Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]It all depends upon your theoretical view of 'necessary' stasis. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: There is no “necessity” for stasis. It is the consequence of there being no new requirements. 
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I initially raised the concept of stasis as evolution developing a brain much to big for the current requirements. [/i]
> > 
> > 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: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > 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: [i]Which means stasis after huge enlargement.[/i]
> > 
> > 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: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > 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.