From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/01/2026 2:38 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)