From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 15/01/2026 11:17 am, RonO wrote:   
   > On 1/14/2026 4:08 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 15/01/2026 3:51 am, RonO wrote:   
   >>> On 1/13/2026 9:13 PM, 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)