[continued from previous message]   
      
   No such appeal. The anatomical differences between humans and chimps are   
   fairly small. It's just that they're small differences with large   
   effect. A bigger brain results in greater capacity for language,   
   learning, larger social groups, etc. Fairly small changes in pelvic   
   bones result in an upright gait. And so on. The magnitude of these   
   changes can plausibly the results of changes at relatively few loci. And   
   they can easily be gradual, as cumulative changes to regulatory sites   
   can gradually alter the strength of transcription factor binding,   
   affecting gradually increasing alterations to development.   
      
   > Another is developmental change, e.g. a mutation in regulatory genes,   
   > which I assume is what you have in mind.   
      
   No. Hox genes generally act much earlier in development than would be   
   necessary to make the difference between humans and chimps. Also, it's   
   likely that changes to promoters are more important than changes to the   
   coding regions.   
      
   > Hox genes in fruit flies   
   > demonstrate highly nonlinear morphological effects, e.g. legs grow where   
   > antennae should be, duplicated wings, etc. We could go down a   
   > rabbit-hole of macromutations and macroevolution.   
   >   
   > Another approach is to recognise that the gains of natural section are   
   > hard-won and gradual. Flicking switches during development cannot   
   > substitute for the slow and steady work of adaptation that progressively   
   > locks in new functionality. This work has to be done somewhere.   
      
   Correct. Gradual evolution, by means of a few thousand genetic changes.   
      
   > We agree that a large amount functionality has been created. The heavy   
   > lifting for this cannot be skipped or minimised. Real functionality (aka   
   > "the appearance of design") requires proportionate, progressive,   
   > trialling, selecting, fixing. Otherwise, you're at risk of admitting   
   > saltation through a back door.   
      
   Certainly. No saltation proposed or necessary.   
      
   > On another note, the accumulation of human knowledge and collective   
   > capability can rightly be called cultural evolution, in that these   
   > develop through competition between ideas and practices with selection   
   > of the "best". Interestingly (in the context of our discussion of chimps   
   > vs humans) this cultural evolution may be on the verge of AGI.   
   >   
   > The cultural evolution has itself arrived only by the slow, costly   
   > process described, accelerated at times by nonlinear perturbations such   
   > as the printing press or the semiconductor. To my point above, a similar   
   > principle and price applies.   
      
   Sure. But of course the cultural changes are much more radical than the   
   morphological ones.   
      
   >> Nothing at all to say about anything below?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> 2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on   
   >>>>>>> another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term   
   >>>>>>> planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form,   
   >>>>> just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your brain isn't a computer program.   
   >   
   > Agreed. I'm making a comparison by analogy and similar principle, and   
   > not suggesting structural likeness.   
      
   Analogy requires similarity in relevant features. No such here.   
      
   But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the   
   human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.   
      
   >>>>>>> 3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human   
   >>>>>>> intelligence from a chimp requires either:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> (a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> (b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional   
   >>>>>>> complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without   
   >>>>>>> strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional   
   >>>>>>> complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required   
   >>>>>>> in this case would be much, much more than "A few thousand".   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what   
   >>>>>> you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that   
   >>>>>> follows from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional   
   >>>>> complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without   
   >>>>> strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional   
   >>>>> complexity); therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this   
   >>>>> case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much, much   
   >>>>> more than "A few thousand".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you   
   >>>> just claim without evidence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the   
   >>>>>>> table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so   
   >>>>>>> has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the   
   >>>>>>> necessary heavy lifting*   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be   
   >>>>>> necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our   
   >>>>>> differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those   
   >>>>>> in functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that   
   >>>>>> count must be in the even smaller fraction of functional   
   >>>>>> differences. Where are the millions of changes you think would be   
   >>>>>> necessary?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in   
   >>>> the 10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half of   
   >>>> that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. If   
   >>>> all of those were functional differences (they aren't) that would be   
   >>>> around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the true number   
   >>>> is much less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of the   
   >>>> differences are neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of the   
   >>>> functional differences are not in the parts you're interested in,   
   >>>> the ones that "make us human". I have no good estimate for those   
   >>>> numbers, but I would imagine less than 10,000. If you think more are   
   >>>> needed, where would you find them?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this   
   >>>>>>> question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,   
   >>>>>>> since by definition it has not previously been activated and   
   >>>>>>> expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up   
   >>>>>>> over time.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple   
   >>>>>>> M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor   
   >>>>>>> with "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a   
   >>>>>>> few thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> _______   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> * "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many   
   >>>>>>> experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku   
   >>>>>>> (2014) who described the three pounds in our head as the most   
   >>>>>>> complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)