From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 20:56:43 +1100   
   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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   > >>>>   
   []   
      
   You're giving God an awful lot of work here. So much intervention, so   
   many balls to juggle - and only 1 day off since the beginning of time,   
   poor fellah.   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)