From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>   
   >> ...   
   >>   
   >>>> 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 ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less)   
   >>> advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for   
   >>> other aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal   
   >>> tract. This should not require several millions of years.   
   >>   
   >> We have very different intuition on what's involved with the creation   
   >> of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest that handful   
   >> of mutations could produce the change you describe suggests to me that   
   >> you've never created something with new and substantial functional   
   >> complexity yourself (not intended as an insult, but an explanation of   
   >> our very different perspectives).   
   >   
   > And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that isn't   
   > is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and the bulk   
   > of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, the rest of   
   > the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and   
   > chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the genome.   
   >   
      
   You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which is   
   exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially the   
   claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough   
   information to specify an entity with the massive functional complexity   
   of a human.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)