your statement of added neurons was incorrect as it applied to the study on illiterate Italian women, who had thickening in the Cortex and visual areas, regions that don't add neurons.
I never stated any such thing! Expansion did not apply to the Indian women!!!! Their brains complexified!
DAVID: In London cabbies where only memory is required, the hippocampus thickened and is presumed to have added neurons. Therefore, in most activities requiring complex brain activities in several areas more axon connections do the complexification, not new neurons.
And so we have two examples in which the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements: the first results in complexification, and the second in expansion, and you use these two examples to try and disprove my proposal that the same mechanisms could have been at work in the past, when the smaller brain would have complexified until its capacity was exceeded by new requirements, and then it expanded. Although you have tried to misrepresent what I wrote, thank you for this clear evidence of its feasibility.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.
dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
DAVID: Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.
Instead of answering my now bolded question, you have once more switched to stasis, which I have covered over and over again! Stasis followed each expansion because there were no new requirements that needed extra capacity. When sapiens was faced with new requirements after the initial expansion, the brain (apart from the hippocampus) complexified, presumably because further expansion would have created problems for the anatomy. Now please answer my bolded question
dhw: […] complexification was so efficient that some of the cells required 315,000 years ago were no longer needed (= shrinkage). Now please tell us why you think your God overexpanded our brain 300,000 years before any change was needed, apart from his metaphorically gazing into his crystal ball.
DAVID: You can't explain a natural cause of such a big brain appearing with so little to do. You've never presented cogent answer, just describe what we know happened as above. God anticipates usage as He designs advances in evolution.
Nobody knows why any of the pre-sapiens brains expanded, but I keep offering you possible causes and you keep ignoring them: new tools, new weapons, new ideas, new environments, new discoveries and in all cases, INCLUDING THE EXPANSION FROM PRE-SAPIENS TO SAPIENS, the initial requirements could only be met by an increase in the number of cells. See above for what happened next.
SURVIVAL
dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me.
DAVID: The concept 'life' is represented by living organisms, so that is my shorthand usage. You can keep Darwin theory for yourself. All I accept is common descent from original Archaea.
If only that was all you “accepted”, most of these discussions would have ended long ago. But you go on “accepting” that your God directly designed every species, that he did so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens although 99% of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens, and that although your God designed evolutionary innovations in order to enable organisms to survive, you do not accept the theory that the purpose of evolutionary innovations was to improve chances of survival.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 15:54 (1129 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: To clear it up: Your statement of added neurons was incorrect as it applied to the study on illiterate Italian women, who had thickening in the Cortex and visual areas, regions that don't add neurons.
dhw: I never stated any such thing! Expansion did not apply to the Indian women!!!! Their brains complexified!
From March 14, dhw: " And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”?
My objection was only the hippocampus has this designed ability.
DAVID: In London cabbies where only memory is required, the hippocampus thickened and is presumed to have added neurons. Therefore, in most activities requiring complex brain activities in several areas more axon connections do the complexification, not new neurons.dhw: And so we have two examples in which the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements: the first results in complexification, and the second in expansion, and you use these two examples to try and disprove my proposal that the same mechanisms could have been at work in the past, when the smaller brain would have complexified until its capacity was exceeded by new requirements, and then it expanded. Although you have tried to misrepresent what I wrote, thank you for this clear evidence of its feasibility.
Tiny expansions in our brains prove nothing about the past, other than those brains probably had the same small expansions.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
DAVID: Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.
Instead of answering my now bolded question, you have once more switched to stasis, which I have covered over and over again! Stasis followed each expansion because there were no new requirements that needed extra capacity.... Now please answer my bolded question
I did. God is the cause for stasis. Your repeated discussion explains nothing, because I entered the concept of stasis long ago To emphasize the issue: why a huge brain so early before it was really used? You never have had a valid explanation.
SURVIVALdhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me.
DAVID: The concept 'life' is represented by living organisms, so that is my shorthand usage. You can keep Darwin theory for yourself. All I accept is common descent from original Archaea.
dhw: If only that was all you “accepted”, most of these discussions would have ended long ago. But you go on “accepting” that your God directly designed every species, that he did so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens although 99% of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens, and that although your God designed evolutionary innovations in order to enable organisms to survive, you do not accept the theory that the purpose of evolutionary innovations was to improve chances of survival.
I fully agree the new adaptations improved survival. My point you have avoided in this discussion is survival does not drive evolution, God does. That is the reason all I accept from Darwin in common descent, designed by God.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: To clear it up: Your statement of added neurons was incorrect as it applied to the study on illiterate Italian women, who had thickening in the Cortex and visual areas, regions that don't add neurons.
dhw: I never stated any such thing! Expansion did not apply to the Indian women!!!! Their brains complexified!
DAVID: From March 14, dhw: " And so why could your God not have designed the same mechanism to enable cells to expand as well as complexify through the autonomous process of “handling new uses”? My objection was only the hippocampus has this designed ability
March 13, dhw: “If new requirements such as reading complexify the brain, what programmes are the neurons following….Are you now saying your God preprogrammed the neurons specifically to respond to the task of reading?” I specifically said “complexify”, and I asked why your God could not have designed the same mechanism to expand as well as complexify. What is “incorrect”? And why didn’t you answer?
DAVID: In London cabbies where only memory is required, the hippocampus thickened and is presumed to have added neurons. Therefore, in most activities requiring complex brain activities in several areas more axon connections do the complexification, not new neurons.
dhw: And so we have two examples in which the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements: the first results in complexification, and the second in expansion, and you use these two examples to try and disprove my proposal that the same mechanisms could have been at work in the past, when the smaller brain would have complexified until its capacity was exceeded by new requirements, and then it expanded. Although you have tried to misrepresent what I wrote, thank you for this clear evidence of its feasibility.
DAVID: Tiny expansions in our brains prove nothing about the past, other than those brains probably had the same small expansions.
If we had proof, there would be nothing to discuss, and that applies to every subject from brain expansion to the existence of God. That is why we keep proposing and analysing the logic of different theories. So please tell me why it is illogical to suggest that since the modern brain RESPONDS to new requirements by complexifying and expanding on a small scale, it may have done the same in the past, but when brains were smaller, they responded by expanding on a larger scale.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.
dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
DAVID: Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.
dhw: Instead of answering my now bolded question, you have once more switched to stasis, which I have covered over and over again! Stasis followed each expansion because there were no new requirements that needed extra capacity.... Now please answer my bolded question.
DAVID: I did. God is the cause for stasis. Your repeated discussion explains nothing, because I entered the concept of stasis long ago To emphasize the issue: why a huge brain so early before it was really used? You never have had a valid explanation.
You continue to avoid my bolded question, and you continue to dwell on stasis! I gave you a complete explanation, which you have shortened, and your response is to say it explains nothing, although you don’t say what is wrong with it! Once more: the sapiens brain expanded to its full size IN ORDER TO MEET UNKNOWN NEW REQUIREMENTS. Then there were no more new requirements until 300,000 years later, but instead of expanding again, it complexified presumably because further expansions would have created problems for the anatomy. Complexification proved so efficient that some cells were no longer necessary (= shrinkage.) Please tell us what is illogical about such a theory, and then please answer the bolded question above, since you have argued that past requirements were too “tiny” to require the earlier expansions.
SURVIVAL
dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me. […]
DAVID: I fully agree the new adaptations improved survival. My point you have avoided in this discussion is survival does not drive evolution, God does. That is the reason all I accept from Darwin in common descent, designed by God.
I’ve left out the bits in between. Since you agree that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival (regardless of whether your God designed them or not), you are in agreement with Darwin that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival. We do not need to use the words “driving force”.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, March 18, 2021, 15:01 (1128 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 15:06
DAVID: Tiny expansions in our brains prove nothing about the past, other than those brains probably had the same small expansions.
dhw: If we had proof, there would be nothing to discuss, and that applies to every subject from brain expansion to the existence of God. That is why we keep proposing and analysing the logic of different theories. So please tell me why it is illogical to suggest that since the modern brain RESPONDS to new requirements by complexifying and expanding on a small scale, it may have done the same in the past, but when brains were smaller, they responded by expanding on a larger scale.
We have no proof, only our separate theories of a reason for 200 cc expansion in more ancient hominins.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?
DAVID: Stasis is your problem I raised long ago. My view is God anticipates future use.
dhw: Instead of answering my now bolded question, you have once more switched to stasis, which I have covered over and over again! Stasis followed each expansion because there were no new requirements that needed extra capacity.... Now please answer my bolded question.
DAVID: I did. God is the cause for stasis. Your repeated discussion explains nothing, because I entered the concept of stasis long ago To emphasize the issue: why a huge brain so early before it was really used? You never have had a valid explanation.
dhw: You continue to avoid my bolded question, and you continue to dwell on stasis! I gave you a complete explanation, which you have shortened, and your response is to say it explains nothing, although you don’t say what is wrong with it! Once more: the sapiens brain expanded to its full size IN ORDER TO MEET UNKNOWN NEW REQUIREMENTS. Then there were no more new requirements until 300,000 years later,
I don't avoid your question. You don't accept my answer. The bold is the nub of the issue. Your interpretation is not mine. The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use. This is easily seen if one accepts God as in control of evolution. You have never explained stasis, just a lot of palaver around the issue, as evidenced by your complaint that I raise the issue, which I first presented as a concept for discussion. Stasis equals obvious underuse for the current size. The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.
SURVIVAL
dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is the driving force behind evolution (whether he designed every species or gave organisms free rein), and the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations was to improve the organism’s chance of survival. The latter is Darwin’s theory, and if you’d rather not describe the purpose of something as a “driving force”, then that’s fine with me. […]
DAVID: I fully agree the new adaptations improved survival. My point you have avoided in this discussion is survival does not drive evolution, God does. That is the reason all I accept from Darwin in common descent, designed by God.
dhw: I’ve left out the bits in between. Since you agree that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival (regardless of whether your God designed them or not), you are in agreement with Darwin that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival. We do not need to use the words “driving force”.
Why not use 'driving' just as I use stasis? It disturbs your comfort worth your agnostic use of Darwin. Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything? Prompt use of a new tool aids survival, doesn't it? Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: Tiny expansions in our brains prove nothing about the past, other than those brains probably had the same small expansions.
dhw: If we had proof, there would be nothing to discuss, and that applies to every subject from brain expansion to the existence of God. That is why we keep proposing and analysing the logic of different theories. So please tell me why it is illogical to suggest that since the modern brain RESPONDS to new requirements by complexifying and expanding on a small scale, it may have done the same in the past, but when brains were smaller, they responded by expanding on a larger scale.
DAVID: We have no proof, only our separate theories of a reason for 200 cc expansion in more ancient hominins.
Correct. So now please tell me why you regard my theory as illogical.
DAVID: My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.
dhw: Your point has always been that your God expanded all earlier brains in anticipation of new uses. Are you now saying the new uses were too tiny to require your God’s successive brain operations? Then why did he bother to expand early brains?[…]
DAVID: […] The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use.
This has nothing to do with the earlier expansions. Why did he expand earlier brains if the new requirements were too tiny to need expansion? Please note that our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no apparent advances in their lifestyles that we know of, apart from improved artefacts. Long periods without change are what we mean by “stasis”. They arise because there is no NEED for change.
DAVID: You have never explained stasis, just a lot of palaver around the issue, as evidenced by your complaint that I raise the issue, which I first presented as a concept for discussion. Stasis equals obvious underuse for the current size.
My complaint is not that you raised the issue, but that (a) you keep dodging the bolded question, and (b) you keep returning to stasis when I have given you a perfectly logical explanation. Stasis does not “equal” underuse. It simply means a state or period in which there is no change. My explanation yet again: The human brain expanded to its present size to meet some unknown requirement, and then – as with every preceding stage of brain – there were no new requirements. In the past, stasis ended when the existing capacity was too small to meet new requirements (hence expansion), and when the pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size, the new size was adequate for sapiens’ needs. But when eventually there were new requirements, instead of expanding (and presumably causing problems for the anatomy) the brain enhanced its existing ability to complexify. If the new ideas, discoveries, inventions, lifestyles had occurred earlier, the brain would have complexified earlier. There is no “underuse”. Whether your God performed the initial sapiens expansion operation for no immediate purpose, or the cell communities added cells to meet a particular requirement makes no difference to the facts: 315,000 years ago the brain expanded, for 300,000 years there were no new requirements (stasis), and when there were new requirements, it complexified instead of expanding. And we know for a fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. What is your problem with this explanation?
DAVID: The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.
Yes, we are special. That does not make your theory of brain expansion any more logical than mine, and it does not answer the bolded question concerning why your God would have expanded earlier brains if the new uses were too "tiny" to need expansion.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Since you agree that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival (regardless of whether your God designed them or not), you are in agreement with Darwin that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival. We do not need to use the words “driving force”.
DAVID: Why not use 'driving' just as I use stasis? It disturbs your comfort worth your agnostic use of Darwin. Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything? Prompt use of a new tool aids survival, doesn't it? Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.
I am perfectly happy to say that purpose is a driving force, but you want to confine the term to the power which you believe has and fulfils the purpose. Your question concerning stasis is absurd: life forms find a mode of life which enables them to survive. If no change is required, there is stasis in their development. If change is required, they adapt or, in some cases, innovate, or they die. End of stasis. Thank you for agreeing that a new tool aids survival. The purpose of “aiding survival” is the driving force behind its invention, but you don’t like me using the term, so I’ll stick to purpose. How on earth does this count as a “disturbance” to the theory that survival is the purpose for evolutionary change? Stasis is simply what occurs when there is no need for change.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, March 19, 2021, 15:14 (1127 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: […] The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use.
dhw: This has nothing to do with the earlier expansions. Why did he expand earlier brains if the new requirements were too tiny to need expansion? Please note that our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no apparent advances in their lifestyles that we know of, apart from improved artefacts. Long periods without change are what we mean by “stasis”. They arise because there is no NEED for change.
You've stated my prime point in the bold. Big brain without need can only mean enlargement in anticipation of need as designed by God.
DAVID: You have never explained stasis, just a lot of palaver around the issue, as evidenced by your complaint that I raise the issue, which I first presented as a concept for discussion. Stasis equals obvious underuse for the current size.dhw: My complaint is not that you raised the issue, but that (a) you keep dodging the bolded question, and (b) you keep returning to stasis when I have given you a perfectly logical explanation. Stasis does not “equal” underuse. It simply means a state or period in which there is no change. My explanation yet again: The human brain expanded to its present size to meet some unknown requirement, and then – as with every preceding stage of brain – there were no new requirements. In the past, stasis ended when the existing capacity was too small to meet new requirements (hence expansion), and when the pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size, the new size was adequate for sapiens’ needs. But when eventually there were new requirements, instead of expanding (and presumably causing problems for the anatomy) the brain enhanced its existing ability to complexify. If the new ideas, discoveries, inventions, lifestyles had occurred earlier, the brain would have complexified earlier. There is no “underuse”. Whether your God performed the initial sapiens expansion operation for no immediate purpose, or the cell communities added cells to meet a particular requirement makes no difference to the facts: 315,000 years ago the brain expanded, for 300,000 years there were no new requirements (stasis), and when there were new requirements, it complexified instead of expanding. And we know for a fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. What is your problem with this explanation?
As above: there is no reason for an oversized brain to arrive to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today. Your long review of stasis doesn't answer the question of stasis: 200 cc additions are full new speciation. We currently cannot explain speciation as a natural event. I say God speciates.
DAVID: The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.dhw: Yes, we are special. That does not make your theory of brain expansion any more logical than mine, and it does not answer the bolded question concerning why your God would have expanded earlier brains if the new uses were too "tiny" to need expansion.
Remember, God designs to anticipate future use.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Since you agree that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival (regardless of whether your God designed them or not), you are in agreement with Darwin that the purpose of new adaptations was to improve survival. We do not need to use the words “driving force”.DAVID: Why not use 'driving' just as I use stasis? It disturbs your comfort worth your agnostic use of Darwin. Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything? Prompt use of a new tool aids survival, doesn't it? Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.
dhw: I am perfectly happy to say that purpose is a driving force, but you want to confine the term to the power which you believe has and fulfils the purpose. Your question concerning stasis is absurd: life forms find a mode of life which enables them to survive. If no change is required, there is stasis in their development. If change is required, they adapt or, in some cases, innovate, or they die. End of stasis. Thank you for agreeing that a new tool aids survival. The purpose of “aiding survival” is the driving force behind its invention, but you don’t like me using the term, so I’ll stick to purpose. How on earth does this count as a “disturbance” to the theory that survival is the purpose for evolutionary change? Stasis is simply what occurs when there is no need for change.
Which again raises the same obvious question. Why do oversized brains suddenly appear creating the philosophic problem of stasis? As above, you describe stasis as we see it, but that doesn't explain the burst in size when not needed.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: […] The logical reason for a giant brain totally underused, is arrival in anticipation of future use.
dhw: This has nothing to do with the earlier expansions. Why did he expand earlier brains if the new requirements were too tiny to need expansion? Please note that our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no apparent advances in their lifestyles that we know of, apart from improved artefacts. Long periods without change are what we mean by “stasis”. They arise because there is no NEED for change.
DAVID: You've stated my prime point in the bold. Big brain without need can only mean enlargement in anticipation of need as designed by God.
And you have entirely missed my point! You say that earlier requirements were too tiny to require additional brain cells. That can only mean that every earlier expansion had no purpose! Your God just popped in, added 200 cc worth of cells to successive species of homo for no reason at all, except to make sure that eventually it would add up to 1350 cc and H. sapiens could then embark on a new career after 300,000 years doing nothing with his 1350 cc. I’m sorry, but I find that somewhat unconvincing. I suggest that each addition to the brain was accompanied by some kind of change – whether with artefacts, new ideas, discoveries, lifestyles, adaptations to new environments – any one of which could have exceeded the existing capacity and required additional cells.
DAVID: there is no reason for an oversized brain to arrive to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today. Your long review of stasis doesn't answer the question of stasis: 200 cc additions are full new speciation. We currently cannot explain speciation as a natural event. I say God speciates.
What was the point of new speciation if the new species did nothing with the new brain and never needed it in the first place? What has stasis, which occurs when there is no change, got to do with speciation? Nobody can explain speciation, but I doubt if you will find many folk even in ID circles who will swallow the idea that your God designed various new species of homo for no reason other than to gradually build up the quantity of brain cells to 1350 cc for some vague future use. Once more, my counter proposal: each successive brain expansion was caused by a new requirement for which the smaller brain did not have sufficient capacity. Once the requirement was met, there was stasis until the next major requirement resulted in another expansion. Same process with the first sapiens: unknown requirement needed additional cells….period of stasis…but then new requirements met by enhanced complexification.
DAVID: The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.
dhw: Yes, we are special. That does not make your theory of brain expansion any more logical than mine, and it does not answer the bolded question concerning why your God would have expanded earlier brains if the new uses were too "tiny" to need expansion.
DAVID: Remember, God designs to anticipate future use.
I suggest that your purposeful God (or the cell communities which he may have designed) is more likely to have had an immediate purpose for each successive expansion rather than to have added cells in instalments for no reason other than to meet unspecified requirements a couple of million years later.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Thank you for agreeing that a new tool aids survival. The purpose of “aiding survival” is the driving force behind its invention, but you don’t like me using the term, so I’ll stick to purpose. How on earth does this count as a “disturbance” to the theory that survival is the purpose for evolutionary change? Stasis is simply what occurs when there is no need for change.
DAVID: Which again raises the same obvious question. Why do oversized brains suddenly appear creating the philosophic problem of stasis? As above, you describe stasis as we see it, but that doesn't explain the burst in size when not needed.
In my theory each “burst in size” IS needed! And this has nothing to do with stasis, which simply means that after the initial fulfilment of need there were no further needs. And this in turn has nothing to do with your attempt to avoid the obvious fact that any evolutionary changes that are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival confirm that the motive for the evolutionary changes is to improve chances of survival! Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, March 20, 2021, 13:56 (1126 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You've stated my prime point in the bold. Big brain without need can only mean enlargement in anticipation of need as designed by God.
dhw: nd you have entirely missed my point! You say that earlier requirements were too tiny to require additional brain cells. That can only mean that every earlier expansion had no purpose! Your God just popped in, ... I’m sorry, but I find that somewhat unconvincing. I suggest that each addition to the brain was accompanied by some kind of change – whether with artefacts, new ideas, discoveries, lifestyles, adaptations to new environments – any one of which could have exceeded the existing capacity and required additional cells.
I'm not surprised you are not convinced. I've demonstrated God's likely purpose, but you don't accept God, so my point won't appeal to you
DAVID: there is no reason for an oversized brain to arrive to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today. Your long review of stasis doesn't answer the question of stasis: 200 cc additions are full new speciation. We currently cannot explain speciation as a natural event. I say God speciates.dhw: What was the point of new speciation if the new species did nothing with the new brain and never needed it in the first place? What has stasis, which occurs when there is no change, got to do with speciation? Nobody can explain speciation, but I doubt if you will find many folk even in ID circles who will swallow the idea that your God designed various new species of homo for no reason other than to gradually build up the quantity of brain cells to 1350 cc for some vague future use. Once more, my counter proposal: each successive brain expansion was caused by a new requirement for which the smaller brain did not have sufficient capacity. Once the requirement was met, there was stasis until the next major requirement resulted in another expansion. Same process with the first sapiens: unknown requirement needed additional cells….period of stasis…but then new requirements met by enhanced complexification.
A repeat of your position which simply doesn't accept the concept that God speciates and prepares them in advance of new needs. You are left with natural speciation which doesn't explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.
DAVID: The problem is not seen in fossil studies of evolution in any other circumstance than brain enlargement in the human line. That is because our unexpected appearance is an extremely important philosophical issue as raised by Adler.dhw: Yes, we are special. That does not make your theory of brain expansion any more logical than mine, and it does not answer the bolded question concerning why your God would have expanded earlier brains if the new uses were too "tiny" to need expansion.
DAVID: Remember, God designs to anticipate future use.
dhw: I suggest that your purposeful God (or the cell communities which he may have designed) is more likely to have had an immediate purpose for each successive expansion rather than to have added cells in instalments for no reason other than to meet unspecified requirements a couple of million years later.
You don't answer the issue as you have admitted recently the new demands were minimal .
SURVIVAL
dhw: Thank you for agreeing that a new tool aids survival. The purpose of “aiding survival” is the driving force behind its invention, but you don’t like me using the term, so I’ll stick to purpose. How on earth does this count as a “disturbance” to the theory that survival is the purpose for evolutionary change? Stasis is simply what occurs when there is no need for change.DAVID: Which again raises the same obvious question. Why do oversized brains suddenly appear creating the philosophic problem of stasis? As above, you describe stasis as we see it, but that doesn't explain the burst in size when not needed.
dhw: In my theory each “burst in size” IS needed! And this has nothing to do with stasis, which simply means that after the initial fulfilment of need there were no further needs. And this in turn has nothing to do with your attempt to avoid the obvious fact that any evolutionary changes that are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival confirm that the motive for the evolutionary changes is to improve chances of survival! Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.
Yes, those who do not recognize God would adopt that position.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You've stated my prime point in the bold. Big brain without need can only mean enlargement in anticipation of need as designed by God.
dhw: And you have entirely missed my point! You say that earlier requirements were too tiny to require additional brain cells. That can only mean that every earlier expansion had no purpose! Your God just popped in, ... I’m sorry, but I find that somewhat unconvincing. I suggest that each addition to the brain was accompanied by some kind of change – whether with artefacts, new ideas, discoveries, lifestyles, adaptations to new environments – any one of which could have exceeded the existing capacity and required additional cells.
DAVID: I'm not surprised you are not convinced. I've demonstrated God's likely purpose, but you don't accept God, so my point won't appeal to you.
My theory allows for God, and what I do not accept is the illogicality of your theory of brain expansion, which is that your God operated on various sets of hominins and homos to increase their brain capacity by approx 200 cc for no immediate purpose but solely in order that a couple of million years later, the size could reach 1350 ccs, still for no particular reason until 300,000 years later, suddenly the extra size came in useful. You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens. And you cannot see any logic in the proposal that each expansion occurred (using a mechanism which your God may have designed for both complexification and expansion) to serve a specific purpose at the time, e.g. to create new tools, to cope with a new environment, to exploit a new discovery.
DAVID: A repeat of your position which simply doesn't accept the concept that God speciates and prepares them in advance of new needs. You are left with natural speciation which doesn't explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.
I do not accept the concept that God expands brains 200 ccs at a time for no reason other than for them to achieve nothing until a couple of million years and many species of hominin and homo later.
DAVID: You don't answer the issue as you have admitted recently the new demands were minimal.
I have “admitted” no such thing! The demands I have listed would all be major enough in their time to require additional brain cells. Your obsessive dislike of Darwin has led you to brush aside the fact that the PURPOSE of all the changes and advances would have been to improve each species’ chances of survival. (See below.) That never changed from one species to another. This means that there would have been few changes in lifestyle – the aim was always survival. And so, for example, the invention of the spear would have been a major advance, requiring additional brain capacity, but the hunter would have remained a hunter. Now please tell me what “issue” I have not answered.
SURVIVAL
DAVID: Why do oversized brains suddenly appear creating the philosophic problem of stasis? As above, you describe stasis as we see it, but that doesn't explain the burst in size when not needed.
dhw: In my theory each “burst in size” IS needed! And this has nothing to do with stasis, which simply means that after the initial fulfilment of need there were no further needs. And this in turn has nothing to do with your attempt to avoid the obvious fact that any evolutionary changes that are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival confirm that the motive for the evolutionary changes is to improve chances of survival! Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.
DAVID: Yes, those who do not recognize God would adopt that position.
According to your theory of evolution, your God was “driven” by one purpose: to design H. sapiens. For some reason which you can’t explain, he was “driven” to directly design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil the purpose that “drove” him into creating life, which was to create H. sapiens. If you want to play word games, we can carry on. But please don’t pretend that a purpose is not a driving force, whether the term applies to humans or to your God.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, March 21, 2021, 14:41 (1125 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm not surprised you are not convinced. I've demonstrated God's likely purpose, but you don't accept God, so my point won't appeal to you.
dhw: My theory allows for God, and what I do not accept is the illogicality of your theory of brain expansion, which is that your God operated on various sets of hominins and homos to increase their brain capacity by approx 200 cc for no immediate purpose but solely in order that a couple of million years later, the size could reach 1350 ccs, still for no particular reason until 300,000 years later, suddenly the extra size came in useful. You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens.
The bold is a total distortion of my views. From before Lucy to latter erectus there were major changes in physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle.
dhw: And you cannot see any logic in the proposal that each expansion occurred (using a mechanism which your God may have designed for both complexification and expansion) to serve a specific purpose at the time, e.g. to create new tools, to cope with a new environment, to exploit a new discovery.
This is a non-answer to 'why so big so early'. Each expansion allows complexification in my theory and is not at issue. Only over-expansion is at issue
DAVID: A repeat of your position which simply doesn't accept the concept that God speciates and prepares them in advance of new needs. You are left with natural speciation which doesn't explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.
dhw: I do not accept the concept that God expands brains 200 ccs at a time for no reason other than for them to achieve nothing until a couple of million years and many species of hominin and homo later.
Gradual developments in brain uses occur in all new-sized brains
DAVID: You don't answer the issue as you have admitted recently the new demands were minimal.dhw: I have “admitted” no such thing! The demands I have listed would all be major enough in their time to require additional brain cells. Your obsessive dislike of Darwin has led you to brush aside the fact that the PURPOSE of all the changes and advances would have been to improve each species’ chances of survival.
I don't dislike Darwin. but what his blind followers have done to his theory.
dhw: That never changed from one species to another. This means that there would have been few changes in lifestyle – the aim was always survival. And so, for example, the invention of the spear would have been a major advance, requiring additional brain capacity, but the hunter would have remained a hunter. Now please tell me what “issue” I have not answered.
The bold is your admission the bigger brain came with small changes in brain usage.
SURVIVALDAVID: Why do oversized brains suddenly appear creating the philosophic problem of stasis? As above, you describe stasis as we see it, but that doesn't explain the burst in size when not needed.
dhw: In my theory each “burst in size” IS needed! And this has nothing to do with stasis, which simply means that after the initial fulfilment of need there were no further needs. And this in turn has nothing to do with your attempt to avoid the obvious fact that any evolutionary changes that are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival confirm that the motive for the evolutionary changes is to improve chances of survival! Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.
DAVID: Yes, those who do not recognize God would adopt that position.
dhw: According to your theory of evolution, your God was “driven” by one purpose: to design H. sapiens. For some reason which you can’t explain, he was “driven” to directly design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil the purpose that “drove” him into creating life, which was to create H. sapiens. If you want to play word games, we can carry on. But please don’t pretend that a purpose is not a driving force, whether the term applies to humans or to your God.
My God is never driven but extremely thoughtful and purposeful in the goals He sees as proper and worthwhile. Again you distort: I have no idea as to why God chose to evolve us, but that is what He did. You give lip-service to our specialness, and then denigrate its philosophical/theological import.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: I'm not surprised you are not convinced. I've demonstrated God's likely purpose, but you don't accept God, so my point won't appeal to you.
dhw: My theory allows for God, and what I do not accept is the illogicality of your theory of brain expansion, which is that your God operated on various sets of hominins and homos to increase their brain capacity by approx 200 cc for no immediate purpose but solely in order that a couple of million years later, the size could reach 1350 ccs, still for no particular reason until 300,000 years later, suddenly the extra size came in useful. You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens.
DAVID: The bold is a total distortion of my views. From before Lucy to latter erectus there were major changes in physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle.
Last week you were telling us: “My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.” “There is no reason for an oversized brain to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today.” Tiny advances and minor new adaptations have now turned into major changes in lifestyle. How about major changes in technology too? Did you ever see an ape manufacture a spear or an axe? On Saturday, in reply to my proposal that “each successive brain expansion was caused by a new requirement for which the smaller brain did not have sufficient capacity,” you wrote: “You are left with natural speciation which doesn’t explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.” Now apparently there were major changes in lifestyle. Please make up your mind.
In fact, though, my point was NOT major changes in early lifestyles, but massive changes in pursuit of the same lifestyle, which was based on “the struggle for survival” and consisted basically in finding a place to live safely and means of providing food. Hence my point that the hunter with a new weapon was still a hunter. But I’m not going to complain if you now believe that last week’s tiny advances were in fact major changes. That lies at the heart of my theory.
dhw: And you cannot see any logic in the proposal that each expansion occurred (using a mechanism which your God may have designed for both complexification and expansion) to serve a specific purpose at the time, e.g. to create new tools, to cope with a new environment, to exploit a new discovery.
DAVID: This is a non-answer to 'why so big so early'. Each expansion allows complexification in my theory and is not at issue. Only over-expansion is at issue.
I do not accept your theory of “overexpansion” for pre-sapiens or for sapiens. In my theory, each expansion sufficed for the needs of its time, and each new expansion then met new requirements. I have dealt with sapiens shrinkage elsewhere. “Why so big so early” is only an issue because two days ago you regarded the major changes in lifestyle as tiny advances. It is not an issue if you now accept that there were major advances of some kind (lifestyle is your choice) which required additional brain capacity.
dhw: Your obsessive dislike of Darwin has led you to brush aside the fact that the PURPOSE of all the changes and advances would have been to improve each species’ chances of survival.
DAVID: I don't dislike Darwin. but what his blind followers have done to his theory.
On the subject of survival, you wrote: “Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything?....Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.” You simply refuse to acknowledge that stasis occurs when the species survives without any new requirements (such as implementing new ideas, exploiting new discoveries, adapting to new conditions etc.). And you simply refuse to acknowledge that all of these are directly geared to “the struggle to survive”.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.
DAVID: Yes, those who do not recognize God would adopt that position.
dhw: According to your theory of evolution, your God was “driven” by one purpose: to design H. sapiens. For some reason which you can’t explain, he was “driven” to directly design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil the purpose that “drove” him into creating life, which was to create H. sapiens. If you want to play word games, we can carry on. But please don’t pretend that a purpose is not a driving force, whether the term applies to humans or to your God.
DAVID: My God is never driven but extremely thoughtful and purposeful in the goals He sees as proper and worthwhile. Again you distort: I have no idea as to why God chose to evolve us, but that is what He did. You give lip-service to our specialness, and then denigrate its philosophical/theological import.
Is a purpose a driving force or isn’t it?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 22, 2021, 16:01 (1124 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens.[/i]
DAVID: The bold is a total distortion of my views. From before Lucy to latter erectus there were major changes in physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle.
dhw: Last week you were telling us: “My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.” “There is no reason for an oversized brain to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today.”....“You are left with natural speciation which doesn’t explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.” Now apparently there were major changes in lifestyle. Please make up your mind.
You are ignoring the many small steps that led to major changes: Lucy's brain was 400 cc. The growth was on the average 200cc each time until at erectus (1,200 cc) we have stone weapons, hide clothing, fire, cave dwelling, but remember, even the first sapiens (1,350 cc) lived very little differently than erectus. Now brain size growth is finished, shrunk a little and the use of this brain is huge.
dhw: Hence my point that the hunter with a new weapon was still a hunter. But I’m not going to complain if you now believe that last week’s tiny advances were in fact major changes. That lies at the heart of my theory.
And for me it doesn't prove the need for 200cc jumps with each new hominin species.
dhw: And you cannot see any logic in the proposal that each expansion occurred (using a mechanism which your God may have designed for both complexification and expansion) to serve a specific purpose at the time, e.g. to create new tools, to cope with a new environment, to exploit a new discovery.DAVID: This is a non-answer to 'why so big so early'. Each expansion allows complexification in my theory and is not at issue. Only over-expansion is at issue.
dhw: I do not accept your theory of “overexpansion” for pre-sapiens or for sapiens. In my theory, each expansion sufficed for the needs of its time, and each new expansion then met new requirements. “Why so big so early” is only an issue because two days ago you regarded the major changes in lifestyle as tiny advances. It is not an issue if you now accept that there were major advances of some kind (lifestyle is your choice) which required additional brain capacity.
I don't accept your theory as it doesn't fit the human story over 315.00 years.
DAVID: I don't dislike Darwin. but what his blind followers have done to his theory.dhw: On the subject of survival, you wrote: “Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything?....Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.” You simply refuse to acknowledge that stasis occurs when the species survives without any new requirements (such as implementing new ideas, exploiting new discoveries, adapting to new conditions etc.). And you simply refuse to acknowledge that all of these are directly geared to “the struggle to survive”.
Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force.DAVID: Yes, those who do not recognize God would adopt that position.
dhw: According to your theory of evolution, your God was “driven” by one purpose: to design H. sapiens. For some reason which you can’t explain, he was “driven” to directly design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil the purpose that “drove” him into creating life, which was to create H. sapiens. If you want to play word games, we can carry on. But please don’t pretend that a purpose is not a driving force, whether the term applies to humans or to your God.
DAVID: My God is never driven but extremely thoughtful and purposeful in the goals He sees as proper and worthwhile. Again you distort: I have no idea as to why God chose to evolve us, but that is what He did. You give lip-service to our specialness, and then denigrate its philosophical/theological import.
dhw: Is a purpose a driving force or isn’t it?
What is your point? I will agree once God has developed His purposes He pursues them with no hesitation. Does He feel 'driven'? I have no idea. What is your guess?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: You can see no sign of any advance from the earliest tree-dwelling ancestor to the earliest homo sapiens. [David's bold]
DAVID: The bold is a total distortion of my views. From before Lucy to latter erectus there were major changes in physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle.[dhw’s bold]
dhw: Last week you were telling us: “My point is the tiny advances among early hominins did not require massive brain use.” “There is no reason for an oversized brain to cover minor new adaptations, based on adaptations we see today.”....“You are left with natural speciation which doesn’t explain the new massive enlargement for small developments in lifestyle.” Now apparently there were major changes in lifestyle. Please make up your mind. [dhw’s bold]
DAVID: You are ignoring the many small steps that led to major changes: Lucy's brain was 400 cc. The growth was on the average 200cc each time until at erectus (1,200 cc) we have stone weapons, hide clothing, fire, cave dwelling, but remember, even the first sapiens (1,350 cc) lived very little differently than erectus. Now brain size growth is finished, shrunk a little and the use of this brain is huge.
Why are you telling me what I have already told you? You have left out the whole paragraph in which I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (based on the struggle for survival) that changed – though you said there were major changes - but the methods that improved chances of survival. So now you’ve itemized some of the methods, every one of which was major enough to require additional brain capacity. Or do you think the first apes that descended from trees were capable of making stone weapons and hide clothing, and using fire?
dhw: Hence my point that the hunter with a new weapon was still a hunter. But I’m not going to complain if you now believe that last week’s tiny advances were in fact major changes. That lies at the heart of my theory.
DAVID: And for me it doesn't prove the need for 200cc jumps with each new hominin species.
I suggest that since each jump was accompanied by major changes which you once called tiny changes, there is a causal connection. But no, it’s not proven. Your good old get-out expression. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory but a fact, and we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
DAVID: I don't accept your theory as it doesn't fit the human story over 315.00 years.
And so you try to dodge the implications of the major changes which you once called tiny. Of course my theory fits the story, although nobody knows the exact cause of each expansion. After ours – to meet some unknown requirement – there were no new requirements until 300,000 years had passed – peanuts in the 2-3-million-year history of hominins and homos. Then the next new requirements were met by complexification. What doesn’t fit?
DAVID: I don't dislike Darwin. but what his blind followers have done to his theory.
dhw: On the subject of survival, you wrote: “Using Darwin and his theory of constant struggle to survive, why any stasis in anything?....Stasis is very disturbing to his theory which you rely upon.” You simply refuse to acknowledge that stasis occurs when the species survives without any new requirements (such as implementing new ideas, exploiting new discoveries, adapting to new conditions etc.). And you simply refuse to acknowledge that all of these are directly geared to “the struggle to survive”.
DAVID: Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.
The above is not a description of stasis but an explanation (there were no new requirements), and as usual you try to ignore it, just as you refuse to recognize that instead of the brain expanding 10,000 years ago to meet new requirements (I suggest that further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy), it complexified. What is your objection? See below for survival.
How plasticity mjght work
DAVID: As new brain areas respond to demands from use, excitatory and inhibitory balance has to be maintained.
I am pleased to note that you now have new brain areas RESPONDING to demands from use. I don’t know why you think your God had to create new brain areas in the past in anticipation of demands from use.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force. […]
DAVID: What is your point? I will agree once God has developed His purposes He pursues them with no hesitation. Does He feel 'driven'? I have no idea. What is your guess?
This discussion began with your attempt to belittle Darwin’s theory concerning the “constant struggle to survive”. My “guess” is that if, as you say, your God designed all the innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival, it is fair enough to argue, as Darwin does, that survival is the purpose of all the innovations. We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 17:31 (1123 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are ignoring the many small steps that led to major changes: Lucy's brain was 400 cc. The growth was on the average 200cc each time until at erectus (1,200 cc) we have stone weapons, hide clothing, fire, cave dwelling, but remember, even the first sapiens (1,350 cc) lived very little differently than erectus. Now brain size growth is finished, shrunk a little and the use of this brain is huge.
dhw: Why are you telling me what I have already told you? You have left out the whole paragraph in which I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (based on the struggle for survival) that changed – though you said there were major changes - but the methods that improved chances of survival. So now you’ve itemized some of the methods, every one of which was major enough to require additional brain capacity. Or do you think the first apes that descended from trees were capable of making stone weapons and hide clothing, and using fire?
You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements. God enlarges in anticipation of use based on the allegorical point: the first sapiens 'all dressed up and no where to go'. Simple, giant brain arrives before it is fully used 300,00 years later. My view remains unchanged despite your attempts to magnify early advances.
dhw: I suggest that since each jump was accompanied by major changes which you once called tiny changes, there is a causal connection. But no, it’s not proven. Your good old get-out expression. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory but a fact, and we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Your major is my minor. I admit considering the low level of living style, finally wearing hides is a big deal even though not much of a brain straining issue.
