On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-
intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/ cosmological argument?
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;
(ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii) materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics
(e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
On 2026-01-06 10:55 p.m., MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 4:58 am, DB Cates wrote:"local interactions" and "physical constraints" are not anywhere in that
I thought I would point out something in your presentation that is
not addressed in your argument.
Note the things mentioned in the "*What is striking:*" and "*What we
do not fully understand:*" sections. Almost all of it is relating to
non- genetic effects on development. These are *all* sources of large
quantities of information. That we do not currently know exactly how
most of this non-genetic information interacts with the genetic
information is an important topic of developmental research but it
answers your question about the *amount* of information involved in
development.
Your causality is back-to-front: You say, "These are *all* sources of
large quantities of information." Rather, these are all *expressions*
of large quantities of information, not *sources*.
For example:
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >> >>> and physical constraints.
Where did the "gene regulation and physical constraints" come from,
which cells use to “decide” their roles? From information in the zygote. >>
80 MB of code. See my comments at '## 1' below.
Etc.This is due to the 'code' - [cell(s) told to divide]
On 2026-01-06 8:36 a.m., MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 1:13 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.
PS Here's a related article on challenges explaining embryologic
development:
"Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the
literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate
morphology."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542
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/
______________
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND
ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single
cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human >>>>> organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from
countless others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary
processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, >>>>> 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are
remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase.
Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller
cells.
Now some of the cells are still in contact with the outer membrane andKey features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
with other cells. Some cells are close to the membrane but only in
contact with other cells. Some are far from the outer membrane and only
in contact with other cells. These strikingly different environments are
not 'coded' for, they just happen because of physical constraints. It constitutes new information that helps determine future development.
It is part of "*What we do not fully understand:*" below.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a
hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal
embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often
called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of
cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces >>>>> are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits.
Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating
while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are
the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal
factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from
the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human
being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in
science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with >>>>> ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling millisecond-
scale control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy.
Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and
this difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater
combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; human
prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex gives
disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling abstract
reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, and recursive >>>>> language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times
per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and >>>>> immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² >>>>> of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting >>>>> organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct
antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions
of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in
females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating >>>>> immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to
maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human
organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 8/01/2026 2:52 am, DB Cates wrote:
On 2026-01-06 10:55 p.m., MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 4:58 am, DB Cates wrote:"local interactions" and "physical constraints" are not anywhere in
I thought I would point out something in your presentation that is
not addressed in your argument.
Note the things mentioned in the "*What is striking:*" and "*What we
do not fully understand:*" sections. Almost all of it is relating to
non- genetic effects on development. These are *all* sources of
large quantities of information. That we do not currently know
exactly how most of this non-genetic information interacts with the
genetic information is an important topic of developmental research
but it answers your question about the *amount* of information
involved in development.
Your causality is back-to-front: You say, "These are *all* sources of
large quantities of information." Rather, these are all *expressions*
of large quantities of information, not *sources*.
For example:
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>> >>> and physical constraints.
Where did the "gene regulation and physical constraints" come from,
which cells use to “decide” their roles? From information in the zygote.
that 80 MB of code. See my comments at '## 1' below.
"Now some of the cells are still in contact with the outer membrane and
with other cells. Some cells are close to the membrane but only in
contact with other cells. Some are far from the outer membrane and only
in contact with other cells. These strikingly different environments are
not 'coded' for, they just happen because of physical constraints. It constitutes new information that helps determine future development."
No!
These "strikingly different environments" do not "just happen" because
of physical constraints. They are very, very particular constraints that produce a very, very particular development pathway.
Where does the very, very specific information that specifies this come from? Either the genome, the rest of the cell, or as per one ID
proposal, the "immaterial genome".
But there is free lunch in produce in specifying and producing the
system of this staggering functional complexity as summarised in [1] and
[2] - the information required must come from somewhere.
Etc.This is due to the 'code' - [cell(s) told to divide]
On 2026-01-06 8:36 a.m., MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 1:13 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.
PS Here's a related article on challenges explaining embryologic
development:
"Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in
the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate >>>>> morphology."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542
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/
______________
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND >>>>>> ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single >>>>>> cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique
human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell >>>>>> from countless others. What follows is one of the most
extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then
4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are >>>>>> remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase. >>>>>> Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller
cells.
Now some of the cells are still in contact with the outer membrane andKey features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
with other cells. Some cells are close to the membrane but only in
contact with other cells. Some are far from the outer membrane and
only in contact with other cells. These strikingly different
environments are not 'coded' for, they just happen because of physical
constraints. It constitutes new information that helps determine
future development.
It is part of "*What we do not fully understand:*" below.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a >>>>>> hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why >>>>>> implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal >>>>>> embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often >>>>>> called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of >>>>>> cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical
forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable
anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. >>>>>> Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating
while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of >>>>>> trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are
the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal
factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from >>>>>> the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply >>>>>> interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human
being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in
science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing,
with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting
metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than >>>>>> great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of magnitude >>>>>> greater combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; >>>>>> human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex >>>>>> gives disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling
abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, and >>>>>> recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times >>>>>> per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones,
and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 >>>>>> m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using >>>>>> hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting >>>>>> organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct >>>>>> antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling. >>>>>>
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by >>>>>> filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons, >>>>>> reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through >>>>>> hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions >>>>>> of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in
females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by >>>>>> returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating >>>>>> immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to
maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human
organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:If by "first-cause problem" you refer to the claim that the universe's existence is proof of God, then Penrose's CCC is orthogonal to it.
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-
intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the
first-cause/cosmological argument?
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or >speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic >Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;
(ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii) >materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics
(e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
On 7/01/2026 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:Why avoid supporting your own claim? If I say it's sufficient, will
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:13:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.
That silence is the sound of one hand clapping, as all wait for you to
say on what basis you think 80 MB is *insufficient* to specify a
human.
Do you think 80 MB is sufficient to specify [1] and [2]?
--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/
______________
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS
MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single cell: >>> the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism
exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless
others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in >>> nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8,
16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are remarkable
because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the
original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular concentrations,
mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a hollow >>> structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells “decide” >>> their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical
constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal embryos. >>>
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often called >>> *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds
and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* ? nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* ? muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* ? gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to
front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements
that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces are
integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and assemble
into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. Blood vessels
branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and >>> environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from the
very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules, physical
law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to those in >>> physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being
remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, precision, and >>> cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with ~86
billion neurons and ~10¹?–10¹? synapses enabling millisecond-scale
control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans possess >>> ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this difference alone >>> implies orders of magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity,
given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of >>> the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range connections
enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning,
and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times per
day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune
cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 million
alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing ~10,000 liters of >>> air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy along a >>> ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² of
absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting
organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² active
immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct antibody
variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural support
through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous mechanical loading
and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells,
integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions of
sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating
immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, multiscale
biological architecture, in which trillions of components are
dynamically regulated with molecular precision to maintain stability,
adaptability, and continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 23:38:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:13:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.
That silence is the sound of one hand clapping, as all wait for you to
say on what basis you think 80 MB is *insufficient* to specify a
human.
Do you think 80 MB is sufficient to specify [1] and [2]?
Why avoid supporting your own claim? If I say it's sufficient, will
you then demand I provide evidence to show that it is, so you can
continue to avoid saying on what basis you think 80 MB is
insufficient?
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/
______________
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS >>>> MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single cell: >>>> the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism >>>> exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless
others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in >>>> nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8, >>>> 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are remarkable >>>> because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the
original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular concentrations, >>>> mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a hollow >>>> structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue. >>>>
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells “decide” >>>> their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical
constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal embryos. >>>>
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often called >>>> *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds >>>> and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* ? nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* ? muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* ? gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to
front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements
that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces are >>>> integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and assemble >>>> into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. Blood vessels >>>> branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and >>>> environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from the >>>> very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules, physical >>>> law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to those in >>>> physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being >>>> remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, precision, and >>>> cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with ~86 >>>> billion neurons and ~10¹?–10¹? synapses enabling millisecond-scale >>>> control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans possess >>>> ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this difference alone >>>> implies orders of magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity, >>>> given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of >>>> the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range connections >>>> enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, >>>> and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times per >>>> day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune >>>> cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 million
alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing ~10,000 liters of >>>> air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy along a >>>> ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² of
absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting
organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² active
immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct antibody
variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural support >>>> through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous mechanical loading >>>> and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells,
integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions of
sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in females. >>>>
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating
immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, multiscale >>>> biological architecture, in which trillions of components are
dynamically regulated with molecular precision to maintain stability,
adaptability, and continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
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.
One upside though is support for the information problem I've identified.
It was common knowledge that this information existed and that extant
life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out anything that
wasn't already understood decades ago. As a genetics major at Berkeley
in the late 1970's we were required to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's transposable element research
from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular
cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the
name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective plant. This
would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with defective pollen
crossed to a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would produce homozygous mutants
that would again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a functional
cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional cell. Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already working. In this case some cellular function was lost
that had been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell to a
fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been understood
to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and likely long before
that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam as IC well matched parts,
and for the same reason. We do not know exactly what it is, and it
can't be quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists today has been evolving for billions of years
and passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information denial
was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is just as bogus.
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have been
bogusly in denial of something that they never understood. All the
denial about the genome and genetic code was just dishonest
stupidity. They never understood the information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they have to
start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and that
they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much of it to
have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand the
issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It has
always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome, and that
the products of the genetic code depended on the 3 dimensional
information created by the RNA and protein products of genes. This
encoded information has to work within what 3 dimensional information
that already exists in the cell. All changes have to work within
what is already working. This had to be true before the genetic code
evolved. All the genetic code has done is that it has improved the
efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in
function to direct the development of multicellular organisms from a
single cell. The genome needs a fully functional cell in order to
do this, and every functional addition had to work within what had
already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an argument
in the first place because they never understood what they were lying
about, and they still do not understand what they are lying about in
order to make any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that he
has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is the ID
perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense peer
reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently quit science (he
was never fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit
participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent scientific
publication on his web page is from 2005, and he joined the ID perp
scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait and switch scam. He
could not use his scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so he
spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil record (he
was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to prevaricate about
whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap stupidity by claiming that
whale evolution was just the type of evolution expected to have
occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really claiming
that his designer would have done it some other way. Behe tried to
denigrate that type of biological evolution by calling it
"devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to start
working on something new, so he is getting around to admitting that
the ID perps have never been lying about what they should have been
lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND
ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single
cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human
organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from
countless others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary
processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4,
8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are
remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase.
Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells. >>>>
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate decisions >>>> with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a
hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue. >>>>
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal
embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often
called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of
cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces
are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits.
Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while
still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors,
and environmental influences interact throughout development to shape: >>>>
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from the >>>> very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human
being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in
science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, precision,
and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with
~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling millisecond- >>>> scale control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy.
Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this >>>> difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater combinatorial
processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex
expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex gives disproportionately
dense long-range connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic
thought, counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times
per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and
immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² >>>> of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting
organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct
antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells,
integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions
of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in
females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating
immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of components
are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to maintain
stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-
intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at
all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/
cosmological argument?
You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one more honest than the ones that you associate with. You should know that creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument. You can
think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't solve the ultimate first-cause issue. Something likely existed before the Big
Bang, but we don't know what that could be. The pure energy or quark- gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big Bang would have come
from somewhere. All we have to look at is our little piece of the
cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side of the Big Bang's influence.
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or >> speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic
Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;
(ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii)
materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics
(e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists. What caused some god to exist? This god would have to be able to interact
with his creation in order to make you happy. This god would have had
to be able to manipulate things in our universe so that 8 billion years
of dying stars would produce a dust and gas cloud with the right mix of elements to make life possible in our star poor region of the milky way galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.
Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning of
the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's. Nyikos is the type
of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like. Nyikos was not anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he supported the ID
scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie about ID being
scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended Catholic Mass, but that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID scam for religious reasons. Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of Biblical creationist that believed in a god that you could lie to and expect to get what you
wanted. I think that Nyikos was the only creationist on TO that ever supported Pascal's wager as something that was viable. You have to have
a pretty pathetic view of your god to think that claiming to believe in
that god would be enough ass kissing to get your just reward.
Ron Okimoto
On 8/01/2026 8:10 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 23:38:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:13:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.
That silence is the sound of one hand clapping, as all wait for you to >>>> say on what basis you think 80 MB is *insufficient* to specify a
human.
Do you think 80 MB is sufficient to specify [1] and [2]?
Why avoid supporting your own claim? If I say it's sufficient, will
you then demand I provide evidence to show that it is, so you can
continue to avoid saying on what basis you think 80 MB is
insufficient?
I've already stated that I am not able to calculate a specific estimate. However, given that (i) [1] and [2] describe a system with functional complexity exceeding anything we have made*; and (ii) we know that 80 MB represents relatively a very small amount of information; then a
reasonable inference is that much greater than / orders of magnitude
greater than 80 MB is required.
I won't ask you to calculate or provide an estimate (though please do if
you can). But I will ask you again, do you think 80 MB is sufficient?
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/
______________
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS >>>>> MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single
cell:
the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism >>>>> exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless
others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes
known in
nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8, >>>>> 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are
remarkable
because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the >>>>> original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular concentrations, >>>>> mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate decisions with such
reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a
hollow
structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells “decide”
their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical >>>>> constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal
embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often
called
*the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds >>>>> and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* ? nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* ? muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* ? gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements >>>>> that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces >>>>> are
integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble
into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. Blood vessels >>>>> branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming. >>>>>
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the >>>>> same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal
factors, and
environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from the >>>>> very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical
law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in
physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being >>>>> remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and
cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with >>>>> ~86
billion neurons and ~10¹?–10¹? synapses enabling millisecond-scale >>>>> control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans
possess
~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this difference alone >>>>> implies orders of magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity, >>>>> given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25– >>>>> 30% of
the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range connections >>>>> enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual
planning,
and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times per >>>>> day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune >>>>> cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 million >>>>> alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing ~10,000
liters of
air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a
~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² of
absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting >>>>> organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>> active
immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct antibody
variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support
through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous mechanical
loading
and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells,
integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions of >>>>> sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in females. >>>>>
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating >>>>> immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, multiscale >>>>> biological architecture, in which trillions of components are
dynamically regulated with molecular precision to maintain stability, >>>>> adaptability, and continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 8/01/2026 8:10 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 23:38:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 11:16 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 01:13:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.
