From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/8/2026 4:11 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You are as wrong as the ID perps for continuing to do what you are   
   doing.  What is the real information that makes life possible?  The   
   genome evolved after there were self replicating cells that we would   
   likely call living.  The genome evolved within the context of what was   
   already working.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)