# Room for Discussing Design in Evolution?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/room-for-discussing-design-in-evolution/1194>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 11, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/room-for-discussing-design-in-evolution/1194 "2018-08-11T22:15:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 43

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/room-for-discussing-design-in-evolution/1194/43 "2018-08-19T16:22:27Z")

</div>

Thanks very much Mark! I appreciate your response and it makes good sense to me, from my own philosophical perspective. I actually had to read back through quite a few posts to get all of the context, but the reason I was asking here, specifically, was that there was a scientific discussion over the evolution of man, and a question was posed regarding the appearance of the globular brain shape. The question asked, and answered, went like this:

> [@Coyne, Craig and Swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/coyne-craig-and-swamidass/1111/9):
>
> > What is the significance of the globular brain shape?
> 
> Randy it is beyond me to know. It would be speculation and sometimes my speculations can get pretty wild. If you want to talk about it maybe we should do so on the other thread rather than this one. Since human culture exploded at that time I have to think it meant more than ease of birth.

I think that you did a great job of sharing an opinion that probably emanates from a position that is very similar to my own. What I really wanted to learn, and it was never really answered by anyone from the MN community, is _ **how do they** _ navigate this area?

The point I am trying to understand is how “significance” can play nice in the MN world. I can see this being plausible:

- Because of the happenstance adaptation of the globular brain shape, human culture was afforded the opportunity to thrive, well beyond its prior potential.

However, this question of significance seemed to point more to the question of “why did it evolve” as in, for what purpose or end did it come about. So that, while one could make the statement above, one could not make the statement below (following the structure of MN):

- The globular brain shape came about in order to accommodate safer births and improved neural activity. Both allowed human culture and populations to explode.

The [original article stated](https://phys.org/news/2018-01-modern-human-brain-emerged.html) that the brain sizes and cranial capacities evolved separately. So if a benefit were to be gained through this beneficial adaptation, it would be considered to be “fortunate” but not “purposeful” from a MN perspective, right?

This is really what I’m trying to flesh out. When we see an adaptation that, from a human perspective, appears to have so much purpose (as in, designed in advance for such purpose), from a MN perspective we can only appreciate the random good fortune (the material significance, as you say) that benefitted a species (man, in this case.)

I assume that is correct… Again, thank you for your response!

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/room-for-discussing-design-in-evolution/1194)._