That silence is the sound of one hand clapping, as all wait for you to >>> say on what basis you think 80 MB is *insufficient* to specify a
human.
Do you think 80 MB is sufficient to specify [1] and [2]?
Why avoid supporting your own claim? If I say it's sufficient, will
you then demand I provide evidence to show that it is, so you can
continue to avoid saying on what basis you think 80 MB is
insufficient?
I've already stated that I am not able to calculate a specific
estimate. However, given that (i) [1] and [2] describe a system with functional complexity exceeding anything we have made*; and (ii) we know that 80 MB represents relatively a very small amount of information;
then a reasonable inference is that much greater than / orders of
magnitude greater than 80 MB is required.
I won't ask you to calculate or provide an estimate (though please do if
you can). But I will ask you again, do you think 80 MB is sufficient?
[]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.
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.
One upside though is support for the information problem I've
identified.
It was common knowledge that this information existed and that extant
life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out anything that
wasn't already understood decades ago. As a genetics major at
Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to take a class called
Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that
had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's transposable
element research from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was
breaking cellular cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I
can't remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a
nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could
not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the
defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but
the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the reciprocal cross
with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those
heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant
would produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective
chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to be
restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional cell.
Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every change has
to work within what is already working. In this case some cellular
function was lost that had been maintained by all cells coming from
preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored by crossing
the defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and likely
long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern cell
theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell theory. This
new information is just as useless to the ID scam as IC well matched
parts, and for the same reason. We do not know exactly what it is,
and it can't be quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial.
The information that exists today has been evolving for billions of
years and passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information denial
was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was important for a
functioning cell? This new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're agreeing
that the ovum must contain significant amounts of information (as well
as the functional portion of the genome) to specify the resulting organism?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the gene-centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have
been bogusly in denial of something that they never understood. All >>>> the denial about the genome and genetic code was just dishonest
stupidity. They never understood the information that really existed. >>>>
All this means is that they should now understand that they have to
start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and that
they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much of it
to have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand
the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It has >>>> always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome, and
that the products of the genetic code depended on the 3 dimensional
information created by the RNA and protein products of genes. This
encoded information has to work within what 3 dimensional
information that already exists in the cell. All changes have to
work within what is already working. This had to be true before the >>>> genetic code evolved. All the genetic code has done is that it has
improved the efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and it has
grown in function to direct the development of multicellular
organisms from a single cell. The genome needs a fully functional >>>> cell in order to do this, and every functional addition had to work
within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an argument
in the first place because they never understood what they were
lying about, and they still do not understand what they are lying
about in order to make any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that he
has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is the ID
perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense peer
reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently quit science (he
was never fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit
participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent
scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, and he joined
the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait and
switch scam. He could not use his scientific expertise to support
the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the
whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided
to prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap
stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type of
evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in 2014.
Behe was really claiming that his designer would have done it some
other way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of biological
evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution is evolution.
Sternberg had to start working on something new, so he is getting
around to admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about
what they should have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND
ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single
cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human >>>>> organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from
countless others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary
processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, >>>>> 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are
remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase.
Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller
cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a
hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal
embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often
called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of
cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces >>>>> are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits.
Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating
while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are
the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal
factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from
the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human
being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in
science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, with >>>>> ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling millisecond-
scale control while consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy.
Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and
this difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater
combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; human
prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex gives
disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling abstract
reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, and recursive >>>>> language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times
per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and >>>>> immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² >>>>> of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using
hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting >>>>> organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct
antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by
filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons,
reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through
hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions
of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in
females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by
returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating >>>>> immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to
maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human
organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 8/01/2026 6:23 am, RonO wrote:
On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-
intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at
all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/
cosmological argument?
You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one more
honest than the ones that you associate with. You should know that
creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument. You can
think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't solve the
ultimate first-cause issue. Something likely existed before the Big
Bang, but we don't know what that could be. The pure energy or quark-
gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big Bang would have come
from somewhere. All we have to look at is our little piece of the
cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side of the Big Bang's
influence.
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or >>> speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic
Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;
(ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii)
materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics
(e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists.
What caused some god to exist? This god would have to be able to
interact with his creation in order to make you happy. This god would
have had to be able to manipulate things in our universe so that 8
billion years of dying stars would produce a dust and gas cloud with
the right mix of elements to make life possible in our star poor
region of the milky way galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.
Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning
of the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's. Nyikos is the
type of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like. Nyikos
was not anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he
supported the ID scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie about
ID being scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended
Catholic Mass, but that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID
scam for religious reasons. Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of
Biblical creationist that believed in a god that you could lie to and
expect to get what you wanted. I think that Nyikos was the only
creationist on TO that ever supported Pascal's wager as something that
was viable. You have to have a pretty pathetic view of your god to
think that claiming to believe in that god would be enough ass kissing
to get your just reward.
Ron Okimoto
The short answer for creationists is that God is, by definition,
uncaused. An objection to this is that it explains nothing. My counter
would be that God is the ultimate - and only - brute fact. The one
exception to causality. Of course this is open to any amount of philosophical and theological debate.
The causality question comes into focus with energy and entropy.
Penrose's CCC attempts to solve the fundamental problem of increasing entropy and successive universe cycles.
On 1/8/2026 4:36 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/01/2026 6:23 am, RonO wrote:
On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-
intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument
at all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/
cosmological argument?
You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one
more honest than the ones that you associate with. You should know
that creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument. You
can think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't
solve the ultimate first-cause issue. Something likely existed
before the Big Bang, but we don't know what that could be. The pure
energy or quark- gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big
Bang would have come from somewhere. All we have to look at is our
little piece of the cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side of
the Big Bang's influence.
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse >>>> or speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal
Cyclic Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is
real; (ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and
(iii) materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical
gymnastics (e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists.
What caused some god to exist? This god would have to be able to
interact with his creation in order to make you happy. This god
would have had to be able to manipulate things in our universe so
that 8 billion years of dying stars would produce a dust and gas
cloud with the right mix of elements to make life possible in our
star poor region of the milky way galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.
Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning
of the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's. Nyikos is the
type of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like. Nyikos
was not anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he
supported the ID scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie
about ID being scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended
Catholic Mass, but that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID
scam for religious reasons. Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of
Biblical creationist that believed in a god that you could lie to and
expect to get what you wanted. I think that Nyikos was the only
creationist on TO that ever supported Pascal's wager as something
that was viable. You have to have a pretty pathetic view of your god
to think that claiming to believe in that god would be enough ass
kissing to get your just reward.
Ron Okimoto
The short answer for creationists is that God is, by definition,
uncaused. An objection to this is that it explains nothing. My counter
would be that God is the ultimate - and only - brute fact. The one
exception to causality. Of course this is open to any amount of
philosophical and theological debate.
A bogus definition of god doesn't solve your problem. No matter what
your definition is the problem still exists. Why would anyone believe
that you could define away a problem when there is no justification for
the definition?
The causality question comes into focus with energy and entropy.
Penrose's CCC attempts to solve the fundamental problem of increasing
entropy and successive universe cycles.
Just define it away.
Ron Okimoto
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 that extant
life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out anything that
wasn't already understood decades ago. As a genetics major at
Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to take a class called
Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that
had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's transposable
element research from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was
breaking cellular cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I
can't remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a
nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could
not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the
defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but
the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the reciprocal
cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those
heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant
would produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective
chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to be
restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional cell.
Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every change
has to work within what is already working. In this case some
cellular function was lost that had been maintained by all cells
coming from preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored
by crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and likely
long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern cell
theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell theory. This
new information is just as useless to the ID scam as IC well matched
parts, and for the same reason. We do not know exactly what it is,
and it can't be quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial.
The information that exists today has been evolving for billions of
years and passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information
denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was
important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is
just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're agreeing
that the ovum must contain significant amounts of information (as well
as the functional portion of the genome) to specify the resulting
organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to create
new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate and
facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life the genome
has taken on the job of regulating the development of different cell
types, but it still has to generate those additional cell types using
the information contained in the egg cell. That is just how life works.
This has been understood since we figured out modern cell theory in
the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't use the important information needed for life is that we do not understand it
well enough to make a big deal about it. We have understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are you going to claim that there is too much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in the
mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the gene-centric
paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population genetics, etc. The
extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, not in scope and not
analysed. And that seems like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological evolution because it has always been part of the environmental component.
Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component.
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the lifeform.
If new variants do not work within that context the organism dies and
has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each new evolutionary
innovation has to work within what is already working or it is not
passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his ID
scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a protein
happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified within a certain time limit
(number of generations). He needed neutral mutations because they could not be selected for and would require random processes to get them into
the same cell lineage. He needed a time limit because at this time
there are so many neutral mutations in nearly all the proteins in all
the lineages that when some single mutation occurs that changes the
function it is likely using several of the past neutral mutations to
create that new function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to create a new function. Behe
acknowledges that this would be expected to routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would be Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he has not found it yet, and he
refuses to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have
been bogusly in denial of something that they never understood.
All the denial about the genome and genetic code was just dishonest >>>>> stupidity. They never understood the information that really existed. >>>>>
All this means is that they should now understand that they have to >>>>> start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and that
they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much of it
to have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand
the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It
has always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome,
and that the products of the genetic code depended on the 3
dimensional information created by the RNA and protein products of
genes. This encoded information has to work within what 3
dimensional information that already exists in the cell. All
changes have to work within what is already working. This had to
be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic code has >>>>> done is that it has improved the efficiency of the reproduction of
the cell, and it has grown in function to direct the development of >>>>> multicellular organisms from a single cell. The genome needs a
fully functional cell in order to do this, and every functional
addition had to work within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an
argument in the first place because they never understood what they >>>>> were lying about, and they still do not understand what they are
lying about in order to make any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that he >>>>> has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is the ID
perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense peer
reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently quit science (he >>>>> was never fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit
participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent
scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, and he joined
the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait and
switch scam. He could not use his scientific expertise to support >>>>> the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the
whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided >>>>> to prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap
stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type of
evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in
2014. Behe was really claiming that his designer would have done it >>>>> some other way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of biological
evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution is evolution.
Sternberg had to start working on something new, so he is getting
around to admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about
what they should have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND >>>>>> ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single >>>>>> cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique
human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell >>>>>> from countless others. What follows is one of the most
extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then
4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are >>>>>> remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase. >>>>>> Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller
cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a >>>>>> hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why >>>>>> implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal >>>>>> embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often >>>>>> called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of >>>>>> cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back to >>>>>> front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical
forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable
anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. >>>>>> Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating
while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of >>>>>> trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears. >>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are
the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal
factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from >>>>>> the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply >>>>>> interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we
still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to
those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human
being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in
science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing,
with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting
metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than >>>>>> great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of magnitude >>>>>> greater combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; >>>>>> human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex >>>>>> gives disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling
abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, and >>>>>> recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via
~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000 times >>>>>> per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones,
and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy
along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 >>>>>> m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using >>>>>> hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, exerting >>>>>> organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct >>>>>> antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural
support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective
interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling. >>>>>>
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by >>>>>> filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million nephrons, >>>>>> reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through >>>>>> hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of millions >>>>>> of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in
females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity by >>>>>> returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and coordinating >>>>>> immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to
maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human
organism.
(ChatGPT)
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 that
extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out anything
that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a genetics major at
Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to take a class called
Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that
had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's transposable
element research from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was
breaking cellular cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I
can't remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a
nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts
could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant
to the defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear
gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the
reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant
and those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of
that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would again have
defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to
be restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional
cell. Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every
change has to work within what is already working. In this case
some cellular function was lost that had been maintained by all
cells coming from preexisting cells, and that function had to be
restored by crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and likely
long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern cell
theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell theory. This >>>> new information is just as useless to the ID scam as IC well matched
parts, and for the same reason. We do not know exactly what it is,
and it can't be quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial.
The information that exists today has been evolving for billions of
years and passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information
denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was
important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is
just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're agreeing
that the ovum must contain significant amounts of information (as
well as the functional portion of the genome) to specify the
resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to
create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate and
facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life the genome
has taken on the job of regulating the development of different cell
types, but it still has to generate those additional cell types using
the information contained in the egg cell. That is just how life
works. This has been understood since we figured out modern cell
theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't
use the important information needed for life is that we do not
understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We have
understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just can't
do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are you going
to claim that there is too much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in the
mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the gene-
centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population genetics,
etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, not in scope
and not analysed. And that seems like a problem - a fundamental problem. >>>
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological evolution
because it has always been part of the environmental component.
Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The "environment"
is external to, and other than, the organism.
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the
organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each new
evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already working or
it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified
complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed
being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his ID
scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a protein
happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many can occur.
Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC systems that
required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified within a certain
time limit (number of generations). He needed neutral mutations
because they could not be selected for and would require random
processes to get them into the same cell lineage. He needed a time
limit because at this time there are so many neutral mutations in
nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that when some single
mutation occurs that changes the function it is likely using several
of the past neutral mutations to create that new function. The ID
scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to
create a new function. Behe acknowledges that this would be expected
to routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would be
Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what
he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he
has not found it yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have
been bogusly in denial of something that they never understood.
All the denial about the genome and genetic code was just
dishonest stupidity. They never understood the information that >>>>>> really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they have
to start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and
that they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much >>>>>> of it to have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand >>>>>> the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It >>>>>> has always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome,
and that the products of the genetic code depended on the 3
dimensional information created by the RNA and protein products of >>>>>> genes. This encoded information has to work within what 3
dimensional information that already exists in the cell. All
changes have to work within what is already working. This had to >>>>>> be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic code has >>>>>> done is that it has improved the efficiency of the reproduction of >>>>>> the cell, and it has grown in function to direct the development
of multicellular organisms from a single cell. The genome needs >>>>>> a fully functional cell in order to do this, and every functional >>>>>> addition had to work within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an
argument in the first place because they never understood what
they were lying about, and they still do not understand what they >>>>>> are lying about in order to make any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that he >>>>>> has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is the ID >>>>>> perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense peer >>>>>> reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently quit science
(he was never fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit
participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent
scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, and he joined >>>>>> the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait and
switch scam. He could not use his scientific expertise to support >>>>>> the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the
whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but
decided to prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his >>>>>> gap stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type
of evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in >>>>>> 2014. Behe was really claiming that his designer would have done
it some other way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of
biological evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution is
evolution. Sternberg had to start working on something new, so he >>>>>> is getting around to admitting that the ID perps have never been
lying about what they should have been lying about in the first
place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a
single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically
unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes >>>>>>> this cell from countless others. What follows is one of the most >>>>>>> extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then >>>>>>> 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*,
are remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not
increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into
ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a >>>>>>> hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to
continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells
“decide” their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, >>>>>>> and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why >>>>>>> implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal >>>>>>> embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often >>>>>>> called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of >>>>>>> cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back >>>>>>> to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical
forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable >>>>>>> anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. >>>>>>> Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating
while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of >>>>>>> trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are >>>>>>> the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal >>>>>>> factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from >>>>>>> the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply >>>>>>> interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we >>>>>>> still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to >>>>>>> those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules. >>>>>>> But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human >>>>>>> being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in >>>>>>> science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing,
with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting
metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than >>>>>>> great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of magnitude >>>>>>> greater combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic
scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the
total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range
connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought,
counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via >>>>>>> ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000
times per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients,
hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300
million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing
~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy >>>>>>> along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 >>>>>>> m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation using >>>>>>> hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations,
exerting organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹² >>>>>>> active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct >>>>>>> antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural >>>>>>> support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective >>>>>>> interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling. >>>>>>>
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis by >>>>>>> filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million
nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity through >>>>>>> hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds of
millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive
physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity >>>>>>> by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and
coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes. >>>>>>>
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to >>>>>>> maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human
organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 9/01/2026 2:44 am, RonO wrote:
On 1/8/2026 4:36 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/01/2026 6:23 am, RonO wrote:
On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:
Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for- >>>>>> intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/
You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how
biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument >>>>>> at all.