DAVID: Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.dhw: The above is not a description of stasis but an explanation (there were no new requirements), and as usual you try to ignore it, just as you refuse to recognize that instead of the brain expanding 10,000 years ago to meet new requirements (I suggest that further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy), it complexified. What is your objection?
The bold is your problem. The major uses (problem solving) appeared 300,000 years later. God enlarged the brain in anticipation. You have no answer except to deny God.
How plasticity mjght work
DAVID: As new brain areas respond to demands from use, excitatory and inhibitory balance has to be maintained.dhw: I am pleased to note that you now have new brain areas RESPONDING to demands from use. I don’t know why you think your God had to create new brain areas in the past in anticipation of demands from use.
That is exactly my point. When needed the areas were there, ready to respond.
SURVIVAL
dhw: Some of us would say that the motive for doing something is a driving force. […]DAVID: What is your point? I will agree once God has developed His purposes He pursues them with no hesitation. Does He feel 'driven'? I have no idea. What is your guess?
dhw: This discussion began with your attempt to belittle Darwin’s theory concerning the “constant struggle to survive”. My “guess” is that if, as you say, your God designed all the innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival, it is fair enough to argue, as Darwin does, that survival is the purpose of all the innovations. We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.
Survival of the fittest is a weak approach, a nice logical supposition.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You are ignoring the many small steps that led to major changes: Lucy's brain was 400 cc. The growth was on the average 200cc each time until at erectus (1,200 cc) we have stone weapons, hide clothing, fire, cave dwelling, but remember, even the first sapiens (1,350 cc) lived very little differently than erectus. Now brain size growth is finished, shrunk a little and the use of this brain is huge.
dhw: Why are you telling me what I have already told you? You have left out the whole paragraph in which I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (based on the struggle for survival) that changed – though you said there were major changes - but the methods that improved chances of survival. So now you’ve itemized some of the methods, every one of which was major enough to require additional brain capacity. Or do you think the first apes that descended from trees were capable of making stone weapons and hide clothing, and using fire?
DAVID: You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements.
I am proposing that the brain enlarges through the process of producing the new artefacts. Just as the modern brain complexifies through the process of learning new skills. That has nothing to do with stasis, which is simply the period when there are no new requirements.
DAVID: God enlarges in anticipation of use based on the allegorical point: the first sapiens 'all dressed up and no where to go'. Simple, giant brain arrives before it is fully used 300,00 years later. My view remains unchanged despite your attempts to magnify early advances.
And:
DAVID: Your major is my minor. I admit considering the low level of living style, finally wearing hides is a big deal even though not much of a brain straining issue.
You wrote that between Lucy and erectus there were “major changes in lifestyle”. I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (always based on survival) but the ways of improving chances of survival that provided the major advances, and you kindly provided us with a list of examples: weapons, clothing, use of fire etc. Yes, these were all major advances despite your attempts now to minimise them. If you claim that your God expanded the brain before early humans came up with their new inventions, at least you have given a reason for the expansion, but at the same time you are agreeing that the new inventions required brain expansion! And we know from the modern brain that it changes in response to needs and not in anticipation of them. But since you are now trying once more to minimise the importance of new artefacts etc., please tell us what changes you were thinking of when you said that there had been “major changes in lifestyle” if you were not referring to the above list.
DAVID: Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.
dhw: The above is not a description of stasis but an explanation (there were no new requirements), and as usual you try to ignore it, just as you refuse to recognize that instead of the brain expanding 10,000 years ago to meet new requirements (I suggest that further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy), it complexified. What is your objection?
DAVID: The bold is your problem. The major uses (problem solving) appeared 300,000 years later. God enlarged the brain in anticipation. You have no answer except to deny God.
I suspect that most of the early major advances provided solutions to problems (how to kill at a distance, how to keep warm), but in any case why do you regard problem solving as a major use, but use of fire, new tools and weapons, warm clothing (plus the skill to make it) as minor? And again, please tell us what major changes in early human lifestyles you were thinking of. And why do you reject “no new requirements” as the cause of stasis? And finally, at no time have I denied the possible existence of God.
SURVIVAL
dhw: This discussion began with your attempt to belittle Darwin’s theory concerning the “constant struggle to survive”. My “guess” is that if, as you say, your God designed all the innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival, it is fair enough to argue, as Darwin does, that survival is the purpose of all the innovations. We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.
DAVID: Survival of the fittest is a weak approach, a nice logical supposition.
Why do you think a logical supposition is a weak approach? Do you or do you not agree that the purpose of evolutionary adaptation and innovation – whether designed by your God or not – is to improve organisms’ chances of survival?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 17:08 (1122 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements.
dhw: I am proposing that the brain enlarges through the process of producing the new artefacts. Just as the modern brain complexifies through the process of learning new skills. That has nothing to do with stasis, which is simply the period when there are no new requirements.
For sapiens the stasis period was +/-300,000 years. God's enlargement in anticipation of use is a much more obvious explanation.
DAVID: God enlarges in anticipation of use based on the allegorical point: the first sapiens 'all dressed up and no where to go'. Simple, giant brain arrives before it is fully used 300,00 years later. My view remains unchanged despite your attempts to magnify early advances.
And:
DAVID: Your major is my minor. I admit considering the low level of living style, finally wearing hides is a big deal even though not much of a brain straining issue.dhw: You wrote that between Lucy and erectus there were “major changes in lifestyle”. I pointed out that it was not the lifestyle (always based on survival) but the ways of improving chances of survival that provided the major advances, and you kindly provided us with a list of examples: weapons, clothing, use of fire etc. Yes, these were all major advances despite your attempts now to minimise them. If you claim that your God expanded the brain before early humans came up with their new inventions, at least you have given a reason for the expansion, but at the same time you are agreeing that the new inventions required brain expansion! And we know from the modern brain that it changes in response to needs and not in anticipation of them. But since you are now trying once more to minimise the importance of new artefacts etc., please tell us what changes you were thinking of when you said that there had been “major changes in lifestyle” if you were not referring to the above list.
They were major advances for the time, but did not require much use of the brain, compared to how we use our brain now. Why does 200 cc from erectus to sapiens make such a difference? The time to learn to use the available brain with a much more sophisticated pre-frontal area..
DAVID: Your usual non-recognition of our brain, 315,000 years old, final being used to its full capacity in the past 10,000 years. You talk around stasis but description of it doesn't really give an answer to it, except as an organ given by God for future use.dhw: The above is not a description of stasis but an explanation (there were no new requirements), and as usual you try to ignore it, just as you refuse to recognize that instead of the brain expanding 10,000 years ago to meet new requirements (I suggest that further expansion would have required major changes to the anatomy), it complexified. What is your objection?
DAVID: The bold is your problem. The major uses (problem solving) appeared 300,000 years later. God enlarged the brain in anticipation. You have no answer except to deny God.
dhw: I suspect that most of the early major advances provided solutions to problems (how to kill at a distance, how to keep warm), but in any case why do you regard problem solving as a major use, but use of fire, new tools and weapons, warm clothing (plus the skill to make it) as minor? And again, please tell us what major changes in early human lifestyles you were thinking of. And why do you reject “no new requirements” as the cause of stasis? And finally, at no time have I denied the possible existence of God.
For me it is still an enlargement in anticipation of future use.
SURVIVAL
dhw: This discussion began with your attempt to belittle Darwin’s theory concerning the “constant struggle to survive”. My “guess” is that if, as you say, your God designed all the innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival, it is fair enough to argue, as Darwin does, that survival is the purpose of all the innovations. We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.DAVID: Survival of the fittest is a weak approach, a nice logical supposition.
dhw: Why do you think a logical supposition is a weak approach? Do you or do you not agree that the purpose of evolutionary adaptation and innovation – whether designed by your God or not – is to improve organisms’ chances of survival?
That does not explain the advance of humans beyond apes/monkeys. Those primates survived without any problems until the past 100 years when we began to overrun them. All we have gotten from our brains in a much better lifestyle, since survival was no issue. Please answer that issue.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You still cannot explain the stasis issue. New artifacts always follow brain enlargements.
dhw: I am proposing that the brain enlarges through the process of producing the new artefacts. Just as the modern brain complexifies through the process of learning new skills. That has nothing to do with stasis, which is simply the period when there are no new requirements.
DAVID: For sapiens the stasis period was +/-300,000 years. God's enlargement in anticipation of use is a much more obvious explanation.
Why are you repeating this instead of dealing with the point at issue? We know for a fact that brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Why, then, is it obvious that your God changed homo brains before they were able to make the new artefacts?
dhw: […] since you are now trying once more to minimise the importance of new artefacts etc., please tell us what changes you were thinking of when you said that there had been “major changes in lifestyle” if you were not referring to the above list [i.e. weapons. clothing, use of fire etc.].
DAVID: They were major advances for the time, but did not require much use of the brain, compared to how we use our brain now.
Why are you making this comparison? If they were major advances at the time, and the brain was so much smaller at the time, it is perfectly logical that the major advances would have required a greater capacity. Why do you mention the artefacts at all if there is no connection with the expansion? If your God exists, then either he decided in advance that the brain required more cells in order to produce what was then a major advance, or he had designed a mechanism enabling the brain cells to do their own expanding, just as you believe he set up a mechanism for them to do their own complexifying. Either way, we now at last have your agreement that major advances required brain expansion, as opposed to your earlier claim that the advances were too tiny.
DAVID: Why does 200 cc from erectus to sapiens make such a difference? The time to learn to use the available brain with a much more sophisticated pre-frontal area.
You keep trying to limit attention to sapiens. The process was ongoing: each major advance required expansion, which was always followed by stasis until there were new requirements. The same applies to sapiens. But instead of our post-stasis new ideas generating additional cells (probably because that would have entailed major changes to the anatomy), enhanced complexification took over from expansion – and its efficiency resulted in a degree of shrinkage. You still haven’t provided one single reason for rejecting this hypothesis.
SURVIVAL
dhw: […] We do not need to use the term “driving force” at all, and the only reason why we are having this discussion is your obsessive opposition to Darwin, apart from his theory of common descent.
DAVID: Survival of the fittest is a weak approach, a nice logical supposition.
dhw: Why do you think a logical supposition is a weak approach? Do you or do you not agree that the purpose of evolutionary adaptation and innovation – whether designed by your God or not – is to improve organisms’ chances of survival?
DAVID: That does not explain the advance of humans beyond apes/monkeys. Those primates survived without any problems until the past 100 years when we began to overrun them. All we have gotten from our brains in a much better lifestyle, since survival was no issue. Please answer that issue.
You launched your usual attack on Darwin, and now when I ask a straightforward question in defence of his theory that evolutionary adaptation and innovation is motivated by the effort to improve chances of survival, you skip to the uniqueness of sapiens. Sapiens has not changed into another species! This is a totally different subject. You said yourself that there was no change in lifestyle between erectus and early sapiens, so initially survival would have been the reason for the final expansion. As for the breakaway from apes, I keep proposing (and you keep forgetting) that it may have occurred when local conditions made it necessary or advisable for a group to descend from the trees. Other apes didn’t need to – they were surviving perfectly well, and have continued to do so. Subsequent species of hominins and homos went their own way, meeting new needs which required additional brain capacity etc. etc. Now please tell us whether the adaptations and innovations that caused speciation did or did not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, March 25, 2021, 17:17 (1121 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: For sapiens the stasis period was +/-300,000 years. God's enlargement in anticipation of use is a much more obvious explanation.
dhw: Why are you repeating this instead of dealing with the point at issue? We know for a fact that brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Why, then, is it obvious that your God changed homo brains before they were able to make the new artefacts?
The best explanation is the huge brain did little new when it appeared, therefore it appeared in anticipation of use later use. Remember I believe God speciates.
dhw: […] since you are now trying once more to minimise the importance of new artefacts etc., please tell us what changes you were thinking of when you said that there had been “major changes in lifestyle” if you were not referring to the above list [i.e. weapons. clothing, use of fire etc.].DAVID: They were major advances for the time, but did not require much use of the brain, compared to how we use our brain now.
dhw: Why are you making this comparison? If they were major advances at the time, and the brain was so much smaller at the time, it is perfectly logical that the major advances would have required a greater capacity.
But a 200 cc advance is way beyond current needs then.
dhw: Why do you mention the artefacts at all if there is no connection with the expansion? If your God exists, then either he decided in advance that the brain required more cells in order to produce what was then a major advance, or he had designed a mechanism enabling the brain cells to do their own expanding, just as you believe he set up a mechanism for them to do their own complexifying.
You keep forgetting the human brain shrank 150 cc while complexifing. My thought is past brains could complexify, but didn't shrink since there overall capacity was small.
DAVID: Why does 200 cc from erectus to sapiens make such a difference? The time to learn to use the available brain with a much more sophisticated pre-frontal area.
dhw: You keep trying to limit attention to sapiens.
It is the only brain we can study. The rest is pure theory.
dhw: But instead of our post-stasis new ideas generating additional cells (probably because that would have entailed major changes to the anatomy), enhanced complexification took over from expansion – and its efficiency resulted in a degree of shrinkage.
The shrinkage doesn't help your theory.
SURVIVALdhw: Do you or do you not agree that the purpose of evolutionary adaptation and innovation – whether designed by your God or not – is to improve organisms’ chances of survival?
DAVID: That does not explain the advance of humans beyond apes/monkeys. Those primates survived without any problems until the past 100 years when we began to overrun them. All we have gotten from our brains in a much better lifestyle, since survival was no issue. Please answer that issue.
dhw: You launched your usual attack on Darwin,.... Sapiens has not changed into another species! This is a totally different subject. You said yourself that there was no change in lifestyle between erectus and early sapiens, so initially survival would have been the reason for the final expansion.
My attack is on the bastardization of his solid theory which is only common descent. As for the expansion, it was way beyond need for survival, my point always.
dhw: As for the breakaway from apes, I keep proposing (and you keep forgetting) that it may have occurred when local conditions made it necessary or advisable for a group to descend from the trees. Other apes didn’t need to – they were surviving perfectly well, and have continued to do so. Subsequent species of hominins and homos went their own way, meeting new needs which required additional brain capacity etc. etc. Now please tell us whether the adaptations and innovations that caused speciation did or did not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.
Our current abilities are far beyond the needs for living a life totally in natural wilderness as erectus and early sapiens did, housing themselves in caves and wearing skins. The brain from 315,000 years ago allowed that. God speciates.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: For sapiens the stasis period was +/-300,000 years. God's enlargement in anticipation of use is a much more obvious explanation.
dhw: Why are you repeating this instead of dealing with the point at issue? We know for a fact that brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Why, then, is it obvious that your God changed homo brains before they were able to make the new artefacts?
DAVID: The best explanation is the huge brain did little new when it appeared, therefore it appeared in anticipation of use later use. Remember I believe God speciates.
Erectus’s brain expanded from approx 900cc to approx. 1200cc, and sapiens expanded to 1350cc. Sapiens’ brain did not suddenly become huge – it ended a long series of expansions, each of which I propose was brought about by new requirements and was followed by stasis (= doing little new) until the next new requirement which necessitated a new expansion. This includes the sapiens expansion, but in our case complexification took over from expansion. Please explain why it is “obvious” that this is all wrong and God must have expanded each successive brain for no immediate reason.
dhw: If they were major advances at the time, and the brain was so much smaller at the time, it is perfectly logical that the major advances would have required a greater capacity.
DAVID: But a 200 cc advance is way beyond current needs then.
How do you know?
dhw: Why do you mention the artefacts at all if there is no connection with the expansion? If your God exists, then either he decided in advance that the brain required more cells in order to produce what was then a major advance, or he had designed a mechanism enabling the brain cells to do their own expanding, just as you believe he set up a mechanism for them to do their own complexifying.
DAVID: You keep forgetting the human brain shrank 150 cc while complexifing. My thought is past brains could complexify, but didn't shrink since there overall capacity was small.
This has nothing to do with the point I have just raised! Why are you dodging the connection between expansion and artefacts? As for shrinkage, I already answered:
dhw: But instead of our post-stasis new ideas generating additional cells (probably because that would have entailed major changes to the anatomy), enhanced complexification took over from expansion – and its efficiency resulted in a degree of shrinkage.
DAVID: The shrinkage doesn't help your theory.
My theory doesn’t need help from shrinkage. It only requires an explanation which I have given you and which you have ignored. I agree that past brains would also have complexified and didn’t shrink because their capacity was small. Hence the logical deduction that when there were new requirements (e.g. making new artefacts) which their complexification could not cope with, expansion became necessary. Thank you for supporting my theory.
DAVID: Why does 200 cc from erectus to sapiens make such a difference? The time to learn to use the available brain with a much more sophisticated pre-frontal area.
dhw: You keep trying to limit attention to sapiens.
DAVID: It is the only brain we can study. [...] .
And since the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements (though one section has expanded), I would suggest that the only brain we can study offers more support to my theory than to yours. And it is NOT the 200 cc that makes the difference, but the enhanced ability to complexify. 300,000 years later, some of the cells could even be jettisoned! You say in the next exchange, there was no initial change in lifestyle!
SURVIVAL
dhw: You launched your usual attack on Darwin,.... You said yourself that there was no change in lifestyle between erectus and early sapiens, so initially survival would have been the reason for the final expansion.
DAVID:: My attack is on the bastardization of his solid theory which is only common descent.
No it isn’t. You attacked his theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations/innovations was to improve chances of survival, but you consider that to be a “weak approach”.
DAVID: As for the expansion, it was way beyond need for survival, my point always.
And yet you agree that all expansions have coincided with major advances such as new tools and weapons, clothes, use of fire etc. […] I agree that modern sapiens has created requirements that are not directly geared to survival. That doesn't mean all expansions were not geared to survival – as illustrated by your next observation:
DAVID: Our current abilities are far beyond the needs for living a life totally in natural wilderness as erectus and early sapiens did, housing themselves in caves and wearing skins. The brain from 315,000 years ago allowed that.
Exactly. The final expansion proved adequate for all the requirements for survival. And when, 300,000 years after that final expansion, there were new requirements – whether connected with improved chances of survival or with other matters – the brain could not expand any further without creating problems for the anatomy (my proposal), and so enhanced complexification took over as the means of meeting them, as we know from research into “the only brain we can study”. You keep supporting my theory in your efforts to oppose it!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, March 26, 2021, 14:42 (1120 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The best explanation is the huge brain did little new when it appeared, therefore it appeared in anticipation of use later use. Remember I believe God speciates.
dhw: Erectus’s brain expanded from approx 900cc to approx. 1200cc, and sapiens expanded to 1350cc. Sapiens’ brain did not suddenly become huge – it ended a long series of expansions, each of which I propose was brought about by new requirements and was followed by stasis (= doing little new) until the next new requirement which necessitated a new expansion. This includes the sapiens expansion, but in our case complexification took over from expansion. Please explain why it is “obvious” that this is all wrong and God must have expanded each successive brain for no immediate reason.
You never explain stasis, which I see as a consequence of a brain appearing which is too large for current needs, and is the actual history of what happened. God speciates in anticipation of future use.
dhw: But instead of our post-stasis new ideas generating additional cells (probably because that would have entailed major changes to the anatomy), enhanced complexification took over from expansion – and its efficiency resulted in a degree of shrinkage.DAVID: The shrinkage doesn't help your theory.
dhw: My theory doesn’t need help from shrinkage. It only requires an explanation which I have given you and which you have ignored.
I don't ignore it, as your description of stasis doesn't explain that it must occur.
dhw: You keep trying to limit attention to sapiens.
DAVID: It is the only brain we can study. [...] .
dhw: And since the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements (though one section has expanded), I would suggest that the only brain we can study offers more support to my theory than to yours. And it is NOT the 200 cc that makes the difference, but the enhanced ability to complexify. 300,000 years later, some of the cells could even be jettisoned! You say in the next exchange, there was no initial change in lifestyle!
Which means stasis after huge enlargement.
SURVIVAL
dhw: You launched your usual attack on Darwin,.... You said yourself that there was no change in lifestyle between erectus and early sapiens, so initially survival would have been the reason for the final expansion.DAVID:: My attack is on the bastardization of his solid theory which is only common descent.
dhw: No it isn’t. You attacked his theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations/innovations was to improve chances of survival, but you consider that to be a “weak approach”.
DAVID: As for the expansion, it was way beyond need for survival, my point always.
dhw: And yet you agree that all expansions have coincided with major advances such as new tools and weapons, clothes, use of fire etc. […] I agree that modern sapiens has created requirements that are not directly geared to survival. That doesn't mean all expansions were not geared to survival – as illustrated by your next observation:
DAVID: Our current abilities are far beyond the needs for living a life totally in natural wilderness as erectus and early sapiens did, housing themselves in caves and wearing skins. The brain from 315,000 years ago allowed that.
dhw: Exactly. The final expansion proved adequate for all the requirements for survival. And when, 300,000 years after that final expansion, there were new requirements – whether connected with improved chances of survival or with other matters – the brain could not expand any further without creating problems for the anatomy (my proposal), and so enhanced complexification took over as the means of meeting them, as we know from research into “the only brain we can study”. You keep supporting my theory in your efforts to oppose it!
Just the opposite. Humans had to learn to use the overexpansion and the stasis period demonstrates the time it took
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You never explain stasis, which I see as a consequence of a brain appearing which is too large for current needs, and is the actual history of what happened. God speciates in anticipation of future use.
The above was your reply to my theoretical explanation of stasis, which I shall now repeat for the umpteenth time. But first, why on earth would an overlarge brain result in stasis? And no, a brain too large for current needs is NOT the actual history of what happened. That is your theory. The sapiens’ brain expanded from 1200cc erectus to 1350cc, just as all earlier brains expanded by similar amounts. There are various possible causes, such as new tools or weapons, clothes, new environments to cope with, new discoveries, use of fire etc. Once each brain (including sapiens) had expanded by meeting the new requirement, it did not need to expand any more (complexification could cope) until there was another new requirement which exceeded its existing capacity. (Explanation of stasis.) It was never too large. The sapiens brain was never too large either. It was adequate for all sapiens’ needs for 300,000 years. But then – again we don’t know why – new requirements arose, but as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, enhanced complexification took over. And it proved so efficient that some of the existing cells were no longer required – hence shrinkage. You have never offered one single reason for rejecting this hypothesis, but merely go on repeating your own beliefs as if they were “the actual history of what happened”. I do not ask you to believe my theory. I only ask you to provide one logical reason for rejecting it.
DAVID: The shrinkage doesn't help your theory.
dhw: My theory doesn’t need help from shrinkage. It only requires an explanation which I have given you and which you have ignored.
DAVID: I don't ignore it, as your description of stasis doesn't explain that it must occur.
I have never said it MUST occur. I have explained why it DID occur, and you have not provided one single reason for rejecting my explanation.
dhw: You keep trying to limit attention to sapiens.
DAVID: It is the only brain we can study. [...] .
dhw: And since the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements (though one section has expanded), I would suggest that the only brain we can study offers more support to my theory than to yours. And it is NOT the 200 cc that makes the difference, but the enhanced ability to complexify. 300,000 years later, some of the cells could even be jettisoned! You say in the next exchange, there was no initial change in lifestyle!
DAVID: Which means stasis after huge enlargement.
How huge is huge? Our enlargement was no “huger” than preceding enlargements, stasis occurred after every enlargement (as explained above), and how does this comment invalidate the point that the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them?
SURVIVAL
dhw: You launched your usual attack on Darwin,....
DAVID:: My attack is on the bastardization of his solid theory which is only common descent.
dhw: No it isn’t. You attacked his theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations/innovations was to improve chances of survival, but you consider that to be a “weak approach”. […]
DAVID: […] Our current abilities are far beyond the needs for living a life totally in natural wilderness as erectus and early sapiens did, housing themselves in caves and wearing skins. The brain from 315,000 years ago allowed that.
dhw: Exactly. The final expansion proved adequate for all the requirements for survival….
Your switch to sapiens enabled you to change the subject from your refusal to accept Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations/innovations was to improve chances of survival. May I take it that you now accept his theory?
dhw: …And when, 300,000 years after that final expansion, there were new requirements – whether connected with improved chances of survival or with other matters – the brain could not expand any further without creating problems for the anatomy (my proposal), and so enhanced complexification took over as the means of meeting them, as we know from research into “the only brain we can study”. You keep supporting my theory in your efforts to oppose it!
DAVID: Just the opposite. Humans had to learn to use the overexpansion and the stasis period demonstrates the time it took.
I propose that there was no overexpansion, and I have no idea how you can learn to use something without producing anything. Stasis means nothing new, and it applied to all stages of expansion, as explained above. I now eagerly await one logical reason for your rejection of my theory – other than the fact that it is the opposite of your theory.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, March 27, 2021, 15:20 (1119 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You never explain stasis, which I see as a consequence of a brain appearing which is too large for current needs, and is the actual history of what happened. God speciates in anticipation of future use.
dhw: The above was your reply to my theoretical explanation of stasis, which I shall now repeat for the umpteenth time. But first, why on earth would an overlarge brain result in stasis? And no, a brain too large for current needs is NOT the actual history of what happened. That is your theory. The sapiens’ brain expanded from 1200cc erectus to 1350cc, just as all earlier brains expanded by similar amounts...The sapiens brain was never too large either. It was adequate for all sapiens’ needs for 300,000 years...You have never offered one single reason for rejecting this hypothesis, but merely go on repeating your own beliefs as if they were “the actual history of what happened”. I only ask you to provide one logical reason for rejecting it.
It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis. I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements. To me that is the obvious conclusion and a strong position, considering how use of sapiens brain exploded in the past 10,000 years showing its true capacity that was really available 315,000 years ago. You have scrambled around trying to diminish the point, but all you have done is describe stasis, a non-answer to my point.
DAVID: Which means stasis after huge enlargement.dhw: How huge is huge? Our enlargement was no “huger” than preceding enlargements, stasis occurred after every enlargement (as explained above), and how does this comment invalidate the point that the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them?
Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there
SURVIVALdhw: …And when, 300,000 years after that final expansion, there were new requirements – whether connected with improved chances of survival or with other matters – the brain could not expand any further without creating problems for the anatomy (my proposal), and so enhanced complexification took over as the means of meeting them, as we know from research into “the only brain we can study”. You keep supporting my theory in your efforts to oppose it!
DAVID: Just the opposite. Humans had to learn to use the overexpansion and the stasis period demonstrates the time it took.
dhw: I propose that there was no overexpansion, and I have no idea how you can learn to use something without producing anything. Stasis means nothing new, and it applied to all stages of expansion, as explained above. I now eagerly await one logical reason for your rejection of my theory – other than the fact that it is the opposite of your theory.
All discussed above: "Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there."
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: You never explain stasis, which I see as a consequence of a brain appearing which is too large for current needs, and is the actual history of what happened. God speciates in anticipation of future use.
dhw: The above was your reply to my theoretical explanation of stasis, which I shall now repeat for the umpteenth time. But first, why on earth would an overlarge brain result in stasis? And no, a brain too large for current needs is NOT the actual history of what happened. That is your theory. The sapiens’ brain expanded from 1200cc erectus to 1350cc, just as all earlier brains expanded by similar amounts..Once each brain (including sapiens) had expanded by meeting the new requirement, it did not need to expand any more (complexification could cope) until there was another new requirement which exceeded its existing capacity.(Explanation of stasis.) It was never too large. The sapiens brain was never too large either. It was adequate for all sapiens’ needs for 300,000 years...You have never offered one single reason for rejecting this hypothesis, but merely go on repeating your own beliefs as if they were “the actual history of what happened”. I only ask you to provide one logical reason for rejecting it.
DAVID: It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis.
There is no “necessity” for stasis. It is the consequence of there being no new requirements.
DAVID: I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements.
And I keep proposing to you that the brain was never TOO big for current requirements. Only when it was unable to meet new requirements did it expand. But in sapiens’ case, it could not expand any further, and so it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this was so efficient that it made certain cells redundant = shrinkage. It was NOT too big for 300,000 years. If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.
DAVID: To me that is the obvious conclusion and a strong position, considering how use of sapiens brain exploded in the past 10,000 years showing its true capacity that was really available 315,000 years ago. You have scrambled around trying to diminish the point, but all you have done is describe stasis, a non-answer to my point.
Your explanation of stasis has been that sapiens had to spend 300,000 years learning to use his brain but he produced nothing new! My explanation of stasis, yet again, is that after expansion sapiens did not need to produce anything new. In earlier times, expansions were caused by the major innovations you yourself have listed, and these were followed by stasis. Same brain…no new requirements. Only when new requirements exceed the brain’s capacity does it expand. See above for sapiens. There is no scrambling. It is a perfectly straightforward theory, and you have still not offered a single reason for rejecting it.
DAVID: Which means stasis after huge enlargement.
dhw: How huge is huge? Our enlargement was no “huger” than preceding enlargements, stasis occurred after every enlargement (as explained above), and how does this comment invalidate the point that the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them?
DAVID: Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there.
Your point is that your God designed each expansion, including sapiens, in anticipation of requirements that did not yet exist. Of course your theory makes him appear! My point is that just as you believe he designed an autonomous process of complexification – unless you’ve suddenly decided that God also designs all our human designs for us – he could (theistic version) have enabled the SAME autonomous mechanism to produce additional cells when needed. I simply have your designer God going where you don’t want him to go.
I note that under “survival” you have now dropped your objection to Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations and innovations was to improve chances of survival. No doubt this will come up again in future posts.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, March 28, 2021, 15:51 (1118 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis.
dhw: There is no “necessity” for stasis. It is the consequence of there being no new requirements.
DAVID: I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements.
dhw: And I keep proposing to you that the brain was never TOO big for current requirements. Only when it was unable to meet new requirements did it expand. But in sapiens’ case, it could not expand any further, and so it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this was so efficient that it made certain cells redundant = shrinkage. It was NOT too big for 300,000 years. If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.
Stasis proves the brain was too big for current requirements, as you point out it took 300,000 years to fully use it. And the import of shrinkage is opposite to your convoluted reasoning. Overall size is not the issue but the ability to reorganize as needed as new uses of a big brain are employed.
DAVID: To me that is the obvious conclusion and a strong position, considering how use of sapiens brain exploded in the past 10,000 years showing its true capacity that was really available 315,000 years ago. You have scrambled around trying to diminish the point, but all you have done is describe stasis, a non-answer to my point.Your explanation of stasis has been that sapiens had to spend 300,000 years learning to use his brain but he produced nothing new! My explanation of stasis, yet again, is that after expansion sapiens did not need to produce anything new. In earlier times, expansions were caused by the major innovations you yourself have listed, and these were followed by stasis. Same brain…no new requirements. Only when new requirements exceed the brain’s capacity does it expand. See above for sapiens. There is no scrambling. It is a perfectly straightforward theory, and you have still not offered a single reason for rejecting it.
You constant refusal to recognized it was over-expanded for current requirements is an obvious counter interpretation. Of course I am reasonable in not accepting your view.
DAVID: Which means stasis after huge enlargement.dhw: How huge is huge? Our enlargement was no “huger” than preceding enlargements, stasis occurred after every enlargement (as explained above), and how does this comment invalidate the point that the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them?
DAVID: Again you present a simple review of brain history. It is a matter of interpretation of stasis and if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there.
dhw: Your point is that your God designed each expansion, including sapiens, in anticipation of requirements that did not yet exist. Of course your theory makes him appear! My point is that just as you believe he designed an autonomous process of complexification – unless you’ve suddenly decided that God also designs all our human designs for us – he could (theistic version) have enabled the SAME autonomous mechanism to produce additional cells when needed. I simply have your designer God going where you don’t want him to go.
We can each imagine our God as we wish.
dhw: I note that under “survival” you have now dropped your objection to Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations and innovations was to improve chances of survival. No doubt this will come up again in future posts.
Of course adaptations improve survival. God gave organisms the ability to make minor adaptations to respond to changing requirements. Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.
Not answered.
DAVID: Stasis proves the brain was too big for current requirements, as you point out it took 300,000 years to fully use it.
Stasis proves that there were no new requirements or developments, and it is you who insist that the brain was TOO big and it took 300,000 years to “fully use it”. Your next comment supports my theory:
DAVID: And the import of shrinkage is opposite to your convoluted reasoning. Overall size is not the issue but the ability to reorganize as needed as new uses of a big brain are employed.
Correct. Size is not the issue. The initial expansion to sapiens size provided the number of cells needed for EXISTING requirements. Minor new requirements would have been accomplished by complexification, but when there were major new requirements and because the brain could not expand any more, the “issue” became the ability to reorganize (= enhanced complexification). In other words, there were never too many cells, but the existing cells had to respond to new uses by enhanced complexification and not by adding to their number. This process proved so efficient that some cells became redundant (= shrinkage).
dhw: […] the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them…
As with the first point in this post, not answered. And you have not answered the question of how sapiens “learned to use” his brain for 300,000 years by producing nothing. Instead you digressed to this:
DAVID: ….if you even slightly try to acknowledge my point, God suddenly appears as design agent, and you can't go there.
dhw: My point is that just as you believe he designed an autonomous process of complexification – unless you’ve suddenly decided that God also designs all our human designs for us – he could (theistic version) have enabled the SAME autonomous mechanism to produce additional cells when needed. I simply have your designer God going where you don’t want him to go.
You returned to our subject under “Language learning”, and perhaps the repetitions will eventually lead to you answering my objections to your theory.
DAVID: I assume a degree of complexification occurred […] Let us note this ability was present 315,000 year ago and unused until complex language appeared about 70,000 estimated years ago.
How on earth do you know that an ability was present but was never used? I agree with your assumption. Once the brain had reached its maximum size 315,000 years ago, any further requirements would have resulted in a “degree of complexification”, as is illustrated by the fact that nowadays any new requirement is met by complexification (e.g. the illiterate women learning to read).
DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent. The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period. The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain.
You have now excluded all former expansions from this discussion! Erectus went from 900cc to 1200 cc, and we upped it to 1350 cc. Each successive species would have used its capacity and its powers of complexification to its fullest extent, matching current needs, and then new requirements required expansion. But as sapiens’ brain could not expand any more, “a degree of complexification occurred”, i.e. the size was adequate, and not excessive. It was the enhanced ability to reorganize that was needed. So your God (if he exists) did not give us too many cells to begin with, but he may well have given all cells (ancient and modern) the autonomous ability to complexify and also to add to their numbers when needed. In sapiens’ case, the improved usage of the complexification mechanism was so great that certain cells became redundant (shrinkage). Now perhaps you will respond to my earlier queries about your own theory.
dhw: I note that under “survival” you have now dropped your objection to Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations and innovations was to improve chances of survival. No doubt this will come up again in future posts.
DAVID: Of course adaptations improve survival. God gave organisms the ability to make minor adaptations to respond to changing requirements. Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.
There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, March 29, 2021, 18:25 (1117 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.
DAVID: Stasis proves the brain was too big for current requirements, as you point out it took 300,000 years to fully use it.
dhw: Stasis proves that there were no new requirements or developments, and it is you who insist that the brain was TOO big and it took 300,000 years to “fully use it”. Your next comment supports my theory:
This comment doesn't support your backward interpretation atall. DAVID: And the import of shrinkage is opposite to your convoluted reasoning. Overall size is not the issue but the ability to reorganize as needed as new uses of a big brain are employed.
As presented yesterday: "the major point to me is how the brain easily shuttles the information around the different cooperative areas to achieve the necessary result. Let us note this ability was present 315,000 year ago and unused until complex language appeared about 70,000 estimated years ago. It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent. The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period. The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain." A answer below:
dhw: Correct. Size is not the issue.... In other words, there were never too many cells, but the existing cells had to respond to new uses by enhanced complexification and not by adding to their number. This process proved so efficient that some cells became redundant (= shrinkage).
Not too many cells? Sapiens brain shrunk 150 cc from complexification.
dhw: […] the only brain we can study shows that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them…dhw: As with the first point in this post, not answered. And you have not answered the question of how sapiens “learned to use” his brain for 300,000 years by producing nothing.
It took time, as history shows to learn to use it.
dhw: How on earth do you know that an ability was present but was never used?
Obviously because of the giant usage present now. Original Sapiens lifestyle differed little from erectus while the brain was 200 cc larger.
DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent. The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period. The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain.dhw: You have now excluded all former expansions from this discussion!
The only period of our evolution which is best to study is from the knowledge of what our brain tells us.
dhw: In sapiens’ case, the improved usage of the complexification mechanism was so great that certain cells became redundant (shrinkage).
Shrinkage was loss of 1500 cc of neurons and their axons It all comes from the development of complex language so that abstract ideas could be exchanged between people. From that point we learned how to use our oversized brains and complexification shrunk them. You just can't admit our first version of our brain was oversized. I view our first brain was a V-8 engine operating on two cylinders, a concept you try to avoid.
dhw: I note that under “survival” you have now dropped your objection to Darwin’s theory that the purpose of evolutionary adaptations and innovations was to improve chances of survival. No doubt this will come up again in future posts.
DAVID: Of course adaptations improve survival. God gave organisms the ability to make minor adaptations to respond to changing requirements. Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.
dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
Of course without survival evolution and life stop.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: If you think shrinkage proves your case, please explain why your God designed all the extra cells and gave sapiens 300,000 years to learn to use them before jettisoning them as redundant.
DAVID: Stasis proves the brain was too big for current requirements, as you point out it took 300,000 years to fully use it.
dhw: Stasis proves that there were no new requirements or developments, and it is you who insist that the brain was TOO big and it took 300,000 years to “fully use it”. Your next comment supports my theory:
DAVID: […] Overall size is not the issue but the ability to reorganize as needed as new uses of a big brain are employed.
DAVID: This comment doesn't support your backward interpretation at all.
DAVID: As presented yesterday: "the major point to me is how the brain easily shuttles the information around the different cooperative areas to achieve the necessary result.” Let us note this ability was present 315,000 year ago and unused until complex language appeared about 70,000 estimated years ago.
The ability of brain cells to cooperate and achieve the necessary result is and was present in every brain that ever existed!
DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent.
It is obvious that every brained organism that ever lived used and uses its cooperative brain cells to achieve whatever results are necessary. It is also obvious that the human brain expanded when new factors (e.g. new weapons, tools, ideas, discoveries, clothes, use of fire, changing conditions) required additional cells. It is far from obvious that brain cells were once there for no purpose at all, simply waiting to fulfil some vague future purpose.
DAVID: The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period.
You have never explained how one can learn without producing anything new. The stasis must be viewed as a period when there were no new requirements. Or whatever requirements there were could be dealt with by the existing mechanism for complexification.
DAVID: The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain.
We spent a lot of time discussing the idea that speciation/adaptation entailed a loss of genes, and eventually you agreed that this happened when the genes were no longer required. You don’t seem to have grasped the concept of redundancy. Sapiens’ cells would have increased to 1350 cc as the RESULT of a new requirement, i.e. ALL the new cells were required to meet whatever was the new need. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for the expansion. From then on, all the cells would have been used. However, a point was reached when new needs would have required further expansion, but the brain could not expand any more without creating problems for the anatomy. And so from that point on, instead of new cells being added, the existing cells had to enhance their ability to complexify. This ability then proved so efficient that cells which had been ESSENTIAL in the past now became redundant. Exactly the same principle as when adaptation/innovation/speciation results in the loss of genes which had previously been essential. The rest of your post simply repeats your belief that 315,000 years ago, for no immediate reason, your God gave us more cells than we needed, we spent 300,000 years learning to use them by producing nothing - although you’ve now decided it was only 245,000 years because of language acquisition - and when we had finally learned to use them, we didn't need them! I see no logic in this theory, and am still waiting for you to provide a logical reason for dismissing my own.
Survival
DAVID: Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.
dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
DAVID: Of course without survival evolution and life stop.
