From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 15/01/2026 3:01 pm, RonO wrote:
> On 1/14/2026 7:49 PM, 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.
>
> This is just wrong about Darwinism if what is being claimed is just
> evolution by natural selection. Natural selection selects on the whole
> organism. Any genetic change has to work within the system that is
> already working in order to produce an organism that has a viable chance
> of being selected for. This means that the genome has never been an
> independent driver of natural selection. Every genetic change has to
> work with the existing cellular information in order to correctly
> replicate and for the successful development of an individual from a
> single fertilized egg cell. This just means that the genome has never
> been expected to be an independent driver of biological evolution. It
> has always been known that the genome has to function in a functional
> cell. If that is all Noble is claiming then he isn't claiming much of
> anything that is going to help you at all. All it means is that the ID
> perps and you are not dealing with the information that you need to be
> dealing with, and you will not be dealing with that information in any
> meaningful way because you can't quantify it and you can't even identify
> what a lot of it is.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Noble (and conventional biology, according to your assertion) say that
"biological systems are causally bidirectional and distributed across
multiple levels of organisation", i.e. the causal/control flow is
-> protein -> DNA -> mRNA ->
| |
--------------<-------------
Regardless of evolution, "digital" information is stored in the DNA (and
RNA), and "analogue" information is stored in the proteins (and
cytoplasm, organelles, membrane, sugars etc).
Yes, DNA codes directly for proteins in a way that protein does not
directly code for DNA, however, despite this, "DNA is not the primary or
privileged source of biological causation".
Therefore, any complete model of organism development and evolution must
take into account heritable variations in both the "digital" and
"analogue" information sources.
The prevailing model only considers the former, and is therefore
incomplete.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
