From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 14/01/2026 11:11 pm, Ernest Major wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)