And so there is no contradiction between the two theories, and I presume you will stop attacking Darwin for arguing that the purpose of evolutionary innovations is to improve chances of survival. Just asking for clarification.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 16:16 (1116 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent.
dhw: It is obvious that every brained organism that ever lived used and uses its cooperative brain cells to achieve whatever results are necessary. It is also obvious that the human brain expanded when new factors (e.g. new weapons, tools, ideas, discoveries, clothes, use of fire, changing conditions) required additional cells. It is far from obvious that brain cells were once there for no purpose at all, simply waiting to fulfil some vague future purpose.
What is wrong with recognizing extra cells being present for future use? With belief in God as the designer, it makes perfect sense.
DAVID: The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period.dhw: You have never explained how one can learn without producing anything new. The stasis must be viewed as a period when there were no new requirements. Or whatever requirements there were could be dealt with by the existing mechanism for complexification.
The large requirement of development of a complex language mechanism used the available cells presented in advance!!!
DAVID: The shrinkage from complexification obviously means it was oversized from the beginning. All in anticipation of future usage. dhw has never given a reasonable explanation of the oversized beginning to more than match the current needs use at the time of the initial appearance of this sapiens brain.dhw: We spent a lot of time discussing the idea that speciation/adaptation entailed a loss of genes, and eventually you agreed that this happened when the genes were no longer required. You don’t seem to have grasped the concept of redundancy. Sapiens’ cells would have increased to 1350 cc as the RESULT of a new requirement, i.e. ALL the new cells were required to meet whatever was the new need. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for the expansion. From then on, all the cells would have been used. However, a point was reached when new needs would have required further expansion, but the brain could not expand any more without creating problems for the anatomy. And so from that point on, instead of new cells being added, the existing cells had to enhance their ability to complexify. This ability then proved so efficient that cells which had been ESSENTIAL in the past now became redundant. Exactly the same principle as when adaptation/innovation/speciation results in the loss of genes which had previously been essential. The rest of your post simply repeats your belief that 315,000 years ago, for no immediate reason, your God gave us more cells than we needed, we spent 300,000 years learning to use them by producing nothing - although you’ve now decided it was only 245,000 years because of language acquisition - and when we had finally learned to use them, we didn't need them! I see no logic in this theory, and am still waiting for you to provide a logical reason for dismissing my own.
I see no logic in your discussion, only your version of a review of history. Language development was a major requirement and the necessary cells were already present, weren't they? As for redundancy I am fully aware of its use in God's design: two eyes, two ears, two kidneys, two adrenal glands, two lungs, various oversized organs (i.e., liver).
Survival
DAVID: Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
DAVID: Of course without survival evolution and life stop.
dhw: And so there is no contradiction between the two theories, and I presume you will stop attacking Darwin for arguing that the purpose of evolutionary innovations is to improve chances of survival. Just asking for clarification.
The contradiction is not the need for survival, but the point I raised initially: God drives evolution from stage to stage, survival doesn't.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: It is obvious we humans didn't know how to use our very supple brain until we finally tried it out to its full extent.
dhw: It is obvious that every brained organism that ever lived used and uses its cooperative brain cells to achieve whatever results are necessary. It is also obvious that the human brain expanded when new factors (e.g. new weapons, tools, ideas, discoveries, clothes, use of fire, changing conditions) required additional cells. It is far from obvious that brain cells were once there for no purpose at all, simply waiting to fulfil some vague future purpose.
DAVID: What is wrong with recognizing extra cells being present for future use? With belief in God as the designer, it makes perfect sense.
What does not make sense is your theory that he gave us extra cells for no particular purpose, we didn’t use them for 300,000 years, and when we did, they proved to be redundant. Now please tell me what is wrong with my theory.
DAVID: The stasis must be viewed as a required experimental learning period.
dhw: You have never explained how one can learn without producing anything new. The stasis must be viewed as a period when there were no new requirements. Or whatever requirements there were could be dealt with by the existing mechanism for complexification.
DAVID: The large requirement of development of a complex language mechanism used the available cells presented in advance!!!
You still refuse to explain how one can learn without producing anything new, and why your God gave us extra cells we eventually didn’t need. I don’t know why you have suddenly switched the whole discussion to language. Previously, all you could talk about was 300,000 years of stasis, and now you want to cut it to 245,000 years of stasis. No problem for my theory. The leap to 1350 cc (caused by one of many possible new requirements) marks the beginning of H. sapiens. He needed the extra number of cells in order to meet that new requirement. From then on, there was no room for further expansion, and so all new requirements were met by enhanced complexification. That includes adjustments made to those parts of the brain and body associated with making sounds which earlier homos had been unable to make. The success of enhanced complexification resulted in some of the cells that had previously been essential becoming redundant (= shrinkage), just as when adaptations/ innovations/ speciation made previously essential cells redundant.
DAVID: I see no logic in your discussion, only your version of a review of history. Language development was a major requirement and the necessary cells were already present, weren't they?
Yes, the cells which had been essential for all earlier activities were still present, and met all new requirements by complexifying, and….yet again…complexification was so successful that some of them became redundant.
DAVID: As for redundancy I am fully aware of its use in God's design: two eyes, two ears, two kidneys, two adrenal glands, two lungs, various oversized organs (i.e., liver).
Totally irrelevant. Why can’t you recognize the logic of all cells being there to fulfil current needs, but becoming redundant when they are no longer needed? Why have your God popping all those extra new cells into a few brains for no immediate purpose except to “learn to use them”, and then when they are used, they turn out to be redundant?
Survival
DAVID: Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.
dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
DAVID: Of course without survival evolution and life stop.
dhw: And so there is no contradiction between the two theories, and I presume you will stop attacking Darwin for arguing that the purpose of evolutionary innovations is to improve chances of survival. Just asking for clarification.
DAVID: The contradiction is not the need for survival, but the point I raised initially: God drives evolution from stage to stage, survival doesn't.
Playing with words. Just change your sentence: God drives evolution from stage to stage, and the reason for the innovations that he designs is to improve chances of survival. Yes or no?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 18:15 (1115 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 19:09
DAVID: What is wrong with recognizing extra cells being present for future use? With belief in God as the designer, it makes perfect sense.
dhw: What does not make sense is your theory that he gave us extra cells for no particular purpose, we didn’t use them for 300,000 years, and when we did, they proved to be redundant. Now please tell me what is wrong with my theory.
What is your theory? God gave us an oversized brain probably to allow more complexification than fewer cells would allow. You explain the history, while I think God did it. Note the next comment:
DAVID: The large requirement of development of a complex language mechanism used the available cells presented in advance!!!
dhw: You still refuse to explain how one can learn without producing anything new, and why your God gave us extra cells we eventually didn’t need. I don’t know why you have suddenly switched the whole discussion to language. Previously, all you could talk about was 300,000 years of stasis, and now you want to cut it to 245,000 years of stasis. No problem for my theory. The leap to 1350 cc (caused by one of many possible new requirements) marks the beginning of H. sapiens. He needed the extra number of cells in order to meet that new requirement. From then on, there was no room for further expansion, and so all new requirements were met by enhanced complexification. That includes adjustments made to those parts of the brain and body associated with making sounds which earlier homos had been unable to make. The success of enhanced complexification resulted in some of the cells that had previously been essential becoming redundant (= shrinkage), just as when adaptations/ innovations/ speciation made previously essential cells redundant.
Total history review with no real answer for the fact that we were given lots of extra unused cells until much later on. The bold about new requirements is baseless theory based on known archaeology as erectus and early sapiens lifestyles were quite similar if not exactly the same. I switched to language development because it is totally pertinent to this discussion as it shows new uses for four parts of the new brain. And it allowed us to exchange abstract ideas which then forced more development of brain usage with the neurons already available. Shrinkage simply means the brain was oversized to begin with. I explain possibly why below.
DAVID: As for redundancy I am fully aware of its use in God's design: two eyes, two ears, two kidneys, two adrenal glands, two lungs, various oversized organs (i.e., liver).dhw: Totally irrelevant. Why can’t you recognize the logic of all cells being there to fulfil current needs, but becoming redundant when they are no longer needed? Why have your God popping all those extra new cells into a few brains for no immediate purpose except to “learn to use them”, and then when they are used, they turn out to be redundant?
You raised the issue of redundancy. My view is the extra cells allowed for a better form of complexification as we developed usage. It is possible God did not recognize exactly how we would learn to use our brain. We are beyond His control so here is your example of free-rein in action!
Survival
DAVID: Darwin saw speciation as a survival mechanism and I see God as the designer of new species.dhw: There is no contradiction between the two theories. Even if your God designed all the innovations which led to new species, the purpose of those innovations was to improve chances of survival.
DAVID: Of course without survival evolution and life stop.
dhw: And so there is no contradiction between the two theories, and I presume you will stop attacking Darwin for arguing that the purpose of evolutionary innovations is to improve chances of survival. Just asking for clarification.
DAVID: The contradiction is not the need for survival, but the point I raised initially: God drives evolution from stage to stage, survival doesn't.
dhw: Playing with words. Just change your sentence: God drives evolution from stage to stage, and the reason for the innovations that he designs is to improve chances of survival. Yes or no?
No and yes. His reasons for His designs is for increased complexity. Survival is simply a guarantee from God. I'll repeat: God evolves and God drives evolution. Darwinist thinking is a drive for survival drives evolutionary adaptation, totally backward to my view. God designs and animals are therefore guaranteed survival.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: What is your theory? God gave us an oversized brain probably to allow more complexification than fewer cells would allow. You explain the history, while I think God did it.
What is the logic behind him giving us extra cells to enhance complexification if the extra cells prove to be redundant? Once again, you have avoided telling me what is wrong with my theory. And my explanation does not exclude God – it only excludes your illogical interpretation of what your God did. I went on to set out the details of my theory yet again, but I shan’t repeat it, as your comments force me to repeat it anyway!
DAVID: Total history review with no real answer for the fact that we were given lots of extra unused cells until much later on.
A history review is essential if you want your theory to fit in with the history! I am proposing that he did NOT give us extra unused cells! I even bolded the argument. The extra cells were essential for the first sapiens to meet new requirements. All 1350 cc were used. And when much later there were new requirements, complexification took over, and this proved so efficient that some of the previously essential cells became redundant (= shrinkage).
DAVID: The bold about new requirements is baseless theory based on known archaeology as erectus and early sapiens lifestyles were quite similar if not exactly the same.
Once more: Nobody knows what the new requirements were that caused ANY of the expansions. You were kind enough to list some of the possible past causes yourself. Once more: new tools, new weapons, new ideas, new discoveries, use of fire, clothes, changes in the environment etc. And once more: the changes were not in the lifestyle, which was always dedicated to survival, but in the means of improving the chances of survival. Example: the hunter with a brand new weapon is still a hunter.
DAVID: I switched to language development because it is totally pertinent to this discussion as it shows new uses for four parts of the new brain. And it allowed us to exchange abstract ideas which then forced more development of brain usage with the neurons already available.
Of course it’s pertinent. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: in order to develop language, the “available” 1350cc of cells that were essential from the beginning of sapiens’ history must have complexified, presumably because expansion was no longer possible.
DAVID: Shrinkage simply means the brain was oversized to begin with. I explain possibly why below.
DAVID: You raised the issue of redundancy. My view is the extra cells allowed for a better form of complexification as we developed usage. It is possible God did not recognize exactly how we would learn to use our brain. We are beyond His control so here is your example of free-rein in action!
So your God gave us too many cells in the first place – in his own “human” way he didn’t really know what he was doing. And why is that more likely for you than the proposal that ALL the cells were necessary until complexification made them redundant? You have already conceded free rein by agreeing that complexification is autonomous, and you continue to ignore the theistic possibility that as well as complexifying, the mechanism your God designed could earlier have been used to add more cells to existing brains (as it does now with the hippocampus).
Brain expansion
QUOTE: "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."
DAVID: 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.
Nobody will deny that humans have advanced!!! That does not mean that your God performed operations on every species of hominin and homo, adding 200 cc without any immediate purpose, until finally he added the same amount to the first sapiens, who would likewise do nothing with the extra cells until eventually he used them, and then they proved to be unnecessary. Now please tell us why you find my theory illogical.
Survival
DAVID: God drives evolution from stage to stage, survival doesn't.
dhw: Playing with words. Just change your sentence: God drives evolution from stage to stage, and the reason for the innovations that he designs is to improve chances of survival. Yes or no?
DAVID: No and yes. His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.
Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.
DAVID: Survival is simply a guarantee from God. I'll repeat: God evolves and God drives evolution. Darwinist thinking is a drive for survival drives evolutionary adaptation, totally backward to my view. God designs and animals are therefore guaranteed survival.
What is a “guarantee from God”? He designs an innovation, says to the organism: “I guarantee this will keep you alive”, and then it joins the other 99% of dead species? Even if God designed all life forms, and even if some of the designs entail complexification, the purpose of each design is to improve chances of survival (until eventually changing conditions wipe the species out). Why else would he have designed the complexities of the brontosaurus plus all the other 99%?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, April 01, 2021, 17:35 (1114 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Total history review with no real answer for the fact that we were given lots of extra unused cells until much later on.
dhw: A history review is essential if you want your theory to fit in with the history! I am proposing that he did NOT give us extra unused cells! I even bolded the argument. The extra cells were essential for the first sapiens to meet new requirements. All 1350 cc were used. And when much later there were new requirements, complexification took over, and this proved so efficient that some of the previously essential cells became redundant (= shrinkage)
Interesting approach which means all the all old brain cells and the new ones had a tiny bit to do. The acquisition of four areas of the brain to create complex language is a refutation of your theory. Specifically designated brain areas for certain functions also refutes it.
The newly created additional frontal and prefrontal cortexes allowed complex abstract thought which did not pre-exist their appearance. I don't buy your theory since it doesn't ac count from what I have just presented.
DAVID: I switched to language development because it is totally pertinent to this discussion as it shows new uses for four parts of the new brain. And it allowed us to exchange abstract ideas which then forced more development of brain usage with the neurons already available.dhw: Of course it’s pertinent. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: in order to develop language, the “available” 1350cc of cells that were essential from the beginning of sapiens’ history must have complexified, presumably because expansion was no longer possible.
All you are saying is more cells had more to do, which is my point. complexification recruits cells to do more specific work.
DAVID: You raised the issue of redundancy. My view is the extra cells allowed for a better form of complexification as we developed usage. It is possible God did not recognize exactly how we would learn to use our brain. We are beyond His control so here is your example of free-rein in action!
dhw: So your God gave us too many cells in the first place – in his own “human” way he didn’t really know what he was doing.
Your wild misinterpretation. We have free will and can use our brain as we wish. God knew exactly what He was doing in granting free will. You can't distort that.
Brain expansion
QUOTE: "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."DAVID: 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.
dhw: Nobody will deny that humans have advanced!!! That does not mean that your God performed operations on every species of hominin and homo, adding 200 cc without any immediate purpose, until finally he added the same amount to the first sapiens, who would likewise do nothing with the extra cells until eventually he used them, and then they proved to be unnecessary. Now please tell us why you find my theory illogical.
Oversized brain allowed for more refined complexification as brain was newly used by us. My God knows exactly what He is doing while your imagined God wan ders in a mental fog.
SurvivalDAVID: His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.
dhw: Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.
To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
DAVID: Survival is simply a guarantee from God. I'll repeat: God evolves and God drives evolution. Darwinist thinking is a drive for survival drives evolutionary adaptation, totally backward to my view. God designs and animals are therefore guaranteed survival.dhw: What is a “guarantee from God”? He designs an innovation, says to the organism: “I guarantee this will keep you alive”, and then it joins the other 99% of dead species? Even if God designed all life forms, and even if some of the designs entail complexification, the purpose of each design is to improve chances of survival (until eventually changing conditions wipe the species out). Why else would he have designed the complexities of the brontosaurus plus all the other 99%?
We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: […] The extra cells were essential for the first sapiens to meet new requirements. All 1350 cc were used. And when much later there were new requirements, complexification took over, and this proved so efficient that some of the previously essential cells became redundant (= shrinkage)
DAVID: Interesting approach which means all the all old brain cells and the new ones had a tiny bit to do. The acquisition of four areas of the brain to create complex language is a refutation of your theory. Specifically designated brain areas for certain functions also refutes it. The newly created additional frontal and prefrontal cortexes allowed complex abstract thought which did not pre-exist their appearance. I don't buy your theory since it doesn't account from what I have just presented.
Why a “tiny bit”? They would have done all that was required of them. And what do you mean by the “acquisition of four areas” and “newly created additional frontal and prefrontal cortexes?" The existing cortices were not new – they expanded! And once the final expansion had taken place, the areas of the brain associated with language complexified.
DAVID: All you are saying is more cells had more to do, which is my point. complexification recruits cells to do more specific work.
Then there is no disagreement between us. Right from the start, sapiens used his 1350cc worth of cells. When he needed to make a greater variety of sounds in order to communicate a wider variety of meanings, those existing parts of the brain that were used to link thoughts to sounds, and to make the sounds, had to complexify, because the brain had reached its limit for expansion. What’s the problem?
(I have omitted the digression concerning free will, but will come back to it on the “Theodicy” thread under “subduction”.)
dhw: ...please tell us why you find my theory illogical.
DAVID: Oversized brain allowed for more refined complexification as brain was newly used by us. My God knows exactly what He is doing while your imagined God wanders in a mental fog.
So a God who endows cells with the autonomous ability not only to complexify (you grant the autonomy) but also to produce additional cells when required is wandering in a mental fog. Whereas a God who produces extra cells which are necessary to improve complexification but which aren’t necessary (shrinkage), knows exactly what he is doing. And, to remind ourselves of your basic theory, the addition of cells for some vague future purpose seems more likely to you than the addition of cells to meet requirements that can’t be met by the existing number of cells.
Survival
DAVID: His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.
dhw: Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.
DAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
So your God had to design the brontosaurus because otherwise he could not have designed the complex human brain. Your reasoning?
DAVID: Survival is simply a guarantee from God. I'll repeat: God evolves and God drives evolution. Darwinist thinking is a drive for survival drives evolutionary adaptation, totally backward to my view. God designs and animals are therefore guaranteed survival.
dhw: What is a “guarantee from God”? He designs an innovation, says to the organism: “I guarantee this will keep you alive”, and then it joins the other 99% of dead species? Even if God designed all life forms, and even if some of the designs entail complexification, the purpose of each design is to improve chances of survival (until eventually changing conditions wipe the species out). Why else would he have designed the complexities of the brontosaurus plus all the other 99%?
DAVID: We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?
I asked what you meant by guaranteeing survival. No explanation. Your question is far more relevant to your own theory: if survival is guaranteed, why are 99% dead? I suggest that survival is NEVER guaranteed. All organisms, however, TRY to survive, and that is why they adapt and innovate, using mechanisms possibly designed by your God.
DAVID: Returning vision with an RNA injection in the eye:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210401112532.htm
QUOTE: A Penn Medicine patient with a genetic form of childhood blindness gained vision, which lasted more than a year, after receiving a single injection of an experimental RNA therapy into the eye.
DAVID: Here is proof of my thought that our God-given brains can correct biochemical genomic errors beyond God's control systems. Perhaps that was His reason for The enormous ability of our brains, far beyond survival needs, an observatiOn you can't answer meaningfully.
I would regard the battle against diseases and genetic defects – or what you like to call errors beyond the control of your all-powerful, in-total-control God – as part of the battle for survival, but I have never suggested that our enormous abilities were confined to survival! Our specialness, however, does not prove that your God had to design the brontosaurus etc. before he could design us.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Friday, April 02, 2021, 16:55 (1113 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: ...please tell us why you find my theory illogical.
DAVID: Oversized brain allowed for more refined complexification as brain was newly used by us. My God knows exactly what He is doing while your imagined God wanders in a mental fog.
dhw: So a God who endows cells with the autonomous ability not only to complexify (you grant the autonomy) but also to produce additional cells when required is wandering in a mental fog. Whereas a God who produces extra cells which are necessary to improve complexification but which aren’t necessary (shrinkage), knows exactly what he is doing. And, to remind ourselves of your basic theory, the addition of cells for some vague future purpose seems more likely to you than the addition of cells to meet requirements that can’t be met by the existing number of cells.
The bold makes no sense. The enormous addition is not explained by the minimal new requirements as Erectus advanced to Sapiens, for the full evidence, which you ignore, is sapiens first lifestyle hardly differed from Erectus. You really can't explain the giant addition of cells in the frontal and prefrontal areas, which, we know, are later used for complex ideation.
Survival
DAVID: His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.dhw: Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.
DAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
dhw: So your God had to design the brontosaurus because otherwise he could not have designed the complex human brain. Your reasoning?
Evolution had to complexify from the bronto's pea-sized brain to ours. Remember God chose to evolve one step at a time.
DAVID: We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?dhw: I asked what you meant by guaranteeing survival. No explanation. Your question is far more relevant to your own theory: if survival is guaranteed, why are 99% dead? I suggest that survival is NEVER guaranteed. All organisms, however, TRY to survive, and that is why they adapt and innovate, using mechanisms possibly designed by your God.
You've backed away from my real point: survival adaptations don't drive evolutionary advances.
DAVID: Returning vision with an RNA injection in the eye:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210401112532.htmQUOTE: A Penn Medicine patient with a genetic form of childhood blindness gained vision, which lasted more than a year, after receiving a single injection of an experimental RNA therapy into the eye.
DAVID: Here is proof of my thought that our God-given brains can correct biochemical genomic errors beyond God's control systems. Perhaps that was His reason for The enormous ability of our brains, far beyond survival needs, an observation you can't answer meaningfully.
dhw: I would regard the battle against diseases and genetic defects – or what you like to call errors beyond the control of your all-powerful, in-total-control God – as part of the battle for survival, but I have never suggested that our enormous abilities were confined to survival! Our specialness, however, does not prove that your God had to design the brontosaurus etc. before he could design us.
Same answer: "Evolution had to complexify from the bronto's pea-sized brain to ours. Remember God chose to evolve one step at a time."
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: ...please tell us why you find my theory illogical.
DAVID: Oversized brain allowed for more refined complexification as brain was newly used by us. My God knows exactly what He is doing while your imagined God wanders in a mental fog.
dhw: So a God who endows cells with the autonomous ability not only to complexify (you grant the autonomy) but also to produce additional cells when required is wandering in a mental fog. Whereas a God who produces extra cells which are necessary to improve complexification but which aren’t necessary (shrinkage), knows exactly what he is doing. And, to remind ourselves of your basic theory, the addition of cells for some vague future purpose seems more likely to you than the addition of cells to meet requirements that can’t be met by the existing number of cells.
DAVID: The bold makes no sense. The enormous addition is not explained by the minimal new requirements as Erectus advanced to Sapiens, for the full evidence, which you ignore, is sapiens first lifestyle hardly differed from Erectus. You really can't explain the giant addition of cells in the frontal and prefrontal areas, which, we know, are later used for complex ideation.
You go on and on about the “enormous addition”. It was no more enormous than the additions throughout history. And you go on and on about the fact that there was little change in lifestyle, but you keep ignoring my answer: that the lifestyle of ALL preceding hominins and homos was based on improving chances of survival, and you keep ignoring your own answer: these improvements were in the form of new tools, new weapons, new ideas, clothes, use of fire, adapting to new conditions. Approx. 200 cc at a time. The hunter with a new spear is still a hunter. Now please tell me why you find my theory and my explanations illogical.
Survival
DAVID: His reason for His designs is for increased complexity.
dhw: Do you think complexity is a purpose in itself? If not, please tell us the purpose.
DAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
dhw: So your God had to design the brontosaurus because otherwise he could not have designed the complex human brain. Your reasoning?
DAVID: Evolution had to complexify from the bronto's pea-sized brain to ours. Remember God chose to evolve one step at a time.
Why do you say evolution had to do it? According to you, your God had to do it. You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us”. We did not descend from brontosauruses, and you have agreed that there is no connection between 99% of past life forms and us. So why did your God have to design the pea-sized brain of the brontosaurus, from which we did not descend, in order to design our complex brain?
DAVID: We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?
dhw: I asked what you meant by guaranteeing survival. No explanation. Your question is far more relevant to your own theory: if survival is guaranteed, why are 99% dead? I suggest that survival is NEVER guaranteed. All organisms, however, TRY to survive, and that is why they adapt and innovate, using mechanisms possibly designed by your God.
DAVID: You've backed away from my real point: survival adaptations don't drive evolutionary advances.
Once again, you refuse to say what you mean by “guaranteeing survival”. You’ve “backed away from my real point”: whether or not your God designed adaptations and innovations, their purpose is to improve chances of survival. This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Saturday, April 03, 2021, 18:09 (1112 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bold makes no sense. The enormous addition is not explained by the minimal new requirements as Erectus advanced to Sapiens, for the full evidence, which you ignore, is sapiens first lifestyle hardly differed from Erectus. You really can't explain the giant addition of cells in the frontal and prefrontal areas, which, we know, are later used for complex ideation.[/b]
dhw: You go on and on about the “enormous addition”. It was no more enormous than the additions throughout history. And you go on and on about the fact that there was little change in lifestyle, but you keep ignoring my answer:.... Now please tell me why you find my theory and my explanations illogical.
You've totally missed the point so I now have it in bold. It isn't just that 200 cc was added. The key is where it was added. This is the FIRST time the main addition is entirely in the abstract and idea THINKIG AREA. This is the area we had to learn to use very completely. I have no idea why you haven't understood this.
SurvivalDAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
dhw: So your God had to design the brontosaurus because otherwise he could not have designed the complex human brain. Your reasoning?
DAVID: Evolution had to complexify from the bronto's pea-sized brain to ours. Remember God chose to evolve one step at a time.
dhw: You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us”. We did not descend from brontosauruses, and you have agreed that there is no connection between 99% of past life forms and us. So why did your God have to design the pea-sized brain of the brontosaurus, from which we did not descend, in order to design our complex brain?
History tells us what God decided to do, evolve step by step so life becomes an enormous bush..
DAVID: We have a different nuance of meaning about 'survival'. God's designs guarantee survival, while in your mind finding adaption for survival drives advances in evolution. Polar opposites. Turn about: with survival so important why are 99% dead?dhw: I asked what you meant by guaranteeing survival. No explanation. Your question is far more relevant to your own theory: if survival is guaranteed, why are 99% dead? I suggest that survival is NEVER guaranteed. All organisms, however, TRY to survive, and that is why they adapt and innovate, using mechanisms possibly designed by your God.
DAVID: You've backed away from my real point: survival adaptations don't drive evolutionary advances.
dhw: Once again, you refuse to say what you mean by “guaranteeing survival”. You’ve “backed away from my real point”: whether or not your God designed adaptations and innovations, their purpose is to improve chances of survival. This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
DAVID: The bold makes no sense. The enormous addition is not explained by the minimal new requirements as Erectus advanced to Sapiens, for the full evidence, which you ignore, is sapiens first lifestyle hardly differed from Erectus. You really can't explain the giant addition of cells in the frontal and prefrontal areas, which, we know, are later used for complex ideation.[/b]
dhw: You go on and on about the “enormous addition”. It was no more enormous than the additions throughout history. And you go on and on about the fact that there was little change in lifestyle, but you keep ignoring my answer:.... Now please tell me why you find my theory and my explanations illogical.
DAVID: You've totally missed the point so I now have it in bold. It isn't just that 200 cc was added. The key is where it was added. This is the FIRST time the main addition is entirely in the abstract and idea THINKING AREA. This is the area we had to learn to use very completely. I have no idea why you haven't understood this.
First your “point” was the enormous addition, then your “point” was no change in lifestyle, and when I’ve answered your “points”, you shift to another “point”! It also helps you to leave out certain parts of my answer, and five minutes' research on the Internet reveals a fact that you might not have known, which is that The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded. Nobody knows the direct cause of ANY of the expansions, but I gave you a list of possible causes: improvements in the form of “new tools, new weapons, new ideas, clothes, use of fire, adapting to new conditions”. All of these would have applied just as much to erectus as to sapiens, and to sapiens as much as to erectus, and none of them would have been possible without a “THINKING AREA”. The erectus brain expanded by around 300 cc. during their time on earth, and there is even evidence (shell carvings) of erectus art. “I have no idea why you haven’t understood” that expansions and improvements accompanied one another all the way through homo history, they all required "thinking", and it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change itself in anticipation of them.
Survival
I asked for the purpose of increased complexity.
DAVID: To finally reach the complexity of the human brain.
Dhw: (…) So why did your God have to design the pea-sized brain of the brontosaurus, from which we did not descend, in order to design our complex brain?
DAVID: History tells us what God decided to do, evolve step by step so life becomes an enormous bush.
Yes indeed. Whether (theistic version) your God designed it directly or designed a mechanism to produce it, life became an enormous bush. It did not consist of one straight line from bacteria to H. sapiens, but diversified into vast numbers of branches, 99% of which had no connection to humans. The brontosaurus was just one example. This does not support your theory that God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Please stop this endless dodging.
dhw: You’ve “backed away from my real point”: whether or not your God designed adaptations and innovations, their purpose is to improve chances of survival. This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
DAVID: My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin.
So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Sunday, April 04, 2021, 18:52 (1111 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 18:59
DAVID: You've totally missed the point so I now have it in bold. It isn't just that 200 cc was added. The key is where it was added. This is the FIRST time the main addition is entirely in the abstract and idea THINKING AREA. This is the area we had to learn to use very completely. I have no idea why you haven't understood this.
dhw: First your “point” was the enormous addition, then your “point” was no change in lifestyle, and when I’ve answered your “points”, you shift to another “point”! It also helps you to leave out certain parts of my answer, and five minutes' research on the Internet reveals a fact that you might not have known, which is that The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.
I knew about erectus expansion, but it didn't develop much aesthetic or analytical thinking as evidenced by the small change in lifestyle during their existence. The huge advances in lifestyle came only because of the appearance of an oversized-for-current-needs prefrontal and frontal regions that allowed for much more complex ideation. The stasis period only represents learning to is use it. You don't deny that it took lots of time.
dhw: it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change itself in anticipation of them.
If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.
Survival
DAVID: History tells us what God decided to do, evolve step by step so life becomes an enormous bush.
dhw: Yes indeed. Whether (theistic version) your God designed it directly or designed a mechanism to produce it, life became an enormous bush. It did not consist of one straight line from bacteria to H. sapiens, but diversified into vast numbers of branches, 99% of which had no connection to humans.
Again you have forgotten or ignored the need for huge food supply.
dhw: You’ve “backed away from my real point”: whether or not your God designed adaptations and innovations, their purpose is to improve chances of survival. This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.DAVID: My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin.
dhw: So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.
I'll repeat: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.
DAVID: I knew about erectus expansion, but it didn't develop much aesthetic or analytical thinking as evidenced by the small change in lifestyle during their existence. The huge advances in lifestyle came only because of the appearance of an oversized-for-current-needs prefrontal and frontal regions that allowed for much more complex ideation. The stasis period only represents learning to is use it. You don't deny that it took lots of time.
You refuse to say how one can learn to use something without producing anything, and you force me to repeat both theories since you ignore all my responses. Your theory: when the pre-sapiens brain expanded the usual amount, it did so for no immediate purpose, was oversized, and was not fully used until there were huge advances in lifestyle following the period of stasis. Mine: ALL brain expansions (including sapiens) came about because of an immediate requirement, after which the WHOLE brain was used until its capacity for complexification was exhausted, and (with the exception of sapiens) more cells were needed in response to new requirements. You persist in emphasizing “small change in lifestyle”, and I keep reminding you that even early sapiens did not change his lifestyle, because lifestyle until modern sapiens consisted mainly of improving methods of survival. Example repeated ad nauseam: the hunter with a new spear remained a hunter. The process of expansion to meet new needs only changed in sapiens because further expansion would have caused anatomical problems, and so enhanced complexification took over. And finally, this proved so effective that cells which had previously been essential now became redundant. Your objections to this proposal have been 1) that the sapiens addition was too huge (it was the same as all the other expansions), 2) that there was no change in lifestyle (just explained for the umpteenth time), and 3) that it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?
dhw: ...it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change itself in anticipation of them.
DAVID: If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.
Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense. And of course you can believe in your God as the designer of the autonomous mechanism that made this possible, especially as you already believe that your God designed the autonomous mechanism that made complexification possible.
Survival
DAVID: History tells us what God decided to do, evolve step by step so life becomes an enormous bush.
dhw: Yes indeed. Whether (theistic version) your God designed it directly or designed a mechanism to produce it, life became an enormous bush. It did not consist of one straight line from bacteria to H. sapiens, but diversified into vast numbers of branches, 99% of which had no connection to humans.
DAVID: Again you have forgotten or ignored the need for huge food supply.
Again you have forgotten or ignored your own correct observation that PAST food supplies were for PAST life forms which had nothing to do with present life forms. All life forms, and not just humans, need and needed food!
dhw: […] This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
DAVID: My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin.
dhw: So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.
DAVID: I'll repeat: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.
Survival IS the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to new species (as per Darwin), whether God designed them or not!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Monday, April 05, 2021, 18:05 (1110 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The frontal and temporal lobes of the erectus brain also expanded.
DAVID: I knew about erectus expansion, but it didn't develop much aesthetic or analytical thinking as evidenced by the small change in lifestyle during their existence. The huge advances in lifestyle came only because of the appearance of an oversized-for-current-needs prefrontal and frontal regions that allowed for much more complex ideation. The stasis period only represents learning to is use it. You don't deny that it took lots of time.
dhw: ALL brain expansions (including sapiens) came about because of an immediate requirement, after which the WHOLE brain was used until its capacity for complexification was exhausted, and (with the exception of sapiens) more cells were needed in response to new requirements.
This is the natural, no God argument. It does not answer why the enlargement had to include a huge expansion of 200 cc in the mostly unused prefrontal and frontal conceptual areas.
dhw: I keep reminding you that even early sapiens did not change his lifestyle, because lifestyle until modern sapiens consisted mainly of improving methods of survival. Example repeated ad nauseam: the hunter with a new spear remained a hunter.
Of course this advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe. My thought is not that not many additional neurons were needed for that advance compared to current use for advancements
dhw: Your objections to this proposal have been 1) that the sapiens addition was too huge (it was the same as all the other expansions).
Volume use, yes, but specified areas of frontal lobe enlargement totally ignored.
3) dhw: that it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?
Mainly frontal expansion, and the main point of my argument is the ability to conceptualize new concepts there, with help from temporal area with language development putting ideas into words starting roughly 70,000 years ago, 250,000 years after the initial enlargement. Stasis! Temporal lobe has sensory, visual, auditory and some memory coordination uses, not conceptual thought origination! Why do you persist in ignoring specificity of area enlargements?
DAVID: If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense.
What are you smoking to confuse my answer that way?
Survival
dhw: […] This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
DAVID: My original point remains. Darwin thought a struggle for survival drove evolution. I say God designed evolution and guaranteed survival for each step until the next steps were achieved. Total conflict with Darwin.
dhw: So the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to guarantee survival of every organism, until God decided to kill off the 99% of organisms that had no connection with H. sapiens. Whereas Darwin only tells us that the purpose of every adaptation and innovation was to enable every organism to survive until it died. Hardly total conflict.
DAVID: I'll repeat: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.
dhw: Survival IS the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to new species (as per Darwin), whether God designed them or not!
Without survival, life disappears. It must happen to continue evolution. I'll repeat again: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.[/i]
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: ALL brain expansions (including sapiens) came about because of an immediate requirement, after which the WHOLE brain was used until its capacity for complexification was exhausted, and (with the exception of sapiens) more cells were needed in response to new requirements.
DAVID: This is the natural, no God argument. It does not answer why the enlargement had to include a huge expansion of 200 cc in the mostly unused prefrontal and frontal conceptual areas.
It is an argument that allows for God as the designer of an autonomous mechanism for complexification (you agree) and expansion (you disagree). How huge is “huge”? All earlier expansions were around 200cc.
dhw: I keep reminding you that even early sapiens did not change his lifestyle, because lifestyle until modern sapiens consisted mainly of improving methods of survival. Example repeated ad nauseam: the hunter with a new spear remained a hunter.
DAVID: Of course this advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe. My thought is not that not many additional neurons were needed for that advance compared to current use for advancements.
How do you know the number of neurons needed hundreds of thousands of years ago to meet the requirements of new ideas, tools, clothes, conditions, use of fire etc.? There is no point in comparing earlier advances (revolutionary in their day!) to ours, which in any case are implemented by complexification, not expansion.
dhw: Your objections to this proposal have been 1) that the sapiens addition was too huge (it was the same as all the other expansions).
DAVID: Volume use, yes, but specified areas of frontal lobe enlargement totally ignored.
I have just pointed out to you that erectus’s frontal and temporal lobes expanded, and you agree that new tools required front lobe conceptualization, so earlier lobes would also have been expanded in order to implement new concepts.
You have left out 2) – no change in lifestyle.
3) dhw: it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?
DAVID: Mainly frontal expansion, and the main point of my argument is the ability to conceptualize new concepts there, with help from temporal area with language development putting ideas into words starting roughly 70,000 years ago, 250,000 years after the initial enlargement. Stasis! Temporal lobe has sensory, visual, auditory and some memory coordination uses, not conceptual thought origination! Why do you persist in ignoring specificity of area enlargements?
You have just agreed that “advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe”. Therefore the frontal lobe would also have expanded! You’ve switched your period of stasis from 300,000 years to 250,000 years, but it doesn’t make the slightest difference. Humans build on the advances made by their predecessors, and I am proposing that ALL their successive brains expanded, as concepts became more and more complex. The sapiens expansion of the frontal and temporal lobes would initially have been the response to some new concept, and then, according to you, there were no more major new concepts (hence stasis) till language came along 250,000 years later, which would have resulted in the complexification of the frontal and temporal lobes, as these could not expand any more without causing anatomical problems. What is your objection?
DAVID: If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.
dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense.
DAVID: What are you smoking to confuse my answer that way?
It was your answer to my comment: “…it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change in anticipation of them.” What does your answer mean, if not that you only need to believe that God designed the mechanism for my statement to make perfect sense? I have never discounted God as the designer.
Survival
dhw: […] This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.
DAVID: Without survival, life disappears. It must happen to continue evolution. I'll repeat again: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.
By survival you therefore mean that as long as there is one living organism, there is life on Earth. Nothing to do with evolution. Of course you can’t have evolution without living organisms, and survival - which means not dying - doesn’t drive evolution! You are messing about with words. What drives evolution is adaptations and innovations whose purpose is to enable organisms to survive, albeit only temporarily. Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 06, 2021, 21:57 (1109 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is an argument that allows for God as the designer of an autonomous mechanism for complexification (you agree) and expansion (you disagree). How huge is “huge”? All earlier expansions were around 200cc.
Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years
dhw: it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?
DAVID: Mainly frontal expansion, and the main point of my argument is the ability to conceptualize new concepts there, with help from temporal area with language development putting ideas into words starting roughly 70,000 years ago, 250,000 years after the initial enlargement. Stasis! Temporal lobe has sensory, visual, auditory and some memory coordination uses, not conceptual thought origination! Why do you persist in ignoring specificity of area enlargements?
dhw: You have just agreed that “advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe”. Therefore the frontal lobe would also have expanded! You’ve switched your period of stasis from 300,000 years to 250,000 years, but it doesn’t make the slightest difference. Humans build on the advances made by their predecessors, and I am proposing that ALL their successive brains expanded, as concepts became more and more complex. The sapiens expansion of the frontal and temporal lobes would initially have been the response to some new concept, and then, according to you, there were no more major new concepts (hence stasis) till language came along 250,000 years later, which would have resulted in the complexification of the frontal and temporal lobes, as these could not expand any more without causing anatomical problems. What is your objection?
Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus while at that time life's demands was approximately the same for both species. You won't admit it is over-expansion because that supports my claim God did it, plain and simple.
DAVID: If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense.
DAVID: What are you smoking to confuse my answer that way?
dhw: It was your answer to my comment: “…it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change in anticipation of them.” What does your answer mean, if not that you only need to believe that God designed the mechanism for my statement to make perfect sense? I have never discounted God as the designer.
