Hi Buz,
You seem to be making some assertions which are quite distinctly particular to the "Buzsaw worldview/hypothesis", but you are not providing us with any observables or references to objective evidence that could support these assertions.
Meanwhile, you are trying to create a very lopsided debate, by asking others to cite
every minute detail regarding the evolution of nerve systems leading up to the human brain, with "no generalities", "without conjecture, possibilities and/or assumptions", which amounts to repeating reams of available evidence spanning at least the following topics:
- The development of life forms comprising diversified and specialized cells
- The development of morphological differentiation between "sensor" cells, "motor" cells, and "connector" cells (neuronal structures) between "sensor" and "motor" cells, as well as paths of "communication" between these cells
- The natural tendency for mutations that yield more elaborate neuronal structures to be successful, because they have broader and more effective behavioral repertoires
- The clearly demonstrated correlations among DNA, morphology and fossil records that all point uniformly to a particular tree of shared ancestry among all species studied so far
- The clearly demonstrated correlations in the primate fossil record leading up to homo sapiens, between the ages of fossils, their degree of morphological proximity to modern humans, and their cranial capacity (most recent being largest in terms of brain/body ratio).
All of those points have evidence to back up the explanatory models that have been proposed, and there just isn't enough room on this forum to repeat it all. And you should just admit that you aren't inclined to examine it anyway.
(I'm sure you've seen lots of people provide useful references before: talkorigins.org, books by Gould and Dawkins -- a good read here would be the opening chapters of "The Conscious Brain" by Stephen Rose -- and lots of helpful videos from YouTube folks like AronRa, dprjones, DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, ... But none of this seems to help.)
Anyway, back to your assertions:
Buzsaw writes:
... you need to empirically falsify each of the many corroborative evidences of the existence of a designer existing in the Universe...
Um, how many of these "corroborative evidences" are there, roughly? Where are they enumerated, so we can falsify each one? (I presume it would be off-topic in this thread to do more than cite a usable reference, but just that much would be helpful.)
... that is a designer capable of fashioning elements available into a functional body and breathing charged energetic elements into the lungs of the fashioned body to bring the fashioned body to life as we observe it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that you have absolutely no evidence -- and indeed, not even any hint, beyond just a phrase or two in Genesis -- that an initial, unique human body was fashioned from soil and brought "to life as we observe it" in this manner.
The work of such a designer required rest after expending the needful energy from the higher energetic designer entity into the created being, as per 2LoT.
Whoa. In order to apply the 2LoT in this way, I think you'd have to assert that the "designer entity" and the "created being" are components in a closed system. And I think this would contradict other assertions that you and other theists would normally make regarding the "nature" of your "designer entity": i.e. that "He" is "infinite" in some sense, hence cannot be contained within any sort of closed system.
Really, Buz, although I personally have relatively little formal training in biology or physics, even I can see perfectly well that you're in over your head here. You just aren't thinking through the implications of what you are saying.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