Ron Okimoto
Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/
cosmological argument?
You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one
more honest than the ones that you associate with. You should know
that creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument. You >>>> can think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't
solve the ultimate first-cause issue. Something likely existed
before the Big Bang, but we don't know what that could be. The pure >>>> energy or quark- gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big
Bang would have come from somewhere. All we have to look at is our
little piece of the cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side
of the Big Bang's influence.
I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this
argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time
beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse >>>>> or speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal
Cyclic Cosmology (CCC).
Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is
real; (ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and >>>>> (iii) materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical
gymnastics (e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.
The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists.
What caused some god to exist? This god would have to be able to
interact with his creation in order to make you happy. This god
would have had to be able to manipulate things in our universe so
that 8 billion years of dying stars would produce a dust and gas
cloud with the right mix of elements to make life possible in our
star poor region of the milky way galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.
Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning
of the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's. Nyikos is the >>>> type of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like.
Nyikos was not anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he
supported the ID scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie
about ID being scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended
Catholic Mass, but that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID
scam for religious reasons. Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of
Biblical creationist that believed in a god that you could lie to
and expect to get what you wanted. I think that Nyikos was the only >>>> creationist on TO that ever supported Pascal's wager as something
that was viable. You have to have a pretty pathetic view of your
god to think that claiming to believe in that god would be enough
ass kissing to get your just reward.
Ron Okimoto
The short answer for creationists is that God is, by definition,
uncaused. An objection to this is that it explains nothing. My
counter would be that God is the ultimate - and only - brute fact.
The one exception to causality. Of course this is open to any amount
of philosophical and theological debate.
A bogus definition of god doesn't solve your problem. No matter what
your definition is the problem still exists. Why would anyone believe
that you could define away a problem when there is no justification
for the definition?
The causality question comes into focus with energy and entropy.
Penrose's CCC attempts to solve the fundamental problem of increasing
entropy and successive universe cycles.
Just define it away.
Ron Okimoto
Maybe it's not a "bogus definition", but an correct encapsulation.
Maybe its not "defining away", but an accurate starting point.
I'm not claiming a proof of this, I'm just thinking out loud:
1. An uncaused first cause may exist.
2. If so, by definition, they are termination point for causality.
3. They could then be described as the one and only "brute fact".
Yes?
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 that
extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out
anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a genetics >>>>> major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to take a
class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current topics,
but issues that had, had been issues decades before like
McClintock's transposable element research from the 1930's and
40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles and was maize >>>>> research from the 1950's. I can't remember the name of the
researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear mutation that messed
up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by
crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective plant.
This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts
were not restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with
defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those
heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant
would produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective
chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to
be restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional
cell. Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every
change has to work within what is already working. In this case
some cellular function was lost that had been maintained by all
cells coming from preexisting cells, and that function had to be
restored by crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and
likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern
cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell
theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam as >>>>> IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not know
exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any degree useful >>>>> for ID perp denial. The information that exists today has been
evolving for billions of years and passed down each cellular
generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information
denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was
important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is
just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're agreeing
that the ovum must contain significant amounts of information (as
well as the functional portion of the genome) to specify the
resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to
create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate
and facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life the
genome has taken on the job of regulating the development of
different cell types, but it still has to generate those additional
cell types using the information contained in the egg cell. That is
just how life works. This has been understood since we figured out
modern cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps
and you don't use the important information needed for life is that
we do not understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We
have understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just
can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are you
going to claim that there is too much of something that you can't
even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in the
mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the gene-
centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population genetics,
etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, not in
scope and not analysed. And that seems like a problem - a
fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + sperm
DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in which the genetics
are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic component
is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular information mess ups during development. Things do not always work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the
organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each new
evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already working or
it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified
complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed
being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his ID
scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a protein
happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many can occur.
Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC systems that
required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified within a certain
time limit (number of generations). He needed neutral mutations
because they could not be selected for and would require random
processes to get them into the same cell lineage. He needed a time
limit because at this time there are so many neutral mutations in
nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that when some single
mutation occurs that changes the function it is likely using several
of the past neutral mutations to create that new function. The ID
scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to
create a new function. Behe acknowledges that this would be expected
to routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would be
Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what
he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he
has not found it yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have >>>>>>> been bogusly in denial of something that they never understood. >>>>>>> All the denial about the genome and genetic code was just
dishonest stupidity. They never understood the information that >>>>>>> really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they have >>>>>>> to start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and >>>>>>> that they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too much >>>>>>> of it to have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not understand >>>>>>> the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It >>>>>>> has always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome, >>>>>>> and that the products of the genetic code depended on the 3
dimensional information created by the RNA and protein products >>>>>>> of genes. This encoded information has to work within what 3
dimensional information that already exists in the cell. All
changes have to work within what is already working. This had to >>>>>>> be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic code >>>>>>> has done is that it has improved the efficiency of the
reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in function to direct >>>>>>> the development of multicellular organisms from a single cell.
The genome needs a fully functional cell in order to do this, >>>>>>> and every functional addition had to work within what had already >>>>>>> been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an
argument in the first place because they never understood what
they were lying about, and they still do not understand what they >>>>>>> are lying about in order to make any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that >>>>>>> he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is the >>>>>>> ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion nonsense >>>>>>> peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently quit
science (he was never fired nor did he lose his office space) and >>>>>>> quit participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent >>>>>>> scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, and he
joined the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the
bait and switch scam. He could not use his scientific expertise >>>>>>> to support the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing with >>>>>>> gaps in the whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate
taxonomist, but decided to prevaricate about whale evolution). >>>>>>> Behe destroyed his gap stupidity by claiming that whale evolution >>>>>>> was just the type of evolution expected to have occurred by
Darwinian mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really claiming that his >>>>>>> designer would have done it some other way. Behe tried to
denigrate that type of biological evolution by calling it
"devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to start >>>>>>> working on something new, so he is getting around to admitting
that the ID perps have never been lying about what they should
have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS >>>>>>>> AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a
single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically >>>>>>>> unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes >>>>>>>> this cell from countless others. What follows is one of the most >>>>>>>> extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then >>>>>>>> 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, >>>>>>>> are remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not
increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into >>>>>>>> ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on >>>>>>>> trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate
decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*—a >>>>>>>> hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a >>>>>>>> biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to >>>>>>>> continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells >>>>>>>> “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene
regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and >>>>>>>> why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently >>>>>>>> normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*,
often called *the most important event in your life*. A simple >>>>>>>> sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational >>>>>>>> layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back >>>>>>>> to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular
movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical
forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable >>>>>>>> anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and >>>>>>>> assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into
circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins >>>>>>>> beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens >>>>>>>> of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are >>>>>>>> the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal >>>>>>>> factors, and environmental influences interact throughout
development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, from >>>>>>>> the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a
*deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic >>>>>>>> rules, physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we >>>>>>>> still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to >>>>>>>> those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules. >>>>>>>> But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human >>>>>>>> being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in >>>>>>>> science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, >>>>>>>> with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting
metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons >>>>>>>> than great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of
magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity, given
synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% >>>>>>>> of the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range >>>>>>>> connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought,
counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport via >>>>>>>> ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats ~100,000
times per day, continuously distributing oxygen, nutrients,
hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 >>>>>>>> million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing >>>>>>>> ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable energy >>>>>>>> along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 >>>>>>>> m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation
using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, >>>>>>>> exerting organism-wide control through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹–10¹²
active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² distinct >>>>>>>> antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural >>>>>>>> support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous
mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional protective >>>>>>>> interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 billion cells, >>>>>>>> integrating mechanical protection, sensation, and immune signaling. >>>>>>>>
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis >>>>>>>> by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million
nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity
through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds >>>>>>>> of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive >>>>>>>> physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity >>>>>>>> by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and
coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes. >>>>>>>>
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent,
multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision to >>>>>>>> maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the human >>>>>>>> organism.
(ChatGPT)
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 that
extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out
anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a
genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to >>>>>> take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current
topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades before like
McClintock's transposable element research from the 1930's and
40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles and was
maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the name of the >>>>>> researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear mutation that messed >>>>>> up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by
crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective plant.
This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts >>>>>> were not restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with
defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those
heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant >>>>>> would produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective
chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had to >>>>>> be restored by putting the genetics into another fully functional >>>>>> cell. Descent with modification produces new lifeforms, but every >>>>>> change has to work within what is already working. In this case >>>>>> some cellular function was lost that had been maintained by all
cells coming from preexisting cells, and that function had to be
restored by crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell. >>>>>>
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and
likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern
cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell
theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam as >>>>>> IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not know
exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any degree
useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists today has
been evolving for billions of years and passed down each cellular >>>>>> generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information
denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was
important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is >>>>>> just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to
specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to
create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate
and facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life the
genome has taken on the job of regulating the development of
different cell types, but it still has to generate those additional
cell types using the information contained in the egg cell. That is >>>> just how life works. This has been understood since we figured out >>>> modern cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps >>>> and you don't use the important information needed for life is that
we do not understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We >>>> have understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just
can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are you >>>> going to claim that there is too much of something that you can't
even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in
the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the gene- >>>>> centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population genetics, >>>>> etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, not in
scope and not analysed. And that seems like a problem - a
fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + sperm
DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The existing
cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the environmental
component of the equation. It is the environment in which the
genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an environmental
influence as womb, and things like nutrition and diseases in the full
development of the organism and expression of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work
out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the accepted
use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and challenges
such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones, blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of information, i.e.
they comprise the support system that is mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence" development; they act as a primary control system that directs embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development, especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). Low maternal TH
is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the supply
of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from rejecting
the embryo."
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the
organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each new
evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already working
or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified
complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed
being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his ID
scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a protein >>>> happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many can occur.
Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC systems that
required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified within a certain
time limit (number of generations). He needed neutral mutations
because they could not be selected for and would require random
processes to get them into the same cell lineage. He needed a time
limit because at this time there are so many neutral mutations in
nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that when some single
mutation occurs that changes the function it is likely using several
of the past neutral mutations to create that new function. The ID
scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to
create a new function. Behe acknowledges that this would be
expected to routinely occur with out designer intervention. This
would be Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to >>>> find what he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in
nature, but he has not found it yet, and he refuses to look for it
in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they have >>>>>>>> been bogusly in denial of something that they never understood. >>>>>>>> All the denial about the genome and genetic code was just
dishonest stupidity. They never understood the information that >>>>>>>> really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they have >>>>>>>> to start lying about something that isn't fully understood, and >>>>>>>> that they can't quantify in order to claim that there is too
much of it to have had to accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not
understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem >>>>>>>> or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. It >>>>>>>> has always been understood that a cell is more than it's genome, >>>>>>>> and that the products of the genetic code depended on the 3
dimensional information created by the RNA and protein products >>>>>>>> of genes. This encoded information has to work within what 3 >>>>>>>> dimensional information that already exists in the cell. All >>>>>>>> changes have to work within what is already working. This had >>>>>>>> to be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic >>>>>>>> code has done is that it has improved the efficiency of the
reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in function to direct >>>>>>>> the development of multicellular organisms from a single cell. >>>>>>>> The genome needs a fully functional cell in order to do this, >>>>>>>> and every functional addition had to work within what had
already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an
argument in the first place because they never understood what >>>>>>>> they were lying about, and they still do not understand what
they are lying about in order to make any type of rational
argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that >>>>>>>> he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is >>>>>>>> the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion
nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He subsequently >>>>>>>> quit science (he was never fired nor did he lose his office
space) and quit participating in the scientific endeavor. His >>>>>>>> most recent scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, >>>>>>>> and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to
support the bait and switch scam. He could not use his
scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so he spent around >>>>>>>> 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil record (he was an >>>>>>>> invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to prevaricate about whale >>>>>>>> evolution). Behe destroyed his gap stupidity by claiming that >>>>>>>> whale evolution was just the type of evolution expected to have >>>>>>>> occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really
claiming that his designer would have done it some other way. >>>>>>>> Behe tried to denigrate that type of biological evolution by
calling it "devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg >>>>>>>> had to start working on something new, so he is getting around >>>>>>>> to admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about what >>>>>>>> they should have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS >>>>>>>>> AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a >>>>>>>>> single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically >>>>>>>>> unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes >>>>>>>>> this cell from countless others. What follows is one of the >>>>>>>>> most extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, >>>>>>>>> then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called
*cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the embryo >>>>>>>>> does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is
partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on >>>>>>>>> trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*— >>>>>>>>> a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a >>>>>>>>> biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to >>>>>>>>> continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells >>>>>>>>> “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene
regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and >>>>>>>>> why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently >>>>>>>>> normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, >>>>>>>>> often called *the most important event in your life*. A simple >>>>>>>>> sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational >>>>>>>>> layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, back >>>>>>>>> to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular >>>>>>>>> movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical >>>>>>>>> forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable >>>>>>>>> anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and >>>>>>>>> assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into
circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart
begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens >>>>>>>>> of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural >>>>>>>>> connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals >>>>>>>>> are the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks,
maternal factors, and environmental influences interact
throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, >>>>>>>>> from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic >>>>>>>>> individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a
*deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic >>>>>>>>> rules, physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation. >>>>>>>>>
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, >>>>>>>>> we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to >>>>>>>>> those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules. >>>>>>>>> But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique
human being remains one of the most profound and humbling
questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale,
precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, >>>>>>>>> with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting
metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons >>>>>>>>> than great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of >>>>>>>>> magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity, given
synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% >>>>>>>>> of the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range >>>>>>>>> connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought,
counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport >>>>>>>>> via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats
~100,000 times per day, continuously distributing oxygen,
nutrients, hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 >>>>>>>>> million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing >>>>>>>>> ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable
energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes >>>>>>>>> and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine. >>>>>>>>>
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation >>>>>>>>> using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar concentrations, >>>>>>>>> exerting organism-wide control through nested feedback loops. >>>>>>>>>
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹– >>>>>>>>> 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² >>>>>>>>> distinct antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and structural >>>>>>>>> support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with continuous >>>>>>>>> mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional
protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 >>>>>>>>> billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, sensation, >>>>>>>>> and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis >>>>>>>>> by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million >>>>>>>>> nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity. >>>>>>>>>
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity
through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds >>>>>>>>> of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive >>>>>>>>> physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and immunity >>>>>>>>> by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily and
coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph nodes. >>>>>>>>>
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, >>>>>>>>> multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of
components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision >>>>>>>>> to maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the
human organism.
