From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)