My answer confused you. I haven't changed my interpretation of God's works
Survival
dhw: […] This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.DAVID: Without survival, life disappears. It must happen to continue evolution. I'll repeat again: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.
dhw: By survival you therefore mean that as long as there is one living organism, there is life on Earth. Nothing to do with evolution. Of course you can’t have evolution without living organisms, and survival - which means not dying - doesn’t drive evolution! You are messing about with words. What drives evolution is adaptations and innovations whose purpose is to enable organisms to survive, albeit only temporarily. Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.
In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survi val is guaranteed, not a struggle.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning
dhw: How huge is “huge”? [...]
DAVID: Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years.
Three websites that disagree:
Homo erectus Vs. Homo-Sapien: General Difference - Viva ...
https://vivadifferences.com/homo-erectus-vs-homo-sapien/
"The brain capacity was between 900 and 1200 cubic centimeters.."
The IQ & brain size of Homo erectus | Pumpkin Person
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/02/the-iq-brain-size-of-homo-erectus
“So near the end of their run, when Homo erectus averaged 1,186 cc….."
And another which I referred to earlier but can’t find now:
"The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens."
Please stop harping on about a huge leap. Our current size is no greater than that of late erectus.
dhw: You have just agreed that “advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe”. Therefore the frontal lobe would also have expanded! You’ve switched your period of stasis from 300,000 years to 250,000 years, but it doesn’t make the slightest difference. Humans build on the advances made by their predecessors, and I am proposing that ALL their successive brains expanded, as concepts became more and more complex. The sapiens expansion of the frontal and temporal lobes would initially have been the response to some new concept, and then, according to you, there were no more major new concepts (hence stasis) till language came along 250,000 years later, which would have resulted in the complexification of the frontal and temporal lobes, as these could not expand any more without causing anatomical problems. What is your objection?
DAVID: Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus while at that time life's demands was approximately the same for both species. You won't admit it is over-expansion because that supports my claim God did it, plain and simple.
"Huge" expansion dealt with above. Life’s demands = lifestyle, answered earlier: erectus and early sapiens’ lifestyle was based mainly on survival: “the hunter with a new spear is still a hunter”. There was no over-expansion – all cells were used, but new requirements were met through complexification, which proved so efficient that some previously essential cells became redundant. In any case, overexpansion would not support your claim that God did it! It would merely raise the question of why he gave sapiens cells that proved to be unnecessary! Meanwhile, you still refuse to tell us why a God who created an autonomous mechanism for complexification (you agree) could not have created an autonomous mechanism for expansion.
Survival
dhw: Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.
DAVID: In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survi val is guaranteed, not a struggle.
How can survival be “guaranteed” when all organisms die, and 99% of species have become extinct? Evolution does not mean “life”, it means adaptations and innovations which are intended to improve chances of survival and which lead to new species. And EVERY species struggles to survive, whether your God designs their adaptations/innovations or not. Why else would they try to eat and to avoid being eaten?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning 2
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 19:05 (1108 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 19:16
dhw: How huge is “huge”? [...]
DAVID: Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years.
dhw: Three websites that disagree:
Homo erectus Vs. Homo-Sapien: General Difference - Viva ...
https://vivadifferences.com/homo-erectus-vs-homo-sapien/
I've looked at this website. It says the largest erectus brain size reached 1,200 cc while sapiens was 1,350 cc. Also note the illustration of skull shape, and the small size of the frontal lobe area of erectus. You keep ignoring my point that it is the size of specific areas and their specific functional capacities that really counts.
This site tells the real story:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/brain.html
"Brain function is best inferred from the relative size and form of different brain areas. The erectus brain shows the characteristic "football" shape of hominid brains from Homo ergaster on up. This shape arises principally from a tandem expansion of the frontal (F) and occipital (back, O) lobes in relation to the rest of the brain.
"Increases in the frontal lobe appear in Australopithecus africanus and all subsequent hominid brains. This expansion signals a radical change in frontal lobe function, away from olfactory analysis toward complex abstract processing. In humans, the frontal lobes contribute heavily to social behavior and the planning of future actions.
"Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old. Language does not mean spoken language necessarily, but use of a syntax to interpret meaning from the order and form of two or more signs.
"The modern brain shows its greatest expansion in the middle parietal lobes (P). This expansion accounts for the rounded shape of human skulls in contrast to the flattened "football" form of skulls in earlier species, including Neandertals. Technological, abstract and computational thinking seems to arise in the parietal lobe, and this is the area of greatest relative difference between the two outlines. We might associate this parietal expansion with the appearance of remarkably diverse and refined tool cultures, and spoken language, about 90,000 years ago.
I'll admit I've simplified our discussion by using size only at times but what expands and what it functionally does is much more to the point. Your response?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning 2+
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 21:15 (1108 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: How huge is “huge”? [...]
DAVID: Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years.
dhw: Three websites that disagree:
Homo erectus Vs. Homo-Sapien: General Difference - Viva ...
https://vivadifferences.com/homo-erectus-vs-homo-sapien/
I've looked at this website. It says the largest erectus brain size reached 1,200 cc while sapiens was 1,350 cc. Also note the illustration of skull shape, and the small size of the frontal lobe area of erectus. You keep ignoring my point that it is the size of specific areas and their specific functional capacities that really counts.This site tells the real story:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/brain.html
"Brain function is best inferred from the relative size and form of different brain areas. The erectus brain shows the characteristic "football" shape of hominid brains from Homo ergaster on up. This shape arises principally from a tandem expansion of the frontal (F) and occipital (back, O) lobes in relation to the rest of the brain.
"Increases in the frontal lobe appear in Australopithecus africanus and all subsequent hominid brains. This expansion signals a radical change in frontal lobe function, away from olfactory analysis toward complex abstract processing. In humans, the frontal lobes contribute heavily to social behavior and the planning of future actions.
"Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old. Language does not mean spoken language necessarily, but use of a syntax to interpret meaning from the order and form of two or more signs.
"The modern brain shows its greatest expansion in the middle parietal lobes (P). This expansion accounts for the rounded shape of human skulls in contrast to the flattened "football" form of skulls in earlier species, including Neandertals. Technological, abstract and computational thinking seems to arise in the parietal lobe, and this is the area of greatest relative difference between the two outlines. We might associate this parietal expansion with the appearance of remarkably diverse and refined tool cultures, and spoken language, about 90,000 years ago.
I'll admit I've simplified our discussion by using size only at times but what expands and what it functionally does is much more to the point. Your response?
I'd like to add one more point on simply using volumes. Neanderthal brain size was bigger than ours! They didn't win.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
Part One
dhw: Please stop harping on about a huge leap. Our current size is no greater than that of late erectus.'
DAVID: I'll harp as much as I can. You have offered no real proof of your position about size while studiously ignoring function.
You keep dodging from size to function. I’ll deal with function later. My point here is that there is no huge leap in size:
DAVID: Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple millions of years.
You are talking specifically about size, you tell us that the current average is 1200 cc, and I am pointing out that erectus finished up with approx 1200 cc. I quoted three websites to support this figure.
Homo erectus Vs. Homo-Sapien: General Difference - Viva ...
https://vivadifferences.com/homo-erectus-vs-homo-sapien/
"The brain capacity was between 900 and 1200 cubic centimeters.."
DAVID: I've looked at this website. It says the largest erectus brain size reached 1,200 cc while sapiens was 1,350 cc.
Correct, and you pointed out that our current size is 1200 cc, and my point is there is no huge leap – even from 1200 to 1350. Erectus himself went from 900-1200.
DAVID: Also note the illustration of skull shape, and the small size of the frontal lobe area of erectus. You keep ignoring my point that it is the size of specific areas and their specific functional capacities that really counts.
I am not ignoring it. You keep focusing on the size of the leap, which is why I asked “how huge is huge”?
The IQ & brain size of Homo erectus | Pumpkin Person
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/02/the-iq-brain-size-of-homo-erectus
“So near the end of their run, when Homo erectus averaged 1,186 cc….."
DAVID: Why did you leave out the rest of the paragraph?
Because the rest of the paragraph tells us that erectus advanced from 885 to 1,186, and it finishes up with a sapiens average of 1376 (taken from one particular group of people), which is not far off 1350. It simply confirms what I have just said. There is no “unfair play”.
dhw: And another which I referred to earlier but can’t find now:
"The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens."
DAVID: I can't locate it either.
I didn’t make it up, and the point should be perfectly clear to you. There was no huge leap, so please stop insinuating that I am fiddling the figures (“unfair play”). We can now move on to function:
DAVID: This site tells the real story:
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/brain.html
QUOTE: "Brain function is best inferred from the relative size and form of different brain areas. The erectus brain shows the characteristic "football" shape of hominid brains from Homo ergaster on up. This shape arises principally from a tandem expansion of the frontal (F) and occipital (back, O) lobes in relation to the rest of the brain.
"Increases in the frontal lobe appear in Australopithecus africanus and all subsequent hominid brains. This expansion signals a radical change in frontal lobe function, away from olfactory analysis toward complex abstract processing. In humans, the frontal lobes contribute heavily to social behavior and the planning of future actions.”
And there in a nutshell is your answer. Both Australopithecus africanus and erectus show expansion of the frontal lobes “toward complex abstract reasoning”.
QUOTE: "Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old. Language does not mean spoken language necessarily, but use of a syntax to interpret meaning from the order and form of two or more signs.”
Their frontal lobes expanded and performed precisely the same function as ours, even to the extent that they may have had rudimentary forms of language.
QUOTE: "The modern brain shows its greatest expansion in the middle parietal lobes (P). This expansion accounts for the rounded shape of human skulls in contrast to the flattened "football" form of skulls in earlier species, including Neandertals. Technological, abstract and computational thinking seems to arise in the parietal lobe, and this is the area of greatest relative difference between the two outlines. We might associate this parietal expansion with the appearance of remarkably diverse and refined tool cultures, and spoken language, about 90,000 years ago."
I’ll have to leave it to you experts when it comes to naming which lobe does what, but it all fits in perfectly with lobes expanding throughout history as they implement what new requirements they have to meet, initially in what for us now seem rudimentary improvements. Whatever first caused the parietal expansion in sapiens would have sufficed for his way of life until the wave of new ideas and requirements resulted in enhanced complexification 90,000 years ago, and subsequently this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells became redundant. (Contd. in Part Two)
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
Part Two
DAVID: I'll admit I've simplified our discussion by using size only at times but what expands and what it functionally does is much more to the point. Your response?
Thank you for your admission. Modern research shows that the sapiens leap was no “huger” than erectus’s, and that hominid brains and homo brains expanded in precisely the same areas, performing precisely the same functions.
DAVID: I'd like to add one more point on simply using volumes. Neanderthal brain size was bigger than ours! They didn't win.
QUOTE: "Analyses of DNA found in human fossils from around that time — the oldest known human remains in Europe — suggest that interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neandertals, who were on the fast track to extinction, occurred more commonly than has often been assumed, two new studies suggest."
So now what is your theory: your God gave sapiens a bigger brain than he needed, and he gave Neanderthal an even bigger brain and then let him disappear (apart from leaving a few of his genes behind)? And all this is supposed to denote evidence of his “genomic pre-planning”? Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.
Survival
dhw: Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.
DAVID: In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survival is guaranteed, not a struggle.
dhw: How can survival be “guaranteed” when all organisms die, and 99% of species have become extinct? Evolution does not mean “life”, it means adaptations and innovations which are intended to improve chances of survival and which lead to new species. And EVERY species struggles to survive, whether your God designs their adaptations/innovations or not. Why else would they try to eat and to avoid being eaten?
DAVID: All living organisms want to live, but I don't see humans struggling to live as wild animals have to do. It seems God favored us over them.
Then perhaps you should watch the news or read the newspapers. But disregarding the natural catastrophes that take or threaten millions of human lives, our brilliant minds have ensured that the struggle is vastly more complex than that of wild animals, who do not find themselves in refugee camps, totalitarian states, bankruptcy courts etc. And why are you ignoring the fact that early sapiens and his human ancestors followed very similar lifestyles to those of wild animals, but simply used increasingly sophisticated weapons to obtain their meat? All this is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that evolutionary adaptations and innovations which led from bacteria to dinosaurs and humans served the purpose of improving chances of survival, as per Darwin, no matter whether they were designed by God or not.
DAVID: As for 99%, they have to go to make room, and are discarded as less complex models of evolutionary advances. God guarantees what He wishes to guarantee. Obvious.
What was the point of his directly designing 99% of species that would take up all that room and would then have to be discarded, if the only line of descent he wanted to design was the 1% from bacteria to humans? Please stop dodging, and please either accept the bold or give us a logical reason why you reject it.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 19:15 (1107 days ago) @ dhw
Part Two
DAVID: I'll admit I've simplified our discussion by using size only at times but what expands and what it functionally does is much more to the point. Your response?dhw: Thank you for your admission. Modern research shows that the sapiens leap was no “huger” than erectus’s, and that hominid brains and homo brains expanded in precisely the same areas, performing precisely the same functions.
DAVID: I'd like to add one more point on simply using volumes. Neanderthal brain size was bigger than ours! They didn't win.
QUOTE: "Analyses of DNA found in human fossils from around that time — the oldest known human remains in Europe — suggest that interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neandertals, who were on the fast track to extinction, occurred more commonly than has often been assumed, two new studies suggest."
dhw: So now what is your theory: your God gave sapiens a bigger brain than he needed, and he gave Neanderthal an even bigger brain and then let him disappear (apart from leaving a few of his genes behind)? And all this is supposed to denote evidence of his “genomic pre-planning”? Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.
You can't escape from the point that we've reached, why so much potential functionality from a small new need, much more than the new requirement should require, as shown by what happened much later after the recognized stasis period?
Survival
dhw: Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.DAVID: In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survival is guaranteed, not a struggle.
dhw: How can survival be “guaranteed” when all organisms die, and 99% of species have become extinct? Evolution does not mean “life”, it means adaptations and innovations which are intended to improve chances of survival and which lead to new species. And EVERY species struggles to survive, whether your God designs their adaptations/innovations or not. Why else would they try to eat and to avoid being eaten?
DAVID: All living organisms want to live, but I don't see humans struggling to live as wild animals have to do. It seems God favored us over them.
dhw: Then perhaps you should watch the news or read the newspapers. But disregarding the natural catastrophes that take or threaten millions of human lives, our brilliant minds have ensured that the struggle is vastly more complex than that of wild animals, who do not find themselves in refugee camps, totalitarian states, bankruptcy courts etc. And why are you ignoring the fact that early sapiens and his human ancestors followed very similar lifestyles to those of wild animals, but simply used increasingly sophisticated weapons to obtain their meat? All this is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that evolutionary adaptations and innovations which led from bacteria to dinosaurs and humans served the purpose of improving chances of survival, as per Darwin, no matter whether they were designed by God or not.
DAVID: As for 99%, they have to go to make room, and are discarded as less complex models of evolutionary advances. God guarantees what He wishes to guarantee. Obvious.
dhw: What was the point of his directly designing 99% of species that would take up all that room and would then have to be discarded, if the only line of descent he wanted to design was the 1% from bacteria to humans? Please stop dodging, and please either accept the bold or give us a logical reason why you reject it.
Same old logical point: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, per logical Adler and me. My view is God guaranteed survival at each stage of evolution, so survival is not the driving force of evolution.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 18:51 (1107 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I didn’t make it up, and the point should be perfectly clear to you. There was no huge leap, so please stop insinuating that I am fiddling the figures (“unfair play”). We can now move on to function:
There was a huge leap, despite your byplay in numbers.
dhw: The IQ & brain size of Homo erectus | Pumpkin Person
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/02/the-iq-brain-size-of-homo-erectus
“So near the end of their run, when Homo erectus averaged 1,186 cc….."
DAVID: Why did you leave out the rest of the paragraph?
dhw: Because the rest of the paragraph tells us that erectus advanced from 885 to 1,186, and it finishes up with a sapiens average of 1376 (taken from one particular group of people), which is not far off 1350. It simply confirms what I have just said. There is no “unfair play”.
The bold in unfair play:
According to research cited by scholar Richard Lynn, Homo erectus emerged 1.7 million years ago with an average brain size of 885 cc and by 200,000 years ago, their brains had increased to 1,186 cc. How does this compare to modern Western brains? Data from scholar J.P. Rushton shows that Caucasian enlisted men in the U.S. army have a mean cranial capacity of 1468 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 91) and for Caucasian women the mean and SD are 1284 and 90 respectively. From here it can be deduced that a sex-combined sample (that was 50% men, 50% women) would have a mean and SD of 1376 and 137 respectively.
US Army comes from all parts of the population and Caucasian women are representative of sapiens. In men: 1,468 cc-1376 cc =s 96 cc extra you blithely ignore.
dhw: I’ll have to leave it to you experts when it comes to naming which lobe does what, but it all fits in perfectly with lobes expanding throughout history as they implement what new requirements they have to meet, initially in what for us now seem rudimentary improvements. Whatever first caused the parietal expansion in sapiens would have sufficed for his way of life until the wave of new ideas and requirements resulted in enhanced complexification 90,000 years ago, and subsequently this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells became redundant. (Contd. in Part Two)
We agree brains enlarged. Your point is from need, but you have never explained why need produced more expansion than needed at the time point of expansion. I agree volume is just a substitute for the real issue which is the potential for new functionality in the newly enlarged areas. They all come oversized for current need.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 22:14 (1107 days ago) @ David Turell
A careful study of early Homo brain cases raises interesting issues:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6538/165?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2021-04-08...
Pattern and timing of brain reorganization in early Homo
Cranio-cerebral topography reveals that the earliest members of the genus Homo had a primitive frontal lobe organization, featuring an ape-like anterior location of the inferior precentral sulcus relative to the coronal suture. Our data indicate that the derived frontal lobe organization emerged relatively late during the evolution of Homo, between 1.7 and 1.5 Ma—not at the transition from Australopithecus to Homo, but clearly later than the first dispersals of Homo from Africa. Endocranial shape change associated with frontal lobe reorganization reveals differential expansion of the inferior prefrontal cortex and also of the posterior parietal and occipital cortex. This pattern indicates that the anterior and posterior cortical association areas evolved in tandem rather than in sequence. We infer from this that endocasts of early Homo predating frontal lobe reorganization potentially exhibit imprints of remnant ape-like lunate sulci in the parieto-occipital region. (my bold)
Comment: This paragraph tells us our frontal lobes started out in a primitive form but enlargement was all over the organ all at once as the bold indicates.
***
Neurofunctional implications
In modern human brains, the inferior frontal lobe is an important neurofunctional substrate for advanced social cognition, toolmaking and tool use, and articulated language. We may thus ask whether its evolutionary reorganization around 1.7 to 1.5 Ma was accompanied by major changes in technocultural performance. The earliest evidence for Mode II (Acheulean) technocultures in Africa largely coincides with incipient frontal lobe reorganization, and Mode I and Mode II lithic technologies were used concurrently during the critical time period. We hypothesize that this pattern reflects interdependent processes of brain-culture coevolution, where cultural innovation triggered changes in cortical interconnectivity and ultimately in external frontal lobe topography. On the other hand, the cerebral innovations that characterize Homo at ~1.5 Ma might have constituted the foundations of the “language-ready” brain of later Homo species. (my bold)
Comment: As we have discussed brain enlargement is associated with new artifacts and the authors imply that new uses caused changes in brain shape, but not size. And my bold shows the authors were certainly aware of what we refer to as stasis with future use coming later, while obviously the new-sized brain is prepared for it..
Evolution: new evidence of pre-planning
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 23:21 (1107 days ago) @ David Turell
The eye brain circuitry origination started in the seas:
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-discovery-literally-textbook.html
"The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.
"Michigan State University's Ingo Braasch has helped an international research team show that this connection scheme was already present in ancient fish at least 450 million years ago. That makes it about 100 million years older than previously believed.
***
"This work, published in the journal Science on April 8, also means that this type of eye-brain connection predates animals living on land. The existing theory had been that this connection first evolved in terrestrial creatures and, from there, carried on into humans where scientists believe it helps with our depth perception and 3D vision.
***
"In a zebrafish, each eye has one nerve connecting it to the opposite side of the fish's brain. That is, one nerve connects the left eye to the brain's right hemisphere and another nerve connects its right eye to the left side of its brain.
"The other, more "ancient" fish do things differently. They have what's called ipsilateral or bilateral visual projections. Here, each eye has two nerve connections, one going to either side of the brain, which is also what humans have.
"Armed with an understanding of genetics and evolution, the team could look back in time to estimate when these bilateral projections first appeared. Looking forward, the team is excited to build on this work to better understand and explore the biology of visual systems.
***
"'We're finding more and more that many things that we thought evolved relatively late are actually very old," Braasch said, which actually makes him feel a little more connected to nature. "I learn something about myself when looking at these weird fish and understanding how old parts of our own bodies are. I'm excited to tell the story of eye evolution with a new twist this semester in our Comparative Anatomy class.'" (my bold)
Comment: the bold is certainly in support of pre-planning
Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 23:38 (1107 days ago) @ David Turell
A type has been found, and are their own fossils:
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-fossils-microbe-evolutionary-stasis-millions.html
"It's like something out of science fiction. Research led by Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences has revealed that a group of microbes, which feed off chemical reactions triggered by radioactivity, have been at an evolutionary standstill for millions of years.
***
"The microbe, Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator, was first discovered in 2008 by a team of scientists, led by Tullis Onstott, a co-author on the new study. Found in a South African gold mine almost two miles beneath the Earth's surface, the microbes acquire the energy they need from chemical reactions caused by the natural radioactive decay in minerals. They inhabit water-filled cavities inside rocks in a completely independent ecosystem, free from reliance on sunlight or any other organisms.
"Because of their unique biology and isolation, the authors of the new study wanted to understand how the microbes evolved. They searched other environmental samples from deep underground and discovered Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator in Siberia and California, as well as in several additional mines in South Africa. Since each environment was chemically different, these discoveries gave the researchers a unique opportunity to look for differences that have emerged between the populations over their millions of years of evolution.
***
"Using advanced tools that allow scientists to read the genetic blueprints of individual cells, the researchers examined the genomes of 126 microbes obtained from three continents. Surprisingly, they all turned out to be almost identical.
***
"Scientists found no evidence that the microbes can travel long distances, survive on the surface, or live long in the presence of oxygen. So, once researchers determined that there was no possibility the samples were cross-contaminated during research, plausible explanations dwindled.
"'The best explanation we have at the moment is that these microbes did not change much since their physical locations separated during the breakup of supercontinent Pangaea, about 175 million years ago," Stepanauskas said. "They appear to be living fossils from those days. That sounds quite crazy and goes against the contemporary understanding of microbial evolution."
***
"Stepanauskas and his colleagues hypothesize the standstill evolution they discovered is due to the microbe's powerful protections against mutation, which have essentially locked their genetic code. " (my bold)
Comment: not every twig of the bush of life is driven to adapt. Perhaps mutation is not blocked, just not necessary. Perhaps not required by God.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 08, 2021, 23:50 (1107 days ago) @ David Turell
Another view of the early homo brain study with nice illustrations:
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-modern-human-brain-africa-million.html
An international team led by Christoph Zollikofer and Marcia Ponce de León from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Zurich (UZH) has now succeeded in answering these questions. "Our analyses suggest that modern human brain structures emerged only 1.5 to 1.7 million years ago in African Homo populations," Zollikofer says. The researchers used computed tomography to examine the skulls of Homo fossils that lived in Africa and Asia 1 to 2 million years ago. They then compared the fossil data with reference data from great apes and humans.
Apart from the size, the human brain differs from that of the great apes particularly in the location and organization of individual brain regions. "The features typical to humans are primarily those regions in the frontal lobe that are responsible for planning and executing complex patterns of thought and action, and ultimately also for language," notes first author Marcia Ponce de León. Since these areas are significantly larger in the human brain, the adjacent brain regions shifted further back.
The first Homo populations outside Africa—in Dmanisi in what is now Georgia—had brains that were just as primitive as their African relatives. It follows, therefore, that the brains of early humans did not become particularly large or particularly modern until around 1.7 million years ago. However, these early humans were quite capable of making numerous tools, adapting to the new environmental conditions of Eurasia, developing animal food sources, and caring for group members in need of help.
During this period, the cultures in Africa became more complex and diverse, as evidenced by the discovery of various types of stone tools. The researchers think that biological and cultural evolution are probably interdependent. "It is likely that the earliest forms of human language also developed during this period," says anthropologist Ponce de León. Fossils found on Java provide evidence that the new populations were extremely successful: Shortly after their first appearance in Africa, they had already spread to Southeast Asia.
(my bold)
Comment: adds no new facts but is a clear discussion. Larger brain capacity brings new artifacts as in the bold
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: I didn’t make it up, and the point should be perfectly clear to you. There was no huge leap, so please stop insinuating that I am fiddling the figures (“unfair play”). We can now move on to function:
DAVID: There was a huge leap, despite your byplay in numbers. The bold in unfair play:
QUOTE: According to research cited by scholar Richard Lynn, Homo erectus emerged 1.7 million years ago with an average brain size of 885 cc and by 200,000 years ago, their brains had increased to 1,186 cc. How does this compare to modern Western brains? Data from scholar J.P. Rushton shows that Caucasian enlisted men in the U.S. army have a mean cranial capacity of 1468 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 91) and for Caucasian women the mean and SD are 1284 and 90 respectively. From here it can be deduced that a sex-combined sample (that was 50% men, 50% women) would have a mean and SD of 1376 and 137 respectively.
DAVID: US Army comes from all parts of the population and Caucasian women are representative of sapiens. In men: 1,468 cc-1376 cc =s 96 cc extra you blithely ignore.
You have "blithely ignored" the fact that an average is the figure between the highest and the lowest. The women were 1284. 1468 + 1284 = 2752, giving an average of 1376, which is not far off the average of 1350 generally recognized as the average capacity of the sapiens brain. However, this is confusing, bearing in mind shrinkage, which led you to make a statement you have "blithely ignored":
DAVID: “Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting a couple of million years”. And then you "blithely ignored" two other statements:
QUOTE: "The brain capacity [of erectus] was between 900 and 1200 cubic centimeters.."
How does 1200 cc provide a 20% enlargement of 1200 cc?
QUOTE: "The upper part of the maximum estimated range for H. erectus endocranial capacity (1,200 cubic cm) thus overlaps with the lower values expected for Homo sapiens."
Even if there is some confusion over the figures, there is simply no point in making the bald statement that there was a huge expansion of 20%, especially bearing in mind that erectus’s expansion was 33%.
DAVID: We agree brains enlarged. Your point is from need, but you have never explained why need produced more expansion than needed at the time point of expansion.
I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that the initial requirements did NOT produce more expansion than needed at the time! That makes no sense! The new requirements would have triggered the expansion needed for their fulfilment and no more than that. From then on, either there was stasis (no more special requirements) or additional requirements could be dealt with by complexification until more cells were needed. That would explain erectus’s expansion, but as sapiens could not expand any more, the brain’s powers of complexification took over. And complexification proved so efficient that previously essential cells were no longer needed (shrinkage).
You have now kindly provided us with three articles, all of which confirm that earlier expansion took place in the same areas with the same functions as our own. I will edit the various quotes:
EDITED QUOTES: Cranio-cerebral topography reveals that the earliest members of the genus Homo had a primitive frontal lobe organization. […] Endocranial shape change associated with frontal lobe reorganization reveals differential expansion of the inferior prefrontal cortex and also of the posterior parietal and occipital cortex. (dhw’s bold)
QUOTE: In modern human brains, the inferior frontal lobe is an important neurofunctional substrate for advanced social cognition, toolmaking and tool use, and articulated language. We may thus ask whether its evolutionary reorganization around 1.7 to 1.5 Ma was accompanied by major changes in technocultural performance.
The answer is that they were, and any of these could have triggered the expansions.
QUOTE: We hypothesize that this pattern reflects interdependent processes of brain-culture coevolution, where cultural innovation triggered changes in cortical interconnectivity and ultimately in external frontal lobe topography. [dhw’s bold] On the other hand, the cerebral innovations that characterize Homo at ~1.5 Ma might have constituted the foundations of the “language-ready” brain of later Homo species. [David’s bold]
You could hardly have a clearer confirmation of the process I have been describing. The brain did not expand or complexify in advance of innovation: the changes were triggered by innovation. And the brain changes would have progressively led to the language-ready brain – not just of sapiens but of earlier homos, as confirmed here:
QUOTE: "Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old.
Please note the expansion of the frontal lobe in hominids. (Continued in Part Two)
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
PART TWO
QUOTE: It follows, therefore, that the brains of early humans did not become particularly large or particularly modern until around 1.7 million years ago. However, these early humans were quite capable of making numerous tools, adapting to the new environmental conditions of Eurasia, developing animal food sources, and caring for group members in need of help.
All of these could have “triggered” the various expansions.
QUOTE: During this period, the cultures in Africa became more complex and diverse, as evidenced by the discovery of various types of stone tools. The researchers think that biological and cultural evolution are probably interdependent. "It is likely that the earliest forms of human language also developed during this period,"
And so we appear to have a smooth development, with areas of the brain complexifying or expanding, as “triggered” by the innovations of the time. There is no mention of giant leaps or of excessive cells, and why should there be? It all makes perfect sense: innovations trigger expansions and complexifications and restructuring in between periods of stasis, when there are no innovations, and future use by sapiens – e.g. an infinitely more complex language than that of earlier humans – will entail further complexification and restructuring of the existing cells because further expansion is not possible.
DAVID: I’d like to add one more point on simply using Volumes. Neanderthasl brain size was bigger than ours! They didn’t win.
dhw: So now what is your theory: your God gave sapiens a bigger brain than he needed, and he gave Neanderthal an even bigger brain and then let him disappear (apart from leaving a few of his genes behind)? And all this is supposed to denote evidence of his “genomic pre-planning”? Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.
DAVID: You can't escape from the point that we've reached, why so much potential functionality from a small new need, much more than the new requirement should require, as shown by what happened much later after the recognized stasis period?
Nobody knows what the new requirements were for ANY of the brain expansions (I listed some, and so did the articles), but they were obviously NOT small. You keep assuming that the brain expanded excessively in anticipation of bigger requirements to come. Why do you find this more logical than the brain expanding to meet a current need, then complexifying or expanding to meet new needs, though these may not have arisen for thousands of years (stasis)? And why do you think it sounds like good planning to have your God giving sapiens all those unnecessary cells that were later jettisoned (shrinkage), or specially designing Neanderthal’s even bigger brain and then killing him off?
Survival
dhw: All this is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is that evolutionary adaptations and innovations which led from bacteria to dinosaurs and humans served the purpose of improving chances of survival, as per Darwin, no matter whether they were designed by God or not.b
DAVID: As for 99%, they have to go to make room, and are discarded as less complex models of evolutionary advances. God guarantees what He wishes to guarantee. Obvious.
dhw: What was the point of his directly designing 99% of species that would take up all that room and would then have to be discarded, if the only line of descent he wanted to design was the 1% from bacteria to humans? Please stop dodging, and please either accept the bold or give us a logical reason why you reject it.
DAVID: Same old logical point: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, per logical Adler and me. My view is God guaranteed survival at each stage of evolution, so survival is not the driving force of evolution.
Your point is also that your God chose to evolve (= directly design) every other species from bacteria, including the 99% that had no connection with us. And what survival did God “guarantee”, since all organisms die, and 99% of his specially designed species have died out? Survival is not the driving force – the QUEST for survival is the driving force, and if God exists and if God really designs every single adaptation and innovation (which is pure theory), then even in your theory he designs them in order to enable organisms to fulfil the quest for survival. There is no conflict with Darwin’s theory. The conflict only arises when it comes to HOW the quest is fulfilled. You say through direct design by God, and Darwin says it’s through random mutations and natural selection – but leaves his options open as to the source of this mechanism.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
by David Turell , Friday, April 09, 2021, 19:06 (1106 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO
QUOTE: During this period, the cultures in Africa became more complex and diverse, as evidenced by the discovery of various types of stone tools. The researchers think that biological and cultural evolution are probably interdependent. "It is likely that the earliest forms of human language also developed during this period,"
dhw: And so we appear to have a smooth development, with areas of the brain complexifying or expanding, as “triggered” by the innovations of the time. There is no mention of giant leaps or of excessive cells, and why should there be?
You are reading Darwinist material which is what I am forced to present in these discussions. Other articles presented here discuss the known volume difference in Erectus and sapiens.
dhw: It all makes perfect sense: innovations trigger expansions and complexifications and restructuring in between periods of stasis, when there are no innovations, and future use by sapiens – e.g. an infinitely more complex language than that of earlier humans – will entail further complexification and restructuring of the existing cells because further expansion is not possible.
The bold is your totally unproven theory as to why our brain is no bigger. God gave us an oversized one to begin with and it shrunk, remember?
DAVID: You can't escape from the point that we've reached, why so much potential functionality from a small new need, much more than the new requirement should require, as shown by what happened much later after the recognized stasis period?
dhw: Nobody knows what the new requirements were for ANY of the brain expansions (I listed some, and so did the articles), but they were obviously NOT small. You keep assuming that the brain expanded excessively in anticipation of bigger requirements to come. Why do you find this more logical than the brain expanding to meet a current need, then complexifying or expanding to meet new needs,
The brain itself would have to know in advance how to expand in size and wiring complexity to accommodate needed abstract thoughts for future designs. I cannot see a natural cause as you wish, God does it.
dhw: And why do you think it sounds like good planning to have your God giving sapiens all those unnecessary cells that were later jettisoned (shrinkage), or specially designing Neanderthal’s even bigger brain and then killing him off?
As for sapiens brain, you have forgotten free will. God would not know just how we would use the bigger brain, so as above, it arrived oversized. Why would your natural mechanism arrive at oversize? Exuberance of growth? As for Neanderthal, God dos not kill, He allowed this side twig to die off by themselves as inadequate to proceed. Survival is guaranteed when necessary for His goal, us.
Survival
dhw: What was the point of his directly designing 99% of species that would take up all that room and would then have to be discarded, if the only line of descent he wanted to design was the 1% from bacteria to humans? Please stop dodging, and please either accept the bold or give us a logical reason why you reject it.
DAVID: Same old logical point: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, per logical Adler and me. My view is God guaranteed survival at each stage of evolution, so survival is not the driving force of evolution.
dhw: Your point is also that your God chose to evolve (= directly design) every other species from bacteria, including the 99% that had no connection with us. And what survival did God “guarantee”, since all organisms die, and 99% of his specially designed species have died out?
God guaranteed survival for those new steps required to reach the next necessary steps to reach His goal. The 99% gone were not wasted but necessary steps in any evolutio9ary mechanism used to produce new forms, a logic you remain blinded to.
dhw: Survival is not the driving force – the QUEST for survival is the driving force, and if God exists and if God really designs every single adaptation and innovation (which is pure theory), then even in your theory he designs them in order to enable organisms to fulfil the quest for survival. There is no conflict with Darwin’s theory. The conflict only arises when it comes to HOW the quest is fulfilled. You say through direct design by God, and Darwin says it’s through random mutations and natural selection – but leaves his options open as to the source of this mechanism.
The bold makes no sense, as the 'source' is natural random mutation and natural selection.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Friday, April 09, 2021, 15:49 (1106 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We agree brains enlarged. Your point is from need, but you have never explained why need produced more expansion than needed at the time point of expansion.
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that the initial requirements did NOT produce more expansion than needed at the time! That makes no sense! The new requirements would have triggered the expansion needed for their fulfilment and no more than that. From then on, either there was stasis (no more special requirements) or additional requirements could be dealt with by complexification until more cells were needed. That would explain erectus’s expansion, but as sapiens could not expand any more, the brain’s powers of complexification took over. And complexification proved so efficient that previously essential cells were no longer needed (shrinkage).
The bold is not a fact but your repeated theory. The shrinkage makes the point that God gave us a brain sufficient for all future needs. If we added another 200 cc (as in our difference with erectus) we could easily handle the new hat size with our current structure. This directly relates to the language discussion below.
You have now kindly provided us with three articles, all of which confirm that earlier expansion took place in the same areas with the same functions as our own. I will edit the various quotes:EDITED QUOTES: Cranio-cerebral topography reveals that the earliest members of the genus Homo had a primitive frontal lobe organization. […] Endocranial shape change associated with frontal lobe reorganization reveals differential expansion of the inferior prefrontal cortex and also of the posterior parietal and occipital cortex. (dhw’s bold)
QUOTE: In modern human brains, the inferior frontal lobe is an important neurofunctional substrate for advanced social cognition, toolmaking and tool use, and articulated language. We may thus ask whether its evolutionary reorganization around 1.7 to 1.5 Ma was accompanied by major changes in technocultural performance.
dhw: The answer is that they were, and any of these could have triggered the expansions.
Or the result of it. Still chicken or egg.
QUOTE: We hypothesize that this pattern reflects interdependent processes of brain-culture coevolution, where cultural innovation triggered changes in cortical interconnectivity and ultimately in external frontal lobe topography. [dhw’s bold] On the other hand, the cerebral innovations that characterize Homo at ~1.5 Ma might have constituted the foundations of the “language-ready” brain of later Homo species. [David’s bold]dhw: You could hardly have a clearer confirmation of the process I have been describing. The brain did not expand or complexify in advance of innovation: the changes were triggered by innovation. And the brain changes would have progressively led to the language-ready brain – not just of sapiens but of earlier homos, as confirmed here:
But you skip over the language ready comment, my bold which makes my point
QUOTE: "Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old.
The bold in this quote again supports my point, enlarged and complex, but waiting to be used.
Please note the expansion of the frontal lobe in hominids. (Continued in Part Two)
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
This thread is getting overloaded, and I’ll try to condense it eventually!
DAVID: We agree brains enlarged. Your point is from need, but you have never explained why need produced more expansion than needed at the time point of expansion.
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that the initial requirements did NOT produce more expansion than needed at the time! That makes no sense! The new requirements would have triggered the expansion needed for their fulfilment and no more than that. From then on, either there was stasis (no more special requirements) or additional requirements could be dealt with by complexification until more cells were needed. That would explain erectus’s expansion, but as sapiens could not expand any more, the brain’s powers of complexification took over. And complexification proved so efficient that previously essential cells were no longer needed (shrinkage).
DAVID: The bold is not a fact but your repeated theory. The shrinkage makes the point that God gave us a brain sufficient for all future needs. If we added another 200 cc (as in our difference with erectus) we could easily handle the new hat size with our current structure. This directly relates to the language discussion below.
Yes, it is a theory. Nobody knows the facts. But we know that the brain did not expand any more, and complexification took over. What is your explanation? The shrinkage makes the point that after complexification, certain cells became redundant. According to you, your God gave us a brain that was MORE than sufficient for our needs! Why? Yes, we could handle the new hat size, so it makes perfect sense that the now missing cells were necessary when they were first added, and the skull and the rest of our anatomy had adapted to the new size.
dhw: You have now kindly provided us with three articles, all of which confirm that earlier expansion took place in the same areas with the same functions as our own. I will edit the various quotes:
EDITED QUOTES: Cranio-cerebral topography reveals that the earliest members of the genus Homo had a primitive frontal lobe organization. […] Endocranial shape change associated with frontal lobe reorganization reveals differential expansion of the inferior prefrontal cortex and also of the posterior parietal and occipital cortex. (dhw’s bold)
QUOTE: In modern human brains, the inferior frontal lobe is an important neurofunctional substrate for advanced social cognition, toolmaking and tool use, and articulated language. We may thus ask whether its evolutionary reorganization around 1.7 to 1.5 Ma was accompanied by major changes in technocultural performance.
dhw: The answer is that they were, and any of these could have triggered the expansions.
DAVID: Or the result of it. Still chicken or egg.
Correct. Nobody knows, and that is why we have all the different theories. That is why I am testing my own against the findings of all these professionals. So far it has passed with flying colours.
