From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 17/01/2026 3:26 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)