From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   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?   
      
   What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences   
   between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account for   
   humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including especially   
   written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.   
      
   Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences are   
   extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see any   
   qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides language.   
   And language is probably not a genetically huge difference. Chimps   
   already have verbal communication. To reach human level, the common   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)