[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   As I've argued here before, the genes/blueprint model is inadequate. My   
   contention is the human genome alone contains insufficient information   
   to specify a human. If this is correct, then we need to ask different   
   questions.   
      
   The human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs or 6.4 billion bits, 10% of   
   which is not junk (according to some estimates). Therefore   
      
        functional information = 6.4 x 10^9 x 10% / 8 = 80 megabytes   
      
   A photo on your phone is about 3 MB, so that's the equivalent of 27   
   holiday snaps. 27 photos on your phone to specify arguably the most   
   functionally complex object/system we know (as demonstrated by the   
   capabilities listed elsewhere).   
      
   I'm with people like Dennis Noble on this, at least in general in   
   rejecting Dawkinsian reductionism for something like this:   
      
   - No information flows from protein to nucleic acid sequence, but   
   - Information alone is not causation   
   - Control is not just sequence encoding   
      
   This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument   
   for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The   
   cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins, RNA,   
   sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm, organelles,   
   membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene expression. The   
   distribution of these in the cell represent essential "analogue"   
   information. That's where I think the unaccounted information is to be   
   found.   
      
   Indeed, this is why you can't resurrect an extinct species with just   
   DNA, but requires a complete cell from very a close relative.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)