QUOTE: We hypothesize that this pattern reflects interdependent processes of brain-culture coevolution, where cultural innovation triggered changes in cortical interconnectivity and ultimately in external frontal lobe topography. [dhw’s bold] On the other hand, the cerebral innovations that characterize Homo at ~1.5 Ma might have constituted the foundations of the “language-ready” brain of later Homo species. [David’s bold]
dhw: You could hardly have a clearer confirmation of the process I have been describing. The brain did not expand or complexify in advance of innovation: the changes were triggered by innovation. And the brain changes would have progressively led to the language-ready brain – not just of sapiens but of earlier homos, as confirmed here:
DAVID: But you skip over the language ready comment, my bold which makes my point.
Your point has always been that major changes were necessary to mouth, lips, larynx and the vocal organs to allow for sapiens speech. The bold emphasizes that 1.5 million years ago the cerebral innovations might have constituted the foundations of our language-ready brain. In other words, there was no great leap from zilch to sapiens speech, but a gradual refinement of existing structures.
QUOTE: "Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old.
DAVID: The bold in this quote again supports my point, enlarged and complex, but waiting to be used.
They were NOT as enlarged and as complex as ours – they laid the foundations! Please read the articles you quote: “Increases in the frontal lobe appear in Australopithecus africanus and all subsequent hominid brains.” Africanus brain capacity was about 400-500 cc. Now all of a sudden you think the mechanism for sapiens language was waiting to be used!
(Continued in Part Two)
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
PART TWO
QUOTE: During this period, the cultures in Africa became more complex and diverse, as evidenced by the discovery of various types of stone tools. The researchers think that biological and cultural evolution are probably interdependent. "It is likely that the earliest forms of human language also developed during this period."
dhw: And so we appear to have a smooth development, with areas of the brain complexifying or expanding, as “triggered” by the innovations of the time. There is no mention of giant leaps or of excessive cells, and why should there be?
DAVID: You are reading Darwinist material which is what I am forced to present in these discussions. Other articles presented here discuss the known volume difference in Erectus and sapiens.
Why must you bring Darwin into it? Are you now telling us that the tools were not discovered, or that they did not coincide with changes to the brain? I’m not disagreeing about volume difference if the experts agree that erectus finished on an average 1200 cc and sapiens went up to an average of 1350 cc. But I will certainly dispute that this was a “huge” gap and therefore only God could have engineered it. Erectus remained erectus but managed an increase of 300 cc.
DAVID: You can't escape from the point that we've reached, why so much potential functionality from a small new need, much more than the new requirement should require, as shown by what happened much later after the recognized stasis period?
dhw: Nobody knows what the new requirements were for ANY of the brain expansions (I listed some, and so did the articles), but they were obviously NOT small. You keep assuming that the brain expanded excessively in anticipation of bigger requirements to come. Why do you find this more logical than the brain expanding to meet a current need, then complexifying or expanding to meet new needs?
DAVID: The brain itself would have to know in advance how to expand in size and wiring complexity to accommodate needed abstract thoughts for future designs. I cannot see a natural cause as you wish, God does it.
Yes, the cells that make up the brain would know when to add to their number in order to meet new requirements. The intelligence required to do this may well have been given to them by your God, just as you think he gave them the ability to complexify.
DAVID: As for sapiens brain, you have forgotten free will. God would not know just how we would use the bigger brain, so as above, it arrived oversized.
So God had no idea how many cells we would need in order to exercise our free will, and therefore gave us more than we needed. And this seems more likely to you than your God giving us a mechanism that would produce new cells when needed, and would discard cells when they were no longer needed.
The new article simply repeats the findings of the others:
QUOTE: "The scientists focused on the brain’s frontal lobes, which are linked with complex mental tasks such as toolmaking and language. Early Homo from Dmanisi and Africa still apparently retained a great ape–like organization of the frontal lobe 1.8 million years ago.
But the frontal lobe was there, and apparently there are human artefacts dating from back then. So here we have the primitive beginnings of expansion/complexification through a far smaller and simpler frontal lobe.
QUOTE: "Future research can investigate what evolutionary pressures might have driven the emergence of modern human–like brain organization. Ultimately such research could reveal how brain reorganization is related to the evolution of language and symbolic thought.
As I keep saying, nobody knows what new requirements caused the brain to keep expanding and/or reorganizing itself, but clearly the evolution of language and symbolic thought started with our early ancestors – there was no sudden leap.
DAVID: This article, like dhw, looks for natural pressures to force evolution. Note my bolds: language and symbolic thought took 245,000 years to appear after sapiens first arrived on Earth.
No they didn’t. You have missed the whole point of all the articles, which is that rudimentary forms of language and symbolic thought must have been present in our early ancestors. The frontal lobe (if we take that as the crucial area of the brain) gradually expanded and complexified, with an accompanying expansion and complexification of its products, as confirmed by the history of human artefacts, though there is a whole list of other possible causes. The sudden leap made by sapiens after 245,000 years of stasis was a number of new ideas and requirements, but instead of the brain expanding, it enhanced its ability to complexify. Erectus hung around for 2 million years, so I don’t know why you’re making such a fuss over 245,000. (See also the evolution of the eye under “Miscellany". I have also shifted "Survival" to that thread.)
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2021, 19:32 (1105 days ago) @ dhw
PART TWO
dhw: Nobody knows what the new requirements were for ANY of the brain expansions (I listed some, and so did the articles), but they were obviously NOT small. You keep assuming that the brain expanded excessively in anticipation of bigger requirements to come. Why do you find this more logical than the brain expanding to meet a current need, then complexifying or expanding to meet new needs?
DAVID: The brain itself would have to know in advance how to expand in size and wiring complexity to accommodate needed abstract thoughts for future designs. I cannot see a natural cause as you wish, God does it.
dhw: Yes, the cells that make up the brain would know when to add to their number in order to meet new requirements. The intelligence required to do this may well have been given to them by your God, just as you think he gave them the ability to complexify.
You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.
DAVID: As for sapiens brain, you have forgotten free will. God would not know just how we would use the bigger brain, so as above, it arrived oversized.dhw: So God had no idea how many cells we would need in order to exercise our free will, and therefore gave us more than we needed. And this seems more likely to you than your God giving us a mechanism that would produce new cells when needed, and would discard cells when they were no longer needed.
Much more likely for my version of a God in control.
dhw: The new article simply repeats the findings of the others:
QUOTE: "Future research can investigate what evolutionary pressures might have driven the emergence of modern human–like brain organization. Ultimately such research could reveal how brain reorganization is related to the evolution of language and symbolic thought.
dhw: As I keep saying, nobody knows what new requirements caused the brain to keep expanding and/or reorganizing itself, but clearly the evolution of language and symbolic thought started with our early ancestors – there was no sudden leap.
And the future use already had changes well aforehand. God designs and plans for the future needs.
DAVID: This article, like dhw, looks for natural pressures to force evolution. Note my bolds: language and symbolic thought took 245,000 years to appear after sapiens first arrived on Earth.dhw: No they didn’t. You have missed the whole point of all the articles, which is that rudimentary forms of language and symbolic thought must have been present in our early ancestors.
Of course they were in a small way in preparation for future massive use by a much bigger brain given to us by God.
dhw: The frontal lobe (if we take that as the crucial area of the brain) gradually expanded and complexified, with an accompanying expansion and complexification of its products, as confirmed by the history of human artefacts, though there is a whole list of other possible causes. The sudden leap made by sapiens after 245,000 years of stasis was a number of new ideas and requirements, but instead of the brain expanding, it enhanced its ability to complexify. Erectus hung around for 2 million years, so I don’t know why you’re making such a fuss over 245,000. (See also the evolution of the eye under “Miscellany". I have also shifted "Survival" to that thread.)
Same sidestep. We arrived with an extra 150 cc we eventually discarded. God giving us the extra cells allowed us the freedom to modify ourselves brain by our own wishes
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2021, 19:18 (1105 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: We hypothesize that this pattern reflects interdependent processes of brain-culture coevolution, where cultural innovation triggered changes in cortical interconnectivity and ultimately in external frontal lobe topography. [dhw’s bold] On the other hand, the cerebral innovations that characterize Homo at ~1.5 Ma might have constituted the foundations of the “language-ready” brain of later Homo species. [David’s bold]
dhw: You could hardly have a clearer confirmation of the process I have been describing. The brain did not expand or complexify in advance of innovation: the changes were triggered by innovation. And the brain changes would have progressively led to the language-ready brain – not just of sapiens but of earlier homos, as confirmed here:
DAVID: But you skip over the language ready comment, my bold which makes my point.
dhw: Your point has always been that major changes were necessary to mouth, lips, larynx and the vocal organs to allow for sapiens speech. The bold emphasizes that 1.5 million years ago the cerebral innovations might have constituted the foundations of our language-ready brain. In other words, there was no great leap from zilch to sapiens speech, but a gradual refinement of existing structures.
You cannot denigrate my point that the preparatory mechanism was in place 1.5 million years ago.
QUOTE: "Terrence Deacon proposed that the frontal lobe is the developmental and cognitive key to human language ability. If so, frontal lobe expansion implies that hominid language abilities may be quite old, perhaps predating the toolmaking abilities that appear in stone artifacts at least 2.4 million years old.DAVID: The bold in this quote again supports my point, enlarged and complex, but waiting to be used.
dhw: They were NOT as enlarged and as complex as ours – they laid the foundations! Please read the articles you quote: “Increases in the frontal lobe appear in Australopithecus africanus and all subsequent hominid brains.” Africanus brain capacity was about 400-500 cc. Now all of a sudden you think the mechanism for sapiens language was waiting to be used!
(Continued in Part Two)
I know what I read and I am forced to reinterpret the Darwinian overlay. It is obvious there was early preparation.
Evolution: comb jelly neurons different from all others
by David Turell , Saturday, April 10, 2021, 21:02 (1105 days ago) @ David Turell
Not convergent, totally different:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/comb-jelly-neurons-spark-evolution-debate-20150325
"According to traditional evolutionary biology, neurons evolved just once, hundreds of millions of years ago, likely after sea sponges branched off the evolutionary tree. But Moroz thinks it happened twice — once in ancestors of comb jellies, which split off at around the same time as sea sponges, and once in the animals that gave rise to jellyfish and all subsequent animals, including us. He cites as evidence the fact that comb jellies have a relatively alien neural system, employing different chemicals and architecture from our own. “When we look at the genome and other information, we see not only different grammar but a different alphabet,” Moroz said.
***
"But new support for Moroz’s idea comes from recent genetic work suggesting that comb jellies are ancient — the first group to branch off the animal family tree. If true, that would bolster the chance that they evolved neurons on their own.
"The debate has generated intense interest among evolutionary biologists. Moroz’s work does not only call into question the origins of the brain and the evolutionary history of animals. It also challenges the deeply entrenched idea that evolution progresses steadily forward, building up complexity over time.
***
"To make up for our inability to see into the past, scientists use the morphology (structure) and genetics of living animals to try to reconstruct the relationships of ancient ones. But in the case of comb jellies, the study of living animals presents serious challenges.
"Little is known about comb jellies’ basic biology. The animals are incredibly fragile, often falling to pieces once they’re caught in a net. And it’s difficult to raise them in captivity, making it nearly impossible to do the routine experiments that scientists might perform on other animals.
***
"Scientists hope that more data — including genomes of additional ctenophore species — will help resolve the deepest branches of the animal tree. And that, in turn, could have profound implications for our understanding of neurons and where they came from. “The branching order has a major influence on how we interpret the evolution of the nervous system,” said Gáspár Jékely, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany."
Comment: I've skipped all the confused discussion. This is an odd branch, not really c compatible with common descent.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: Your point has always been that major changes were necessary to mouth, lips, larynx and the vocal organs to allow for sapiens speech. The bold emphasizes that 1.5 million years ago the cerebral innovations might have constituted the foundations of our language-ready brain. In other words, there was no great leap from zilch to sapiens speech, but a gradual refinement of existing structures.
DAVID: You cannot denigrate my point that the preparatory mechanism was in place 1.5 million years ago.
Once again: Previously you insisted that there was a great leap from zilch to sapiens speech because God did a dabble (or preprogrammed) a huge increase in the size of the sapiens brain and, most notably, the frontal lobe. But the articles tell us that there was no great leap from erectus size to sapiens size, and there was no great leap from zilch to sapiens speech because our ancient ancestors would also have had their own form of language using their smaller frontal lobe. But the true absurdity of your idea that every innovation was a preparation for sapiens comes out most clearly in the example of the gar fish eye:
DAVID: It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?
dhw: You seem to think the only creature that found vision to be an advantage was H. sapiens! Do you honestly believe the gar fish didn’t use its eyes to see with?
DAVID: Of course they saw with a forerunner of the special mechanism we use.
So your God gave gar fish eyes in order that they could develop into human eyes? And gar fish and dinosaurs didn’t “need” them because only humans need eyes?
DAVID: The brain itself would have to know in advance how to expand in size and wiring complexity to accommodate needed abstract thoughts for future designs. I cannot see a natural cause as you wish, God does it.
dhw: Yes, the cells that make up the brain would know when to add to their number in order to meet new requirements. The intelligence required to do this may well have been given to them by your God, just as you think he gave them the ability to complexify.
DAVID: You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.
I have now repeated countless times that there was no overexpansion! Sapiens would have needed all his 1350 cc to implement whatever may have been the new initial requirement. From then on, there were no new requirements his 1350 cc could not handle (no new developments = stasis) until 245,000 years later – peanuts compared to erectus’s 2 million years – new ideas would have required additional cells. But for some reason (potential anatomical problems?) the brain did not expand, and instead increased its ability to complexify. This proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells were no longer required and were therefore jettisoned (= shrinkage). I will repeat this theory once more below. Most of your post in fact goes on to repeat the same insistence that all innovations were preparation for sapiens, and God gave us an extra 150 cc which we didn’t need but which we needed so that we could learn to use the 1200 cc we needed!
Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
dhw: new tools, structures etc. could not be created without new cells or new complexifications. You seem to think the brain’s ability to implement all the new ideas was ready and waiting for 245,000 years.
DAVID: But exactly for 245,000 years the cells were there to be used and weren't: so stasis!
Here is the repeat: I am proposing that the cells WERE used to maintain the status quo after the initial expansion. The status quo is stasis. But after 245,000 years, there were new ideas and requirements, and the 1350 cc were no longer enough, but the brain could not expand any further, and so instead the cells enhanced their ability to complexify. And….yawn!...this proved so efficient that 150 cc worth of previously essential cells were no longer required. Please explain why you continually ignore this proposal and why you think it is illogical.
dhw: But modern research has shown us that implementation CHANGES the brain. In taxi drivers it even expands part of the brain. The hippocampus had not already expanded 315,000 years ago in anticipation of the work it had to do.
DAVID: So God designed the hippocampus to have the ability to add extra cells solely for the purpose of adding additional memory capacity, not complex immaterial concepts which the existing extra cells elsewhere in the newly expanded frontal and prefrontal cortices provided for.
Yes, our existing cells can presumably complexify sufficiently to implement our immaterial concepts, but more cells were needed to accommodate memory. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Sunday, April 11, 2021, 15:50 (1104 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You cannot denigrate my point that the preparatory mechanism was in place 1.5 million years ago.
dhw: But the true absurdity of your idea that every innovation was a preparation for sapiens comes out most clearly in the example of the gar fish eye:
DAVID: It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?
dhw: You seem to think the only creature that found vision to be an advantage was H. sapiens! Do you honestly believe the gar fish didn’t use its eyes to see with?
DAVID: Of course they saw with a forerunner of the special mechanism we use.
dhw: So your God gave gar fish eyes in order that they could develop into human eyes? And gar fish and dinosaurs didn’t “need” them because only humans need eyes?
The point of the gar fish article is the special pattern of nerve connection we share with them. Only some eyes/brains have it.
DAVID: The brain itself would have to know in advance how to expand in size and wiring complexity to accommodate needed abstract thoughts for future designs. I cannot see a natural cause as you wish, God does it.DAVID: You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.
dhw: I have now repeated countless times that there was no overexpansion! Sapiens would have needed all his 1350 cc to implement whatever may have been the new initial requirement. ... Most of your post in fact goes on to repeat the same insistence that all innovations were preparation for sapiens, and God gave us an extra 150 cc which we didn’t need but which we needed so that we could learn to use the 1200 cc we needed!
Overall volume is not the point. Look at the dramatic new size of the frontal areas in only sapiens and Neanderthal. That is selective growth which is the real aspect of this discussion, and I've pointedly raised it before, while you blithely worry about the size of the size jump. Yes, erectus grew their brain, but not as selectively as sapiens had happen.
Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
dhw: new tools, structures etc. could not be created without new cells or new complexifications. You seem to think the brain’s ability to implement all the new ideas was ready and waiting for 245,000 years.DAVID: But exactly for 245,000 years the cells were there to be used and weren't: so stasis!
dhw Here is the repeat: I am proposing that the cells WERE used to maintain the status quo after the initial expansion. The status quo is stasis. But after 245,000 years, there were new ideas and requirements, and the 1350 cc were no longer enough, but the brain could not expand any further, and so instead the cells enhanced their ability to complexify. And….yawn!...this proved so efficient that 150 cc worth of previously essential cells were no longer required. Please explain why you continually ignore this proposal and why you think it is illogical.
Please look at the volume growth in frontal areas and then discuss this point from that specific aspect.
dhw: But modern research has shown us that implementation CHANGES the brain. In taxi drivers it even expands part of the brain. The hippocampus had not already expanded 315,000 years ago in anticipation of the work it had to do.DAVID: So God designed the hippocampus to have the ability to add extra cells solely for the purpose of adding additional memory capacity, not complex immaterial concepts which the existing extra cells elsewhere in the newly expanded frontal and prefrontal cortices provided for.
dhw: Yes, our existing cells can presumably complexify sufficiently to implement our immaterial concepts, but more cells were needed to accommodate memory. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
They did expand under God's designs. The hippocampus has a special design for increasing memory capacity, while enough cells were given in the very enlarged frontal lobes to satisfy all future needs with less cells under complexification. Erectus did not have that frontal enlargement.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: But the true absurdity of your idea that every innovation was a preparation for sapiens comes out most clearly in the example of the gar fish eye:
DAVID: It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?
dhw: You seem to think the only creature that found vision to be an advantage was H. sapiens! Do you honestly believe the gar fish didn’t use its eyes to see with?
DAVID: The point of the gar fish article is the special pattern of nerve connection we share with them. Only some eyes/brains have it.
So how does that come to mean that thousands of generations of these eyes were not “needed”?
DAVID: You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.
dhw: I have now repeated countless times that there was no overexpansion! Sapiens would have needed all his 1350 cc to implement whatever may have been the new initial requirement. ... Most of your post in fact goes on to repeat the same insistence that all innovations were preparation for sapiens, and God gave us an extra 150 cc which we didn’t need but which we needed so that we could learn to use the 1200 cc we needed!
DAVID: Overall volume is not the point.
Then why do you go on and on about the overexpansion which resulted in 150cc loss? Whenever I answer your questions, you skip off to another track.
DAVID: Look at the dramatic new size of the frontal areas in only sapiens and Neanderthal. That is selective growth which is the real aspect of this discussion, and I've pointedly raised it before, while you blithely worry about the size of the size jump. Yes, erectus grew their brain, but not as selectively as sapiens had happen.
So please stop harping on about overexpansion. The expansion of the frontal lobe would have been caused by new requirements that involved that part of the brain. We don’t know what the requirements were, but clearly they involved some form of abstract thinking etc. (e.g. new designs, new social requirements…who knows?) What exactly are you trying to prove? I thought your point was that your God had given us all these extra frontal lobe cells before we needed them, i.e. in anticipation of future needs. And my proposal is that we got them because we needed them at the time, and after that there was a period when the new size of the frontal lobe coped with all requirements until 245,000 years later it would not have been able to cope, but instead of expanding it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells were no longer needed. As usual, you have totally ignored this proposal. Here is an interesting website on the frontal lobe that also lays emphasis on complexification:
Frontal Lobe - Physiopedia
www.physio-pedia.com/Frontal_Lobe
QUOTE: For many years, many scientists thought that the frontal lobe was comparatively larger in humans than in other primates. They thought that this was an important feature of human evolution and was the main reason why human cognition is different from that of the other primates. This view has been challenged by research. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to find the volume of the frontal cortex in humans, all living ape species and several monkey species. The human frontal cortex is not relatively larger than the cortex in the other great apes, but it is relatively larger than the frontal cortex in the lesser apes and the monkeys[5]. However, what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.
Your comments, please.
dhw:[referring to hippocampus expansion): Yes, our existing cells can presumably complexify sufficiently to implement our immaterial concepts, but more cells were needed to accommodate memory. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
DAVID: They did expand under God's designs. The hippocampus has a special design for increasing memory capacity, while enough cells were given in the very enlarged frontal lobes to satisfy all future needs with less cells under complexification. Erectus did not have that frontal enlargement.
Every enlargement from preceding brains would have had a cause, but we don’t know what the causes were. That’s evolution for you. Thank you for confirming that the initial enlargement of the frontal lobes was adequate and clearly new requirements were met by enhanced complexification which was so efficient that certain cells became redundant. Only the hippocampus needed to expand. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Monday, April 12, 2021, 16:22 (1103 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Look at the dramatic new size of the frontal areas in only sapiens and Neanderthal. That is selective growth which is the real aspect of this discussion, and I've pointedly raised it before, while you blithely worry about the size of the size jump. Yes, erectus grew their brain, but not as selectively as sapiens had happen.
dhw: I thought your point was that your God had given us all these extra frontal lobe cells before we needed them, i.e. in anticipation of future needs. And my proposal is that we got them because we needed them at the time, and after that there was a period when the new size of the frontal lobe coped with all requirements until 245,000 years later it would not have been able to cope, but instead of expanding it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells were no longer needed. As usual, you have totally ignored this proposal. Here is an interesting website on the frontal lobe that also lays emphasis on complexification:
Frontal Lobe - Physiopedia
www.physio-pedia.com/Frontal_Lobe
QUOTE: For many years, many scientists thought that the frontal lobe was comparatively larger in humans than in other primates. They thought that this was an important feature of human evolution and was the main reason why human cognition is different from that of the other primates. This view has been challenged by research. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to find the volume of the frontal cortex in humans, all living ape species and several monkey species. The human frontal cortex is not relatively larger than the cortex in the other great apes, but it is relatively larger than the frontal cortex in the lesser apes and the monkeys[5]. However, what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.
Your comments, please.
The bold is the key. Volume is not as important as organization of neuronal networks but also how the frontal lobes are differently organized by region:
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/frontal-lobe-size
The frontal lobe is defined as the portion of the brain anterior to the central sulcus. Absolutely, the size of the human frontal lobe is approximately 3-4 times that of great apes; however, information to date suggests that evolutionary increase in the relative size of the entire frontal lobe does not distinguish humans from apes. The frontal lobe does not show disproportionate volumetric increase in humans relative to great apes (Semendeferi and Damasio, 2000). Proportinately, the human frontal lobe occupies approximately 35-38.5% of the cerebral hemispheres, which does not fall discretely outside of the ranges found in all great ape species. (my bold)
Note my bold. Again it is organization of regions, not simple volume. Elephant brains are larger overall.
dhw:[referring to hippocampus expansion): Yes, our existing cells can presumably complexify sufficiently to implement our immaterial concepts, but more cells were needed to accommodate memory. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?DAVID: They did expand under God's designs. The hippocampus has a special design for increasing memory capacity, while enough cells were given in the very enlarged frontal lobes to satisfy all future needs with less cells under complexification. Erectus did not have that frontal enlargement.
dhw: Every enlargement from preceding brains would have had a cause, but we don’t know what the causes were. That’s evolution for you. Thank you for confirming that the initial enlargement of the frontal lobes was adequate and clearly new requirements were met by enhanced complexification which was so efficient that certain cells became redundant. Only the hippocampus needed to expand. Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
Stated many times: Without a God your ideas are reasonable. But I have God.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID (Saturday April 10 at 19:32): You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.
For months you have been on and on about the huge leap in the size of the brain, with overexpansion and then shrinkage in size. For weeks and weeks I have been arguing that the leap was not huge and there was no overexpansion, because the cells were needed from the start, and when there were new requirements, complexification took over. You then narrowed the focus to the frontal lobe, but continued to emphasize the increase in size: (All to be found in your post of April 10):
DAVID: Of course they [rudimentary forms of language] were in a small way in preparation for future massive use by a much bigger brain given to us by God.
DAVID: We arrived with an extra 150 cc we eventually discarded. God giving us the extra cells allowed us the freedom to modify ourselves brain by our own wishes
DAVID: Look at the dramatic new size of the frontal areas in only sapiens and Neanderthal.
My response was as follows: […] "my proposal is that we got them because we needed them at the time, and after that there was a period when the new size of the frontal lobe coped with all requirements until 245,000 years later it would not have been able to cope, but instead of expanding it enhanced its ability to complexify, and this proved so efficient that 150 cc of previously essential cells were no longer needed. As usual, you have totally ignored this proposal. Here is an interesting website on the frontal lobe that also lays emphasis on complexification:
Frontal Lobe - Physiopedia
www.physio-pedia.com/Frontal_Lobe
QUOTE: […] The human frontal cortex is not relatively larger than the cortex in the other great apes, but it is relatively larger than the frontal cortex in the lesser apes and the monkeys. However, what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.
Your comments, please.
DAVID: The bold is the key. Volume is not as important as organization of neuronal networks but also how the frontal lobes are differently organized by region.
Precisely. Connectivity, neurotransmitter changes, organization of neuronal networks can all be summed up as complexification. So do please stop harping on about brain size and overexpansion. Your next quote seems to me irrelevant as well as being sheer muddle:
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/frontal-lobe-size
“The frontal lobe is defined as the portion of the brain anterior to the central sulcus. Absolutely,the size of the human frontal lobe is approximately 3-4 times that of great apes bb; however, information to date suggests that evolutionary increase in the relative size of the entire frontal lobe does not distinguish humans from apes. The frontal lobe does not show disproportionate volumetric increase in humans relative to great apes (Semendeferi and Damasio, 2000). Proportinately, the human frontal lobe occupies approximately 35-38.5% of the cerebral hemispheres, which does not fall discretely outside of the ranges found in all great ape species. (DAVID’s bold)
DAVID: Note my bold. Again it is organization of regions, not simple volume. Elephant brains are larger overall.
What is there to note? Our frontal lobe is 3-4 bigger than that of great apes, but the relative size does not distinguish us from apes! Confused? Nothing there about organization of regions, but yes, I agree with you, and am pleased to see that you have dropped your focus on size. All the regions would presumably have expanded in earlier times, according to needs (we can’t simply ignore the fact that ALL brains have expanded), but the crucial factor for sapiens’ brain has been its enhanced ability to complexify – see the bold in my quote above.
dhw: Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?
DAVID: Stated many times: Without a God your ideas are reasonable. But I have God.
Stated many times: my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system. It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 15:20 (1102 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bold is the key. Volume is not as important as organization of neuronal networks but also how the frontal lobes are differently organized by region.
dhw: Precisely. Connectivity, neurotransmitter changes, organization of neuronal networks can all be summed up as complexification. So do please stop harping on about brain size and overexpansion. Your next quote seems to me irrelevant as well as being sheer muddle:
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/frontal-lobe-size
“The frontal lobe is defined as the portion of the brain anterior to the central sulcus. Absolutely,the size of the human frontal lobe is approximately 3-4 times that of great apes bb; however, information to date suggests that evolutionary increase in the relative size of the entire frontal lobe does not distinguish humans from apes. The frontal lobe does not show disproportionate volumetric increase in humans relative to great apes (Semendeferi and Damasio, 2000). Proportinately, the human frontal lobe occupies approximately 35-38.5% of the cerebral hemispheres, which does not fall discretely outside of the ranges found in all great ape species. (DAVID’s bold)DAVID: Note my bold. Again it is organization of regions, not simple volume. Elephant brains are larger overall.
dhw: What is there to note? Our frontal lobe is 3-4 bigger than that of great apes, but the relative size does not distinguish us from apes! Confused? Nothing there about organization of regions, but yes, I agree with you, and am pleased to see that you have dropped your focus on size. All the regions would presumably have expanded in earlier times, according to needs (we can’t simply ignore the fact that ALL brains have expanded), but the crucial factor for sapiens’ brain has been its enhanced ability to complexify – see the bold in my quote above.
I discussed organization and complexity in the recent past as the major differences, not the volume. I wish I knew where. From memory your responses did not seem to lead us to this present discussion.
dhw: Now please explain why you continue to ignore the fact that we know the brain RESPONDS to new ideas by complexifying or, in one case, expanding. Why do you find it impossible to believe that past brains responded in the same way?DAVID: Stated many times: Without a God your ideas are reasonable. But I have God.
dhw: Stated many times: my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system. It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.
The bold makes no sense. Our highly used brain shrank 150 cc while complexifying. It was enlarged far in advance of its current use, that is history you distort.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: The bold is the key. Volume is not as important as organization of neuronal networks but also how the frontal lobes are differently organized by region.
dhw: Precisely. Connectivity, neurotransmitter changes, organization of neuronal networks can all be summed up as complexification. So do please stop harping on about brain size and overexpansion.
DAVID: I discussed organization and complexity in the recent past as the major differences, not the volume. I wish I knew where. From memory your responses did not seem to lead us to this present discussion.
Last week, you wrote that my theory did not answer “why the enlargement had to include a huge expansion of 200 cc in the mostly unused prefrontal and frontal conceptual areas”. I asked “how huge is huge?” and referred you to three websites which showed that the expansion was not huge, and I asked you to stop harping on about a huge leap. But on you went about size: “Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus….” And “You won’t admit it is over-expansion.” I asked you again to stop harping on about size. You wrote: “I’ll harp as much as I can. You have offered no real proof of your position about size while studiously ignoring function.” I replied, as I do now: “You keep dodging from size to function. I’ll deal with function later. My point here is that there is no huge leap in size.” You even accused me of fiddling the figures. We then moved on to function again.
dhw: Stated many times: my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system. It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.
DAVID: The bold makes no sense. Our highly used brain shrank 150 cc while complexifying. It was enlarged far in advance of its current use, that is history you distort.
And so yet again you go back to size, and yet again you ignore my interpretation of history, which means that yet again I must repeat it. The initial expansion to 1350cc would have been the result of fulfilling a new requirement (e.g. new ideas, tools, weapons, environmental conditions, discoveries, social changes). From that moment on, 1350cc were all in use, and through complexification met all requirements (just like all their antecedents) until, perhaps 245,000 years later – peanuts compared to erectus’s 2 million years – more new requirements arose which previously would have required further expansion. But the brain did not expand (perhaps because further expansion might have caused anatomical problems), and so instead it enhanced its capacity for complexification. This proved so efficient that 150cc of cells which previously had been essential were no longer needed. Now please tell me why this makes no sense to you.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 19:10 (1101 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I discussed organization and complexity in the recent past as the major differences, not the volume. I wish I knew where. From memory your responses did not seem to lead us to this present discussion.
dhw: Last week, you wrote that my theory did not answer “why the enlargement had to include a huge expansion of 200 cc in the mostly unused prefrontal and frontal conceptual areas”. I asked “how huge is huge?” and referred you to three websites which showed that the expansion was not huge, and I asked you to stop harping on about a huge leap. But on you went about size: “Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus….” And “You won’t admit it is over-expansion.” I asked you again to stop harping on about size. You wrote: “I’ll harp as much as I can. You have offered no real proof of your position about size while studiously ignoring function.” I replied, as I do now: “You keep dodging from size to function. I’ll deal with function later. My point here is that there is no huge leap in size.” You even accused me of fiddling the figures. We then moved on to function again.
Thanks for clarifying. Size is an issue but function is more important in the newly enlarged areas.
dhw: Stated many times: my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system. It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.DAVID: The bold makes no sense. Our highly used brain shrank 150 cc while complexifying. It was enlarged far in advance of its current use, that is history you distort.
dhw: And so yet again you go back to size, and yet again you ignore my interpretation of history, which means that yet again I must repeat it. The initial expansion to 1350cc would have been the result of fulfilling a new requirement (e.g. new ideas, tools, weapons, environmental conditions, discoveries, social changes). From that moment on, 1350cc were all in use, and through complexification met all requirements (just like all their antecedents) until, perhaps 245,000 years later – peanuts compared to erectus’s 2 million years – more new requirements arose which previously would have required further expansion. But the brain did not expand (perhaps because further expansion might have caused anatomical problems), and so instead it enhanced its capacity for complexification. This proved so efficient that 150cc of cells which previously had been essential were no longer needed. Now please tell me why this makes no sense to you.
Size, complexity and new functions are all part of our discussion. The bold makes no sense to me. It doesn't explain at all the shrinkage of 150 cc later on in homo history and simply implies the brain was oversized for current use when sapiens appeared. Why would your supposed intelligent neurons make too many cells at first? They hoped complexification would get rid of the excess? I have presumed in this discussion your intelligent cells know how to think and design for the future. I know my God can. I view additional complexity provided better function over time as my God planned. As for your nonsense about anatomical enlargement of the skull, six ounces of brain expansion in the somewhat globular skull would hardly add to hat sizes. Neanderthals handled their bigger brain easily,.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: […] my proposal includes the possibility that your God designed the whole system It is therefore ”reasonable” to propose that the system itself works through the intelligence of cells that have the ability to RESPOND to new ideas. conditions etc. by either expanding or complexifying. Nothing is proven, but I would suggest that our knowledge of how the modern brain works makes this theory considerably more likely than the theory that your God kept expanding brains for no particular reason other than to prepare them for ideas and conditions which might arise in the future.
DAVID: The bold makes no sense. Our highly used brain shrank 150 cc while complexifying. It was enlarged far in advance of its current use, that is history you distort.
dhw: And so yet again you go back to size, and yet again you ignore my interpretation of history, which means that yet again I must repeat it. The initial expansion to 1350cc would have been the result of fulfilling a new requirement (e.g. new ideas, tools, weapons, environmental conditions, discoveries, social changes). From that moment on, 1350cc were all in use, and through complexification met all requirements (just like all their antecedents) until, perhaps 245,000 years later – peanuts compared to erectus’s 2 million years – more new requirements arose which previously would have required further expansion. But the brain did not expand (perhaps because further expansion might have caused anatomical problems), and so instead it enhanced its capacity for complexification. This proved so efficient that 150cc of cells which previously had been essential were no longer needed. Now please tell me why this makes no sense to you.
DAVID: Size, complexity and new functions are all part of our discussion. The bold makes no sense to me. It doesn't explain at all the shrinkage of 150 cc later on in homo history and simply implies the brain was oversized for current use when sapiens appeared.
I really don’t know how else I can phrase the bold, but perhaps if I put it in block capitals it will finally register. Step One: WHEN SAPIENS APPEARED, THE 1350cc WERE NEEDED. THE BRAIN WAS NOT OVERSIZED. Step two: ALL 1350 cc WERE USED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS UNTIL – YOUR FIGURES – 245,000 YEARS LATER. Step 3: THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WOULD THEN HAVE REQUIRED FURTHER EXPANSION, BUT THE BRAIN DID NOT EXPAND. INSTEAD THERE WAS ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION. Step 4: ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION PROVED SO EFFICIENT THAT 150cc OF PREVIOUSLY ESSENTIAL CELLS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED, AND SO THEY WERE DISCARDED. HENCE SHRINKAGE.
DAVID: As for your nonsense about anatomical enlargement of the skull, six ounces of brain expansion in the somewhat globular skull would hardly add to hat sizes. Neanderthals handled their bigger brain easily.
We have no idea how much expansion beyond 1350cc the new factors would have required. Neanderthal brain shape and general anatomy were different from ours.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 15, 2021, 18:48 (1100 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Size, complexity and new functions are all part of our discussion. The bold makes no sense to me. It doesn't explain at all the shrinkage of 150 cc later on in homo history and simply implies the brain was oversized for current use when sapiens appeared.
dhw: I really don’t know how else I can phrase the bold, but perhaps if I put it in block capitals it will finally register. Step One: WHEN SAPIENS APPEARED, THE 1350cc WERE NEEDED. THE BRAIN WAS NOT OVERSIZED. Step two: ALL 1350 cc WERE USED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS UNTIL – YOUR FIGURES – 245,000 YEARS LATER. Step 3: THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WOULD THEN HAVE REQUIRED FURTHER EXPANSION, BUT THE BRAIN DID NOT EXPAND. INSTEAD THERE WAS ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION. Step 4: ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION PROVED SO EFFICIENT THAT 150cc OF PREVIOUSLY ESSENTIAL CELLS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED, AND SO THEY WERE DISCARDED. HENCE SHRINKAGE.
I fully understand your approach and fully reject it, no matter the size of the lettering. Your declaration that a total of 1350 cc were absolutely needed over 300,000 years ago is simply your belief, without any proof. My proof that it was oversized is shown by the shrinkage later on just as you describe by enhanced complexification using and also discarding the excess neurons under very complex uses of our big brain we discovered how to employ. Why were excess neurons there in the first place if they could be discarded later under much heavier use of the brain? You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.
Evolution: special design of a very long neck
by David Turell , Thursday, April 15, 2021, 19:53 (1100 days ago) @ David Turell
A dinosaur beats giraffes in neck size with very special vertebrae:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210414113508.htm
"Little is known about azhdarchid pterosaurs, gigantic flying reptiles with impressive wingspans of up to 12 meters. Cousins of dinosaurs and the largest animals ever to fly, they first appeared in the fossil record in the Late Triassic about 225 million years ago and disappeared again at the end of the Cretaceous period about 66 million years ago. One of their most notable features for such a large flighted animal was a neck longer than that of a giraffe. Now, researchers report an unexpected discovery in the journal iScience on April 14: their thin neck vertebrae got their strength from an intricate internal structure unlike anything that's been seen before.
"'One of our most important findings is the arrangement of cross-struts within the vertebral centrum," says Dave Martill of the University of Portsmouth, UK. "It is unlike anything seen previously in a vertebra of any animal. The neural tube is placed centrally within the vertebra and is connected to the external wall via a number of thin rod-like trabeculae, radially arranged like the spokes of a bicycle wheel and helically arranged along the length of the vertebra. They even cross over like the spokes of a bicycle wheel. Evolution shaped these creatures into awesome, breathtakingly efficient flyers."
***
"His team realized immediately that they needed to bring in engineers to understand how the biomechanics of this unusual neck would have worked. Those analyses suggest that as few as 50 of the spoke-like trabeculae increased the amount of weight their necks could carry without buckling by 90%. Together with the basic tube-within-a-tube structure, it explains how the relatively light-weight animals could capture and carry heavy prey items without breaking their necks.
"'It appears that this structure of extremely thin cervical vertebrae and added helically arranged cross-struts resolved many concerns about the biomechanics of how these creatures were able to support massive heads -- longer than 1.5 meters -- on necks longer than the modern-day giraffe, all whilst retaining the ability of powered flight," Martill says
"While pterosaurs are sometimes thought of as evolutionary dead ends, Martill and colleagues say the new findings reveal them as "fantastically complex and sophisticated." Their bones and skeletons were marvels of biology -- extremely light yet strong and durable."
Comment: In my view very careful exacting design was required before this strange creature could take to the skies. Did not appear by Darwinian stepwise evolution.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: Size, complexity and new functions are all part of our discussion. The bold makes no sense to me. It doesn't explain at all the shrinkage of 150 cc later on in homo history and simply implies the brain was oversized for current use when sapiens appeared.
dhw: I really don’t know how else I can phrase the bold, but perhaps if I put it in block capitals it will finally register. Step One: WHEN SAPIENS APPEARED, THE 1350cc WERE NEEDED. THE BRAIN WAS NOT OVERSIZED. Step two: ALL 1350 cc WERE USED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS UNTIL – YOUR FIGURES – 245,000 YEARS LATER. Step 3: THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WOULD THEN HAVE REQUIRED FURTHER EXPANSION, BUT THE BRAIN DID NOT EXPAND. INSTEAD THERE WAS ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION. Step 4: ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION PROVED SO EFFICIENT THAT 150cc OF PREVIOUSLY ESSENTIAL CELLS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED, AND SO THEY WERE DISCARDED. HENCE SHRINKAGE.
