From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   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 defective plant.   
   >>>>>> This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts   
   >>>>>> were not restored.  You could do the reciprocal cross with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)