From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 15/01/2026 2:47 pm, RonO wrote:   
   > 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)