From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/01/2026 8:56 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 8/01/2026 8:10 pm, jillery wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 23:38:12 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 7/01/2026 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:13:42 +1100, 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That silence is the sound of one hand clapping, as all wait for you to   
   >>>> say on what basis you think 80 MB is *insufficient* to specify a   
   >>>> human.   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you think 80 MB is sufficient to specify [1] and [2]?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Why avoid supporting your own claim?  If I say it's sufficient, will   
   >> you then demand I provide evidence to show that it is, so you can   
   >> continue to avoid saying on what basis you think 80 MB is   
   >> insufficient?   
   >   
   > I've already stated that I am not able to calculate a specific estimate.   
   > However, given that (i) [1] and [2] describe a system with functional   
   > complexity exceeding anything we have made*; and (ii) we know that 80 MB   
   > represents relatively a very small amount of information; then a   
   > reasonable inference is that much greater than / orders of magnitude   
   > greater than 80 MB is required.   
      
   * Though I wonder where current AI and future potential AGI sit.   
      
   >   
   > I won't ask you to calculate or provide an estimate (though please do if   
   > you can). But I will ask you again, do you think 80 MB is sufficient?   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>> 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/   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ______________   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> [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   
   >>>>> cell:   
   >>>>> the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism   
   >>>>> exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless   
   >>>>> others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes   
   >>>>> known in   
   >>>>> nature.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ---   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8,   
   >>>>> 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are   
   >>>>> remarkable   
   >>>>> because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the   
   >>>>> original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Key features:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> * Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.   
   >>>>> * Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.   
   >>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *What is striking:*   
   >>>>> All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on   
   >>>>> trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *What we do not fully understand:*   
   >>>>> How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular concentrations,   
   >>>>> mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate decisions with such   
   >>>>> reliability.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ---   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a   
   >>>>> hollow   
   >>>>> structure with:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> * an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),   
   >>>>> * and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a   
   >>>>> biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to   
   >>>>> continue.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *What is striking:*   
   >>>>> This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells   
   “decide”   
   >>>>> their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical   
   >>>>> constraints.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *What we do not fully understand:*   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)