From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 19/12/2025 9:26 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Larry Moran offers this analysis:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed   
   >>>>>>>> in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce   
   >>>>>>>> most of the changes in the genome of evolving populations.   
   >>>>>>>> According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the   
   >>>>>>>> number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation   
   >>>>>>>> rate. Thus, in every evolving population there will be 100 new   
   >>>>>>>> fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22   
   >>>>>>>> million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The average   
   >>>>>>>> generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this   
   >>>>>>>> corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time   
   >>>>>>>> that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record.   
   >>>>>>>> What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain   
   >>>>>>>> the differences in the human genome—it has explanatory power."   
   >>>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-   
   >>>>>>>> in- human.html   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)   
   >>>>>>>> adaptations, including:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> - Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and   
   >>>>>>>> endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long   
   >>>>>>>> legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> - Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;   
   >>>>>>>> dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal   
   >>>>>>>> cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language;   
   >>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative   
   >>>>>>>> societies; etc.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> - Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long   
   >>>>>>>> lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced   
   >>>>>>>> muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology   
   >>>>>>>> supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility;   
   >>>>>>>> precision hand grip and fine motor control.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly   
   >>>>>>>> adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are   
   >>>>>>>> required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral   
   >>>>>>>> mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these   
   >>>>>>>> accounted for in the time available?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated   
   >>>>>>> suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be   
   >>>>>>> accounted for is simple: you should understand that a number of   
   >>>>>>> mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the ones that   
   >>>>>>> eventually became fixed would have happened during human   
   >>>>>>> evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore a small   
   >>>>>>> sample of a much larger number than you are imagining here.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Here's your dilemma:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a   
   >>>>> blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is   
   >>>>> it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps   
   >>>> and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and   
   >>>> spaceflight, for example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be   
   >>>> obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of   
   >>>> information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free   
   >>>> lunch.   
   >>>   
   >>> You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, and   
   >>> I'm ignoring everything you say".   
   >>   
   >> No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in   
   >> terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently   
   >> profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight,   
   >> surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.   
   >>   
   >> To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,   
   >> cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of   
   >> individuals.   
   >>   
   >> Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large   
   >> and therefore needs explanation.   
   >>   
   >> Would you agree?   
   >   
   > Sure. But that explanation may rely on a fairly small number of genetic   
   > differences. Why not? A small quantitative change can result in a large   
   > qualitative change.   
      
   Let's consider your appeal to nonlinearity. One version of this is   
   saltationism or "hopeful monsters", but these are widely rejected as too   
   improbable.   
      
   Another is developmental change, e.g. a mutation in regulatory genes,   
   which I assume is what you have in mind. Hox genes in fruit flies   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)