From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:49:32 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> Would this be an accurate assessment of where our discussion is at?   
   >>    
   >> With your position, you are in effect affirming the so-called central    
   >> dogma of biology, i.e. information flows sequentially from DNA ? RNA ?    
   >> protein, and not in reverse.   
   >>    
   >> I'm suggesting instead something along the lines of Dennis Noble. If I    
   >> understand correctly, he accepts this biochemical pipeline, but rejects    
   >> that DNA is the primary or privileged source of biological causation.    
   >> Rather, he argues that biological systems are causally bidirectional and    
   >> distributed across multiple levels of organisation.   
   >>    
   >> If Noble was shown to be right, would my logic then be valid?   
   >   
   >PS   
   >   
   >AI summarises nicely why this matters:   
   >   
   >   
   >* Why This Is Devastating to Gene-Centric Darwinism   
   >   
   >Traditional Darwinism assumes:   
   >   
   >Mutations in DNA ? changes in proteins ? changes in traits ? selection   
   >   
   >Noble shows that causation also runs:   
   >   
   >physiology ? cellular state ? chromatin structure ? gene expression ?    
   >mutation bias   
   >   
   >So the genome is not an independent driver; it is embedded in a    
   >self-regulating system.   
   >   
   >This means:   
   >   
   >Evolution does not act only on genes   
   >   
   >Development does not read a script   
   >   
   >Information is not stored only in DNA   
   >   
   >The fertilized egg already contains a rich informational architecture    
   >that Darwinism never explains.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   You have fundamental misunderstandings of how biological evolution   
   works.  First, individuals don't evolve genetically; populations   
   evolve over time across generations.  Second, biological evolution   
   happens when the environment changes which individuals reproduce more,   
   and which reproduce less, descendants.  Third, the environment acts on   
   individuals, whether or not their phenotypes result from genes or a   
   "rich informational architecture".   
      
   So, even if you and Noble were shown to be right, you would still have   
   to explain how Noble's "rich informational architecture" vs   
   "gene-centric Darwinism" alter how 1) evolution actually works, 2) how   
   different characteristics arise, and 3) how descendants inherit them.   
   Short of that, you're making a lot of noise over nothing.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)