From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 14/01/2026 03:13, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)