From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/14/2026 10:01 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)