DAVID: I fully understand your approach and fully reject it, no matter the size of the lettering. Your declaration that a total of 1350 cc were absolutely needed over 300,000 years ago is simply your belief, without any proof.
The same applies to your own theory. However, we should not ignore the fact that we do have evidence in the modern brain, which changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the process was the same in the past. This would mean that when pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size (1350cc), it was IN RESPONSE to new requirements – otherwise there would have been no expansion. And in that case, the new cells were necessary to fulfil the new need – they were NOT excessive.
DAVID: My proof that it was oversized is shown by the shrinkage later on just as you describe by enhanced complexification using and also discarding the excess neurons under very complex uses of our big brain we discovered how to employ. Why were excess neurons there in the first place if they could be discarded later under much heavier use of the brain?
It is not proof! You devoted a whole thread to the concept of lost genes coinciding with innovation: the principle is the same. Cells are needed, but when a new mechanism takes over, they become unnecessary. In this case, enhanced complexity made expansion unnecessary and made some of the existing cells unnecessary. The neurons were NOT “excess” until enhanced complexification made them redundant. I do not ask you to believe the theory, but I do ask you for a logical reason for rejecting it. You have not yet offered me a single one.
DAVID: You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.
True. It goes against what we know of the modern brain, and I find it far more logical to assume that any changes in the brain and in the anatomy would have an immediate cause, as opposed to being preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or being the result of your God performing a series of operations (dabbling) in anticipation of some future need. In this respect, our prime example was your insistence that he replaced the legs of pre-whales with flippers BEFORE they entered the water. And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Friday, April 16, 2021, 22:15 (1099 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I fully understand your approach and fully reject it, no matter the size of the lettering. Your declaration that a total of 1350 cc were absolutely needed over 300,000 years ago is simply your belief, without any proof.
dhw: The same applies to your own theory. However, we should not ignore the fact that we do have evidence in the modern brain, which changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the process was the same in the past. This would mean that when pre-sapiens brain expanded to sapiens size (1350cc), it was IN RESPONSE to new requirements – otherwise there would have been no expansion. And in that case, the new cells were necessary to fulfil the new need – they were NOT excessive.
I agree all previous brains had the same complexification capacity. I agree the new expansion covered the needs of that time. But saying not excessive in size or neuronal network complexity at that time is poor reasoning, when we find enormous new brain usages starting 250,000 years later in an unchanged brain waiting to be used
DAVID: My proof that it was oversized is shown by the shrinkage later on just as you describe by enhanced complexification using and also discarding the excess neurons under very complex uses of our big brain we discovered how to employ. Why were excess neurons there in the first place if they could be discarded later under much heavier use of the brain?dhw: It is not proof! You devoted a whole thread to the concept of lost genes coinciding with innovation: the principle is the same.
You have just invented a curious non-comparison. Our fresh new brain had lots of new extra cells, never used until much later in specialized areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes with intricate five special layers of neurons in a special tandem network. This allowed our new abstractions of thought that we are familiar with now.
dhw: Cells are needed, but when a new mechanism takes over, they become unnecessary. In this case, enhanced complexity made expansion unnecessary and made some of the existing cells unnecessary. The neurons were NOT “excess” until enhanced complexification made them redundant. I do not ask you to believe the theory, but I do ask you for a logical reason for rejecting it. You have not yet offered me a single one.
It is totally unreasonable. Many extra cells are many extra cells, no matter ow you try and twist it. The stasis until their use cannot be tossed away with by the contorted explanation you present. Thrown away extrav cells wsere extra cells from, the beginning
DAVID: You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.dhw: True. It goes against what we know of the modern brain, and I find it far more logical to assume that any changes in the brain and in the anatomy would have an immediate cause, as opposed to being preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or being the result of your God performing a series of operations (dabbling) in anticipation of some future need. In this respect, our prime example was your insistence that he replaced the legs of pre-whales with flippers BEFORE they entered the water. And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!
All we know, and you have used another distortion of our agreement on this, organisms have minor necessary epigenetic adaption but stay the same species. No one can identify how species appear. I say God does it by design.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: I agree all previous brains had the same complexification capacity. I agree the new expansion covered the needs of that time. But saying not excessive in size or neuronal network complexity at that time is poor reasoning, when we find enormous new brain usages starting 250,000 years later in an unchanged brain waiting to be used.
Why have you suddenly added “excessive in neuronal complexity”? You have once again completely missed the point of my theory: Each expansion – including that of sapiens – was a REPONSE to a new need, and the new expansion then “covered the needs” of all brains, including sapiens, so long as complexification was able to do so. But 250,000 years after sapiens’ initial expansion, NEW REQUIREMENTS arose that could not be covered by existing complexification, and so the hitherto “unchanged brain” now had to change. This would normally have been by further expansion, but the brain did not expand. (I have offered a reason why: possible anatomical problems). Instead it enhanced its ability to complexify. And this proved so efficient that some of the cells that had been essential since the initial expansion were no longer needed – hence shrinkage.
DAVID: Our fresh new brain had lots of new extra cells, never used until much later in specialized areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes with intricate five special layers of neurons in a special tandem network. This allowed our new abstractions of thought that we are familiar with now.
How on earth can you possibly know that the new extra cells – which I propose were NEEDED in order to meet the new requirements – were never used? What would have changed after 250,000 years was the manner in which the neurons combined to form new connections. You persist in ignoring the very clear statement I quoted earlier: “…what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.” This is what would have happened when the existing extra (but NOT excessive) cells could no longer cope with the new requirements.
dhw: […] I do not ask you to believe the theory, but I do ask you for a logical reason for rejecting it. You have not yet offered me a single one.
DAVID: It is totally unreasonable. Many extra cells are many extra cells, no matter ow you try and twist it. The stasis until their use cannot be tossed away with by the contorted explanation you present. Thrown away extra cells were extra cells from, the beginning.
Yet again: in my theory the many extra cells were needed in order to meet whatever was the new requirement 315,000 years ago. If previous expansions, as you agree, “covered the needs of that time”, why on earth would you assume that our own expansion did NOT simply cover the needs of that time? You harp on about stasis, but stasis was always the case once the new requirements had been met. Our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no further expansions. In our case no change was NEEDED until 250,000 years had passed. And so yet again, what logical objection can you have to the proposal that our extra cells WERE needed, were NOT excessive, and only become unnecessary when enhanced complexification had taken over?
DAVID: You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.
dhw: True. It goes against what we know of the modern brain, and I find it far more logical to assume that any changes in the brain and in the anatomy would have an immediate cause, as opposed to being preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or being the result of your God performing a series of operations (dabbling) in anticipation of some future need. In this respect, our prime example was your insistence that he replaced the legs of pre-whales with flippers BEFORE they entered the water. And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!
DAVID: All we know, and you have used another distortion of our agreement on this, organisms have minor necessary epigenetic adaption but stay the same species. No one can identify how species appear. I say God does it by design.
If anyone could identify how species appear, we would not be having this discussion. There is no distortion: you have explicitly claimed that your God must have changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, just as you claim that your God must have operated on pre-sapiens brain before we actually needed the extra cells. I would regard both cases as major adaptations rather than innovations, but the distinction is irrelevant. My proposal is that evolutionary change comes about through responses to new requirements, not through anticipation of them. I am quite happy to don my theist’s hat in these discussions, because my theory allows for your God as the designer, but instead of designing every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, he would have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to do their own autonomous designing. And apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Saturday, April 17, 2021, 19:27 (1098 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I agree all previous brains had the same complexification capacity. I agree the new expansion covered the needs of that time. But saying not excessive in size or neuronal network complexity at that time is poor reasoning, when we find enormous new brain usages starting 250,000 years later in an unchanged brain waiting to be used.
dhw: the point of my theory: Each expansion – including that of sapiens – was a REPONSE to a new need, and the new expansion then “covered the needs” of all brains, including sapiens, so long as complexification was able to do so. But 250,000 years after sapiens’ initial expansion, NEW REQUIREMENTS arose that could not be covered by existing complexification, and so the hitherto “unchanged brain” now had to change.
DAVID: Our fresh new brain had lots of new extra cells, never used until much later in specialized areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes with intricate five special layers of neurons in a special tandem network. This allowed our new abstractions of thought that we are familiar with now.
dhw: How on earth can you possibly know that the new extra cells – which I propose were NEEDED in order to meet the new requirements – were never used? What would have changed after 250,000 years was the manner in which the neurons combined to form new connections. You persist in ignoring the very clear statement I quoted earlier: “…what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.” This is what would have happened when the existing extra (but NOT excessive) cells could no longer cope with the new requirements.
How do you know all those excess cells were needed at the time of sapiens appearance? Just because they were there? Apes, our ancestors, are not experiencing consciousness, but it had to appear in early hominin or later homo forms as the brain enlarged and became more complexly wired and arranged as we are in tiered neuron groups. That had to precede the development of language which allowed us to exchange complex abstractions which was followed by full use of the entire new brain form and loss of volume 150 cc and contained neuron networks. You can't realistically explain the excess brain in the beginning any other way.
dhw: […] I do not ask you to believe the theory, but I do ask you for a logical reason for rejecting it. You have not yet offered me a single one.DAVID: It is totally unreasonable. Many extra cells are many extra cells, no matter ow you try and twist it. The stasis until their use cannot be tossed away with by the contorted explanation you present. Thrown away extra cells were extra cells from, the beginning.
dhw: Yet again: in my theory the many extra cells were needed in order to meet whatever was the new requirement 315,000 years ago. If previous expansions, as you agree, “covered the needs of that time”, why on earth would you assume that our own expansion did NOT simply cover the needs of that time? You harp on about stasis, but stasis was always the case once the new requirements had been met. Our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years with no further expansions. In our case no change was NEEDED until 250,000 years had passed. And so yet again, what logical objection can you have to the proposal that our extra cells WERE needed, were NOT excessive, and only become unnecessary when enhanced complexification had taken over?
A lot of words that do not really explain the excess of cells in the beginning. You are simply assuming the neurons knew how to rearrange and rewire themselves as we left apedom.
DAVID: You just don't like my point that God enlarged the brain in anticipation of future use.dhw: True.... And yet you accept that organisms RESPOND to new conditions by adapting themselves!
DAVID: All we know, and you have used another distortion of our agreement on this, organisms have minor necessary epigenetic adaption but stay the same species. No one can identify how species appear. I say God does it by design.
dhw: If anyone could identify how species appear, we would not be having this discussion...My proposal is that evolutionary change comes about through responses to new requirements, not through anticipation of them. I am quite happy to don my theist’s hat in these discussions, because my theory allows for your God as the designer, but instead of designing every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, he would have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to do their own autonomous designing. And apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.
My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: Our fresh new brain had lots of new extra cells, never used until much later in specialized areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes with intricate five special layers of neurons in a special tandem network. This allowed our new abstractions of thought that we are familiar with now.
dhw: How on earth can you possibly know that the new extra cells – which I propose were NEEDED in order to meet the new requirements – were never used? What would have changed after 250,000 years was the manner in which the neurons combined to form new connections. You persist in ignoring the very clear statement I quoted earlier: “…what sets us apart from other mammals is not so much brain size but reorganization of our brains in terms of connectivity and neurotransmitter changes.” This is what would have happened when the existing extra (but NOT excessive) cells could no longer cope with the new requirements.
DAVID: How do you know all those excess cells were needed at the time of sapiens appearance? Just because they were there?
I’ve just asked you how you know they were NOT needed! This is the basic difference between our theories! You say the extra cells were given in anticipation of future use (though they turned out not to be needed), and I say they were added because they were needed at the time, and only became unnecessary when complexification made them redundant. The only clue we have is the way the modern brain works, which is by RESPONDING to new needs. It RESPONDS by complexifying, although the hippocampus has expanded. We do not know of any instance in which the brain complexifies/expands in anticipation of some unknown future requirement. Why do you continue to ignore this argument?
DAVID: Apes, our ancestors, are not experiencing consciousness...
Manifestly untrue. Do you really think that apes are machines which are totally unaware of their surroundings, of dangers, of their own needs? There are different forms and levels of consciousness!
DAVID: (...) but it had to appear in early hominin or later homo forms as the brain enlarged and became more complexly wired and arranged as we are in tiered neuron groups. That had to precede the development of language which allowed us to exchange complex abstractions which was followed by full use of the entire new brain form and loss of volume 150 cc and contained neuron networks. You can't realistically explain the excess brain in the beginning any other way.
You just keep repeating “excess”, but none of the general “history” you have presented means there was excess at any time, including our own until enhanced complexification took over from expansion, and then I propose that cells which had been essential in the past were no longer required. Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]
DAVID: […] You are simply assuming the neurons knew how to rearrange and rewire themselves as we left apedom.
I assume nothing. I offer a theory. And yes, I am proposing, as you well know, that cells are intelligent enough to know when they need reinforcements (expansion) or new connections and functions (complexification). This theory allows for the existence of your God as designer of cellular intelligence, as well as fitting in perfectly with the history of life in general and the brain in particular, which we know makes changes to itself IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not in anticipation of them (a point which you always ignore).
dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.
DAVID: My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.
I have spent years discussing your view of God, whom you can make into anything you wish. Your own humanized view, give or take innumerable fluctuations and contradictions, appears to be that he started out with only one purpose (us), is always in control (except when he is not in control), specially designed every life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder etc. (99% of which had no connection with humans), must have had good reasons for designing the bacteria and viruses that cause untold suffering and death, preprogrammed or dabbled every development – including our brain – in anticipation of what would one day be required, because he always knows what is coming, and enjoys creating but not in any way that we might be able to understand. Meanwhile, I offer alternative views, but you “never consider him experimenting” etc., and if you never consider alternatives, then apparently that means they must be wrong!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Sunday, April 18, 2021, 16:08 (1097 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: How do you know all those excess cells were needed at the time of sapiens appearance? Just because they were there?
dhw: I’ve just asked you how you know they were NOT needed! This is the basic difference between our theories! ... The only clue we have is the way the modern brain works, which is by RESPONDING to new needs. It RESPONDS by complexifying, although the hippocampus has expanded. We do not know of any instance in which the brain complexifies/expands in anticipation of some unknown future requirement. Why do you continue to ignore this argument?
The reason the brain complexifies is that it has extra neuron networks to work with. They are already present so as the brain develops more efficiency of thought a fairly large number can be discarded. I view the brain much as we might consider material transport: a model T cannot carry the same load as an 18-wheeler. This is why I raised the point that the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus. The fact that the brain shrunk as it became more fully used, demonstrates design in preparation for future use. All you are proposing is all the new cells were required for what? Evidence it was for little new use at first and major use came later.
DAVID: (...) but it had to appear in early hominin or later homo forms as the brain enlarged and became more complexly wired and arranged as we are in tiered neuron groups. That had to precede the development of language which allowed us to exchange complex abstractions which was followed by full use of the entire new brain form and loss of volume 150 cc and contained neuron networks. You can't realistically explain the excess brain in the beginning any other way.dhw: You just keep repeating “excess”, but none of the general “history” you have presented means there was excess at any time,
But 150 cc of excess were discarded.
dhw: including our own until enhanced complexification took over from expansion, and then I propose that cells which had been essential in the past were no longer required. Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]
The bold tells essential for what? We use our brain to live as best we can. We see the flow of hominin/homo lifestyle go from very simple to highly complex with each step of enlargement, and we find a very high degree of complexity in our brain that has no resemblance to other primates. (Note bold above) Five tiers of frontal lobe neurons, probably evolved from hominin to now with a last very giant sapiens step.
dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.DAVID: My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.
dhw: I have spent years discussing your view of God, whom you can make into anything you wish. Your own humanized view, give or take innumerable fluctuations and contradictions, appears to be that he started out with only one purpose (us), is always in control (except when he is not in control), specially designed every life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder etc. (99% of which had no connection with humans), must have had good reasons for designing the bacteria and viruses that cause untold suffering and death, preprogrammed or dabbled every development – including our brain – in anticipation of what would one day be required, because he always knows what is coming, and enjoys creating but not in any way that we might be able to understand. Meanwhile, I offer alternative views, but you “never consider him experimenting” etc., and if you never consider alternatives, then apparently that means they must be wrong!
All of your alternatives present a very human God who thinks like you do. Experimenting as if he has no idea of what He wants. He is perfectly capable of planning exactly what He wants as is shown by the fine-tuned universe that allows life to appear when He designs it. Looks like perfect planning to me. In terms of performing creation, He never thinks as you do. His goals are always in sight.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: […] The only clue we have is the way the modern brain works, which is by RESPONDING to new needs. It RESPONDS by complexifying, although the hippocampus has expanded. We do not know of any instance in which the brain complexifies/expands in anticipation of some unknown future requirement. Why do you continue to ignore this argument?
DAVID: The reason the brain complexifies is that it has extra neuron networks to work with....
Still totally ignoring the “response” evidence of how the brain works! The reason the brain complexifies, as we know from modern science, is that it has to adjust itself in order to meet new requirements. In former times, the ability to make these adjustments depended on two factors: the number of cells available, and their capacity for complexification (i.e. establishing new connections). Today it responds almost exclusively by complexifying.
DAVID: ...They are already present so as the brain develops more efficiency of thought a fairly large number can be discarded.
Yes, in sapiens’ case the cells are present, and as the ability to complexify is enhanced, some of the cells which I suggest had previously been essential can be discarded.
DAVID: I view the brain much as we might consider material transport: a model T cannot carry the same load as an 18-wheeler. This is why I raised the point that the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus.
We don’t need your truck image. You simply keep ignoring the point that all lifestyles prior to late sapiens were based mainly on survival. Whatever new requirements arose (our list contained such causes as new tools, weapons, clothes, ideas, discoveries, environmental conditions, use of fire etc.) would have been devoted to improving chances of survival. The simple example I gave you was: the hunter with a brand new spear is still a hunter.
DAVID: The fact that the brain shrunk as it became more fully used, demonstrates design in preparation for future use. All you are proposing is all the new cells were required for what? Evidence it was for little new use at first and major use came later.
The fact that the brain shrunk indicates that some of the cells which had previously been essential (why else would they have been added to the quantity available?) were no longer needed once complexification had taken over. That is the difference between our theories: you have your God giving us extra cells to be used in the future, except that they were not needed in the future and were therefore discarded. I have additions being made only when essential, e.g. to implement the design, making and use of the spear, followed by period of stasis till next new requirement exceeds existing capacity (i.e. number of cells and ability to complexify).
dhw: Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]
DAVID: […] essential for what? We use our brain to live as best we can. We see the flow of hominin/homo lifestyle go from very simple to highly complex with each step of enlargement….
No we don’t. You’ve just said yourself that “the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus”, and although undoubtedly the step from tree-dwelling to land-dwelling would have been a major development, the hunter with spear would have had the same lifestyle as the hunter without spear. I note your refusal to answer my question above.
DAVID…and we find a very high degree of complexity in our brain that has no resemblance to other primates. (Note bold above) Five tiers of frontal lobe neurons, probably evolved from hominin to now with a last very giant sapiens step.
Why do you keep repeating what we already know? The matter in dispute is how this very high degree evolved. You insist that your God kept operating on all the hominins and homos, enlarging their brains in anticipation of future needs, and in our case giving us excess cells we wouldn’t need in the future! I propose that expansions took place in response to needs at the time, and in our case enhanced complexification made some previously essential cells redundant. As far as your God’s role is concerned, you agree that he must have invented a mechanism for autonomous complexification (unless you believe he thinks all our thoughts for us), and we know that the modern brain only complexifies or expands (hippocampus) IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Autonomy is only possible if the cells themselves have the intelligence to know when they need to multiply/complexify, and your God’s role – if he exists – would have been to design the mechanism that gave them their intelligence.
dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.
DAVID: My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.
I shan’t repeat the rest of the discussion, in which for the umpteenth time I summarized your own humanized view of God, whom you can “make into anything you wish”. It is covered again under “theodicy”, and it does not provide one single logical reason for rejecting my theory concerning the expansion and complexification of the brain!
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Monday, April 19, 2021, 15:15 (1096 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The reason the brain complexifies is that it has extra neuron networks to work with....
dhw: Still totally ignoring the “response” evidence of how the brain works! The reason the brain complexifies, as we know from modern science, is that it has to adjust itself in order to meet new requirements.
Not ignoring, but different interpretation: the extra cells allow a greater degree of complexity by having more neurons to work with from the start.
DAVID: I view the brain much as we might consider material transport: a model T cannot carry the same load as an 18-wheeler. This is why I raised the point that the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus.
dhw: We don’t need your truck image. You simply keep ignoring the point that all lifestyles prior to late sapiens were based mainly on survival...I gave you was: the hunter with a brand new spear is still a hunter.
I was only showing you complex use uses lots more brain than simpler use, a truism you constantly ignore.
dhw: Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]DAVID: […] essential for what? We use our brain to live as best we can. We see the flow of hominin/homo lifestyle go from very simple to highly complex with each step of enlargement….
dhw: No we don’t. You’ve just said yourself that “the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus”, and although undoubtedly the step from tree-dwelling to land-dwelling would have been a major development, the hunter with spear would have had the same lifestyle as the hunter without spear. I note your refusal to answer my question above.
The advantage of the extra cells I presented above, to allow the greatest degree of complexity to cover all new current needs as efficiently as possible.
DAVID…and we find a very high degree of complexity in our brain that has no resemblance to other primates. (Note bold above) Five tiers of frontal lobe neurons, probably evolved from hominin to now with a last very giant sapiens step.dhw: Why do you keep repeating what we already know? The matter in dispute is how this very high degree evolved. You insist that your God kept operating on all the hominins and homos, enlarging their brains in anticipation of future needs, and in our case giving us excess cells we wouldn’t need in the future!
Because it is a matter of interpretation of what our brain contains: the special cortical organization of five neuron tiers is only ours and came by a recombination of an available extra number of neurons, by God's design.
dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.DAVID: My rejection is based on your humanized view of what God might do. While you are theorizing you can make God into anything you wish. You never bring up my view of God.
dhw: I shan’t repeat the rest of the discussion, in which for the umpteenth time I summarized your own humanized view of God, whom you can “make into anything you wish”. It is covered again under “theodicy”, and it does not provide one single logical reason for rejecting my theory concerning the expansion and complexification of the brain!
I reject your interpretation primarily as an attempt to avoid God, but I show you a logical interpretation as to how the excess cells are used to create our very special brain. We do not know when this special arrangement of five tiers of neurons happened, but based on the evidence of how sapiens easily developed brain use and lifestyle, starting with language 70,000 years ago our brain is obviously very different I would then guess even from Neanderthal's bigger one. It is not size. It is complexity that makes the difference. Adler's point fits.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: The reason the brain complexifies is that it has extra neuron networks to work with....
dhw: Still totally ignoring the “response” evidence of how the brain works! The reason the brain complexifies, as we know from modern science, is that it has to adjust itself in order to meet new requirements.
DAVID: Not ignoring, but different interpretation: the extra cells allow a greater degree of complexity by having more neurons to work with from the start.
You are stating the blindly obvious, and ignoring the point that the only brain we know operates by RESPONDING to new requirements. It does not change in anticipation of new requirements, which is the reason you give for brain expansion.
DAVID: […] This is why I raised the point that the initial lifestyle requirements for early sapiens hardly differed from erectus.
dhw: […] . You simply keep ignoring the point that all lifestyles prior to late sapiens were based mainly on survival...The simple example I gave you was: the hunter with a brand new spear is still a hunter.
DAVID: I was only showing you complex use uses lots more brain than simpler use, a truism you constantly ignore.
I responded to your point that early sapiens’ lifestyle hardly differed from erectus, which according to you means that the newly expanded brain contained excess cells that were only used later. I pointed out that according to my theory, the improvements that required additional cells (e.g. the design, making and use of the spear) would not have changed the lifestyle. The hunter with a spear is still a hunter.
dhw: Even with your own theory, why would your all-knowing, always-in-control God give us excess cells which turn out to be redundant? […]
Still no answer.
DAVID: The advantage of the extra cells I presented above, to allow the greatest degree of complexity to cover all new current needs as efficiently as possible.
You’ve got it! In ALL cases of expansion including our own, the extra (not excessive) cells covered the new need, and then all current needs, through complexification. Only when NEW needs arose which the existing quantity of cells could not cover through complexification did expansion (the addition of cells) take place. However, 250,000 years after the last (sapiens) expansion, the brain could not expand any further, and so the cells’ ability to complexify was enhanced.
DAVID ...and we find a very high degree of complexity in our brain that has no resemblance to other primates. […]
dhw: Why do you keep repeating what we already know? The matter in dispute is how this very high degree evolved. You insist that your God kept operating on all the hominins and homos, enlarging their brains in anticipation of future needs, and in our case giving us excess cells we wouldn’t need in the future!
DAVID: Because it is a matter of interpretation of what our brain contains: the special cortical organization of five neuron tiers is only ours and came by a recombination of an available extra number of neurons, by God's design.
There is no dispute over what our brain contains, and yes indeed, as I keep telling you, it is the enhanced ability to complexify (recombination of the neurons that had existed and been in use for 250,000 years) that enabled sapiens to meet all the new requirements. As regards “by God’s design”, my theory allows for him designing the autonomous mechanism of complexification (which you accept - unless you have now decided that all our thoughts are thought for us by your God) AND the mechanism for expansion (which for some unknown reason you do not accept).
dhw: […] apart from repeating your own preconceptions, you still haven’t given me one logical reason for rejecting this proposal.
DAVID: I reject your interpretation primarily as an attempt to avoid God...
As above, how can I be avoiding God when I accept the possibility of his designing the autonomous mechanism?
DAVID: … but I show you a logical interpretation as to how the excess cells are used to create our very special brain.
They are not excessive if they are used to create our special brain! But once again: in my theory they were used until our enhanced ability to complexify made them redundant. And you still haven’t told us why your God would give us a load of useless extra cells.
DAVID: We do not know when this special arrangement of five tiers of neurons happened, but based on the evidence of how sapiens easily developed brain use and lifestyle, starting with language 70,000 years ago our brain is obviously very different I would then guess even from Neanderthal's bigger one. It is not size. It is complexity that makes the difference. Adler's point fits.
No one is denying that our brain is “very different”, and it has taken you a long time to stop harping on about size and to accept the point that I have been making ever since this discussion began: sapiens, like every other homo before him, would have used all the cells of his expanded brain until 250,000 years ago, when the brain could expand no further, and so ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION TOOK OVER (and rendered previously essential cells redundant). You’ve got it at last: in our case it is not size but complexity that makes the difference.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 20, 2021, 17:46 (1095 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Not ignoring, but different interpretation: the extra cells allow a greater degree of complexity by having more neurons to work with from the start.
dhw: You are stating the blindly obvious, and ignoring the point that the only brain we know operates by RESPONDING to new requirements. It does not change in anticipation of new requirements, which is the reason you give for brain expansion.
You are still ignoring the fact that sapiens arrived with 150 cc more volume than needed. Our brain now responds to new use because of fact the extra size/neurons permitted complexification to select from the excess.
DAVID: I was only showing you complex use uses lots more brain than simpler use, a truism you constantly ignore.dhw: I responded to your point that early sapiens’ lifestyle hardly differed from erectus, which according to you means that the newly expanded brain contained excess cells that were only used later. I pointed out that according to my theory, the improvements that required additional cells (e.g. the design, making and use of the spear) would not have changed the lifestyle. The hunter with a spear is still a hunter.
And with little more brain usage. You support my point.
DAVID: The advantage of the extra cells I presented above, to allow the greatest degree of complexity to cover all new current needs as efficiently as possible.dhw: You’ve got it! In ALL cases of expansion including our own, the extra (not excessive) cells covered the new need, and then all current needs, through complexification.
They were still in excess until shrinkage in recent times. Always an excess until discarded.
DAVID: Because it is a matter of interpretation of what our brain contains: the special cortical organization of five neuron tiers is only ours and came by a recombination of an available extra number of neurons, by God's design.dhw: There is no dispute over what our brain contains, and yes indeed, as I keep telling you, it is the enhanced ability to complexify (recombination of the neurons that had existed and been in use for 250,000 years) that enabled sapiens to meet all the new requirements.
There is no evidence the excess cells were used for 250,000 years and then discarded. When not chosen for complexity they were dropped.
DAVID: We do not know when this special arrangement of five tiers of neurons happened, but based on the evidence of how sapiens easily developed brain use and lifestyle, starting with language 70,000 years ago our brain is obviously very different I would then guess even from Neanderthal's bigger one. It is not size. It is complexity that makes the difference. Adler's point fits.dhw: No one is denying that our brain is “very different”, and it has taken you a long time to stop harping on about size and to accept the point that I have been making ever since this discussion began: sapiens, like every other homo before him, would have used all the cells of his expanded brain until 250,000 years ago, when the brain could expand no further, and so ENHANCED COMPLEXIFICATION TOOK OVER (and rendered previously essential cells redundant). You’ve got it at last: in our case it is not size but complexity that makes the difference.
Large areas of the brain were not used 315,000 years ago. The official theory is when language appeared it required the recruitment of several brain areas to develop and tie to each other in stronger networking fashion. Same with all other developments. We had a brain wanting for developments, no matter how hard you obfuscate with verbiage about total brain use 315,000 years ago. At least I use current theory
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: […] the extra cells allow a greater degree of complexity by having more neurons to work with from the start.
dhw: You are stating the blindly obvious, and ignoring the point that the only brain we know operates by RESPONDING to new requirements. It does not change in anticipation of new requirements, which is the reason you give for brain expansion.
DAVID: You are still ignoring the fact that sapiens arrived with 150 cc more volume than needed. Our brain now responds to new use because of fact the extra size/neurons permitted complexification to select from the excess.
I keep disputing what you keep insisting is fact. Yet again: my proposal is that the extra 150 cc WAS needed to implement a new requirement, and it continued to be used until 250,000 years later, when more new requirements would have required further expansion, but instead complexification was enhanced, and THEN the previously essential 150cc became redundant . I keep answering your objections, and you keep ignoring my own: WE KNOW THAT THE MODERN BRAIN CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF THEM. WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN THE PAST?
dhw: I responded to your point that early sapiens’ lifestyle hardly differed from erectus, which according to you means that the newly expanded brain contained excess cells that were only used later. I pointed out that according to my theory, the improvements that required additional cells (e.g. the design, making and use of the spear) would not have changed the lifestyle. The hunter with a spear is still a hunter.
DAVID: And with little more brain usage. You support my point.
You keep missing my point: the spear did not change the lifestyle, but it required the extra cells. The same process would have continued right through to H. sapiens: expansion to meet new requirements; final expansion 315,000 years ago. But next time expansion would have been required, complexification took over, and made some previously essential cells redundant.
DAVID: The advantage of the extra cells I presented above, to allow the greatest degree of complexity to cover all new current needs as efficiently as possible.
dhw: You’ve got it! In ALL cases of expansion including our own, the extra (not excessive) cells covered the new need, and then all current needs, through complexification.
DAVID: There is no evidence the excess cells were used for 250,000 years and then discarded. When not chosen for complexity they were dropped.
There is no evidence that your God kept popping in to operate on the brains of sleeping hominins and homos in order to prepare their brains for some future requirements! What do you mean by they were not “chosen” for complexity? Since the only chooser you believe in is your God, are you saying that your God deliberately gave early sapiens 150 cc unnecessary cells, and 250,000 years later decided he didn’t need them for complexification? Why do you find your God’s little blunder more convincing than the proposal that enhanced complexification made previously needed cells redundant?
DAVID: The official theory is when language appeared it required the recruitment of several brain areas to develop and tie to each other in stronger networking fashion.
Precisely. The brain areas were already there, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they were not being used. Do you really think our ancestors never communicated? But the new requirement (a more complex form of language) required new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.
DAVID: Same with all other developments. We had a brain wanting for developments, no matter how hard you obfuscate with verbiage about total brain use 315,000 years ago. At least I use current theory.
What do you mean by “wanting for developments”? All brains would have complexified until the capacity for complexification was exhausted, and then new cells were needed. But in sapiens' case, new cells would have been impractical (possibly because they would have caused anatomical problems) and so the capacity for complexification was enhanced. How does this contradict current theory? And why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 18:35 (1094 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are still ignoring the fact that sapiens arrived with 150 cc more volume than needed. Our brain now responds to new use because of fact the extra size/neurons permitted complexification to select from the excess.
I keep disputing what you keep insisting is fact. Yet again: my proposal is that the extra 150 cc WAS needed to implement a new requirement, and it continued to be used until 250,000 years later, when more new requirements would have required further expansion, but instead complexification was enhanced, and THEN the previously essential 150cc became redundant . I keep answering your objections, and you keep ignoring my own: WE KNOW THAT THE MODERN BRAIN CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF THEM. WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN THE PAST?
Excess is excess no matter how you contort it. You are proposing a light use of all neurons in the brain when enlargement occurs, and with heavy use later 150 cc of them disappears. Strange, so heavy use makes some neurons unnecessary? Heavy use in our current brain grows volumes of new axon connections, which tells us any heavy use simply enlarges axon networks. We know our early brain was lightly used, but had great potential for complex use. As for the past I assume, as you do, the process was the same: enlargement in anticipation of future use with some excess neurons discarded as complexification occurred to fit the new uses. And of course with God as the designer.
dhw: There is no evidence that your God kept popping in to operate on the brains of sleeping hominins and homos in order to prepare their brains for some future requirements! What do you mean by they were not “chosen” for complexity? Since the only chooser you believe in is your God, are you saying that your God deliberately gave early sapiens 150 cc unnecessary cells, and 250,000 years later decided he didn’t need them for complexification? Why do you find your God’s little blunder more convincing than the proposal that enhanced complexification made previously needed cells redundant?
Blunder? Denigrating God as usual. The extra cells allow for precise tailoring in complexification, since we have free will and can choose our own uses of the brain without God's guidance. Free will is an important part of the equation you don't consider.
DAVID: The official theory is when language appeared it required the recruitment of several brain areas to develop and tie to each other in stronger networking fashion.dhw: Precisely. The brain areas were already there, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they were not being used. Do you really think our ancestors never communicated? But the new requirement (a more complex form of language) required new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.
There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.
DAVID: Same with all other developments. We had a brain wanting for developments, no matter how hard you obfuscate with verbiage about total brain use 315,000 years ago. At least I use current theory.dhw: What do you mean by “wanting for developments”? All brains would have complexified until the capacity for complexification was exhausted, and then new cells were needed. But in sapiens' case, new cells would have been impractical (possibly because they would have caused anatomical problems) and so the capacity for complexification was enhanced. How does this contradict current theory? And why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?
We still totally disagree in interpretation. God designs the larger brain for future use by free-will hominins/homos in all stages.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw:[...] I keep answering your objections, and you keep ignoring my own: WE KNOW THAT THE MODERN BRAIN CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF THEM. WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN THE PAST?
DAVID: Excess is excess no matter how you contort it. You are proposing a light use of all neurons in the brain when enlargement occurs, and with heavy use later 150 cc of them disappears. Strange, so heavy use makes some neurons unnecessary? Heavy use in our current brain grows volumes of new axon connections, which tells us any heavy use simply enlarges axon networks.
And STILL you go on ignoring the question written in block capitals. You are now repeating my own theory in different terms, as if somehow that invalidated it! Yes, once the brain had expanded to 1350 cc, all cells would have been used. We don’t need your new category of light and heavy use, which glosses over the central issue of requirements. 250,000 years after this final expansion, new requirements would have been met by further expansion, but as presumably the brain could not expand any further, the new requirements resulted in new connections and enlarged networks, which we have previously called “complexification”. And because the new connections and enlarged networks (complexification) worked so efficiently, the previously essential cells were no longer necessary. Now please answer the question I have written in block capitals.
DAVID: We know our early brain was lightly used, but had great potential for complex use. As for the past I assume, as you do, the process was the same: enlargement in anticipation of future use with some excess neurons discarded as complexification occurred to fit the new uses. And of course with God as the designer.
Of course it had potential. That does not mean your God stuck in an extra 150cc which were not needed at the time. And as for the past, no, I do not believe that the process was in anticipation of future use or that excess neurons were discarded! Why are you shoving your theory onto me? I am proposing that there were never any excess neurons until sapiens' enhanced complexification came into force. In the past, when complexification could no longer cope, I propose that there was enlargement to meet new requirements, not to anticipate future use. But it is possible that your God was the designer of the autonomous mechanism which you agree runs complexification, but which you refuse to even consider as the source of expansion.
dhw: There is no evidence that your God kept popping in to operate on the brains of sleeping hominins and homos in order to prepare their brains for some future requirements! What do you mean by they were not “chosen” for complexity? Since the only chooser you believe in is your God, are you saying that your God deliberately gave early sapiens 150 cc unnecessary cells, and 250,000 years later decided he didn’t need them for complexification? Why do you find your God’s little blunder more convincing than the proposal that enhanced complexification made previously needed cells redundant?
DAVID: Blunder? Denigrating God as usual. The extra cells allow for precise tailoring in complexification, since we have free will and can choose our own uses of the brain without God's guidance. Free will is an important part of the equation you don't consider.
It is you who denigrate your God by claiming that he gave us excessive neurons which proved unnecessary. Now suddenly you change your tune: the 150 cc were not excessive – now you think they were essential for the way complexification worked, and they even gave us our free will (which denotes the autonomy of complexification). So why were they made redundant?
DAVID: The official theory is when language appeared it required the recruitment of several brain areas to develop and tie to each other in stronger networking fashion.
dhw: Precisely. The brain areas were already there, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they were not being used. Do you really think our ancestors never communicated? But the new requirement (a more complex form of language) required new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.
DAVID: There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.
Then why do you call them excess if we couldn’t have managed to speak our languages without them?
dhw: …why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?
DAVID: We still totally disagree in interpretation. God designs the larger brain for future use by free-will hominins/homos in all stages.
Repeating your fixed belief is not an answer to my question.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 22, 2021, 20:10 (1093 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:[...] I keep answering your objections, and you keep ignoring my own: WE KNOW THAT THE MODERN BRAIN CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT IN ANTICIPATION OF THEM. WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN THE PAST?
DAVID: Excess is excess no matter how you contort it. You are proposing a light use of all neurons in the brain when enlargement occurs, and with heavy use later 150 cc of them disappears. Strange, so heavy use makes some neurons unnecessary? Heavy use in our current brain grows volumes of new axon connections, which tells us any heavy use simply enlarges axon networks.
dhw: And STILL you go on ignoring the question written in block capitals. You are now repeating my own theory in different terms, as if somehow that invalidated it! Yes, once the brain had expanded to 1350 cc, all cells would have been used. We don’t need your new category of light and heavy use, which glosses over the central issue of requirements.
I'm only ignoring your twisted interpretation. I'll accept your all-over usage, but it must be light use compared to how our brain is utilized today. Look at all the things our brain does now compared to then.
DAVID: We know our early brain was lightly used, but had great potential for complex use. As for the past I assume, as you do, the process was the same: enlargement in anticipation of future use with some excess neurons discarded as complexification occurred to fit the new uses. And of course with God as the designer.dhw: Of course it had potential. That does not mean your God stuck in an extra 150cc which were not needed at the time. And as for the past, no, I do not believe that the process was in anticipation of future use or that excess neurons were discarded! Why are you shoving your theory onto me? I am proposing that there were never any excess neurons until sapiens' enhanced complexification came into force. In the past, when complexification could no longer cope, I propose that there was enlargement to meet new requirements, not to anticipate future use. But it is possible that your God was the designer of the autonomous mechanism which you agree runs complexification, but which you refuse to even consider as the source of expansion.
Look, my position is unchanged. God expanded all hominin/homo brains. The overexpansion does not fit your goal of a naturally caused expansion, un less the idea of light over-all use is accepted, which means still over expanded. .
dhw: It is you who denigrate your God by claiming that he gave us excessive neurons which proved unnecessary. Now suddenly you change your tune: the 150 cc were not excessive – now you think they were essential for the way complexification worked, and they even gave us our free will (which denotes the autonomy of complexification). So why were they made redundant?
