From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)