From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/6/2026 6:16 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.)   
      
   It is simply nothing to crow about.  It has always been understood to   
   exist, but no one has ever figured out a means to quantify it, so the ID   
   perps never considered it and had decided to lie about something that   
   they could quantify, but that wasn't really the issue.  It is just like   
   the failure of IC where Behe had to admit that IC systems could evolve   
   by natural mechanisms, and that he could never quantify the aspects of   
   the system that he claimed made his IC systems unable to evolve.  He   
   never was able to define well matched so that it could be determined to   
   exist in enough quantity to make the flagellum his type of IC, and he   
   was never able to determine how many parts were too many to be evolvable.   
      
   Sternberg can't even begin to work with the information that is actually   
   the issue.  All he can do is make his bogus claims about it supporting   
   the ID bait and switch scam.   
      
   >   
   > One upside though is support for the information problem I've identified.   
      
   It was common knowledge that this information existed and that extant   
   life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out anything that   
   wasn't already understood decades ago.  As a genetics major at Berkeley   
   in the late 1970's we were required to take a class called Topics in   
   Genetics.  It wasn't just current topics, but issues that had, had been   
   issues decades before like McClintock's transposable element research   
   from the 1930's and 40's.  One of the topics was breaking cellular   
   cycles and was maize research from the 1950's.  I can't remember the   
   name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear mutation that   
   messed up chloroplasts.  The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by   
   crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective plant.  This   
   would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not   
   restored.  You could do the reciprocal cross with defective pollen   
   crossed to a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes had functional   
   chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would produce homozygous mutants   
   that would again have defective chloroplasts.   
      
   The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a functional   
   cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to be restored by   
   putting the genetics into another fully functional cell.  Descent with   
   modification produces new lifeforms, but every change has to work within   
   what is already working.  In this case some cellular function was lost   
   that had been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and   
   that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell to a   
   fully functional cell.   
      
   This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been understood   
   to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and likely long before   
   that when cell theory was formulated.   
      
   All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern cell   
   theory.  Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell theory.  This new   
   information is just as useless to the ID scam as IC well matched parts,   
   and for the same reason.  We do not know exactly what it is, and it   
   can't be quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial.  The   
   information that exists today has been evolving for billions of years   
   and passed down each cellular generation.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)