(ChatGPT)
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 that
extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out
anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a
genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required to >>>>>>> take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just current >>>>>>> topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades before like >>>>>>> McClintock's transposable element research from the 1930's and
40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles and was
maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the name of the >>>>>>> researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear mutation that
messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be
reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the
defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear gene,
but the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the
reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type
plant and those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but
selfs of that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would >>>>>>> again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had >>>>>>> to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully
functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already
working. In this case some cellular function was lost that had >>>>>>> been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and >>>>>>> that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell >>>>>>> to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been
understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and
likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern >>>>>>> cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell
theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam >>>>>>> as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not
know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any degree >>>>>>> useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists today has >>>>>>> been evolving for billions of years and passed down each cellular >>>>>>> generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information >>>>>>> denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was
important for a functioning cell? This new information denial is >>>>>>> just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to
specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to
create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate >>>>> and facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life the >>>>> genome has taken on the job of regulating the development of
different cell types, but it still has to generate those additional >>>>> cell types using the information contained in the egg cell. That
is just how life works. This has been understood since we figured >>>>> out modern cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID >>>>> perps and you don't use the important information needed for life
is that we do not understand it well enough to make a big deal
about it. We have understood that it existed for well over a
century, but it just can't do much for the ID creationist scam at
this time. How are you going to claim that there is too much of
something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in
the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the
gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population
genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I know, >>>>>> not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a problem - a
fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA +
sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The existing
cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the environmental
component of the equation. It is the environment in which the
genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an environmental
influence as womb, and things like nutrition and diseases in the full
development of the organism and expression of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work
out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the accepted
use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and challenges
such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones, blood
supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of information, i.e.
they comprise the support system that is mandatory for embryonic
development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence"
development; they act as a primary control system that directs embryo
implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start or
interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development, especially
before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). Low maternal TH
is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones
can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA
axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth
or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental component
is that it has been evolving for as long as the first cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop within
the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and the developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal, just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating more cells.
Anything that helped the cells replicate more efficiently producing
more cells that could replicate would be selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed of self replicating units. These
early self replicating units would do other things besides self
replicate, such as make lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first self replicators. These first self replicators would have had minimal
cellular information to pass down to the next generation, but it would
need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to the cellular information that needed to be carried over to the next generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs. DNA may have evolved
to make the genome more stable. All these additions needed to work
within what was already working, and they added their own sets of information that needed to be passed down in the physical cells. The
code would have evolved after the RNA world was established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information needed
to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to work with what
was already working or it didn't make it into the next generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine what this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that you can run your denial
scams. Until you can do that you are just blowing smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end you simply have to
admit to yourself that any god could have done it anyway that it looks
like it was done, and there is no reason why such a god would have to
rely on any magical unexplainable methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe that they ever needed to exist, and he even
understands that they could exist, but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows that others have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in
a new function, but no one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral mutations being needed. This is pretty much what you are doing with
your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the
organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each new >>>>> evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already working
or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified
complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed
being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his
ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a
protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many can >>>>> occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC systems >>>>> that required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified within a
certain time limit (number of generations). He needed neutral
mutations because they could not be selected for and would require
random processes to get them into the same cell lineage. He needed >>>>> a time limit because at this time there are so many neutral
mutations in nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that when
some single mutation occurs that changes the function it is likely
using several of the past neutral mutations to create that new
function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations have >>>>> been observed to create a new function. Behe acknowledges that
this would be expected to routinely occur with out designer
intervention. This would be Dembski's "lesser" specified
complexity. Behe is trying to find what he claims would be
evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he has not found it
yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they >>>>>>>>> have been bogusly in denial of something that they never
understood. All the denial about the genome and genetic code >>>>>>>>> was just dishonest stupidity. They never understood the
information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they >>>>>>>>> have to start lying about something that isn't fully
understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim that >>>>>>>>> there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by natural >>>>>>>>> means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not
understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a problem >>>>>>>>> or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. >>>>>>>>> It has always been understood that a cell is more than it's >>>>>>>>> genome, and that the products of the genetic code depended on >>>>>>>>> the 3 dimensional information created by the RNA and protein >>>>>>>>> products of genes. This encoded information has to work within >>>>>>>>> what 3 dimensional information that already exists in the
cell. All changes have to work within what is already
working. This had to be true before the genetic code evolved. >>>>>>>>> All the genetic code has done is that it has improved the
efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in >>>>>>>>> function to direct the development of multicellular organisms >>>>>>>>> from a single cell. The genome needs a fully functional cell >>>>>>>>> in order to do this, and every functional addition had to work >>>>>>>>> within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an >>>>>>>>> argument in the first place because they never understood what >>>>>>>>> they were lying about, and they still do not understand what >>>>>>>>> they are lying about in order to make any type of rational
argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed that >>>>>>>>> he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. He is >>>>>>>>> the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian explosion >>>>>>>>> nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He
subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor did he lose >>>>>>>>> his office space) and quit participating in the scientific
endeavor. His most recent scientific publication on his web >>>>>>>>> page is from 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in >>>>>>>>> 2007 in order to support the bait and switch scam. He could >>>>>>>>> not use his scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so he >>>>>>>>> spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil
record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to
prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap
stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type of >>>>>>>>> evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in >>>>>>>>> 2014. Behe was really claiming that his designer would have >>>>>>>>> done it some other way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of >>>>>>>>> biological evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution >>>>>>>>> is evolution. Sternberg had to start working on something new, >>>>>>>>> so he is getting around to admitting that the ID perps have >>>>>>>>> never been lying about what they should have been lying about >>>>>>>>> in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS >>>>>>>>>> AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a >>>>>>>>>> single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically >>>>>>>>>> unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible
distinguishes this cell from countless others. What follows is >>>>>>>>>> one of the most extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, >>>>>>>>>> then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called
*cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the
embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>> partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on >>>>>>>>>> trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular
concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst* >>>>>>>>>> — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a >>>>>>>>>> biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to >>>>>>>>>> continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells >>>>>>>>>> “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene >>>>>>>>>> regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and >>>>>>>>>> why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently >>>>>>>>>> normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, >>>>>>>>>> often called *the most important event in your life*. A simple >>>>>>>>>> sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational >>>>>>>>>> layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, >>>>>>>>>> back to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular >>>>>>>>>> movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical >>>>>>>>>> forces are integrated in real time to yield precise,
repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and >>>>>>>>>> assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into
circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart >>>>>>>>>> begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens >>>>>>>>>> of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural >>>>>>>>>> connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals >>>>>>>>>> are the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, >>>>>>>>>> maternal factors, and environmental influences interact
throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, >>>>>>>>>> from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic >>>>>>>>>> individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends
genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self-
organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, >>>>>>>>>> we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable >>>>>>>>>> to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules. >>>>>>>>>> But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique >>>>>>>>>> human being remains one of the most profound and humbling >>>>>>>>>> questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information processing, >>>>>>>>>> with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses enabling >>>>>>>>>> millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of resting >>>>>>>>>> metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons >>>>>>>>>> than great apes, and this difference alone implies orders of >>>>>>>>>> magnitude greater combinatorial processing capacity, given >>>>>>>>>> synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% >>>>>>>>>> of the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range >>>>>>>>>> connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, >>>>>>>>>> counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport >>>>>>>>>> via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats
~100,000 times per day, continuously distributing oxygen, >>>>>>>>>> nutrients, hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 >>>>>>>>>> million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing >>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes >>>>>>>>>> and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine. >>>>>>>>>>
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation >>>>>>>>>> using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar
concentrations, exerting organism-wide control through nested >>>>>>>>>> feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹– >>>>>>>>>> 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² >>>>>>>>>> distinct antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and
structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with >>>>>>>>>> continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% >>>>>>>>>> annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional
protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 >>>>>>>>>> billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, sensation, >>>>>>>>>> and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical homeostasis >>>>>>>>>> by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across ~2 million >>>>>>>>>> nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high selectivity. >>>>>>>>>>
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to hundreds >>>>>>>>>> of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic reproductive >>>>>>>>>> physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and
immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily >>>>>>>>>> and coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph >>>>>>>>>> nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, >>>>>>>>>> multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of >>>>>>>>>> components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision >>>>>>>>>> to maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the >>>>>>>>>> human organism.
(ChatGPT)
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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
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 that >>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out
anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a
genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just
current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades
before like McClintock's transposable element research from the >>>>>>>> 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles >>>>>>>> and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the >>>>>>>> name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear
mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could >>>>>>>> not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to >>>>>>>> the defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear
gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the >>>>>>>> reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type >>>>>>>> plant and those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but >>>>>>>> selfs of that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would >>>>>>>> again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had >>>>>>>> to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully
functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that had >>>>>>>> been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and >>>>>>>> that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell >>>>>>>> to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern >>>>>>>> cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell
theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam >>>>>>>> as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not >>>>>>>> know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any
degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists >>>>>>>> today has been evolving for billions of years and passed down >>>>>>>> each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information >>>>>>>> denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was >>>>>>>> important for a functioning cell? This new information denial >>>>>>>> is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to >>>>>>> specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to >>>>>> create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate >>>>>> and facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life
the genome has taken on the job of regulating the development of
different cell types, but it still has to generate those
additional cell types using the information contained in the egg
cell. That is just how life works. This has been understood >>>>>> since we figured out modern cell theory in the 20th century. The >>>>>> reason why the ID perps and you don't use the important
information needed for life is that we do not understand it well
enough to make a big deal about it. We have understood that it
existed for well over a century, but it just can't do much for the >>>>>> ID creationist scam at this time. How are you going to claim that >>>>>> there is too much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in >>>>>>> the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the
gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population >>>>>>> genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I
know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a
problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA +
sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in
which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of
the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work
out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and
challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it in
this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is mandatory
for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence"
development; they act as a primary control system that directs embryo
implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start or
interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). Low
maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones
can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA
axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth
or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first cells
existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop within
the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for body heat to
incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels dependent on egg
contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and the developmental
programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating more
cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more efficiently
producing more cells that could replicate would be selected for. My
take is that these early cells would be composed of self replicating
units. These early self replicating units would do other things
besides self replicate, such as make lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first self
replicators. These first self replicators would have had minimal
cellular information to pass down to the next generation, but it would
need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts of the existing
cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these early self
replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to the cellular
information that needed to be carried over to the next generation of
replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome because it could
be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs. DNA may have
evolved to make the genome more stable. All these additions needed to
work within what was already working, and they added their own sets of
information that needed to be passed down in the physical cells. The
code would have evolved after the RNA world was established, and still
requires ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the next
generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine what
this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that you
can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just blowing
smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end
you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have done it
anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason why such
a god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable methods to get
it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral mutations
exist when he has no reason to believe that they ever needed to exist,
and he even understands that they could exist, but they would be
expected to be very rare. He knows that others have found 2 neutral
mutations resulting in a new function, but no one, not even Behe, has
identified 3 neutral mutations being needed. This is pretty much what
you are doing with your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total information required. However, given the functional complexity specified
in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
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 that >>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out
anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a
genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just
current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades
before like McClintock's transposable element research from the >>>>>>>> 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles >>>>>>>> and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the >>>>>>>> name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear
mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could >>>>>>>> not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to >>>>>>>> the defective plant. This would restore a functional nuclear
gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the >>>>>>>> reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type >>>>>>>> plant and those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but >>>>>>>> selfs of that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would >>>>>>>> again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a
functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had >>>>>>>> to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully
functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that had >>>>>>>> been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and >>>>>>>> that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell >>>>>>>> to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern >>>>>>>> cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell
theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam >>>>>>>> as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not >>>>>>>> know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any
degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists >>>>>>>> today has been evolving for billions of years and passed down >>>>>>>> each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information >>>>>>>> denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was >>>>>>>> important for a functioning cell? This new information denial >>>>>>>> is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to >>>>>>> specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to >>>>>> create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to replicate >>>>>> and facilitate that process. In the case of multicellular life
the genome has taken on the job of regulating the development of
different cell types, but it still has to generate those
additional cell types using the information contained in the egg
cell. That is just how life works. This has been understood >>>>>> since we figured out modern cell theory in the 20th century. The >>>>>> reason why the ID perps and you don't use the important
information needed for life is that we do not understand it well
enough to make a big deal about it. We have understood that it
existed for well over a century, but it just can't do much for the >>>>>> ID creationist scam at this time. How are you going to claim that >>>>>> there is too much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in >>>>>>> the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the
gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population >>>>>>> genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I
know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a
problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA +
sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in
which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of
the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work
out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and
challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it in
this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is mandatory
for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence"
development; they act as a primary control system that directs embryo
implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start or
interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). Low
maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones
can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA
axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth
or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first cells
existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop within
