From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 14/01/2026 2:53 am, RonO wrote:   
   > On 1/13/2026 12:53 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)