A clever design by God which prepares for whatever uses we free-will humans invent is not any form of denigration except in your twisted view.
ired new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.[/i]
DAVID: There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.dhw: Then why do you call them excess if we couldn’t have managed to speak our languages without them?
The excess cells allowed a special complexification of the brain for all the different types of networks needed for different languages.
dhw: …why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?DAVID: We still totally disagree in interpretation. God designs the larger brain for future use by free-will hominins/homos in all stages.
dhw: Repeating your fixed belief is not an answer to my question.
Our brain responds with complexification, a mechanism planned, designed and given by God. Therefore it can rearrange itself whenever necessary. You have my response.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: Excess is excess no matter how you contort it. You are proposing a light use of all neurons in the brain when enlargement occurs, and with heavy use later 150 cc of them disappears. Strange, so heavy use makes some neurons unnecessary? Heavy use in our current brain grows volumes of new axon connections, which tells us any heavy use simply enlarges axon networks.
dhw: You are now repeating my own theory in different terms, as if somehow that invalidated it! Yes, once the brain had expanded to 1350 cc, all cells would have been used. We don’t need your new category of light and heavy use, which glosses over the central issue of requirements.
DAVID: I'm only ignoring your twisted interpretation. I'll accept your all-over usage, but it must be light use compared to how our brain is utilized today. Look at all the things our brain does now compared to then.
Of course it’s light use by comparison. The “heavy” use would have been the new requirement that necessitated additional cells in the first place. This new requirement then became part of ordinary life, and the new cells would have continued to perform their new function, joining in the process of complexification to cover all needs, until the next “heavy” requirement – in our case, 2500 years later. I have no objection if you want to call that intermediate use “light”. The point is that the new cells were NOT excess: they met and continued to meet the requirements that first made them necessary until enhanced complexification made them redundant (= shrinkage).
dhw: […][…] it is possible that your God was the designer of the autonomous mechanism which you agree runs complexification, but which you refuse to even consider as the source of expansion.
DAVID: Look, my position is unchanged. God expanded all hominin/homo brains. The overexpansion does not fit your goal of a naturally caused expansion, unless the idea of light over-all use is accepted, which means still over expanded.
The expansion was NOT overexpansion. You have just agreed that the additional cells were used “lightly”, but you ignore my proposal that these additional cells came into being because they were necessary – as with all older brains – to meet what at the time would have been a major new requirement. I needn’t repeat the list of possible candidates for this major new requirement, but to stick to our simple example: new idea – make spear. Additional cells required for design, manufacture and use of spear. These new cells required from then on to continue making and using spears and for what you now call light overall use, which I’m happy to accept. (Period of stasis = no major new requirements.) But I absolutely do not accept that light overall use of new cells means that they were excessive, i.e. not needed. They came into being BECAUSE of the need for a new "heavy" use. And to forestall what I anticipate would be your next question, I have explained shrinkage above.
dhw: It is you who denigrate your God by claiming that he gave us excessive neurons which proved unnecessary. Now suddenly you change your tune: the 150 cc were not excessive – now you think they were essential for the way complexification worked, and they even gave us our free will (which denotes the autonomy of complexification). So why were they made redundant?
DAVID: A clever design by God which prepares for whatever uses we free-will humans invent is not any form of denigration except in your twisted view.
ired new networks (connections plus a degree of restructuring), i.e. complexification.
Something has got lost here, but I have never excluded the possibility that the whole system was God’s clever design. The denigration was yours, in proposing that your God gave us 150cc of “excess” (i.e. unnecessary) cells. I keep saying that they were not unnecessary, and now you tell us that they were necessary for complexification. Please make up your mind.
DAVID: There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.
dhw: Then why do you call them excess if we couldn’t have managed to speak our languages without them?
DAVID: The excess cells allowed a special complexification of the brain for all the different types of networks needed for different languages.
“Excess” means additional and unnecessary. How can they have been unnecessary if they enabled the brain to complexify in the manner required for our languages?
dhw: …why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?
DAVID: Our brain responds with complexification, a mechanism planned, designed and given by God. Therefore it can rearrange itself whenever necessary. You have my response.
Thank you for at last answering the question. We have now established once and for all that the brain complexifies autonomously in RESPONSE to new requirements (using a mechanism you believe was designed by your God). Bearing in mind that the modern hippocampus actually expands, why then do you assume that in the past, brains were unable to expand autonomously, and did NOT expand in response to new requirements but had to be operated on so your God could give them additional cells in anticipation of unknown future requirements?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Friday, April 23, 2021, 19:27 (1092 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Of course it’s light use by comparison. The “heavy” use would have been the new requirement that necessitated additional cells in the first place. This new requirement then became part of ordinary life, and the new cells would have continued to perform their new function, joining in the process of complexification to cover all needs, until the next “heavy” requirement – in our case, 2500 years later.
All we have decided is God provided excess cells at the original enlargement of the sapiens brain, and with full use of the brain the excess was discarded by complexification. Light use of all neurons at first is certainly reasonable, allowing for free-will humans to use their new brain any way they wished.
dhw:The expansion was NOT overexpansion. You have just agreed that the additional cells were used “lightly”, but you ignore my proposal that these additional cells came into being because they were necessary
Necessary for only very light use, and available for heavy use later on. You can't get rid of an obvious excess that was provided initially by God to allow all sorts of future uses invented by humans..
dhw: It is you who denigrate your God by claiming that he gave us excessive neurons which proved unnecessary. Now suddenly you change your tune: the 150 cc were not excessive – now you think they were essential for the way complexification worked, and they even gave us our free will (which denotes the autonomy of complexification). So why were they made redundant?
DAVID: A clever design by God which prepares for whatever uses we free-will humans invent is not any form of denigration except in your twisted view.
dhw: Something has got lost here, but I have never excluded the possibility that the whole system was God’s clever design. The denigration was yours, in proposing that your God gave us 150cc of “excess” (i.e. unnecessary) cells. I keep saying that they were not unnecessary, and now you tell us that they were necessary for complexification. Please make up your mind.
My mind is solid. The excess neurons let us free-willed folks to use our brains we wished. God accepted us as He wished to create us.
DAVID: There are thousands of languages. The excess cells allowed for precise networking to fit each language. Makes my point.dhw: Then why do you call them excess if we couldn’t have managed to speak our languages without them?
DAVID: The excess cells allowed a special complexification of the brain for all the different types of networks needed for different languages.
dhw: “Excess” means additional and unnecessary. How can they have been unnecessary if they enabled the brain to complexify in the manner required for our languages?
If they weren't needed and disappeared as we discovered different functions for the new- sized brain they were excessive to allow for proper tailoring and were purposely made available by God to allow us the privilege of our own evolution of our brain.
dhw: …why do you persist in ignoring current knowledge, that the brain RESPONDS to requirements and does not rearrange itself in anticipation of future needs?DAVID: Our brain responds with complexification, a mechanism planned, designed and given by God. Therefore it can rearrange itself whenever necessary. You have my response.
dhw: Thank you for at last answering the question. We have now established once and for all that the brain complexifies autonomously in RESPONSE to new requirements (using a mechanism you believe was designed by your God). Bearing in mind that the modern hippocampus actually expands, why then do you assume that in the past, brains were unable to expand autonomously, and did NOT expand in response to new requirements but had to be operated on so your God could give them additional cells in anticipation of unknown future requirements?
God speciates. Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory. Older brains were most likely the same with new organisms building upon what was done in the past. Why do you day dream possibilities not based on what we know about brains from today's brain? In my view today's brain's mechanisms mimic what happened in past brains.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: All we have decided is God provided excess cells at the original enlargement of the sapiens brain, and with full use of the brain the excess was discarded by complexification.
We have not decided any such thing. You simply continue to ignore all my arguments! If God exists, firstly I challenge your theory that he performed operations on all the hominins and homos to pop a few extra cells into their brains in anticipation of future requirements. (See below for more details.) Secondly, I challenge your theory that the original enlargement of the sapiens brain provided “excess” cells. My proposal is that they were NEEDED to fulfil a new requirement. Once this was fulfilled, the cells continued to perform the functions that first made them necessary, and they and all the other cells would have continued to complexify until the next major requirement (you reckon it was 250,000 years later) necessitated a substantial change. In the past, that would have been the addition of new cells, but as the brain could not expand any more, enhanced complexification took over. This proved so efficient that certain cells were no longer necessary (= shrinkage).
DAVID: Light use of all neurons at first is certainly reasonable, allowing for free-will humans to use their new brain any way they wished.
What you call light use would have occurred during the period of stasis when there were no major new requirements. I don’t know why you are now harping on free will, as this in itself is a controversial subject. But even if we assume that we have it, our ancestors would also have had it, unless you think that your God had not yet given them the autonomous ability to invent new tools and weapons, adopt new ways of coping with their environment, establishing social practices, making clothes, using fire etc. This is the point I was making above: I do not accept the idea that your God performed operations on them to give them more cells in anticipation of these advances. If we have free will to invent, then so did they.
DAVID: You can't get rid of an obvious excess that was provided initially by God to allow all sorts of future uses invented by humans.
I have got rid of it over and over again, but you refuse to even consider what I write, and you refuse to provide a logical reason for rejecting it. I’ll skip most of the remaining post, which merely repeats vague statements about free will and excessive cells which allow “proper tailoring”, and move to the last exchange:
dhw:. We have now established once and for all that the brain complexifies autonomously in RESPONSE to new requirements (using a mechanism you believe was designed by your God). Bearing in mind that the modern hippocampus actually expands, why then do you assume that in the past, brains were unable to expand autonomously, and did NOT expand in response to new requirements but had to be operated on so your God could give them additional cells in anticipation of unknown future requirements?
DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.
So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.
DAVID: Older brains were most likely the same with new organisms building upon what was done in the past. Why do you day dream possibilities not based on what we know about brains from today's brain? In my view today's brain's mechanisms mimic what happened in past brains.
Precisely. They would have complexified autonomously, as do our modern brains, and they would have expanded autonomously, as does our modern hippocampus – both processes in RESPONSE to requirements and not in anticipation of them. You’ve finally got the message, though I have no idea why you call it “daydreaming”
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Saturday, April 24, 2021, 16:09 (1091 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: All we have decided is God provided excess cells at the original enlargement of the sapiens brain, and with full use of the brain the excess was discarded by complexification.
dhw: We have not decided any such thing. You simply continue to ignore all my arguments!
I don't ignore your arguments, I reject them. You cannot wish away the fact that we had more cells when our brain appeared than we have now under much heavier use than was present then.
dhw: My proposal is that they were NEEDED to fulfil a new requirement.
And I've agreed it is possible/reasonable light use of all the initial bigger brain happened.
dhw: but as the brain could not expand any more,
How do you know that as fact? Neanderthals had bigger brain volume.
DAVID: Light use of all neurons at first is certainly reasonable, allowing for free-will humans to use their new brain any way they wished.hw: What you call light use would have occurred during the period of stasis when there were no major new requirements. I don’t know why you are now harping on free will, as this in itself is a controversial subject. But even if we assume that we have it, our ancestors would also have had it, unless you think that your God had not yet given them the autonomous ability to invent new tools and weapons, adopt new ways of coping with their environment, establishing social practices, making clothes, using fire etc. This is the point I was making above: I do not accept the idea that your God performed operations on them to give them more cells in anticipation of these advances. If we have free will to invent, then so did they.
I'll stay with my personal theology. God speciates, and you reject it. No changes.
DAVID: You can't get rid of an obvious excess that was provided initially by God to allow all sorts of future uses invented by humans.dhw: I have got rid of it over and over again, but you refuse to even consider what I write, and you refuse to provide a logical reason for rejecting it. I’ll skip most of the remaining post, which merely repeats vague statements about free will and excessive cells which allow “proper tailoring”, and move to the last exchange:
dhw:. We have now established once and for all that the brain complexifies autonomously in RESPONSE to new requirements (using a mechanism you believe was designed by your God). Bearing in mind that the modern hippocampus actually expands, why then do you assume that in the past, brains were unable to expand autonomously, and did NOT expand in response to new requirements but had to be operated on so your God could give them additional cells in anticipation of unknown future requirements?
DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.
dhw: So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.
For the obvious reasons I've presented.
DAVID: Older brains were most likely the same with new organisms building upon what was done in the past. Why do you day dream possibilities not based on what we know about brains from today's brain? In my view today's brain's mechanisms mimic what happened in past brains.dhw: Precisely. They would have complexified autonomously, as do our modern brains, and they would have expanded autonomously, as does our modern hippocampus – both processes in RESPONSE to requirements and not in anticipation of them. You’ve finally got the message, though I have no idea why you call it “daydreaming”
I understand your position and have granted the possibility of light use all over the first enlarged brain with cells to be shucked later, as free-willed humans learned to use their new big brain, supplied by God's speciation.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: All we have decided is God provided excess cells at the original enlargement of the sapiens brain, and with full use of the brain the excess was discarded by complexification.
dhw: We have not decided any such thing. You simply continue to ignore all my arguments!
DAVID: I don't ignore your arguments, I reject them. You cannot wish away the fact that we had more cells when our brain appeared than we have now under much heavier use than was present then.
I have not wished it away. That is what we call shrinkage, and I have explained it over and over again: when enhanced complexification took over from expansion, it proved so efficient that certain previously essential cells became redundant. Please stop ignoring my arguments.
dhw: My proposal is that they [the new cells] were NEEDED to fulfil a new requirement.
DAVID: And I've agreed it is possible/reasonable light use of all the initial bigger brain happened.
A crucial breakthrough. Your recently coined term “light use” is simply another way of describing stasis, when there are no new requirements and so the new cells perform the function that brought them into existence, and all the cells cope with current requirements through complexification until a major new requirement leads to further expansion. But this didn’t or couldn’t happen 2500 years after the last expansion, and enhanced complexification took over (resulting as above in shrinkage). What do you disagree with?
dhw: …but as the brain could not expand any more…
DAVID: How do you know that as fact? Neanderthals had bigger brain volume.
I don’t know it as fact, any more than you know it as fact that your God popped in and performed a brain operation on all the sleeping hominins and homos to give them cells they didn’t need at the time. All we know is that the brain (apart from the hippocampus) stopped expanding. I have suggested a logical reason. Neanderthal’s anatomy was different from ours, and maybe ours has advantages over theirs.
DAVID: Light use of all neurons at first is certainly reasonable, allowing for free-will humans to use their new brain any way they wished.
dhw: […] I don’t know why you are now harping on free will, as this in itself is a controversial subject. But even if we assume that we have it, our ancestors would also have had it, unless you think that your God had not yet given them the autonomous ability to invent new tools and weapons, adopt new ways of coping with their environment, establishing social practices, making clothes, using fire etc. […] I do not accept the idea that your God performed operations on them to give them more cells in anticipation of these advances. If we have free will to invent, then so did they.
DAVID: I'll stay with my personal theology. God speciates, and you reject it. No changes.
We are talking about our ancestors. Do you believe your God gave them the autonomous ability to invent new tools etc., as above, or do you think he programmed or taught them how to do it and only stopped programming or teaching when he designed sapiens? If they had the same autonomous power, then they already had the same mechanisms as ours, and we neither complexify nor expand IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements. Both processes come into operation IN RESPONSE to new requirements.
DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.
dhw: So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.
DAVID: For the obvious reasons I've presented.
Agreed. All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?
DAVID: Older brains were most likely the same with new organisms building upon what was done in the past. Why do you day dream possibilities not based on what we know about brains from today's brain? In my view today's brain's mechanisms mimic what happened in past brains.
dhw: Precisely. They would have complexified autonomously, as do our modern brains, and they would have expanded autonomously, as does our modern hippocampus – both processes in RESPONSE to requirements and not in anticipation of them. You’ve finally got the message, though I have no idea why you call it “daydreaming”
DAVID: I understand your position and have granted the possibility of light use all over the first enlarged brain with cells to be shucked later, as free-willed humans learned to use their new big brain, supplied by God's speciation.
In brief, you cannot find a single flaw in my proposal, but instead of explicitly accepting that God could have supplied the mechanism which gave the brains of our ancestors as well as ourselves the autonomous ability to complexify AND expand, you hide behind a massive generalization about species.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Sunday, April 25, 2021, 17:44 (1090 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't ignore your arguments, I reject them. You cannot wish away the fact that we had more cells when our brain appeared than we have now under much heavier use than was present then.
dhw: I have not wished it away. That is what we call shrinkage, and I have explained it over and over again: when enhanced complexification took over from expansion, it proved so efficient that certain previously essential cells became redundant. Please stop ignoring my arguments.
I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.
dhw: My proposal is that they [the new cells] were NEEDED to fulfil a new requirement.
DAVID: And I've agreed it is possible/reasonable light use of all the initial bigger brain happened.
dhw: A crucial breakthrough. Your recently coined term “light use” is simply another way of describing stasis, when there are no new requirements and so the new cells perform the function that brought them into existence,... What do you disagree with?
Your whole concept. We had to learn to use our oversized brain, by adding huge new functions such as usable language with speech, more exact stone tool manufacture, leaving caves for structures like tents, and softening hides for clothing and more recently arithmetic, and other immaterial concepts. with shrinkage of the excess. The excess allowed us to tailor our own new big brains.
DAVID: I'll stay with my personal theology. God speciates, and you reject it. No changes.
dhw: We are talking about our ancestors. Do you believe your God gave them the autonomous ability to invent new tools etc., as above, or do you think he programmed or taught them how to do it
Answered already. We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.
DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.dhw: So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.
DAVID: For the obvious reasons I've presented.
dhw: Agreed. All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?
I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. God-given oversized at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have.
DAVID: I understand your position and have granted the possibility of light use all over the first enlarged brain with cells to be shucked later, as free-willed humans learned to use their new big brain, supplied by God's speciation.dhw: In brief, you cannot find a single flaw in my proposal, but instead of explicitly accepting that God could have supplied the mechanism which gave the brains of our ancestors as well as ourselves the autonomous ability to complexify AND expand, you hide behind a massive generalization about species.
Yes, I agree likely older brains were oversized and complexified slightly with new use. God speciating is not a massive subterfuge, it is my belief God evolved us. What we know ab out our brain must be used in considering how the past brains worked. Some excess at each stage, to allow complexification tailoring for existing usages.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: I don't ignore your arguments, I reject them. You cannot wish away the fact that we had more cells when our brain appeared than we have now under much heavier use than was present then.
dhw: I have not wished it away. That is what we call shrinkage, and I have explained it over and over again: when enhanced complexification took over from expansion, it proved so efficient that certain previously essential cells became redundant. Please stop ignoring my arguments.
DAVID: I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.
You say you don’t accept my arguments, but then you proceed to repeat them almost word for word, except for calling the new cells “excess”! I suppose I’d better repeat that in my theory, the EXTRA (not “excess”) cells were added in response to new requirements. During the period of stasis there were no major (your "heavy") new requirements, and so they would then have continued to be used (with "light" complexification) for that new purpose and any other minor requirements, until 250,000 years later. Then new requirements led not to expansion but to enhanced complexification, which made some cells unnecessary. What do you disagree with?
DAVID: Your whole concept. We had to learn to use our oversized brain, by adding huge new functions such as usable language with speech, more exact stone tool manufacture, leaving caves for structures like tents, and softening hides for clothing and more recently arithmetic, and other immaterial concepts. with shrinkage of the excess. The excess allowed us to tailor our own new big brains.
You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive. The picture you draw is absurd in the light of modern research, which shows that our brains complexify (and the hippocampus expands) IN RESPONSE to new demands. I don’t believe we said to ourselves: “Oh, God gave me a lot of new cells that aren’t doing anything, so I’d better invent language etc.” I’ve explained why I think the new cells were added initially (new requirements), and why they were “lightly used” during stasis (no major new requirements), and then all the new ideas etc. that you have listed required enhanced complexification of the existing cells (including the original extra ones) – and, for the umpteenth time, this proved so efficient that certain cells became unnecessary. Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?
DAVID: I'll stay with my personal theology. God speciates, and you reject it. No changes.
dhw: We are talking about our ancestors. Do you believe your God gave them the autonomous ability to invent new tools etc., as above, or do you think he programmed or taught them how to do it?
DAVID: Answered already. We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.
I’ll take that as meaning that our ancestors did indeed have the autonomous ability to invent new tools.
DAVID: […] Only the hippocampus must expand as we learn to do new tricks/procedures with our brain and must add memory.
dhw: So we know that part of the modern brain can expand autonomously.
DAVID: For the obvious reasons I've presented.
dhw: Agreed. All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?
DAVID: I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. God-given oversized at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have.
Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Monday, April 26, 2021, 16:17 (1089 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.
dhw: You say you don’t accept my arguments, but then you proceed to repeat them almost word for word, except for calling the new cells “excess”! I suppose I’d better repeat that in my theory, the EXTRA (not “excess”) cells were added in response to new requirements. During the period of stasis there were no major (your "heavy") new requirements, and so they would then have continued to be used (with "light" complexification) for that new purpose and any other minor requirements, until 250,000 years later. Then new requirements led not to expansion but to enhanced complexification, which made some cells unnecessary. What do you disagree with?
How we view the extra cells. I'll agree they might have been useful in the beginning, and I've given you a good reason why they gave us the ability to tailor our later use of our brains, and ended up as excess and jettisoned.
DAVID: Your whole concept. We had to learn to use our oversized brain, by adding huge new functions such as usable language with speech, more exact stone tool manufacture, leaving caves for structures like tents, and softening hides for clothing and more recently arithmetic, and other immaterial concepts. with shrinkage of the excess. The excess allowed us to tailor our own new big brains.dhw: You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive....Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?
Your fixation is a total denial that extra cells removed means they were necessary. Irrational topsy-turvy reasoning. My version of your theory makes sense.
DAVID: Answered already. We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.dhw: I’ll take that as meaning that our ancestors did indeed have the autonomous ability to invent new tools.
Of course they did. Habilis is named for his tools. Your point?
dhw: Agreed. All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?
DAVID: I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. God-given oversized at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have.
dhw: Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.
Same irrational "Alice in Wonderland" nonsensical thought that extra cells that are removed are therefore useful and not excess. I've granted they once might have been useful, but when no longer necessary they become excessive and removed. God planned it that way so we could tailor our brains to our preferred uses. Time to put on your slightly theistic thinking cap, which has appeared now and then in God-humanizing form, and try to see the theistic logic in my view.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.
dhw: You say you don’t accept my arguments, but then you proceed to repeat them almost word for word, except for calling the new cells “excess”! I suppose I’d better repeat that in my theory, the EXTRA (not “excess”) cells were added in response to new requirements. During the period of stasis there were no major (your "heavy") new requirements, and so they would then have continued to be used (with "light" complexification) for that new purpose and any other minor requirements, until 250,000 years later. Then new requirements led not to expansion but to enhanced complexification, which made some cells unnecessary. What do you disagree with?
DAVID: How we view the extra cells. I'll agree they might have been useful in the beginning, and I've given you a good reason why they gave us the ability to tailor our later use of our brains, and ended up as excess and jettisoned.
Over and over again you have argued that the new sapiens cells were excessive and brains overexpanded from the beginning. I’m delighted that you now agree that the cells were useful, which can only mean that the brain was NOT overexpanded. And over and over again I have explained that they only became “excessive” when enhanced complexification took over from expansion and proved so efficient that some cells were no longer needed. Welcome to my theory.
dhw: You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive....Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?
DAVID: Your fixation is a total denial that extra cells removed means they were necessary. Irrational topsy-turvy reasoning. My version of your theory makes sense.
This is absurd. As I keep saying, the extra cells were necessary from the start. They only ceased to be necessary when enhanced complexification proved so efficient that they became redundant. I have bolded it above for you. I am delighted that you have now accepted my theory, but please don’t create such a silly distortion of it to justify your earlier opposition.
DAVID: We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.
dhw: I’ll take that as meaning that our ancestors did indeed have the autonomous ability to invent new tools.
DAVID: Of course they did. Habilis is named for his tools. Your point?
My point is that the autonomous ability to complexify and expand already existed prior to H. sapiens. There was no need for your God to perform operations to provide extra cells in anticipation of new requirements. The brain already worked autonomously as it does now, with cells RESPONDING to new requirements.
dhw: All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?
DAVID: I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. God-given oversized at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.
DAVID: Same irrational "Alice in Wonderland" nonsensical thought that extra cells that are removed are therefore useful and not excess.
Please stop pretending that I have proposed anything so silly. It is you who keep claiming that the brain was oversized (bolded above) because the cells were excessive (= not necessary)! The cells were useful from the beginning onwards and only became unnecessary when enhanced complexification took over.
DAVID: I've granted they once might have been useful, but when no longer necessary they become excessive and removed.
Correct. Once more, welcome to my theory.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 16:12 (1088 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What do you disagree with?[/i]
DAVID: How we view the extra cells. I'll agree they might have been useful in the beginning, and I've given you a good reason why they gave us the ability to tailor our later use of our brains, and ended up as excess and jettisoned.dhw: Over and over again you have argued that the new sapiens cells were excessive and brains overexpanded from the beginning. I’m delighted that you now agree that the cells were useful, which can only mean that the brain was NOT overexpanded. And over and over again I have explained that they only became “excessive” when enhanced complexification took over from expansion and proved so efficient that some cells were no longer needed. Welcome to my theory.
They were always excessive for final future use, no mater how you contort the descriptions
dhw: You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive....Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?DAVID: Your fixation is a total denial that extra cells removed means they were necessary. Irrational topsy-turvy reasoning. My version of your theory makes sense.
dhw: This is absurd. As I keep saying, the extra cells were necessary from the start.
It can also be said they were useful from the beginning for light use but not required for the heavier use later and dropped as excess. They were never meant to stay.
dhw: My point is that the autonomous ability to complexify and expand already existed prior to H. sapiens. There was no need for your God to perform operations to provide extra cells in anticipation of new requirements. The brain already worked autonomously as it does now, with cells RESPONDING to new requirements.
I agree past brains operated much like ours, but God gave us each step in bigger more complex brains. Brains did not grow themselves.
dhw: Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.
DAVID: Same irrational "Alice in Wonderland" nonsensical thought that extra cells that are removed are therefore useful and not excess.
dhw: Please stop pretending that I have proposed anything so silly. It is you who keep claiming that the brain was oversized (bolded above) because the cells were excessive (= not necessary)! The cells were useful from the beginning onwards and only became unnecessary when enhanced complexification took over.
DAVID: I've granted they once might have been useful, but when no longer necessary they become excessive and removed.
dhw: Correct. Once more, welcome to my theory.
I'm not following your theory. There can be no denying extra neurons were always present, and my interpretation grants they might have had some light use while they remained, but the excess neurons allowed us to remodel our brains to fit the heavy uses we learned to employ, language, abstract ideas, mathematics with invented number systems, etc. So heavily used brains are now 150 cc smaller. Making extras cells slightly useful in the beginning and then discarding them after complexification makes them an excess group of cells, used and then discarded
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: Over and over again you have argued that the new sapiens cells were excessive and brains overexpanded from the beginning. I’m delighted that you now agree that the cells were useful, which can only mean that the brain was NOT overexpanded. And over and over again I have explained that they only became “excessive” when enhanced complexification took over from expansion and proved so efficient that some cells were no longer needed. Welcome to my theory.
DAVID: They were always excessive for final future use, no mater how you contort the descriptions.
A factory may need 100 workers until a new, more efficient process is developed, and then some workers will be made redundant. It is absurd to say that the redundant ones were always excessive for final future use. And so let me yet again explain my theory: the new cells were NECESSARY to meet a new requirement. They continued to be necessary to fulfil that requirement, would probably have continued to complexify on a small scale during the period of stasis, but when major new requirements arose and the brain did not/could not expand any more, complexification took over and was so efficient that some cells were no longer necessary. What are the contortions?
DAVID: It can also be said they were useful from the beginning for light use but not required for the heavier use later and dropped as excess. They were never meant to stay.
I propose that they were essential from the beginning, and continued to perform their essential function until…see the bold above. Redundancy is the result of improved methods, not some vague concept of destiny.
dhw: My point is that the autonomous ability to complexify and expand already existed prior to H. sapiens. There was no need for your God to perform operations to provide extra cells in anticipation of new requirements. The brain already worked autonomously as it does now, with cells RESPONDING to new requirements.
DAVID: I agree past brains operated much like ours, but God gave us each step in bigger more complex brains. Brains did not grow themselves.
If they operated much like ours, then they operated autonomously. Or are you now saying that your God pops in to complexify our brains (and expand the hippocampus) before we can think up our new ideas? In other words, if he exists, your God would have given earlier brains the same mechanism for autonomous complexification and expansion that we have now. I propose that the mechanism is cellular intelligence.
DAVID: I've granted they once might have been useful, but when no longer necessary they become excessive and removed.
dhw: Correct. Once more, welcome to my theory.
DAVID: I'm not following your theory. There can be no denying extra neurons were always present, and my interpretation grants they might have had some light use while they remained, but the excess neurons allowed us to remodel our brains to fit the heavy uses we learned to employ, language, abstract ideas, mathematics with invented number systems, etc.
They were not “excess” (= unnecessary) if they enabled us to remodel our brains! They only became “excess” when remodelling in the form of enhanced complexification was able to cope with all the new requirements with such efficiency that they were no longer needed.
DAVID: So heavily used brains are now 150 cc smaller. Making extras cells slightly useful in the beginning and then discarding them after complexification makes them an excess group of cells, used and then discarded.
Yet again: they were not “slightly useful” in the beginning. They were essential. If they hadn’t been essential, they would not have been added in the first place. And they would have continued to fulfil the same essential function until, as you rightly put it, complexification made them unnecessary or “excessive” to our needs. I make that four times in one post. Five times tomorrow?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 15:44 (1087 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: They were always excessive for final future use, no matter how you contort the descriptions.
dhw: A factory may need 100 workers until a new, more efficient process is developed, and then some workers will be made redundant. It is absurd to say that the redundant ones were always excessive for final future use. And so let me yet again explain my theory: the new cells were NECESSARY to meet a new requirement. They continued to be necessary to fulfil that requirement, would probably have continued to complexify on a small scale during the period of stasis, but when major new requirements arose and the brain did not/could not expand any more, complexification took over and was so efficient that some cells were no longer necessary. What are the contortions?
The brain is not a factory with fixed machines. The brain was given innate plasticity so the excess cells could be jettisoned when those cells finally needed were reorganized into the best efficiency.
dhw: My point is that the autonomous ability to complexify and expand already existed prior to H. sapiens. There was no need for your God to perform operations to provide extra cells in anticipation of new requirements. The brain already worked autonomously as it does now, with cells RESPONDING to new requirements.DAVID: I agree past brains operated much like ours, but God gave us each step in bigger more complex brains. Brains did not grow themselves.
dhw: If they operated much like ours, then they operated autonomously. Or are you now saying that your God pops in to complexify our brains (and expand the hippocampus) before we can think up our new ideas? In other words, if he exists, your God would have given earlier brains the same mechanism for autonomous complexification and expansion that we have now. I propose that the mechanism is cellular intelligence.
And I believe God speciates.
DAVID: I'm not following your theory. There can be no denying extra neurons were always present, and my interpretation grants they might have had some light use while they remained, but the excess neurons allowed us to remodel our brains to fit the heavy uses we learned to employ, language, abstract ideas, mathematics with invented number systems, etc.dhw: They were not “excess” (= unnecessary) if they enabled us to remodel our brains! They only became “excess” when remodelling in the form of enhanced complexification was able to cope with all the new requirements with such efficiency that they were no longer needed.
How do yo know the excess cells played a role in deciding to discard themselves? I would think the remaining reorganized neurons did the job.
DAVID: So heavily used brains are now 150 cc smaller. Making extras cells slightly useful in the beginning and then discarding them after complexification makes them an excess group of cells, used and then discarded.dhw: Yet again: they were not “slightly useful” in the beginning. They were essential. If they hadn’t been essential, they would not have been added in the first place. And they would have continued to fulfil the same essential function until, as you rightly put it, complexification made them unnecessary or “excessive” to our needs. I make that four times in one post. Five times tomorrow?
If you would accept God's role the repeats are unnecessary. We will continue to interpret the known facts from different viewpoints.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: They were always excessive for final future use, no matter how you contort the descriptions.
dhw: A factory may need 100 workers until a new, more efficient process is developed, and then some workers will be made redundant. It is absurd to say that the redundant ones were always excessive for final future use. And so let me yet again explain my theory: the new cells were NECESSARY to meet a new requirement. They continued to be necessary to fulfil that requirement, would probably have continued to complexify on a small scale during the period of stasis, but when major new requirements arose and the brain did not/could not expand any more, complexification took over and was so efficient that some cells were no longer necessary. What are the contortions?
DAVID: The brain is not a factory with fixed machines. The brain was given innate plasticity so the excess cells could be jettisoned when those cells finally needed were reorganized into the best efficiency.
An exact parallel to the plasticity of staffing: when a more efficient method is developed, excess staff are made redundant. Neither the original staff nor the original cells were excessive until a more efficient method took over from the original method.
DAVID: I agree past brains operated much like ours, but God gave us each step in bigger more complex brains. Brains did not grow themselves.
dhw: If they operated much like ours, then they operated autonomously. Or are you now saying that your God pops in to complexify our brains (and expand the hippocampus) before we can think up our new ideas? In other words, if he exists, your God would have given earlier brains the same mechanism for autonomous complexification and expansion that we have now. I propose that the mechanism is cellular intelligence.
DAVID: And I believe God speciates.
That is not an answer. You agree that the modern brain complexifies and in one case (hippocampus) expands autonomously, and past brains would have operated in the same way. Therefore (theistic version) your God’s role would have been to design the mechanism that gave all brains their autonomy. What method can you conceive of, other than cellular intelligence?
DAVID (taken from “Miscellany”): It is a mechanism coded into our DNA under God's control. As a result our cells look and act intelligently following God's implanted information.”
You have agreed that our brains complexify and expand autonomously. “Autonomy” does not mean “under God’s control”. “Coded into our DNA” and “implanted information” must therefore refer to the means whereby your God gave our brains that autonomy. In our next exchange, you even tell us that the neurons made the decision to jettison excess cells. God’s didn’t instruct them to do it. The cells did it. The point you make is irrelevant to the argument about “excess”, but in the context of intelligence, how else could cells take such decisions autonomously if they were not intelligent?
DAVID: There can be no denying extra neurons were always present, and my interpretation grants they might have had some light use while they remained, but the excess neurons allowed us to remodel our brains to fit the heavy uses we learned to employ, language, abstract ideas, mathematics with invented number systems, etc.
dhw: They were not “excess” (= unnecessary) if they enabled us to remodel our brains! They only became “excess” when remodelling in the form of enhanced complexification was able to cope with all the new requirements with such efficiency that they were no longer needed.
DAVID: How do you know the excess cells played a role in deciding to discard themselves? I would think the remaining reorganized neurons did the job.
I have not said which cells made the decision! I have only said that some cells were not needed when enhanced complexification coped with all the new requirements. Only then did they become “excess”, whereas you keep telling us they were “excess” right from the start.
DAVID: So heavily used brains are now 150 cc smaller. Making extras cells slightly useful in the beginning and then discarding them after complexification makes them an excess group of cells, used and then discarded.
dhw: Yet again: they were not “slightly useful” in the beginning. They were essential. If they hadn’t been essential, they would not have been added in the first place. And they would have continued to fulfil the same essential function until, as you rightly put it, complexification made them unnecessary or “excessive” to our needs. I make that four times in one post. Five times tomorrow?
DAVID: If you would accept God's role the repeats are unnecessary. We will continue to interpret the known facts from different viewpoints.
If you would accept your own agreement that past brains would have functioned in the same way as modern brains, by way of autonomous complexification and expansion, and your God would not have lumbered brains with unnecessary cells, and therefore his role would have been to design the mechanism that gave autonomy to the brain, I would not have to keep knocking down the straw men you keep erecting in order to justify your interpretation of God’s role in evolution.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, April 29, 2021, 16:58 (1086 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The brain is not a factory with fixed machines. The brain was given innate plasticity so the excess cells could be jettisoned when those cells finally needed were reorganized into the best efficiency.
dhw: An exact parallel to the plasticity of staffing: when a more efficient method is developed, excess staff are made redundant. Neither the original staff nor the original cells were excessive until a more efficient method took over from the original method.
Note you have used the word excess.
DAVID: And I believe God speciates.
dhw: That is not an answer. You agree that the modern brain complexifies and in one case (hippocampus) expands autonomously, and past brains would have operated in the same way. Therefore (theistic version) your God’s role would have been to design the mechanism that gave all brains their autonomy. What method can you conceive of, other than cellular intelligence?
I don't accept innate cellular intelligence. Cells give the appearance of intelligence as they follow intelligent instructions/information .
DAVID (taken from “Miscellany”): It is a mechanism coded into our DNA under God's control. As a result our cells look and act intelligently following God's implanted information.”dhw: You have agreed that our brains complexify and expand autonomously. “Autonomy” does not mean “under God’s control”. “Coded into our DNA” and “implanted information” must therefore refer to the means whereby your God gave our brains that autonomy.
I've never agreed to species brain expansion as autonomous, only very local enlargement of already enlarged brains in a new species..
.dhw: In our next exchange, you even tell us that the neurons made the decision to jettison excess cells. God’s didn’t instruct them to do it. The cells did it. The point you make is irrelevant to the argument about “excess”, but in the context of intelligence, how else could cells take such decisions autonomously if they were not intelligent?
DAVID: There can be no denying extra neurons were always present, and my interpretation grants they might have had some light use while they remained, but the excess neurons allowed us to remodel our brains to fit the heavy uses we learned to employ, language, abstract ideas, mathematics with invented number systems, etc.dhw: They were not “excess” (= unnecessary) if they enabled us to remodel our brains! They only became “excess” when remodelling in the form of enhanced complexification was able to cope with all the new requirements with such efficiency that they were no longer needed.
DAVID: How do you know the excess cells played a role in deciding to discard themselves? I would think the remaining reorganized neurons did the job.
Full misinterpretation again in the bold above. Our current neurons have a complexification mechanism, we both recognize, to do the job, a system designed by God.
dhw: I have not said which cells made the decision! I have only said that some cells were not needed when enhanced complexification coped with all the new requirements. Only then did they become “excess”, whereas you keep telling us they were “excess” right from the start.
I've given you the point they may have had light uses from the beginning, but were always intended by God to be excessive.
DAVID: So heavily used brains are now 150 cc smaller. Making extras cells slightly useful in the beginning and then discarding them after complexification makes them an excess group of cells, used and then discarded.dhw: Yet again: they were not “slightly useful” in the beginning. They were essential. If they hadn’t been essential, they would not have been added in the first place. And they would have continued to fulfil the same essential function until, as you rightly put it, complexification made them unnecessary or “excessive” to our needs. I make that four times in one post. Five times tomorrow?
DAVID: If you would accept God's role the repeats are unnecessary. We will continue to interpret the known facts from different viewpoints.
dhw: If you would accept your own agreement that past brains would have functioned in the same way as modern brains, by way of autonomous complexification and expansion, and your God would not have lumbered brains with unnecessary cells, and therefore his role would have been to design the mechanism that gave autonomy to the brain, I would not have to keep knocking down the straw men you keep erecting in order to justify your interpretation of God’s role in evolution.
I clearly see God's role.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: The brain is not a factory with fixed machines. The brain was given innate plasticity so the excess cells could be jettisoned when those cells finally needed were reorganized into the best efficiency.
dhw: An exact parallel to the plasticity of staffing: when a more efficient method is developed, excess staff are made redundant. Neither the original staff nor the original cells were excessive until a more efficient method took over from the original method.
DAVID: Note you have used the word excess.
