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:

> > [b]PART TWO[/b]
> > 
> > QUOTE:[i] 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,"[/i]
> 
> > 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 [b]because further expansion is not possible.[/b]
> 
> 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: [i]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?[/i]
> 
> > 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.
>   
> > [b]Survival[/b]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > 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 [b]Darwin says it’s through random mutations and natural selection – but leaves his options open as to the source of this mechanism.[/b]
> 
> The bold makes no sense, as the 'source' is natural random mutation and natural selection.