From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the   
   >>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and   
   >>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're   
   >>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those   
   >>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Both these assertions are contended:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> - "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between   
   >>>> humans and chimps"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?   
   >>>   
   >>>   From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in   
   >>> basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a   
   >>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between   
   >>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene   
   >>> products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including   
   >>> the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other   
   >>> differences be?   
   >>>   
   >>>> - "the differences are dependent on the genome"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged   
   >>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,   
   >>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.   
   >>>   
   >>> True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making   
   >>> here. The genome is where changes happen.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much   
   >>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has   
   >>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of   
   >>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells   
   >>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)