the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for body heat to
incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels dependent on egg
contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and the developmental
programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating more
cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more efficiently
producing more cells that could replicate would be selected for. My
take is that these early cells would be composed of self replicating
units. These early self replicating units would do other things
besides self replicate, such as make lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first self
replicators. These first self replicators would have had minimal
cellular information to pass down to the next generation, but it would
need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts of the existing
cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these early self
replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to the cellular
information that needed to be carried over to the next generation of
replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome because it could
be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs. DNA may have
evolved to make the genome more stable. All these additions needed to
work within what was already working, and they added their own sets of
information that needed to be passed down in the physical cells. The
code would have evolved after the RNA world was established, and still
requires ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the next
generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine what
this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that you
can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just blowing
smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end
you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have done it
anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason why such
a god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable methods to get
it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral mutations
exist when he has no reason to believe that they ever needed to exist,
and he even understands that they could exist, but they would be
expected to be very rare. He knows that others have found 2 neutral
mutations resulting in a new function, but no one, not even Behe, has
identified 3 neutral mutations being needed. This is pretty much what
you are doing with your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total information required. However, given the functional complexity specified
in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the >>>>>> organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each
new evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already
working or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam specified >>>>>> complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could be observed >>>>>> being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his >>>>>> ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a
protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many
can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC
systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified
within a certain time limit (number of generations). He needed
neutral mutations because they could not be selected for and would >>>>>> require random processes to get them into the same cell lineage. >>>>>> He needed a time limit because at this time there are so many
neutral mutations in nearly all the proteins in all the lineages
that when some single mutation occurs that changes the function it >>>>>> is likely using several of the past neutral mutations to create
that new function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 neutral
mutations have been observed to create a new function. Behe
acknowledges that this would be expected to routinely occur with
out designer intervention. This would be Dembski's "lesser"
specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what he claims would >>>>>> be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he has not found >>>>>> it yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they >>>>>>>>>> have been bogusly in denial of something that they never
understood. All the denial about the genome and genetic code >>>>>>>>>> was just dishonest stupidity. They never understood the >>>>>>>>>> information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they >>>>>>>>>> have to start lying about something that isn't fully
understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim >>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by >>>>>>>>>> natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not
understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a
problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. >>>>>>>>>> It has always been understood that a cell is more than it's >>>>>>>>>> genome, and that the products of the genetic code depended on >>>>>>>>>> the 3 dimensional information created by the RNA and protein >>>>>>>>>> products of genes. This encoded information has to work >>>>>>>>>> within what 3 dimensional information that already exists in >>>>>>>>>> the cell. All changes have to work within what is already >>>>>>>>>> working. This had to be true before the genetic code evolved. >>>>>>>>>> All the genetic code has done is that it has improved the >>>>>>>>>> efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown >>>>>>>>>> in function to direct the development of multicellular
organisms from a single cell. The genome needs a fully >>>>>>>>>> functional cell in order to do this, and every functional >>>>>>>>>> addition had to work within what had already been working. >>>>>>>>>>
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an >>>>>>>>>> argument in the first place because they never understood what >>>>>>>>>> they were lying about, and they still do not understand what >>>>>>>>>> they are lying about in order to make any type of rational >>>>>>>>>> argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed >>>>>>>>>> that he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. >>>>>>>>>> He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian
explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He >>>>>>>>>> subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor did he lose >>>>>>>>>> his office space) and quit participating in the scientific >>>>>>>>>> endeavor. His most recent scientific publication on his web >>>>>>>>>> page is from 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in >>>>>>>>>> 2007 in order to support the bait and switch scam. He could >>>>>>>>>> not use his scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so he >>>>>>>>>> spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil >>>>>>>>>> record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to >>>>>>>>>> prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap >>>>>>>>>> stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type >>>>>>>>>> of evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms >>>>>>>>>> in 2014. Behe was really claiming that his designer would have >>>>>>>>>> done it some other way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of >>>>>>>>>> biological evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution >>>>>>>>>> is evolution. Sternberg had to start working on something new, >>>>>>>>>> so he is getting around to admitting that the ID perps have >>>>>>>>>> never been lying about what they should have been lying about >>>>>>>>>> in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE
PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a >>>>>>>>>>> single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically >>>>>>>>>>> unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible
distinguishes this cell from countless others. What follows >>>>>>>>>>> is one of the most extraordinary processes known in nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, >>>>>>>>>>> then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called >>>>>>>>>>> *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the >>>>>>>>>>> embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>>> partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already >>>>>>>>>>> on trajectories that will lead to radically different fates. >>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a
*blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a >>>>>>>>>>> biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to >>>>>>>>>>> continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells >>>>>>>>>>> “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene >>>>>>>>>>> regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and >>>>>>>>>>> why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite
apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, >>>>>>>>>>> often called *the most important event in your life*. A >>>>>>>>>>> simple sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three >>>>>>>>>>> foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, >>>>>>>>>>> back to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular >>>>>>>>>>> movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic. >>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical >>>>>>>>>>> forces are integrated in real time to yield precise,
repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types >>>>>>>>>>> and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into >>>>>>>>>>> circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart >>>>>>>>>>> begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural >>>>>>>>>>> connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals >>>>>>>>>>> are the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, >>>>>>>>>>> maternal factors, and environmental influences interact >>>>>>>>>>> throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, >>>>>>>>>>> from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic >>>>>>>>>>> individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends >>>>>>>>>>> genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self- >>>>>>>>>>> organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, >>>>>>>>>>> we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development comparable >>>>>>>>>>> to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the >>>>>>>>>>> rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique >>>>>>>>>>> human being remains one of the most profound and humbling >>>>>>>>>>> questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information
processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses
enabling millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of >>>>>>>>>>> resting metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical >>>>>>>>>>> neurons than great apes, and this difference alone implies >>>>>>>>>>> orders of magnitude greater combinatorial processing
capacity, given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex >>>>>>>>>>> expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex gives
disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling >>>>>>>>>>> abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual
planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport >>>>>>>>>>> via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats >>>>>>>>>>> ~100,000 times per day, continuously distributing oxygen, >>>>>>>>>>> nutrients, hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through ~300 >>>>>>>>>>> million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, processing >>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes >>>>>>>>>>> and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the small intestine. >>>>>>>>>>>
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation >>>>>>>>>>> using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar
concentrations, exerting organism-wide control through nested >>>>>>>>>>> feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹– >>>>>>>>>>> 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² >>>>>>>>>>> distinct antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and
structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with >>>>>>>>>>> continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% >>>>>>>>>>> annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional
protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 >>>>>>>>>>> billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, sensation, >>>>>>>>>>> and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical
homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across >>>>>>>>>>> ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high >>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to
hundreds of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic >>>>>>>>>>> reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and
immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid daily >>>>>>>>>>> and coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds of lymph >>>>>>>>>>> nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, >>>>>>>>>>> multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of >>>>>>>>>>> components are dynamically regulated with molecular precision >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain stability, adaptability, and continuity of the >>>>>>>>>>> human organism.
(ChatGPT)
On 14/01/2026 03:13, 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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
On 8/01/2026 4:17 am, RonO wrote:You are as wrong as the ID perps for continuing to do what you
On 1/6/2026 6:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:43 am, RonO wrote:It is simply nothing to crow about. It has always been
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.) >>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>
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 that >>>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out >>>>>>>>> anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a >>>>>>>>> genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just >>>>>>>>> current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades >>>>>>>>> before like McClintock's transposable element research from the >>>>>>>>> 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular
cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't
remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a >>>>>>>>> nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts >>>>>>>>> could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type >>>>>>>>> plant to the defective plant. This would restore a functional >>>>>>>>> nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You >>>>>>>>> could do the reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to >>>>>>>>> a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes had functional
chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would produce homozygous >>>>>>>>> mutants that would again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had >>>>>>>>> to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully
functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that had >>>>>>>>> been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and >>>>>>>>> that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell >>>>>>>>> to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern >>>>>>>>> cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell >>>>>>>>> theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam >>>>>>>>> as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not >>>>>>>>> know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any
degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists >>>>>>>>> today has been evolving for billions of years and passed down >>>>>>>>> each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information >>>>>>>>> denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was >>>>>>>>> important for a functioning cell? This new information denial >>>>>>>>> is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to >>>>>>>> specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to >>>>>>> create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to
replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of regulating >>>>>>> the development of different cell types, but it still has to
generate those additional cell types using the information
contained in the egg cell. That is just how life works. This >>>>>>> has been understood since we figured out modern cell theory in
the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't use >>>>>>> the important information needed for life is that we do not
understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We have >>>>>>> understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just >>>>>>> can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are >>>>>>> you going to claim that there is too much of something that you >>>>>>> can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in >>>>>>>> the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the >>>>>>>> gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population >>>>>>>> genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I
know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a
problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA +
sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in >>>>> which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of
the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work >>>>> out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and
challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it
in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is mandatory
for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence"
development; they act as a primary control system that directs
embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start
or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16).
Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones
can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA
axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth
or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first cells
existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop
within the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for body
heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels
dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and the
developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating
more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more
efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would be
selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed of
self replicating units. These early self replicating units would do
other things besides self replicate, such as make lipids to produce
the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first
self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation, but
it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts of
the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these
early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to the
cellular information that needed to be carried over to the next
generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome
because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs.
DNA may have evolved to make the genome more stable. All these
additions needed to work within what was already working, and they
added their own sets of information that needed to be passed down in
the physical cells. The code would have evolved after the RNA world
was established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs
like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the next
generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine what
this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that you
can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just
blowing smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In
the end you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have
done it anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason
why such a god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable
methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3
neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe that they
ever needed to exist, and he even understands that they could exist,
but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows that others
have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new function, but no
one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral mutations being needed.
This is pretty much what you are doing with your empty denial arguments. >>>
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total
information required. However, given the functional complexity
specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
No.
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum cytoplasm,
membrane, organelles)
No.
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than
the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
No. (And did you just deny design?)
Mu.
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
On 8/01/2026 4:17 am, RonO wrote:You are as wrong as the ID perps for continuing to do what you
On 1/6/2026 6:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:43 am, RonO wrote:It is simply nothing to crow about. It has always been
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.) >>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>
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 that >>>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out >>>>>>>>> anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a >>>>>>>>> genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just >>>>>>>>> current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades >>>>>>>>> before like McClintock's transposable element research from the >>>>>>>>> 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular
cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't
remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a >>>>>>>>> nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts >>>>>>>>> could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild-type >>>>>>>>> plant to the defective plant. This would restore a functional >>>>>>>>> nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not restored. You >>>>>>>>> could do the reciprocal cross with defective pollen crossed to >>>>>>>>> a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes had functional
chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would produce homozygous >>>>>>>>> mutants that would again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and had >>>>>>>>> to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully
functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that had >>>>>>>>> been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting cells, and >>>>>>>>> that function had to be restored by crossing the defective cell >>>>>>>>> to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of modern >>>>>>>>> cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with cell >>>>>>>>> theory. This new information is just as useless to the ID scam >>>>>>>>> as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We do not >>>>>>>>> know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to any
degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that exists >>>>>>>>> today has been evolving for billions of years and passed down >>>>>>>>> each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code information >>>>>>>>> denial was bogus? Was the code ever the information that was >>>>>>>>> important for a functioning cell? This new information denial >>>>>>>>> is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're
agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) to >>>>>>>> specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary to >>>>>>> create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to
replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of regulating >>>>>>> the development of different cell types, but it still has to
generate those additional cell types using the information
contained in the egg cell. That is just how life works. This >>>>>>> has been understood since we figured out modern cell theory in
the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't use >>>>>>> the important information needed for life is that we do not
understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We have >>>>>>> understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just >>>>>>> can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are >>>>>>> you going to claim that there is too much of something that you >>>>>>> can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered in >>>>>>>> the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with the >>>>>>>> gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, population >>>>>>>> genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as far as I
know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems like a
problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental
component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA +
sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in >>>>> which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of
the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always work >>>>> out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, and
challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding it
in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is mandatory
for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence"
development; they act as a primary control system that directs
embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start
or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16).
Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones
can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA
axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal overgrowth
or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first cells
existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop
within the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for body
heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels
dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and the
developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating
more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more
efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would be
selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed of
self replicating units. These early self replicating units would do
other things besides self replicate, such as make lipids to produce
the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first
self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation, but
it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts of
the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these
early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to the
cellular information that needed to be carried over to the next
generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome
because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs.
DNA may have evolved to make the genome more stable. All these
additions needed to work within what was already working, and they
added their own sets of information that needed to be passed down in
the physical cells. The code would have evolved after the RNA world
was established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs
like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the next
generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine what
this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that you
can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just
blowing smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In
the end you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have
done it anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason
why such a god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable
methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3
neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe that they
ever needed to exist, and he even understands that they could exist,
but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows that others
have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new function, but no
one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral mutations being needed.
This is pretty much what you are doing with your empty denial arguments. >>>
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total
information required. However, given the functional complexity
specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum cytoplasm,
membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than
the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running for decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because the information needed by life was never going to be estimated in mega bytes
or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how much information was and continues to be needed to maintain life on this planet. We
don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone can we quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already existed.