Note: you have completely ignored the relevance of the image to our discussion: staff and cells only become excessive when a more efficient method (new machines for staff, enhanced complexification for cells) takes over from the original method. The point of the analogy was to explain to you how redundancy works. You still insist that the jettisoned staff/cells were excessive/redundant from the beginning, whereas I propose that in both cases they were essential from the beginning.
dhw: You agree that the modern brain complexifies and in one case (hippocampus) expands autonomously, and past brains would have operated in the same way. Therefore (theistic version) your God’s role would have been to design the mechanism that gave all brains their autonomy. What method can you conceive of, other than cellular intelligence?
DAVID: I don't accept innate cellular intelligence. Cells give the appearance of intelligence as they follow intelligent instructions/information.
You keep repeating this mantra, so let me repeat the point you keep dodging: following instructions is the exact opposite of autonomy. If you believe that the modern brain complexifies (and in one case expands) autonomously, i.e. without God dictating the thoughts etc. that cause its complexifications and expansion, what mechanism can you propose, other than cellular intelligence?
DAVID: I've never agreed to species brain expansion as autonomous, only very local enlargement of already enlarged brains in a new species.
We are not talking about species expansion but about the expansion of the human brain, and you have agreed that the hippocampus of modern sapiens expands autonomously, by which I mean your God does not perform operations or give new instructions to the modern hippocampus. And you have agreed that past brains would have functioned in the same way as modern brains. If your God gave us the mechanism for autonomous complexification and expansion, then the same mechanism would have been present in the brains of our ancestors. Please explain why you find this illogical.
dhw: In our next exchange, you even tell us that the neurons made the decision to jettison excess cells. God’s didn’t instruct them to do it. The cells did it. […] how else could cells take such decisions autonomously if they were not intelligent? [dhw's bold]
DAVID: Full misinterpretation again in the bold above. Our current neurons have a complexification mechanism, we both recognize, to do the job, a system designed by God.
And the complexification mechanism, like the mechanism that enables the hippocampus to expand, is autonomous! The cells make the decisions! And if God exists, then he would have designed the mechanism. You are developing a new technique: you claim that my argument is a misinterpretation, and then you echo it!
dhw: I have only said that some cells were not needed when enhanced complexification coped with all the new requirements. Only then did they become “excess”, whereas you keep telling us they were “excess” right from the start.
DAVID: I've given you the point they may have had light uses from the beginning, but were always intended by God to be excessive.
I’ve offered you the point that since (theistic version) complexification and expansion would have been the results of the autonomous processes designed by your God, the brain would not have produced the extra cells unless they were necessary at the time. And they would have continued to be necessary until enhanced complexification took over from expansion. And I still can't see why your God would have interfered with the autonomous mechanism he had designed, so that he could provide the brain with “excess” cells that were not necessary at the time, performed something called “light usage” (hardly worthy of 150cc), and later on would not be needed anyway.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2021, 19:22 (1085 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: An exact parallel to the plasticity of staffing: when a more efficient method is developed, excess staff are made redundant. Neither the original staff nor the original cells were excessive until a more efficient method took over from the original method.
DAVID: Note you have used the word excess.
dhw: Note: you have completely ignored the relevance of the image to our discussion: staff and cells only become excessive when a more efficient method (new machines for staff, enhanced complexification for cells) takes over from the original method...You still insist that the jettisoned staff/cells were excessive/redundant from the beginning, whereas I propose that in both cases they were essential from the beginning.
Yes, we differ. I view the neurons as a planned excess, from God.
DAVID: I've never agreed to species brain expansion as autonomous, only very local enlargement of already enlarged brains in a new species.dhw: We are not talking about species expansion but about the expansion of the human brain, and you have agreed that the hippocampus of modern sapiens expands autonomously, by which I mean your God does not perform operations or give new instructions to the modern hippocampus...Please explain why you find this illogical.
The modern hippocampus follows God's onboard implanted instructions to handle the need to memorize, for example, new abstract ideas as they appear. .
dhw: In our next exchange, you even tell us that the neurons made the decision to jettison excess cells. God’s didn’t instruct them to do it. The cells did it. […] how else could cells take such decisions autonomously if they were not intelligent? [dhw's bold]DAVID: Full misinterpretation again in the bold above. Our current neurons have a complexification mechanism, we both recognize, to do the job, a system designed by God.
dhw: And the complexification mechanism, like the mechanism that enables the hippocampus to expand, is autonomous! The cells make the decisions! And if God exists, then he would have designed the mechanism. You are developing a new technique: you claim that my argument is a misinterpretation, and then you echo it!
No I haven't. Autonomous brain complexification is because the brain follows God's implanted genetic instructions exactly.
dhw: I have only said that some cells were not needed when enhanced complexification coped with all the new requirements. Only then did they become “excess”, whereas you keep telling us they were “excess” right from the start.DAVID: I've given you the point they may have had light uses from the beginning, but were always intended by God to be excessive.
dhw: I’ve offered you the point that since (theistic version) complexification and expansion would have been the results of the autonomous processes designed by your God, the brain would not have produced the extra cells unless they were necessary at the time. And they would have continued to be necessary until enhanced complexification took over from expansion. And I still can't see why your God would have interfered with the autonomous mechanism he had designed, so that he could provide the brain with “excess” cells that were not necessary at the time, performed something called “light usage” (hardly worthy of 150cc), and later on would not be needed anyway.
I've previously explained God's planned excess cells allowed us free-willed humans to tailor our new big brain as we wished in the process of complexification as abstractions and other knowledge developed.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part Two
by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2021, 21:41 (1085 days ago) @ David Turell
A study of tadpoles suggests the hypothalamus started its evolutionary journey with them:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/18/eabf7452?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2021-04...
"Abstract
The hypothalamus coordinates neuroendocrine functions in vertebrates. To explore its evolutionary origin, we describe integrated transcriptome/connectome brain maps for swimming tadpoles of Ciona, which serves as an approximation of the ancestral proto-vertebrate. This map features several cell types related to different regions of the vertebrate hypothalamus, including the mammillary nucleus, the arcuate nucleus, and magnocellular neurons. Coronet cells express melanopsin and share additional properties with the saccus vasculosus, a specialized region of the hypothalamus that mediates photoperiodism in nontropical fishes. Comparative transcriptome analyses identified orthologous cell types for mechanosensory switch neurons, and VP+ and VPR+ relay neurons in different regions of the mouse hypothalamus. These observations provide evidence that the hypothalamus predates the evolution of the vertebrate brain. We discuss the possibility that switch neurons, coronet cells, and FoxP+/VPR+ relay neurons comprise a behavioral circuit that helps trigger metamorphosis of Ciona larvae in response to twilight.
***
"The hypothalamus has long been considered to be an “ancient” region of the vertebrate brain. It is found in all vertebrates, from jawless fishes to humans (9–11). A homologous area is also thought to occur in invertebrate chordates such as cephalochordates. The hypothalamus controls homeostasis, metabolism, and reproductive functions through a variety of intricate interconnecting neural circuits. Previous studies suggested that coronet cells in the Ciona sensory vesicle correspond to a “proto-hypothalamus” and are homologous to dopaminergic neurons in the vertebrate hypothalamus. More recent studies show that coronet cells also have nondopaminergic neurosecretory activities, raising the possibility that cellular subfunctionalization produced multiple specialized cell types in the vertebrate hypothalamus.
"Here, we compare the expression of key marker genes and single-cell whole-transcriptome profiles in the Ciona sensory vesicle and mouse hypothalamus. These studies suggest that coronet cells are not the only rudiment of the vertebrate hypothalamus. We present evidence for additional similarities, including switch neurons (mammillary nucleus), FoxP+ relay neurons (RNs) (magnocellular neurons), and VP+ and VPR+ RNs (arcuate nucleus). These studies suggest that proto-vertebrates had a sophisticated hypothalamus with multiple cell types. We propose that a major function of the Ciona proto-hypothalamus is to trigger the onset of metamorphosis in response to twilight, similar to the regulation of photoperiodism by the saccus vasculosus of nontropical fishes.
***
"The similarities of coronet cells and associated neurons in Ciona with different cell types in the vertebrate hypothalamus suggest that the simple brain of Ciona contains a complex proto-hypothalamus. Previous studies identified coronet cells as a putative rudiment of the vertebrate hypothalamus. Here, we provided evidence for additional homologies, including switch neurons and three different RN lineages, FoxP+, and the sister lineages VP+ and VPR+.
***
"Regardless of function, our evidence for multiple hypothalamic cell types in Ciona suggests that the apparently simple sensory vesicle has an unexpectedly sophisticated blueprint for the evolution of the complex vertebrate brain. Future studies will leverage the vast explosion of single-cell datasets to explore the origins of the neuronal cell types of different parts of the brain."
Comment: Since present stages of evolution are all based on past designs, this study of the earliest forms leading to what is contained in our present brains is not surprising. God pre-plans His stages
Evolution: DNA storage in Archaea and eukaryotes differs
by David Turell , Saturday, May 01, 2021, 16:17 (1084 days ago) @ David Turell
The new study:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6541/477.2?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2021-04-29&am...
"Only eukaryotes and archaea use histones to package their DNA. This observation has prompted suggestions of an evolutionary affinity between these two domains of life. However, there are many differences between the structure of histones between the domains. Bowerman et al. extended earlier work to show how archaeal histones store and unpack DNA. In eukaryotes, a packet of four pairs of histones wraps around every ∼147 base pairs of DNA in a structure called a nucleosome. By contrast, the archaeal equivalent of a nucleosome, the archaeasome, forms a histone core with more than four histone pairs. Archaeasomes can expand, in effect stretching the coil, to open up the DNA in a way that is very different from how this process occurs in eukaryotes."
Comment: the theory that similar DNA storage means we descended from Archaea is not supported by this study. The storage methods are very different, but somewhat similar in that we both use histones.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: …you have completely ignored the relevance of the image to our discussion: staff and cells only become excessive when a more efficient method (new machines for staff, enhanced complexification for cells) takes over from the original method...You still insist that the jettisoned staff/cells were excessive/redundant from the beginning, whereas I propose that in both cases they were essential from the beginning.
DAVID: Yes, we differ. I view the neurons as a planned excess, from God.
And yet you go on to tell us the vital function they performed:
DAVID: I've previously explained God's planned excess cells allowed us free-willed humans to tailor our new big brain as we wished in the process of complexification as abstractions and other knowledge developed.
How can they have been “excess” if they helped to give us the autonomous ability to work out our own ideas? That is not even “light” usage! But even this concession is only half the story. You have agreed that past brains functioned in the same way as modern brains, and so they already had the “free-willed” ability to complexify as their abstractions and other knowledge developed. On nothing like the scale of modern humans, but that is the natural course of development, as species of homo, just like each generation of sapiens, built on the discoveries of their ancestors. What you call our “excess” cells would of course have increased the potential for complexification, and they would have continued to exercise whatever new function made them necessary in the first place. (See “Miscellany” for more details.)They were just as much a part of the increased “tailoring” as the already existing cells, and only became redundant when enhanced complexification took over from expansion.
dhw: […] you have agreed that the hippocampus of modern sapiens expands autonomously, by which I mean your God does not perform operations or give new instructions to the modern hippocampus...Please explain why you find this illogical.
DAVID: The modern hippocampus follows God's onboard implanted instructions to handle the need to memorize, for example, new abstract ideas as they appear.
Since you agree that the modern brain works autonomously (“free-willed”), what you call “God’s onboard implanted instructions” can only comprise the mechanism which enables the hippocampus to memorize autonomously and the cerebral cortex to come up with its new ideas. What else could this mechanism be, other than the intelligence of the cells? Or do you really believe your God has given instructions for every idea sapiens has ever come up with, and has installed a programme instructing the hippocampus which ones to memorize?
DAVID: Autonomous brain complexification is because the brain follows God's implanted genetic instructions exactly.
Same again: What do the “implanted genetic instructions” consist of, if they are not the mechanism which enables the “free-willed” brain to think its own thoughts, make its own decisions, and work out its new ideas?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Saturday, May 01, 2021, 19:16 (1084 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes, we differ. I view the neurons as a planned excess, from God.
dhw: And yet you go on to tell us the vital function they performed:
DAVID: I've previously explained God's planned excess cells allowed us free-willed humans to tailor our new big brain as we wished in the process of complexification as abstractions and other knowledge developed.
dhw: How can they have been “excess” if they helped to give us the autonomous ability to work out our own ideas?
The excess cells are part of a tool supply for our brain to complexify itself tailored to our new needs. The mechanism picked and chose among the available cells to set up the five layer network in our frontal lobes. We do not know how certain neurons were picked and networked and others discarded. We don't know if the discarded played any active role in the process. The way the excess helped is it allowed for precise tailoring of needed networks by the complexification process. It is obvious the remaining neurons played an active role in the process, and more tha likely the excess cells were mainly passive. So much for your distorted view of what I theorize.
We cannot compare with past fossils, but our frontal lobe setup is nothing like the apes.
dhw: […] you have agreed that the hippocampus of modern sapiens expands autonomously, by which I mean your God does not perform operations or give new instructions to the modern hippocampus...Please explain why you find this illogical.
DAVID: The modern hippocampus follows God's onboard implanted instructions to handle the need to memorize, for example, new abstract ideas as they appear.
dhw: Since you agree that the modern brain works autonomously (“free-willed”), what you call “God’s onboard implanted instructions” can only comprise the mechanism which enables the hippocampus to memorize autonomously and the cerebral cortex to come up with its new ideas. What else could this mechanism be, other than the intelligence of the cells? Or do you really believe your God has given instructions for every idea sapiens has ever come up with, and has installed a programme instructing the hippocampus which ones to memorize?
We use our brains without God's current help, because of the way He set it up for us.. What are you smoking?
DAVID: Autonomous brain complexification is because the brain follows God's implanted genetic instructions exactly.dhw: Same again: What do the “implanted genetic instructions” consist of, if they are not the mechanism which enables the “free-willed” brain to think its own thoughts, make its own decisions, and work out its new ideas?
I was discussing the complexification mechanism, nothing else. Of course we use our brain freely
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: Yes, we differ. I view the neurons as a planned excess, from God.
dhw: And yet you go on to tell us the vital function they performed:
DAVID: I've previously explained God's planned excess cells allowed us free-willed humans to tailor our new big brain as we wished in the process of complexification as abstractions and other knowledge developed.
dhw: How can they have been “excess” if they helped to give us the autonomous ability to work out our own ideas?
DAVID: The excess cells are part of a tool supply for our brain to complexify itself tailored to our new needs.
You have repeated the core of my theory, except that once more you drag in "excess". The new cells do indeed “tailor” the brain to enable it to fulfil our new needs. Simple example: hunter has new idea: kill with weapon that can be thrown from a distance. New cells are necessary and are acquired as the brain “tailors itself” by designing, manufacturing and using new weapon. (The modern equivalent is the illiterate women’s brains “tailoring” themselves by complexification as the women learn to read.) All new cells will obviously enhance the range of complexification.
DAVID: The mechanism picked and chose among the available cells to set up the five layer network in our frontal lobes. We do not know how certain neurons were picked and networked and others discarded. We don't know if the discarded played any active role in the process.
All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether the new cells were essential in the first place, and we don’t even know if it was the new cells that were discarded.
DAVID: The way the excess helped is it allowed for precise tailoring of needed networks by the complexification process. It is obvious the remaining neurons played an active role in the process, and more than likely the excess cells were mainly passive. So much for your distorted view of what I theorize.
As above, if the new cells allowed the brain to meet the new requirement(s), they can't have been "excess", and they would have continued to perform the same essential function. I don’t know why you think new cells that continue to perform the function which made them necessary in the first place should suddenly stop functioning (“mainly passive”). It seems to me more than likely that the new cells added to our capacity for design, new thoughts, new ideas, and it could just as easily be the new cells that remained and some of the existing cells that proved to be redundant. So much for your distorted view of my theory. Nothing you have written above has the remotest connection to your own theory, which is that your God performed an operation on a group of Moroccans to insert cells which they did not need at the time (excess), were meant to prepare them for future use, but ultimately proved unnecessary.
DAVID: We cannot compare with past fossils, but our frontal lobe setup is nothing like the apes.
Relevance?
dhw: […] you have agreed that the hippocampus of modern sapiens expands autonomously, by which I mean your God does not perform operations or give new instructions to the modern hippocampus. […]
DAVID: The modern hippocampus follows God's onboard implanted instructions to handle the need to memorize, for example, new abstract ideas as they appear.
dhw: Since you agree that the modern brain works autonomously (“free-willed”), what you call “God’s onboard implanted instructions” can only comprise the mechanism which enables the hippocampus to memorize autonomously and the cerebral cortex to come up with its new ideas. What else could this mechanism be, other than the intelligence of the cells? Or do you really believe your God has given instructions for every idea sapiens has ever come up with, and has installed a programme instructing the hippocampus which ones to memorize?
DAVID: We use our brains without God's current help, because of the way He set it up for us. What are you smoking?
And what is the way he set it up for us, if it is not by endowing the cells with the intelligence to do their own thinking? I don’t smoke.
DAVID: Autonomous brain complexification is because the brain follows God's implanted genetic instructions exactly.
What do the “implanted genetic instructions” consist of? Please tell us what you think your God's instructions tell the autonomous brain to do.
Evolution: a two-celled ancient fossil
by David Turell , Sunday, May 02, 2021, 16:08 (1083 days ago) @ dhw
One billion years old:
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-find-billion-year-old-fossil-life-something-1846792843
“'We have found a primitive spherical organism made up of an arrangement of two distinct cell types, the first step towards a complex multicellular structure,” said Charles Wellman, a paleobiologist at the University of Sheffield, in a university press release, adding that it’s “something which has never been described before in the fossil record.”
"The fossil is constituted by a stereoblast of tightly packed cells surrounded by a layer of sausage-shaped cells. It’s tough to determine exactly what the functions of the two different cell types were, though it’s possible they may have had some reproductive implications.
"In order for life to make the monumental shift from simple unicellular organisms to complex multicellular ones, “organisms had to evolve a genome that controlled the nature of cell division and how cells stick together and how they differentiate and segregate tissues,” said Paul Strother, a paleobiologist at Boston College and lead author of the new study, in a phone call. “The thing that’s exciting about this fossil is that even though it’s an extremely simple morphology, it clearly had the capabilities of some of these fundamental features needed to become multicellular.”
"Being so simple yet multicellular, this billion-year-old blob seems most closely related to the holozoan groups of Ichthyosporea and Pluriformea, some unicellular microorganisms, according to the researchers. Importantly, the rock deposit from which B. basieri emerged was a freshwater environment, as opposed to the marine environments typically linked to the emergence of complex life. Earlier discoveries have confirmed the existence of such ancient multicellular life in oceans, some dating back over two billion years; it now seems possible that more than one evolutionary pathway led to the first multicellular lifeforms." (my Bold)
Comment: it is certainly possible life went through this stage to reach full multicellularity. The bolded idea that more than one pathway was followed in evolution is just an example of convergence, a well-recognized event in evolution.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Sunday, May 02, 2021, 16:29 (1083 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The excess cells are part of a tool supply for our brain to complexify itself tailored to our new needs.
dhw: You have repeated the core of my theory, except that once more you drag in "excess". The new cells do indeed “tailor” the brain to enable it to fulfil our new needs. New cells are necessary and are acquired as the brain “tailors itself”
The new cells popped up 315,000 years ago, and little used until recently, as in language theoretically 70,000 years ago. I view 'acquired' in your statement, should be 'required'.
dhw: All new cells will obviously enhance the range of complexification.
Of course.
DAVID: The way the excess helped is it allowed for precise tailoring of needed networks by the complexification process. It is obvious the remaining neurons played an active role in the process, and more than likely the excess cells were mainly passive. So much for your distorted view of what I theorize.dhw: As above, if the new cells allowed the brain to meet the new requirement(s), they can't have been "excess", and they would have continued to perform the same essential function. I don’t know why you think new cells that continue to perform the function which made them necessary in the first place should suddenly stop functioning (“mainly passive”).
You don't understand the concept of light use of the first sapiens frontal lobes. How much abstract thought occupied them? Zilch.
dhw: It seems to me more than likely that the new cells added to our capacity for design, new thoughts, new ideas, and it could just as easily be the new cells that remained and some of the existing cells that proved to be redundant.
With so many excess neurons it could be either/or.
DAVID: We use our brains without God's current help, because of the way He set it up for us. What are you smoking?dhw: And what is the way he set it up for us, if it is not by endowing the cells with the intelligence to do their own thinking? I don’t smoke.
Yes, the cells had intelligent instructions as to how to complexify according to new needs.
DAVID: Autonomous brain complexification is because the brain follows God's implanted genetic instructions exactly.dhw: What do the “implanted genetic instructions” consist of? Please tell us what you think your God's instructions tell the autonomous brain to do.
How to complexify to fit new uses. Our frontal lobes have a construction like no other living brain as a result. God designed our brain, giving it marvelous facility.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: The excess cells are part of a tool supply for our brain to complexify itself tailored to our new needs.
dhw: You have repeated the core of my theory, except that once more you drag in "excess". The new cells do indeed “tailor” the brain to enable it to fulfil our new needs. New cells are necessary and are acquired as the brain “tailors itself”
DAVID: The new cells popped up 315,000 years ago, and little used until recently, as in language theoretically 70,000 years ago. I view 'acquired' in your statement, should be 'required'.
No. The new cells are acquired as the brain “tailors itself”, because the existing quantity of cells is not sufficient to meet the new requirement. You simply cannot grasp the process I keep trying to describe: 1) new idea, 2) implementation of new idea requires new cells, 3)new cells continue to perform the function for which they were needed in the first place. Nobody knows what any of the new requirements were for the sapiens brain or for that of our predecessors, but I suppose I’d better repeat the list of possible candidates: bipedalism, new environmental conditions, new ideas, new tools or weapons, clothes, new social structures, use of fire, new ways of acquiring food etc. ALL of these would have required complexification, but if the existing quantity of cells could not do the job, then the number of cells had to be increased. What you call sapiens' “light use” would originally have been “heavy” use, and during the period of stasis the new sized brain continued to perform all its earlier functions plus the new one(s). However, not until 70,000 years ago (your figure) were there any new requirements that necessitated major changes, and it was only then that enhanced complexification took over from expansion and made some cells redundant. We don’t actually know which ones – they may NOT have been the cells that had been newly acquired by sapiens.
dhw: I don’t know why you think new cells that continue to perform the function which made them necessary in the first place should suddenly stop functioning (“mainly passive”).
DAVID: You don't understand the concept of light use of the first sapiens frontal lobes. How much abstract thought occupied them? Zilch.
You don’t understand the concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain). What do you count as “abstract” thought? Designing something that has never existed before has to begin with “abstract” thought (in pre-sapiens as well as in sapiens). If you mean philosophy, how the heck do you know what our predecessors thought? What concrete relics do you expect to find of philosophical thoughts that existed before the inventions of painting and writing?
dhw: It seems to me more than likely that the new cells added to our capacity for design, new thoughts, new ideas, and it could just as easily be the new cells that remained and some of the existing cells that proved to be redundant.
DAVID: With so many excess neurons it could be either/or.
So please stop making definitive statements about your God giving us “excess” cells at the start. What were then new cells could be hard at work today.
DAVID: We use our brains without God's current help, because of the way He set it up for us. What are you smoking?
dhw: And what is the way he set it up for us, if it is not by endowing the cells with the intelligence to do their own thinking? I don’t smoke.
DAVID: Yes, the cells had intelligent instructions as to how to complexify according to new needs.
I don’t know why instructions have to be called “intelligent”, but you are simply using different terms to describe what I have been proposing all along with my theistic version: your God designed the mechanism that enables cells to add to their number (expansion) or to create new connections between themselves (complexification). It is the cells themselves that autonomously register the new requirements and autonomously decide how to respond to them, i.e. your God does not do it for them. Being aware of new requirements and deciding how to meet them requires intelligence, which is what I propose (theistic version) would have been an integral part of your God’s original design of the first cells.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Monday, May 03, 2021, 17:50 (1082 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The new cells popped up 315,000 years ago, and little used until recently, as in language theoretically 70,000 years ago. I view 'acquired' in your statement, should be 'required'.
dhw: No. The new cells are acquired as the brain “tailors itself”, because the existing quantity of cells is not sufficient to meet the new requirement. You simply cannot grasp the process I keep trying to describe: 1) new idea, 2) implementation of new idea requires new cells, 3)new cells continue to perform the function for which they were needed in the first place.
The only evidence we have about the first sapiens brain is that it was much larger than previous brains and as it tailored itself to new uses it shrunk 150 cc taking excess neurons with it. I will grant you that all neurons until discarded had some useful activity. Discarded neurons means the brain came with an excess for future need.
dhw: We don’t actually know which ones – they may NOT have been the cells that had been newly acquired by sapiens.
You have forgotten only the hippocampus has the ability to add new neurons. And I view God has the lone ability to enlarge whole brains in new species.
dhw: You don’t understand the concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain). What do you count as “abstract” thought? Designing something that has never existed before has to begin with “abstract” thought (in pre-sapiens as well as in sapiens). If you mean philosophy, how the heck do you know what our predecessors thought? What concrete relics do you expect to find of philosophical thoughts that existed before the inventions of painting and writing?
Do you think early sapiens discussed general relativity theory? The original cells of sapiens new brain complexified by a God-given mechanism as they learned to use their new big brain. That is the "concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain)". We are in full agreement here.
dhw: So please stop making definitive statements about your God giving us “excess” cells at the start. What were then new cells could be hard at work today.
So what happened to the missing 150 cc ???
dhw: And what is the way he set it up for us, if it is not by endowing the cells with the intelligence to do their own thinking? I don’t smoke.DAVID: Yes, the cells had intelligent instructions as to how to complexify according to new needs.
dhw: I don’t know why instructions have to be called “intelligent”, but you are simply using different terms to describe what I have been proposing all along with my theistic version: your God designed the mechanism that enables cells to add to their number (expansion) or to create new connections between themselves (complexification). It is the cells themselves that autonomously register the new requirements and autonomously decide how to respond to them, i.e. your God does not do it for them. Being aware of new requirements and deciding how to meet them requires intelligence, which is what I propose (theistic version) would have been an integral part of your God’s original design of the first cells.
I don't accept your theory. God speciates is my belief. Please note our current brain can only add hippocampus cells. Other enlargements are rearrangements of existing neurons through complexification for heavy new use
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
DAVID: The only evidence we have about the first sapiens brain is that it was much larger than previous brains and as it tailored itself to new uses it shrunk 150 cc taking excess neurons with it. I will grant you that all neurons until discarded had some useful activity. Discarded neurons means the brain came with an excess for future need.
I don’t know what you mean by “taking excess neurons with it”. The brain shrunk 150 cc BECAUSE complexification (“tailoring”) made certain cells unnecessary. Your last sentence simply means that anyone with a crystal ball would have been able to forecast that hundreds of thousands of years later, certain hitherto essential cells would no longer be necessary.
dhw: We don’t actually know which ones – they may NOT have been the cells that had been newly acquired by sapiens.
DAVID: You have forgotten only the hippocampus has the ability to add new neurons. And I view God has the lone ability to enlarge whole brains in new species.
Another of your many non sequiturs. The hippocampus example tells us that even now the brain is capable of adding new neurons in response to new requirements, and so there is no reason to assume that it did not do precisely that in the past. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we do not know which sapiens cells became redundant as a result of enhanced complexification, and so it is absurd to say that what were new cells at the beginning became unnecessary later.
dhw: So please stop making definitive statements about your God giving us “excess” cells at the start. What were then new cells could be hard at work today.
DAVID: So what happened to the missing 150 cc ???
You know what happened to them – they “went missing”!!! But you don’t know which cells became unnecessary as a result of enhanced complexification, and so it is absurd to claim that your God deliberately popped in, and deposited an extra 150cc worth of cells in the brains of a few Moroccans, and then exactly the same 150cc went missing 250,000 years later. In any case, you have agreed that the new cells must have been useful, in which case they can’t have been “excess”.
DAVID: You don’t understand the concept of light use of the first sapiens frontal lobes. How much abstract thought occupied them. Zilch?
dhw: You don’t understand the concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain). What do you count as “abstract” thought? Designing something that has never existed before has to begin with “abstract” thought (in pre-sapiens as well as in sapiens). If you mean philosophy, how the heck do you know what our predecessors thought? What concrete relics do you expect to find of philosophical thoughts that existed before the inventions of painting and writing?
DAVID: Do you think early sapiens discussed general relativity theory?
Most modern sapiens can’t discuss general relativity theory! Why do you think anything less than general relativity constitutes “zilch”? All generations build on the “thoughts” of their ancestors. How do you know that no early sapiens ever wondered how we got here?
DAVID: The original cells of sapiens new brain complexified by a God-given mechanism as they learned to use their new big brain. That is the "concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain)". We are in full agreement here.
You have already agreed that past brains would have functioned in the same way as modern brains, and that complexification proceeds/proceeded without any input from your God, using (theistic version) a mechanism designed by your God. Since the modern hippocampus has expanded autonomously (unless you think your God has dabbled with it), it is not unreasonable to assume that we now have past and present autonomous complexification and expansion. Your comment is far from clear, but you appear to have accepted that the mechanism would have functioned by RESPONDING to new requirements, as demonstrated in the modern brain (and in contrast to your God performing operations in ANTICIPATION of new requirements). In that case, we are indeed in full agreement. And if cells were/are capable of autonomously making their own decisions both then and now, there is no reason at all to dismiss the possibility that they were given the same ability right from the start of life. Obviously still a theory, but can you fault the logic?
DAVID: I don't accept your theory. God speciates is my belief. Please note our current brain can only add hippocampus cells. Other enlargements are rearrangements of existing neurons through complexification for heavy new use.
Yes, our current brains complexify autonomously, and the hippocampus has expanded autonomously. How does that prove that although (theistic version) your God gave our cells the autonomous awareness of requirements and the ability to make their own decisions, he could not possibly have given earlier cells the same autonomous awareness and ability to make decisions? And do you disagree that autonomous awareness of requirements and autonomous decision-making denote autonomous intelligence?
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 05, 2021, 19:03 (1080 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “taking excess neurons with it”. The brain shrunk 150 cc BECAUSE complexification (“tailoring”) made certain cells unnecessary. Your last sentence simply means that anyone with a crystal ball would have been able to forecast that hundreds of thousands of years later, certain hitherto essential cells would no longer be necessary.
You can couch it in any terms you wish but excess cells were on board the moment sapiens big brain arrived.
DAVID: You have forgotten only the hippocampus has the ability to add new neurons. And I view God has the lone ability to enlarge whole brains in new species.
dhw: The hippocampus example tells us that even now the brain is capable of adding new neurons in response to new requirements, and so there is no reason to assume that it did not do precisely that in the past.
All you can logically propose is previous brains could enlarge the hippocampus, but you want to stretch what we know.
dhw: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we do not know which sapiens cells became redundant as a result of enhanced complexification, and so it is absurd to say that what were new cells at the beginning became unnecessary later.
New or not, some excess cells were discarded. Keep straining to ignore an excess.
DAVID: So what happened to the missing 150 cc ???
dhw: You know what happened to them – they “went missing”!!! But you don’t know which cells became unnecessary as a result of enhanced complexification, and so it is absurd to claim that your God deliberately popped in, and deposited an extra 150cc worth of cells in the brains of a few Moroccans, and then exactly the same 150cc went missing 250,000 years later. In any case, you have agreed that the new cells must have been useful, in which case they can’t have been “excess”.
It is of no matter which cells were discarded. The brain ended up with an excess. The bold is your absurd interpretation. We cannot know which cells and it is of no matter as you struggle with my clear concept God added extra cells so we could tailor our brain to our free-willed new uses.
DAVID: Do you think early sapiens discussed general relativity theory?dhw: Most modern sapiens can’t discuss general relativity theory! Why do you think anything less than general relativity constitutes “zilch”? All generations build on the “thoughts” of their ancestors. How do you know that no early sapiens ever wondered how we got here?
e know earlier sapiens had lots of Gods to cover all natural phenomena.
DAVID: The original cells of sapiens new brain complexified by a God-given mechanism as they learned to use their new big brain. That is the "concept of cells RESPONDING to new requirements (as demonstrated in the modern brain)". We are in full agreement here.dhw:... Your comment is far from clear, but you appear to have accepted that the mechanism would have functioned by RESPONDING to new requirements, as demonstrated in the modern brain (and in contrast to your God performing operations in ANTICIPATION of new requirements). In that case, we are indeed in full agreement. And if cells were/are capable of autonomously making their own decisions both then and now, there is no reason at all to dismiss the possibility that they were given the same ability right from the start of life. Obviously still a theory, but can you fault the logic?
I've agreed in the past that earlier brains might well have had complexification mechanisms.
DAVID: I don't accept your theory. God speciates is my belief. Please note our current brain can only add hippocampus cells. Other enlargements are rearrangements of existing neurons through complexification for heavy new use.dhw: Yes, our current brains complexify autonomously, and the hippocampus has expanded autonomously. How does that prove that although (theistic version) your God gave our cells the autonomous awareness of requirements and the ability to make their own decisions, he could not possibly have given earlier cells the same autonomous awareness and ability to make decisions? And do you disagree that autonomous awareness of requirements and autonomous decision-making denote autonomous intelligence?
My belief stands: God is only source of speciation and provided brains with the complexification instructions as information in the neurons' genomes. That provided the necessary automaticity.
Evolution: new forms require new information
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 05, 2021, 22:45 (1080 days ago) @ David Turell
Darwinists invent ow it might happen:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/04/information-from-nothing-darwinists-must-believe-it/
"Aaron Wacholder and Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis talk about how to get “new genes from borrowed parts.” In their article, innovation is a key word. It means new information that can perform a function. Where does innovation come from?
"The vast phenotypic diversity of life is in part a consequence of a continual process of genetic innovation. New genes, with distinct structures and capabilities, emerge regularly throughout evolutionary history. [Emphasis added.]
"There’s the assertion. Innovation emerges. Got it? It just emerges. It emerges regularly. Believe it because we say so.
"Making use of genomics technologies, researchers are beginning to form an understanding of the details of the processes by which new genes arise...Transposons are parasitic genomic elements that replicate by inserting copies of themselves in the host genome. Cosby et al. report how vertebrate genes have captured DNA transposon domains, generating new genes that encode new fusion proteins with distinct domain architectures. Fusion of transposon domains with host genes appears to be frequent, with 94 fusion events identified over tetrapod evolution. Transposon domain capture may be a common source of new genes and molecular innovation across the tree of life.
"What Rachel Cosby et al. actually demonstrate in their paper in Science is only some minimal kind of “regulatory innovation.” Their method relies on the shuffling of existing functions in transposons when spliced in with genes. This is about as hopeless as getting new meanings from paragraphs from two books that are cut and pasted in random ways.
"Our findings confirm that exon shuffling is a major evolutionary force generating genetic novelty. We provide evidence that DNA transposons promote exon shuffling by inserting transposase domains in new genomic contexts. This process provides a plausible path for the emergence of several ancient transcription factors with important developmental functions. By illustrating how a transcription factor and its dispersed binding sites can emerge simultaneously from a single transposon family, our results bolster the view that transposons are key players in the evolution of gene regulatory networks.
***
"Although gene birth through duplication has been extensively documented, how novel protein architectures and biological functions are born has remained poorly characterized. Here, we validate that exon shuffling is a major evolutionary force generating genetic novelty, and we provide evidence that DNA transposons fuel the process not only by supplying protein domains to assemble new protein architectures, but also, in many cases, by introducing the splice sites that enable the fusion process. Although these events must be relatively rare on an evolutionary time scale, the mobility of DNA transposons likely increases the probability of generating a functional gene via exon shuffling by introducing genetic material into new contexts. (my bold)
***
"The bottom line is that blind evolution is oblivious to function. It is not going to store up mutations in a useless strand waiting for it to hit upon some innovation, any more than a duplicated string of letters is going to happen upon some amazing new concept."
Comment: This is like shuffling cards. All that does is change the of new bridge hands. Where does the new necessary designing information come from? The entire article is worth reading as it shows most current Darwin theory makes up fairytales on faith of how powerful Darwin theory must be, because it is all has to be so correct. Reminds me of David Stove, the Australian philosopher who wrote a very critical book: Darwinian Fairytales. ,1995
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “taking excess neurons with it”. The brain shrunk 150 cc BECAUSE complexification (“tailoring”) made certain cells unnecessary. Your last sentence simply means that anyone with a crystal ball would have been able to forecast that hundreds of thousands of years later, certain hitherto essential cells would no longer be necessary.
DAVID: You can couch it in any terms you wish but excess cells were on board the moment sapiens big brain arrived.
It is your theory that your God popped in to give us cells which we were no use. At the same time, you tell us that “God added extra cells so we could tailor our brain to our free-willed new uses.” If the extra cells enabled us to “tailor” our brain, how could they have been excessive? You still refuse to even consider the point that the brain RESPONDS to new requirements, and therefore it is perfectly logical to propose that the original addition 315,000 years ago was IN RESPONSE to a new requirement. The new cells (which you have grudgingly agreed must have had some “light” use) would have continued to perform their original function, and for all we know are still doing so, since we don’t know which cells BECAME excessive 250,000 years later, when enhanced complexification took over. Some of your post repeats the same muddle, so I will just repeat individual quotes before moving on:
DAVID: New or not, some excess cells were discarded. Keep straining to ignore an excess.
Some cells BECAME excessive after 250,000 years. Stop straining to equate the cells which BECAME unnecessary with the original cells which were necessary then and might still be necessary now.
DAVID:It is of no matter which cells were discarded. The brain ended up with an excess. The bold is your absurd interpretation. We cannot know which cells and it is of no matter as you struggle with my clear concept God added extra cells so we could tailor our brain to our free-willed new uses.
It matters because you keep claiming that your God gave us excessive cells 315,000 years ago. Yes, the brain ENDED UP with an excess, after complexification had rendered certain cells redundant, but we don’t know which ones. See above re "tailoring".
dhw: The hippocampus example tells us that even now the brain is capable of adding new neurons in response to new requirements, and so there is no reason to assume that it did not do precisely that in the past.
DAVID: All you can logically propose is previous brains could enlarge the hippocampus, but you want to stretch what we know.
Yes, my theory is an extrapolation from what we know: the current brain complexifies and expands autonomously in response to new requirements, and so it is not illogical to propose that it may have done the same in the past. On what knowledge do you base your theory that your God operated on past brains in order to insert unnecessary new cells for later use?
DAVID: Do you think early sapiens discussed general relativity theory?
dhw: Most modern sapiens can’t discuss general relativity theory! Why do you think anything less than general relativity constitutes “zilch”? All generations build on the “thoughts” of their ancestors. How do you know that no early sapiens ever wondered how we got here?
DAVID: We know earlier sapiens had lots of Gods to cover all natural phenomena.
So why did you claim that there was “zilch” abstract thought?
dhw: […] if cells were/are capable of autonomously making their own decisions both then and now, there is no reason at all to dismiss the possibility that they were given the same ability right from the start of life. Obviously still a theory, but can you fault the logic?
DAVID: I've agreed in the past that earlier brains might well have had complexification mechanisms.
You’ve forgotten your agreement that complexification works autonomously, and since the expansion of the modern hippocampus must also have been autonomous (unless God steps in and tells us what to remember), there is no reason to suppose that past expansion was not autonomous too.
dhw: And do you disagree that autonomous awareness of requirements and autonomous decision-making denote autonomous intelligence?
DAVID: My belief stands: God is only source of speciation and provided brains with the complexification instructions as information in the neurons' genomes. That provided the necessary automaticity.
NOT automaticity!!! Autonomy! And no matter how much you fiddle around with terms like instructions and information, what this boils down to is that the autonomy of cells is the result of your God providing brains with the mechanism that gave them their autonomy. That is the theistic version of my theory. Thank you for accepting it even though you think you have rejected it. Now perhaps you will answer the bolded question above.
Evolution: more genomic evidence of pre-planning Part One
by David Turell , Thursday, May 06, 2021, 19:21 (1079 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: