From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 28/01/2026 8:16 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)