It was never the information that the ID perps should have been
concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA products and is
involved in regulating the production of those RNA products. A lot of those RNAs rely on their sequence and are involved in functions involved with their secondary structure formation or matching primary sequence
with DNA or other RNAs. The RNAs can be associated with proteins in
order to do these functions. Some of these RNAs are involved in making protein products using the genetic code, but the code is not the
information that life depends on. The code only is needed to replicate
a functional protein accurately and efficiently. The function of the protein is dependent on the 3 dimensional structure, and how that
structure can interact with other cellular components. It is the information in the 3 dimensional structure that is important to anything that the ID perps should be lying about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to be
tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe on this planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have evolved from preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few changes and you can evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved from existing antibody sequences during just one immune response and involve less than 10
sequence changes. We also have plenty of examples where parts of
existing proteins have combined to produce new combinations of already tested protein space. All this means is that it doesn't seem to be very difficult to evolve the information needed to make life possible. The 3 dimensional structures can be produced by pretty much uncountable
specific sequences that will produce a similar enough 3 dimensional sequence. Gish used to use Yockey's 10^69 number for the probability of assembling one cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey also estimated that
just using the variation observed in various cytochrome C sequences that
had been obtained at that time that there was a possible 10^49 possible functional cytochrome C sequences, and that was limiting the sequence to
104 amino acids. The same function can be found in sequences up to 130 amino acids in length. It is not just that, but a 3 dimensional
structure is produced by the current sequence that places 5 amino acids
in specific positions to interact with the heme cofactor, but some
totally different primary sequence could likely produce a different 3 dimensional structure that would still have those 5 amino acids in the working positions. Can the same function be done by 5 different amino acids, or arrangement in a different 3 dimensional order? This sequence
is likely the first one that worked. It has evolved over billions of
years to do it's job very well, and even these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing diversity of sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never dealing with
the information that they needed to be working with. All they ever
wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted answers to any questions that they might have been asking. You have the same problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of life gap with a non Biblical designer,
and your denial is just for denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the
lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the >>>>>>> organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each >>>>>>> new evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already
working or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam
specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could >>>>>>> be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage his >>>>>>> ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function of a >>>>>>> protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for how many >>>>>>> can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in his IC >>>>>>> systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have been specified >>>>>>> within a certain time limit (number of generations). He needed >>>>>>> neutral mutations because they could not be selected for and
would require random processes to get them into the same cell
lineage. He needed a time limit because at this time there are so >>>>>>> many neutral mutations in nearly all the proteins in all the
lineages that when some single mutation occurs that changes the >>>>>>> function it is likely using several of the past neutral mutations >>>>>>> to create that new function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 >>>>>>> neutral mutations have been observed to create a new function. >>>>>>> Behe acknowledges that this would be expected to routinely occur >>>>>>> with out designer intervention. This would be Dembski's "lesser" >>>>>>> specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what he claims
would be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he has
not found it yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC systems. >>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they >>>>>>>>>>> have been bogusly in denial of something that they never >>>>>>>>>>> understood. All the denial about the genome and genetic code >>>>>>>>>>> was just dishonest stupidity. They never understood the >>>>>>>>>>> information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they >>>>>>>>>>> have to start lying about something that isn't fully
understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim >>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by >>>>>>>>>>> natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not
understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a >>>>>>>>>>> problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. >>>>>>>>>>> It has always been understood that a cell is more than it's >>>>>>>>>>> genome, and that the products of the genetic code depended on >>>>>>>>>>> the 3 dimensional information created by the RNA and protein >>>>>>>>>>> products of genes. This encoded information has to work >>>>>>>>>>> within what 3 dimensional information that already exists in >>>>>>>>>>> the cell. All changes have to work within what is already >>>>>>>>>>> working. This had to be true before the genetic code
evolved. All the genetic code has done is that it has
improved the efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and >>>>>>>>>>> it has grown in function to direct the development of
multicellular organisms from a single cell. The genome >>>>>>>>>>> needs a fully functional cell in order to do this, and every >>>>>>>>>>> functional addition had to work within what had already been >>>>>>>>>>> working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an >>>>>>>>>>> argument in the first place because they never understood >>>>>>>>>>> what they were lying about, and they still do not understand >>>>>>>>>>> what they are lying about in order to make any type of
rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed >>>>>>>>>>> that he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. >>>>>>>>>>> He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>> explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. He >>>>>>>>>>> subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor did he lose >>>>>>>>>>> his office space) and quit participating in the scientific >>>>>>>>>>> endeavor. His most recent scientific publication on his web >>>>>>>>>>> page is from 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in >>>>>>>>>>> 2007 in order to support the bait and switch scam. He could >>>>>>>>>>> not use his scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so >>>>>>>>>>> he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil >>>>>>>>>>> record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to >>>>>>>>>>> prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap >>>>>>>>>>> stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the type >>>>>>>>>>> of evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian
mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really claiming that his
designer would have done it some other way. Behe tried to >>>>>>>>>>> denigrate that type of biological evolution by calling it >>>>>>>>>>> "devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to >>>>>>>>>>> start working on something new, so he is getting around to >>>>>>>>>>> admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about what >>>>>>>>>>> they should have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE >>>>>>>>>>>> PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a >>>>>>>>>>>> single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new,
genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> visible distinguishes this cell from countless others. What >>>>>>>>>>>> follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in >>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, >>>>>>>>>>>> then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called >>>>>>>>>>>> *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the >>>>>>>>>>>> embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>>>> partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane. >>>>>>>>>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already >>>>>>>>>>>> on trajectories that will lead to radically different fates. >>>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a
*blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing >>>>>>>>>>>> a biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy >>>>>>>>>>>> to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cells “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene >>>>>>>>>>>> regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, >>>>>>>>>>>> and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite >>>>>>>>>>>> apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, >>>>>>>>>>>> often called *the most important event in your life*. A >>>>>>>>>>>> simple sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three >>>>>>>>>>>> foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, >>>>>>>>>>>> back to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular >>>>>>>>>>>> movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic. >>>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are integrated in real time to yield precise,
repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types >>>>>>>>>>>> and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into >>>>>>>>>>>> circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart >>>>>>>>>>>> begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural >>>>>>>>>>>> connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints >>>>>>>>>>>> * How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals >>>>>>>>>>>> are the same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, >>>>>>>>>>>> maternal factors, and environmental influences interact >>>>>>>>>>>> throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, >>>>>>>>>>>> from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic >>>>>>>>>>>> individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises: >>>>>>>>>>>>
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends >>>>>>>>>>>> genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self- >>>>>>>>>>>> organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and
embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development comparable >>>>>>>>>>>> to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the >>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique >>>>>>>>>>>> human being remains one of the most profound and humbling >>>>>>>>>>>> questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information
processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ synapses
enabling millisecond- scale control while consuming ~20% of >>>>>>>>>>>> resting metabolic energy. Humans possess ~2–3× more cortical >>>>>>>>>>>> neurons than great apes, and this difference alone implies >>>>>>>>>>>> orders of magnitude greater combinatorial processing
capacity, given synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex >>>>>>>>>>>> expansion to ~25–30% of the total cortex gives
disproportionately dense long-range connections enabling >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual
planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide transport >>>>>>>>>>>> via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that beats >>>>>>>>>>>> ~100,000 times per day, continuously distributing oxygen, >>>>>>>>>>>> nutrients, hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through >>>>>>>>>>>> ~300 million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, >>>>>>>>>>>> processing ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut microbes >>>>>>>>>>>> and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the small >>>>>>>>>>>> intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation >>>>>>>>>>>> using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar
concentrations, exerting organism-wide control through >>>>>>>>>>>> nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with ~10¹¹– >>>>>>>>>>>> 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to generate >10¹² >>>>>>>>>>>> distinct antibody variants with long-term memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and
structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, with >>>>>>>>>>>> continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5–10% >>>>>>>>>>>> annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional >>>>>>>>>>>> protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing ~20 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, sensation, >>>>>>>>>>>> and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical
homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day across >>>>>>>>>>>> ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate with high >>>>>>>>>>>> selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to >>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic >>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and >>>>>>>>>>>> immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid >>>>>>>>>>>> daily and coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds >>>>>>>>>>>> of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, >>>>>>>>>>>> multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of >>>>>>>>>>>> components are dynamically regulated with molecular
precision to maintain stability, adaptability, and
continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
On 8/01/2026 4:17 am, RonO wrote:You are as wrong as the ID perps for continuing to do what you >>>>>>>> are doing. What is the real information that makes life
On 1/6/2026 6:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:43 am, RonO wrote:It is simply nothing to crow about. It has always been
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.) >>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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 that >>>>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out >>>>>>>>>> anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a >>>>>>>>>> genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just >>>>>>>>>> current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades >>>>>>>>>> before like McClintock's transposable element research from >>>>>>>>>> the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular >>>>>>>>>> cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't
remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a >>>>>>>>>> nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The
chloroplasts could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from >>>>>>>>>> a wild-type plant to the defective plant. This would restore a >>>>>>>>>> functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not
restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with defective >>>>>>>>>> pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes >>>>>>>>>> had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would >>>>>>>>>> produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective >>>>>>>>>> chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and >>>>>>>>>> had to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully >>>>>>>>>> functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that >>>>>>>>>> had been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting
cells, and that function had to be restored by crossing the >>>>>>>>>> defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of
modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with >>>>>>>>>> cell theory. This new information is just as useless to the >>>>>>>>>> ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We >>>>>>>>>> do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to >>>>>>>>>> any degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that >>>>>>>>>> exists today has been evolving for billions of years and
passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code
information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the
information that was important for a functioning cell? This >>>>>>>>>> new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) >>>>>>>>> to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary >>>>>>>> to create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to
replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of regulating >>>>>>>> the development of different cell types, but it still has to
generate those additional cell types using the information
contained in the egg cell. That is just how life works. This >>>>>>>> has been understood since we figured out modern cell theory in >>>>>>>> the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't use >>>>>>>> the important information needed for life is that we do not
understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We have >>>>>>>> understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just >>>>>>>> can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are >>>>>>>> you going to claim that there is too much of something that you >>>>>>>> can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered >>>>>>>>> in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with >>>>>>>>> the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations,
population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as >>>>>>>>> far as I know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems >>>>>>>>> like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental >>>>>>>> component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + >>>>>>> sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in >>>>>> which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of >>>>>> the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always
work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution,
and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding >>>>> it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is
mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence" >>>>> development; they act as a primary control system that directs
embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start
or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16).
Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones >>>>> can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA >>>>> axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal
overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first
cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop
within the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for
body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels
dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and
the developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid
genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating
more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more
efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would be
selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed
of self replicating units. These early self replicating units would >>>> do other things besides self replicate, such as make lipids to
produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first
self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation,
but it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts
of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these >>>> early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to
the cellular information that needed to be carried over to the next
generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome
because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs.
DNA may have evolved to make the genome more stable. All these
additions needed to work within what was already working, and they
added their own sets of information that needed to be passed down in
the physical cells. The code would have evolved after the RNA world >>>> was established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs
like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the
next generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine
what this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that
you can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just
blowing smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In >>>> the end you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have
done it anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no
reason why such a god would have to rely on any magical
unexplainable methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming >>>> that his 3 neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe
that they ever needed to exist, and he even understands that they
could exist, but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows
that others have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new
function, but no one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral
mutations being needed. This is pretty much what you are doing with
your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total
information required. However, given the functional complexity
specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than
the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running for
decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because the
information needed by life was never going to be estimated in mega
bytes or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how much
information was and continues to be needed to maintain life on this
planet. We don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone can we
quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already
existed. It was never the information that the ID perps should have
been concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA products and is
involved in regulating the production of those RNA products. A lot of
those RNAs rely on their sequence and are involved in functions
involved with their secondary structure formation or matching primary
sequence with DNA or other RNAs. The RNAs can be associated with
proteins in order to do these functions. Some of these RNAs are
involved in making protein products using the genetic code, but the
code is not the information that life depends on. The code only is
needed to replicate a functional protein accurately and efficiently.
The function of the protein is dependent on the 3 dimensional
structure, and how that structure can interact with other cellular
components. It is the information in the 3 dimensional structure that
is important to anything that the ID perps should be lying about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to be
tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe on this
planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have evolved from
preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few changes and you can
evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved from existing antibody
sequences during just one immune response and involve less than 10
sequence changes. We also have plenty of examples where parts of
existing proteins have combined to produce new combinations of already
tested protein space. All this means is that it doesn't seem to be
very difficult to evolve the information needed to make life
possible. The 3 dimensional structures can be produced by pretty much
uncountable specific sequences that will produce a similar enough 3
dimensional sequence. Gish used to use Yockey's 10^69 number for the
probability of assembling one cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey also
estimated that just using the variation observed in various cytochrome
C sequences that had been obtained at that time that there was a
possible 10^49 possible functional cytochrome C sequences, and that
was limiting the sequence to 104 amino acids. The same function can
be found in sequences up to 130 amino acids in length. It is not just
that, but a 3 dimensional structure is produced by the current
sequence that places 5 amino acids in specific positions to interact
with the heme cofactor, but some totally different primary sequence
could likely produce a different 3 dimensional structure that would
still have those 5 amino acids in the working positions. Can the same
function be done by 5 different amino acids, or arrangement in a
different 3 dimensional order? This sequence is likely the first one
that worked. It has evolved over billions of years to do it's job
very well, and even these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing
diversity of sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never dealing
with the information that they needed to be working with. All they
ever wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted answers to any
questions that they might have been asking. You have the same
problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of life gap with a
non Biblical designer, and your denial is just for denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
Would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of the information required to develop a human (for example) was extra-genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution (population
genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration of a significant component?
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the >>>>>>>> lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the >>>>>>>> organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each >>>>>>>> new evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already >>>>>>>> working or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam
specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that could >>>>>>>> be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage >>>>>>>> his ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function >>>>>>>> of a protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for how >>>>>>>> many can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in >>>>>>>> his IC systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have been >>>>>>>> specified within a certain time limit (number of generations). >>>>>>>> He needed neutral mutations because they could not be selected >>>>>>>> for and would require random processes to get them into the same >>>>>>>> cell lineage. He needed a time limit because at this time there >>>>>>>> are so many neutral mutations in nearly all the proteins in all >>>>>>>> the lineages that when some single mutation occurs that changes >>>>>>>> the function it is likely using several of the past neutral
mutations to create that new function. The ID scam has the
issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to create a >>>>>>>> new function. Behe acknowledges that this would be expected to >>>>>>>> routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would be >>>>>>>> Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to find >>>>>>>> what he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in
nature, but he has not found it yet, and he refuses to look for >>>>>>>> it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they >>>>>>>>>>>> have been bogusly in denial of something that they never >>>>>>>>>>>> understood. All the denial about the genome and genetic code >>>>>>>>>>>> was just dishonest stupidity. They never understood the >>>>>>>>>>>> information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they >>>>>>>>>>>> have to start lying about something that isn't fully
understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim >>>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by >>>>>>>>>>>> natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not >>>>>>>>>>>> understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a >>>>>>>>>>>> problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends on. >>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been understood that a cell is more than it's >>>>>>>>>>>> genome, and that the products of the genetic code depended >>>>>>>>>>>> on the 3 dimensional information created by the RNA and >>>>>>>>>>>> protein products of genes. This encoded information has to >>>>>>>>>>>> work within what 3 dimensional information that already >>>>>>>>>>>> exists in the cell. All changes have to work within what is >>>>>>>>>>>> already working. This had to be true before the genetic >>>>>>>>>>>> code evolved. All the genetic code has done is that it has >>>>>>>>>>>> improved the efficiency of the reproduction of the cell, and >>>>>>>>>>>> it has grown in function to direct the development of >>>>>>>>>>>> multicellular organisms from a single cell. The genome >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a fully functional cell in order to do this, and every >>>>>>>>>>>> functional addition had to work within what had already been >>>>>>>>>>>> working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an >>>>>>>>>>>> argument in the first place because they never understood >>>>>>>>>>>> what they were lying about, and they still do not understand >>>>>>>>>>>> what they are lying about in order to make any type of >>>>>>>>>>>> rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed >>>>>>>>>>>> that he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. >>>>>>>>>>>> He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>>> explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. >>>>>>>>>>>> He subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor did he >>>>>>>>>>>> lose his office space) and quit participating in the
scientific endeavor. His most recent scientific publication >>>>>>>>>>>> on his web page is from 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam >>>>>>>>>>>> outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait and switch >>>>>>>>>>>> scam. He could not use his scientific expertise to support >>>>>>>>>>>> the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in >>>>>>>>>>>> the whale fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, >>>>>>>>>>>> but decided to prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe >>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed his gap stupidity by claiming that whale evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> was just the type of evolution expected to have occurred by >>>>>>>>>>>> Darwinian mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>> his designer would have done it some other way. Behe tried >>>>>>>>>>>> to denigrate that type of biological evolution by calling it >>>>>>>>>>>> "devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to >>>>>>>>>>>> start working on something new, so he is getting around to >>>>>>>>>>>> admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about what >>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE >>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a >>>>>>>>>>>>> single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new,
genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> visible distinguishes this cell from countless others. What >>>>>>>>>>>>> follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called >>>>>>>>>>>>> *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>> is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane. >>>>>>>>>>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already >>>>>>>>>>>>> on trajectories that will lead to radically different fates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a
*blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body), >>>>>>>>>>>>> * and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing >>>>>>>>>>>>> a biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows
pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cells “decide” their roles through local interactions, gene >>>>>>>>>>>>> regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite >>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, >>>>>>>>>>>>> often called *the most important event in your life*. A >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sheet of cells folds and rearranges to form three >>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, >>>>>>>>>>>>> back to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular >>>>>>>>>>>>> movements that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and
mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield >>>>>>>>>>>>> precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types >>>>>>>>>>>>> and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into >>>>>>>>>>>>> circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart >>>>>>>>>>>>> begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably >>>>>>>>>>>>> appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural >>>>>>>>>>>>> connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints >>>>>>>>>>>>> * How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two
individuals are the same. Small genetic differences, >>>>>>>>>>>>> epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental >>>>>>>>>>>>> influences interact throughout development to shape: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges continuously, >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into
macroscopic individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>> arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends >>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self- >>>>>>>>>>>>> organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and
embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development
comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique >>>>>>>>>>>>> human being remains one of the most profound and humbling >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information
processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ >>>>>>>>>>>>> synapses enabling millisecond- scale control while
consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans possess >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater >>>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; >>>>>>>>>>>>> human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>> cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range
connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, >>>>>>>>>>>>> counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide
transport via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart that >>>>>>>>>>>>> beats ~100,000 times per day, continuously distributing >>>>>>>>>>>>> oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune cells.
