From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)