From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 5:29 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)