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~300 million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, >>>>>>>>>>>>> processing ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut >>>>>>>>>>>>> microbes and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range regulation >>>>>>>>>>>>> using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar
concentrations, exerting organism-wide control through >>>>>>>>>>>>> nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10¹¹– 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to >>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >10¹² distinct antibody variants with long-term >>>>>>>>>>>>> memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and >>>>>>>>>>>>> structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, >>>>>>>>>>>>> with continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling (~5– >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional >>>>>>>>>>>>> protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~20 billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, >>>>>>>>>>>>> sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical
homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day >>>>>>>>>>>>> across ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate >>>>>>>>>>>>> with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to >>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic >>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>> immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid >>>>>>>>>>>>> daily and coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds >>>>>>>>>>>>> of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply interdependent, >>>>>>>>>>>>> multiscale biological architecture, in which trillions of >>>>>>>>>>>>> components are dynamically regulated with molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>> precision to maintain stability, adaptability, and
continuity of the human organism.
(ChatGPT)
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 >>>>>>>>>>> that extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing >>>>>>>>>>> out anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As >>>>>>>>>>> a genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were >>>>>>>>>>> required to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't just current topics, but issues that had, had been >>>>>>>>>>> issues decades before like McClintock's transposable element >>>>>>>>>>> research from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was >>>>>>>>>>> breaking cellular cycles and was maize research from the >>>>>>>>>>> 1950's. I can't remember the name of the researcher, but he >>>>>>>>>>> was dealing with a nuclear mutation that messed up
chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by >>>>>>>>>>> crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective >>>>>>>>>>> plant. This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the >>>>>>>>>>> chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the reciprocal >>>>>>>>>>> cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and >>>>>>>>>>> those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of >>>>>>>>>>> that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would again >>>>>>>>>>> have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and >>>>>>>>>>> had to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully >>>>>>>>>>> functional cell. Descent with modification produces new >>>>>>>>>>> lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is
already working. In this case some cellular function was >>>>>>>>>>> lost that had been maintained by all cells coming from
preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored by >>>>>>>>>>> crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated. >>>>>>>>>>>
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of >>>>>>>>>>> modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> cell theory. This new information is just as useless to the >>>>>>>>>>> ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. >>>>>>>>>>> We do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified >>>>>>>>>>> to any degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that >>>>>>>>>>> exists today has been evolving for billions of years and >>>>>>>>>>> passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code
information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the
information that was important for a functioning cell? This >>>>>>>>>>> new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of >>>>>>>>>> information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) >>>>>>>>>> to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary >>>>>>>>> to create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to >>>>>>>>> replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of
regulating the development of different cell types, but it
still has to generate those additional cell types using the >>>>>>>>> information contained in the egg cell. That is just how life >>>>>>>>> works. This has been understood since we figured out modern >>>>>>>>> cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps >>>>>>>>> and you don't use the important information needed for life is >>>>>>>>> that we do not understand it well enough to make a big deal >>>>>>>>> about it. We have understood that it existed for well over a >>>>>>>>> century, but it just can't do much for the ID creationist scam >>>>>>>>> at this time. How are you going to claim that there is too >>>>>>>>> much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered >>>>>>>>>> in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with >>>>>>>>>> the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations,
population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as >>>>>>>>>> far as I know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems >>>>>>>>>> like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological >>>>>>>>> evolution because it has always been part of the environmental >>>>>>>>> component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic
component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + >>>>>>>> sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment >>>>>>> in which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression >>>>>>> of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic >>>>>>> component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always >>>>>>> work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution,
and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest
avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is
mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence" >>>>>> development; they act as a primary control system that directs
embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease >>>>>> susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start >>>>>> or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). >>>>>> Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress
hormones can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense
of overall growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress
responses (HPA axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the >>>>>> supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal
overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and >>>>>> promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first
cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially >>>>> required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not >>>>> needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop
within the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for
body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels
dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and
the developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid
genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal, >>>>> just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating
more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more
efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would be
selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed >>>>> of self replicating units. These early self replicating units
would do other things besides self replicate, such as make lipids
to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first
self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation,
but it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts >>>>> of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among
these early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve
added to the cellular information that needed to be carried over to >>>>> the next generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first >>>>> genome because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and
structural RNAs. DNA may have evolved to make the genome more
stable. All these additions needed to work within what was already >>>>> working, and they added their own sets of information that needed
to be passed down in the physical cells. The code would have
evolved after the RNA world was established, and still requires
ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex >>>>> and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular
information needed to keep the next generation of cells
replicating. All the information needed to evolve new forms of
multicellular life had to work with what was already working or it
didn't make it into the next generation. What you and the ID perps >>>>> have to do is determine what this information is, figure out some
way to quantify it so that you can run your denial scams. Until
you can do that you are just blowing smoke and lying to yourself
and anyone listening to you. In the end you simply have to admit
to yourself that any god could have done it anyway that it looks
like it was done, and there is no reason why such a god would have
to rely on any magical unexplainable methods to get it done. Behe >>>>> has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral mutations exist when he >>>>> has no reason to believe that they ever needed to exist, and he
even understands that they could exist, but they would be expected
to be very rare. He knows that others have found 2 neutral
mutations resulting in a new function, but no one, not even Behe,
has identified 3 neutral mutations being needed. This is pretty
much what you are doing with your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the
total information required. However, given the functional complexity
specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than
the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running for
decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because the
information needed by life was never going to be estimated in mega
bytes or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how much
information was and continues to be needed to maintain life on this
planet. We don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone can we
quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already
existed. It was never the information that the ID perps should have
been concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA products and is
involved in regulating the production of those RNA products. A lot
of those RNAs rely on their sequence and are involved in functions
involved with their secondary structure formation or matching primary
sequence with DNA or other RNAs. The RNAs can be associated with
proteins in order to do these functions. Some of these RNAs are
involved in making protein products using the genetic code, but the
code is not the information that life depends on. The code only is
needed to replicate a functional protein accurately and efficiently.
The function of the protein is dependent on the 3 dimensional
structure, and how that structure can interact with other cellular
components. It is the information in the 3 dimensional structure
that is important to anything that the ID perps should be lying about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to be
tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe on
this planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have
evolved from preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few
changes and you can evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved
from existing antibody sequences during just one immune response and
involve less than 10 sequence changes. We also have plenty of
examples where parts of existing proteins have combined to produce
new combinations of already tested protein space. All this means is
that it doesn't seem to be very difficult to evolve the information
needed to make life possible. The 3 dimensional structures can be
produced by pretty much uncountable specific sequences that will
produce a similar enough 3 dimensional sequence. Gish used to use
Yockey's 10^69 number for the probability of assembling one
cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey also estimated that just using the
variation observed in various cytochrome C sequences that had been
obtained at that time that there was a possible 10^49 possible
functional cytochrome C sequences, and that was limiting the sequence
to 104 amino acids. The same function can be found in sequences up
to 130 amino acids in length. It is not just that, but a 3
dimensional structure is produced by the current sequence that places
5 amino acids in specific positions to interact with the heme
cofactor, but some totally different primary sequence could likely
produce a different 3 dimensional structure that would still have
those 5 amino acids in the working positions. Can the same function
be done by 5 different amino acids, or arrangement in a different 3
dimensional order? This sequence is likely the first one that
worked. It has evolved over billions of years to do it's job very
well, and even these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing
diversity of sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never dealing
with the information that they needed to be working with. All they
ever wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted answers to any
questions that they might have been asking. You have the same
problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of life gap with a
non Biblical designer, and your denial is just for denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
Would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of the
information required to develop a human (for example) was extra-
genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution
(population genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration of
a significant component?
You have missed the entire point of how your gap denial not only does
not support your Biblical beliefs, but is not what you think that it is.
Since DNA has been used for genetic replication of RNA and subsequent protein products encoded in mRNA it became the basis of the evolution of life on this planet. Every change in the genome had to keep working
within what was already working. The gene centric approach of
quantitative genetics, biological evolution and developmental biology
has always assumed that this was true (all cells come from preexisting cells). All the changes in the genome over time have had to work within what was already working. Once lifeforms became dependent on a genome
to replicate life, subsequent evolution has been dependent on that
genome for altering what works for the lifeform. It became the basis
for the evolution of life on this planet.
The genome never represented all the information needed to produce a functional lifeform, it only became the basis for replication of that lifeform. By the time single celled eukaryotes evolved the genome consisted of multiple units of DNA. These evolved into eukaryotic chromosomes and mitosis evolved to make sure that a full set of
chromosomes always made it into the two daughter cells. Sexual reproduction evolved among these initial eukaryotic single celled organisms. These lifeforms were using the genome to replicate their cellular lineage. All the genomic changes had to work within what was already working in the cell, and the genome was used to not only be
larger, but more efficiently transfer the genetic information to the
next generation. Changes in the genome changed these organisms, but all the changes had to work within what was already working.
This just means that we can study the genomic changes in order to
determine how life has evolved on this planet. All the changes that
have evolved over time had worked within what was already working within
the cells. The new information maintained and altered the existing cellular information needed to make the lifeform. The genome relies on
and perpetuates the cellular information needed to create single celled organisms and multicelullar lifeforms like us.
Ron Okimoto
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the >>>>>>>>> lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context the >>>>>>>>> organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. Each >>>>>>>>> new evolutionary innovation has to work within what is already >>>>>>>>> working or it is not passed on to future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam
specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that
could be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage >>>>>>>>> his ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function >>>>>>>>> of a protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for how >>>>>>>>> many can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins in >>>>>>>>> his IC systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have been >>>>>>>>> specified within a certain time limit (number of generations). >>>>>>>>> He needed neutral mutations because they could not be selected >>>>>>>>> for and would require random processes to get them into the >>>>>>>>> same cell lineage. He needed a time limit because at this time >>>>>>>>> there are so many neutral mutations in nearly all the proteins >>>>>>>>> in all the lineages that when some single mutation occurs that >>>>>>>>> changes the function it is likely using several of the past >>>>>>>>> neutral mutations to create that new function. The ID scam has >>>>>>>>> the issue that 2 neutral mutations have been observed to create >>>>>>>>> a new function. Behe acknowledges that this would be expected >>>>>>>>> to routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would >>>>>>>>> be Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying to >>>>>>>>> find what he claims would be evidence for intelligent design in >>>>>>>>> nature, but he has not found it yet, and he refuses to look for >>>>>>>>> it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that they >>>>>>>>>>>>> have been bogusly in denial of something that they never >>>>>>>>>>>>> understood. All the denial about the genome and genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> code was just dishonest stupidity. They never understood >>>>>>>>>>>>> the information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that they >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to start lying about something that isn't fully >>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends >>>>>>>>>>>>> on. It has always been understood that a cell is more than >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's genome, and that the products of the genetic code >>>>>>>>>>>>> depended on the 3 dimensional information created by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> RNA and protein products of genes. This encoded
information has to work within what 3 dimensional
information that already exists in the cell. All changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to work within what is already working. This had to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> code has done is that it has improved the efficiency of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in function to >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct the development of multicellular organisms from a >>>>>>>>>>>>> single cell. The genome needs a fully functional cell in >>>>>>>>>>>>> order to do this, and every functional addition had to work >>>>>>>>>>>>> within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had an >>>>>>>>>>>>> argument in the first place because they never understood >>>>>>>>>>>>> what they were lying about, and they still do not
understand what they are lying about in order to make any >>>>>>>>>>>>> type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>> that he has been thinking about this issue for a long time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>>>> explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen reviewers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He subsequently quit science (he was never fired nor did he >>>>>>>>>>>>> lose his office space) and quit participating in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific endeavor. His most recent scientific
publication on his web page is from 2005, and he joined the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to support the bait >>>>>>>>>>>>> and switch scam. He could not use his scientific expertise >>>>>>>>>>>>> to support the ID scam, so he spent around 8 years messing >>>>>>>>>>>>> with gaps in the whale fossil record (he was an
invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to prevaricate about >>>>>>>>>>>>> whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap stupidity by >>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming that whale evolution was just the type of
evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian mechanisms >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2014. Behe was really claiming that his designer would >>>>>>>>>>>>> have done it some other way. Behe tried to denigrate that >>>>>>>>>>>>> type of biological evolution by calling it "devolution" but >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to start working on >>>>>>>>>>>>> something new, so he is getting around to admitting that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ID perps have never been lying about what they should >>>>>>>>>>>>> have been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible distinguishes this cell from countless others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2, then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, called >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already on trajectories that will lead to radically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell fate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall,
establishing a biochemical dialogue with the mother that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cells “decide” their roles through local interactions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes
*gastrulation*, often called *the most important event in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds and rearranges >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to tail, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to front, left to right—are established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cellular movements that look, under a microscope, almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield >>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> neural connectivity) are specified without explicit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two
individuals are the same. Small genetic differences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental >>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences interact throughout development to shape: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges
continuously, from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into
macroscopic individuality, especially in the brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human being remains one of the most profound and humbling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> synapses enabling millisecond- scale control while >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans possess >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic scaling; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cortex gives disproportionately dense long-range
connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic thought, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> counterfactual planning, and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beats ~100,000 times per day, continuously
distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~300 million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut >>>>>>>>>>>>>> microbes and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range
regulation using hormones effective at picomolar–nanomolar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, exerting organism-wide control through >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10¹¹– 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >10¹² distinct antibody variants with long-term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (~5– 10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~20 billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> across ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of millions of sperm per day in males) and cyclic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid >>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily and coordinating immune surveillance across hundreds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply
interdependent, multiscale biological architecture, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which trillions of components are dynamically regulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with molecular precision to maintain stability,
adaptability, and continuity of the human organism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(ChatGPT)
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?
