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]Brain expansion[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]We've been over this before. On arrival 315,000 years ago, sapiens had a new brain that had full capacities for future use as history shows.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Correct. The final expansion supplied it with enough cells for the autonomous complexification mechanism to deal with all future requirements.
> 
> So you finally agree with me. It came fully prepared for future use.
> >   
> > DAVID: [i]Total facts opposite to your cell producing theory above as if produced with no eye to the future. Still dodging to protect a rigid requiremnt for super intelligent designing cells.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: What do you mean by “with an eye to the future”? I propose that the new cells would have been created to meet some new requirement, and from then on, complexification took over from expansion as cells[b] continued to design their responses. 
> 
> Once again, complexification could work in handling new brain uses precisely because it had so many extra new neurons sitting around with little to do at first. 
> > 
> > [b]Prehistoric brains and pelvises[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your theory is let them die until they figure it out.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Who “let them die”? I propose that the cells eventually “figured it out”, but a lot of mothers would have died until the new size became the norm. Your theory seems to be that God did his best to figure it out, but although he failed to the extent that some mothers died, there weren’t “a lot”, so my theory must be wrong. As I said, this is getting ridiculous. Shall we drop the subject?
> 
> God set it up so new-sized infant heads fit into their mother's new-sized pelvises.
> > 
> > [b]Genetic formation of our pelvis:[/b]
> > https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/19_august_2022/4035...
> > 
> > dhw: [i]There is no point in my repeating the quotations, as there is nothing to dispute.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]all that genetic activity by cell committees? Impossible!!![/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]According to you! Why do you think your God was incapable of designing intelligent cells which would, in the course of 3.X billion years, devise increasingly complex ways of improving their chances of survival? After all, you insist that he designed our brains, and look what our brain cells have come up with in just a few thousand years![/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Yes, that brain was designed for all that future use. You have just destroyed your contention things don't appear deigned future use. Each new species appears just that way.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The question is why pelvises, brains and species underwent their changes in the first place. According to you, your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all BEFORE there was any need for the changes. My proposal is that they all took place as a RESPONSE to what were then current needs. Once they proved successful, of course they were then used in the future! (See above.)
> 
> You have solved the issue of speciation. It is simply adaptation.