From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/01/2026 4:17 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   To clarify further, rather than crowing, I'm actually almost sheepishly   
   acknowledging ID's appeal to an immaterial genome. I thought that idea   
   might cop some flak. I'm not dismissing it by any means, but tbh it's   
   not an option I've given consideration.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)