I'd be interested in how true that is. All we really know is that there are strong morphological similarities between modern and ancient horseshoe crabs, to the extent that can be evidenced by the fossil record.
But there are many contemporaneous species that seem similar in form but have very stark differences in e.g. behavior.
Unfortunately DNA AFAIK degrades beyond recovery on geologically short timescales, so we might not ever be able to say anything definitive.
First of all it's apes we are closely related to not monkeys. That's a different branch.
Secondly, we are not said to have evolved "from" apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes. That ancestor may superficially look more like othet modern apes than a modern human but only the DNA tells the true story of which is more like which and the import of that is even debatable. Even taking that resemblance for granted, there is no reason it had to be such. After speciation divided us from our last obviously ape ancestor, it was altogether likely one of us would diverge faster. It happened to be us.
You are confusing tree branches (1-monkeys, 2-humans) with tree trunks (DNA). Looking at a tree, you'll notice that the branches are never the same and yet they all come from the same trunk. Branches can fork, split, or twig, but branches don't beget other branches, trunks do. The connection between monkeys and humans is through the tree trunk, the ancestral DNA.
They wouldn't give birth to a human. Just another monkey with a mutation that may (or may not) give it an advantage to survive long enough to reproduce. Over several hundred generations you can get a very different animal.
A good example is dogs. Humans controlled their breeding to promote certain attributes. Resulting in new types of animals that never existed in the wild.
>Every time they write a loan they are forced to provide the customer with a 200-page "book" of all the compliance and regulation surrounding that loan.
This must vary by state; I recently took out a small loan from my local bank in Pennsylvania and the information I went home with came out to about 15 pages.
>When you're dealing with huge amounts of yellow tape and you have millions of customers
I thought the conventional wisdom was that onerous regulation actually favored huge businesses with "millions of customers" -- for example, the effort of having to "print that, audit it, have lawyers look it over, maintain it" is a fixed cost so the cost per customer is smaller for larger banks.
That is absolutely true. My meaning is that the big banks are the only banks that have survived all the regulation, and the only reason they can survive is because they're increasingly centralizing all of their operations and shitting on average customers who earn them essentially no money.
>That some genetic features may be dropped or changed if not required anymore without the pressure of a higher death rate / lower reproduction ... darwinism doesn't seem to explain everything
If the results of a newly-introduced selection pressure can be explained by darwinism / natural selection, then surely so can the results of a removal of selection pressure.
For example, if there are genes that result in lowered fear or agression, and that leads to fewer offspring for wild mice, they will have a lower frequency in a wild mouse population than in a population where they don't lead to fewer offspring. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like this particular article requires any additional mechanisms beyond natural selection.
>...One of talents greatest contributions is knowing how to let your winners run and cut your losses...
>...talent would understand what events are more likely to succeed...
If we already know that these things are the result of talent and not luck, and if it's a foregone conclusion that the model gives an "oversized role" to luck, then I guess these kinds of investigation are doomed from the start.
>where metaphors have been mistaken for new words.
Dictionaries have included metaphorical definitions for ... at least 60 years? I have a 1958 Webster's that defines "feather in one's cap" and "hard row to hoe" and probably quite a few more.
Given the rate of startup failure, and the sheer number of other companies whose "product wasn't there", what reason do we have to believe that hiring a diverse workforce is more relevant than all the other possible reasons for not creating the best possible product?
The formula for constant growth over time, for example, a 2% increase every year, would be starting salary * 1.02 ^ t where t is the number of years. So there is an exponent present, and constant growth is an exponential process.
I think for circularity you'd need a pair of definitions -- "programming: making a program" and "program: the result of programming". In this case, we already know what a program (or a "programmed solution") is -- that is, we can tell that something is a program without necessarily knowing how it was made. So the definition at least provides some new information on top of that -- the name for the activity of creating programs.[1] Also, by including the concept of "design", it lets you know when the author says "programming", he doesn't just mean the acts of writing source code, or typing it in.
[1] You could have probably guessed that the name was going to be "programming", but it might not have been.
>It might even explain why so many cultures had rites to male adulthood involving extreme pain.
Unless you believe that the rites were created to address the problem of "one day, there will be analgesics with antiandrogen effects, so we'll have a few centuries of practice at enduring extreme pain", then I don't see how there could be any connection.
The original test specifically had exactly one human and one AI. So, if the judge is forced to do a coin flip that really is success. If the judge does a coin flip because they are lazy then that's not a Turning test.
