From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/15/2026 7:27 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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).   
      
   Why do you keep insisting that the information is digital?  Digital   
   programing was cooked up to transfer information, but life has it's own   
   information transfer system.  It is the chemistry and physical   
   properties of the matter involved.  That is what you are missing in your   
   protein to DNA to mRNA to protein scenario.  It is what makes the cell,   
   the literal structure and chemical make up of the cell, that the DNA   
   requires to replicate new cells and develop new types of cells.   
      
   >   
   > 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".   
      
   DNA does not directly code for protein, and protein does not directly   
   code for DNA. At this time life exists as cells.  The vast majority of   
   living things on earth are still microbial single cells.  Microbes   
   continue to be the greatest success story of life on earth.  Humans   
   continue to house more microbes than human cells for every human body.   
   It is why I have joked about the designer being really ticked off when   
   he comes back and finds that some rogue lifeform is using soap,   
   disinfectants and antibiotics to kill trillions of his beloved microbes   
   every minute of the day.  The designer may have thought that   
   multicellular organisms would be comfortable condominiums for his   
   beloved microbes, but he seems to have messed up.  Microbes had the   
   earth to themselves for more than twice as long as multicellular life   
   has existed on this earth.  The designer did things like design the   
   bacterial flagellum half a billion years before multicellular life   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)