From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/01/2026 1:23 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)