From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 15/01/2026 9:07 am, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)