From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 26/01/2026 6:50 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)