From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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)