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]You cannot denigrate my point that the preparatory mechanism was in place 1.5 million years ago[/i].
> > 
> > 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: [i]It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]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?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Of course they saw with a forerunner of the special mechanism we use.[/i]
> > 
> > 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: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You still haven't explained the overexpansion which resulted in 150 cc loss.[/i]
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > [b]Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve[/b]
> > dhw: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]But exactly for 245,000 years the cells were there to be used and weren't: so stasis![/i]
> > 
> > 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: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]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.[/i]
> > 
> > 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.