From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)