From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/14/2026 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)