From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:38:53 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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)