From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/01/2026 3:43 am, RonO wrote:   
   > On 1/6/2026 8:13 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> I've recently claimed here that the 80 megabytes of information in the   
   >> functional portion of the human genome is wildly insufficient to   
   >> specify the development of a human [1] into the system that is us [2].   
   >> I've suggested that the "missing" information must be located in the   
   >> ovum's cytoplasm, organelles and membrane.   
   >>   
   >> I've directly asked a number of contributors here if they believe 80   
   >> MB is sufficient to specify a human. This has generally been met with   
   >> silence. I can understand why, after an even cursory consideration of   
   >> [1] and [2]. Moreover, the implications of this for evolutionary   
   >> theory and biology are profound.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, it seems that ID agrees with me. This may not help convince   
   >> you, but I'm encouraged that others think this is an issue that needs   
   >> attention.   
   >>   
   >> If you're unfamiliar, what you may find interesting is ID's proposed   
   >> solution: an "immaterial genome", with reference to Neoplatonism.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not discounting that position, but do find it surprising! Would   
   >> this be a new creationist category, something like Continuous   
   >> Creation? Some may have less complimentary suggestions.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, enjoy (Ron, you may need medical attention after reading these):   
   >>   
   >> https://scienceandculture.com/2025/05/the-immaterial-genome-richard-   
   >> sternbergs-labor-of-love/   
   >>   
   >> https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/the-math-behind-the-immaterial-   
   >> genome/   
   >>   
   >> ______________   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nothing to crow about.   
      
   My point is the opposite - I shared ID's "immaterial genome" proposal   
   here expecting it to be enthusiastically criticised. (It may be old news   
   to you, I hadn't come across it before.)   
      
   One upside though is support for the information problem I've identified.   
      
   > The ID perps are just getting around to   
   > admitting that they have been bogusly in denial of something that they   
   > never understood.  All the denial about the genome and genetic code was   
   > just dishonest stupidity.  They never understood the information that   
   > really existed.   
   >   
   > All this means is that they should now understand that they have to   
   > start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and that they   
   > can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much of it to have   
   > had to accumulate by natural means.   
   >   
   > How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand the   
   > issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?   
   >   
   > The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on.  It has   
   > always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome, and that   
   > the products of the genetic code depended on the 3 dimensional   
   > information created by the RNA and protein products of genes.  This   
   > encoded information has to work within what 3 dimensional information   
   > that already exists in the cell.  All changes have to work within what   
   > is already working.  This had to be true before the genetic code   
   > evolved.  All the genetic code has done is that it has improved the   
   > efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in function   
   > to direct the development of multicellular organisms from a single cell.   
   >   The genome needs a fully functional cell in order to do this, and   
   > every functional addition had to work within what had already been working.   
   >   
   > All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an argument in   
   > the first place because they never understood what they were lying   
   > about, and they still do not understand what they are lying about in   
   > order to make any type of rational argument.   
   >   
   > Just think about this for a moment.  Sternberg has claimed that he has   
   > been thinking about this issue for a long time.  He is the ID perp that   
   > dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his   
   > chosen reviewers.  He subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor   
   > did he lose his office space) and quit participating in the scientific   
   > endeavor.  His most recent scientific publication on his web page is   
   > from 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to   
   > support the bait and switch scam.  He could not use his scientific   
   > expertise to support the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing   
   > with gaps in the whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist,   
   > but decided to prevaricate about whale evolution).  Behe destroyed his   
   > gap stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type of   
   > evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in 2014.   
   > Behe was really claiming that his designer would have done it some other   
   > way.  Behe tried to denigrate that type of biological evolution by   
   > calling it "devolution" but evolution is evolution.  Sternberg had to   
   > start working on something new, so he is getting around to admitting   
   > that the ID perps have never been lying about what they should have been   
   > lying about in the first place.   
   >   
   > Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   >>   
   >> [1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS   
   >> MYSTERIES   
   >>   
   >> *Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)