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:This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running for
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: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
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>> that extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing >>>>>>>>>>>> out anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As >>>>>>>>>>>> a genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were >>>>>>>>>>>> required to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It >>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't just current topics, but issues that had, had been >>>>>>>>>>>> issues decades before like McClintock's transposable element >>>>>>>>>>>> research from the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was >>>>>>>>>>>> breaking cellular cycles and was maize research from the >>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's. I can't remember the name of the researcher, but he >>>>>>>>>>>> was dealing with a nuclear mutation that messed up
chloroplasts. The chloroplasts could not be reactivated by >>>>>>>>>>>> crossing pollen from a wild-type plant to the defective >>>>>>>>>>>> plant. This would restore a functional nuclear gene, but the >>>>>>>>>>>> chloroplasts were not restored. You could do the reciprocal >>>>>>>>>>>> cross with defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and >>>>>>>>>>>> those heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs >>>>>>>>>>>> of that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would >>>>>>>>>>>> again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and >>>>>>>>>>>> had to be restored by putting the genetics into another >>>>>>>>>>>> fully functional cell. Descent with modification produces >>>>>>>>>>>> new lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is >>>>>>>>>>>> already working. In this case some cellular function was >>>>>>>>>>>> lost that had been maintained by all cells coming from >>>>>>>>>>>> preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored by >>>>>>>>>>>> crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has >>>>>>>>>>>> been understood to exist in biology since at least the >>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's, and likely long before that when cell theory was >>>>>>>>>>>> formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of >>>>>>>>>>>> modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>> with cell theory. This new information is just as useless >>>>>>>>>>>> to the ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same >>>>>>>>>>>> reason. We do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be >>>>>>>>>>>> quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial. The >>>>>>>>>>>> information that exists today has been evolving for billions >>>>>>>>>>>> of years and passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code
information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the >>>>>>>>>>>> information that was important for a functioning cell? This >>>>>>>>>>>> new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of >>>>>>>>>>> information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) >>>>>>>>>>> to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary >>>>>>>>>> to create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to >>>>>>>>>> replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of
regulating the development of different cell types, but it >>>>>>>>>> still has to generate those additional cell types using the >>>>>>>>>> information contained in the egg cell. That is just how life >>>>>>>>>> works. This has been understood since we figured out modern >>>>>>>>>> cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps >>>>>>>>>> and you don't use the important information needed for life is >>>>>>>>>> that we do not understand it well enough to make a big deal >>>>>>>>>> about it. We have understood that it existed for well over a >>>>>>>>>> century, but it just can't do much for the ID creationist scam >>>>>>>>>> at this time. How are you going to claim that there is too >>>>>>>>>> much of something that you can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered >>>>>>>>>>> in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with >>>>>>>>>>> the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations, >>>>>>>>>>> population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, >>>>>>>>>>> as far as I know, not in scope and not analysed. And that >>>>>>>>>>> seems like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological >>>>>>>>>> evolution because it has always been part of the environmental >>>>>>>>>> component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic
component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + >>>>>>>>> sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The >>>>>>>> existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the >>>>>>>> environmental component of the equation. It is the environment >>>>>>>> in which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and >>>>>>>> diseases in the full development of the organism and expression >>>>>>>> of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic >>>>>>>> component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always >>>>>>>> work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, >>>>>>> and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest
avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones, >>>>>>> blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is
mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely
"influence" development; they act as a primary control system
that directs embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even
long-term disease susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can
start or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16). >>>>>>> Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress
hormones can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense >>>>>>> of overall growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress >>>>>>> responses (HPA axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the >>>>>>> supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal
overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and >>>>>>> promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first
cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was
initially required. Most of what you just put up is information >>>>>> that was not needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed >>>>>> to develop within the confines of the egg with no maternal input
except for body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran >>>>>> on wheels dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg >>>>>> cell, and the developmental programing provided by the newly
formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been
minimal, just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and >>>>>> creating more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate >>>>>> more efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would
be selected for. My take is that these early cells would be
composed of self replicating units. These early self replicating >>>>>> units would do other things besides self replicate, such as make
lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first >>>>>> self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation, >>>>>> but it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using
parts of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved
among these early self replicators. The ribozymes that would
evolve added to the cellular information that needed to be carried >>>>>> over to the next generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely >>>>>> the first genome because it could be used to replicate ribozymes
and structural RNAs. DNA may have evolved to make the genome more >>>>>> stable. All these additions needed to work within what was
already working, and they added their own sets of information that >>>>>> needed to be passed down in the physical cells. The code would
have evolved after the RNA world was established, and still
requires ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved
sex and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular
information needed to keep the next generation of cells
replicating. All the information needed to evolve new forms of
multicellular life had to work with what was already working or it >>>>>> didn't make it into the next generation. What you and the ID
perps have to do is determine what this information is, figure out >>>>>> some way to quantify it so that you can run your denial scams.
Until you can do that you are just blowing smoke and lying to
yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end you simply have >>>>>> to admit to yourself that any god could have done it anyway that
it looks like it was done, and there is no reason why such a god
would have to rely on any magical unexplainable methods to get it >>>>>> done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral mutations >>>>>> exist when he has no reason to believe that they ever needed to
exist, and he even understands that they could exist, but they
would be expected to be very rare. He knows that others have
found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new function, but no one, >>>>>> not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral mutations being needed.
This is pretty much what you are doing with your empty denial
arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the
total information required. However, given the functional
complexity specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than >>>>> the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)? >>>>
decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because the
information needed by life was never going to be estimated in mega
bytes or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how much
information was and continues to be needed to maintain life on this
planet. We don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone can we
quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already
existed. It was never the information that the ID perps should have
been concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA products and
is involved in regulating the production of those RNA products. A
lot of those RNAs rely on their sequence and are involved in
functions involved with their secondary structure formation or
matching primary sequence with DNA or other RNAs. The RNAs can be
associated with proteins in order to do these functions. Some of
these RNAs are involved in making protein products using the genetic
code, but the code is not the information that life depends on. The >>>> code only is needed to replicate a functional protein accurately and
efficiently. The function of the protein is dependent on the 3
dimensional structure, and how that structure can interact with
other cellular components. It is the information in the 3
dimensional structure that is important to anything that the ID
perps should be lying about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to
be tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe on
this planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have
evolved from preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few
changes and you can evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved
from existing antibody sequences during just one immune response and
involve less than 10 sequence changes. We also have plenty of
examples where parts of existing proteins have combined to produce
new combinations of already tested protein space. All this means is >>>> that it doesn't seem to be very difficult to evolve the information
needed to make life possible. The 3 dimensional structures can be
produced by pretty much uncountable specific sequences that will
produce a similar enough 3 dimensional sequence. Gish used to use
Yockey's 10^69 number for the probability of assembling one
cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey also estimated that just using the
variation observed in various cytochrome C sequences that had been
obtained at that time that there was a possible 10^49 possible
functional cytochrome C sequences, and that was limiting the
sequence to 104 amino acids. The same function can be found in
sequences up to 130 amino acids in length. It is not just that, but >>>> a 3 dimensional structure is produced by the current sequence that
places 5 amino acids in specific positions to interact with the heme
cofactor, but some totally different primary sequence could likely
produce a different 3 dimensional structure that would still have
those 5 amino acids in the working positions. Can the same function >>>> be done by 5 different amino acids, or arrangement in a different 3
dimensional order? This sequence is likely the first one that
worked. It has evolved over billions of years to do it's job very
well, and even these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing
diversity of sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never dealing
with the information that they needed to be working with. All they
ever wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted answers to any
questions that they might have been asking. You have the same
problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of life gap with a
non Biblical designer, and your denial is just for denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
Would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of the
information required to develop a human (for example) was extra-
genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution
(population genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration
of a significant component?
You have missed the entire point of how your gap denial not only does
not support your Biblical beliefs, but is not what you think that it
is. Since DNA has been used for genetic replication of RNA and
subsequent protein products encoded in mRNA it became the basis of the
evolution of life on this planet. Every change in the genome had to
keep working within what was already working. The gene centric
approach of quantitative genetics, biological evolution and
developmental biology has always assumed that this was true (all cells
come from preexisting cells). All the changes in the genome over time
have had to work within what was already working. Once lifeforms
became dependent on a genome to replicate life, subsequent evolution
has been dependent on that genome for altering what works for the
lifeform. It became the basis for the evolution of life on this planet.
The genome never represented all the information needed to produce a
functional lifeform, it only became the basis for replication of that
lifeform. By the time single celled eukaryotes evolved the genome
consisted of multiple units of DNA. These evolved into eukaryotic
chromosomes and mitosis evolved to make sure that a full set of
chromosomes always made it into the two daughter cells. Sexual
reproduction evolved among these initial eukaryotic single celled
organisms. These lifeforms were using the genome to replicate their
cellular lineage. All the genomic changes had to work within what was
already working in the cell, and the genome was used to not only be
larger, but more efficiently transfer the genetic information to the
next generation. Changes in the genome changed these organisms, but
all the changes had to work within what was already working.
This just means that we can study the genomic changes in order to
determine how life has evolved on this planet. All the changes that
have evolved over time had worked within what was already working
within the cells. The new information maintained and altered the
existing cellular information needed to make the lifeform. The genome
relies on and perpetuates the cellular information needed to create
single celled organisms and multicelullar lifeforms like us.
Ron Okimoto
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?
All genetics has to work within what is already working in the >>>>>>>>>> lifeform. If new variants do not work within that context >>>>>>>>>> the organism dies and has no phenotype and that lineage ends. >>>>>>>>>> Each new evolutionary innovation has to work within what is >>>>>>>>>> already working or it is not passed on to future generations. >>>>>>>>>>
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam
specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that >>>>>>>>>> could be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage >>>>>>>>>> his ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the function >>>>>>>>>> of a protein happen all the time, and there is no limit for >>>>>>>>>> how many can occur. Behe had to posit that there were proteins >>>>>>>>>> in his IC systems that required 3 neutral mutations to have >>>>>>>>>> been specified within a certain time limit (number of
generations). He needed neutral mutations because they could >>>>>>>>>> not be selected for and would require random processes to get >>>>>>>>>> them into the same cell lineage. He needed a time limit
because at this time there are so many neutral mutations in >>>>>>>>>> nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that when some >>>>>>>>>> single mutation occurs that changes the function it is likely >>>>>>>>>> using several of the past neutral mutations to create that new >>>>>>>>>> function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 neutral mutations >>>>>>>>>> have been observed to create a new function. Behe acknowledges >>>>>>>>>> that this would be expected to routinely occur with out
designer intervention. This would be Dembski's "lesser" >>>>>>>>>> specified complexity. Behe is trying to find what he claims >>>>>>>>>> would be evidence for intelligent design in nature, but he has >>>>>>>>>> not found it yet, and he refuses to look for it in his IC >>>>>>>>>> systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have been bogusly in denial of something that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never understood. All the denial about the genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic code was just dishonest stupidity. They never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood the information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have to start lying about something that isn't fully >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, and that they can't quantify in order to claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of it to have had to accumulate by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on. It has always been understood that a cell is more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's genome, and that the products of the genetic code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depended on the 3 dimensional information created by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RNA and protein products of genes. This encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information has to work within what 3 dimensional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information that already exists in the cell. All changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to work within what is already working. This had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> code has done is that it has improved the efficiency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in function >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to direct the development of multicellular organisms from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single cell. The genome needs a fully functional cell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to do this, and every functional addition had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work within what had already been working.
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an argument in the first place because they never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood what they were lying about, and they still do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what they are lying about in order to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he has been thinking about this issue for a long >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cambrian explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers. He subsequently quit science (he was never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit
participating in the scientific endeavor. His most recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific publication on his web page is from 2005, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he joined the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support the bait and switch scam. He could not use his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so he spent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale fossil >>>>>>>>>>>>>> record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but decided to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe destroyed his gap >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity by claiming that whale evolution was just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of evolution expected to have occurred by Darwinian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really claiming that his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer would have done it some other way. Behe tried to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate that type of biological evolution by calling it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "devolution" but evolution is evolution. Sternberg had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> start working on something new, so he is getting around to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitting that the ID perps have never been lying about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they should have been lying about in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible distinguishes this cell from countless others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2, then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the original >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already on trajectories that will lead to radically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall,
establishing a biochemical dialogue with the mother that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cells “decide” their roles through local interactions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes
*gastrulation*, often called *the most important event in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds and rearranges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tail, back to front, left to right—are established. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cellular movements that look, under a microscope, almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves into circuits. Blood vessels branch through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neural connectivity) are specified without explicit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals are the same. Small genetic differences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences interact throughout development to shape: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuously, from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macroscopic individuality, especially in the brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, and self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique human being remains one of the most profound and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through scale, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision, and cross-system integration.
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synapses enabling millisecond- scale control while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this difference alone implies orders of magnitude greater >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorial processing capacity, given synaptic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to ~25–30% of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the total cortex gives disproportionately dense long- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range connections enabling abstract reasoning, symbolic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought, counterfactual planning, and recursive language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beats ~100,000 times per day, continuously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~300 million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into bioavailable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 trillion gut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microbes and ~30–40 m² of absorptive surface area in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulation using hormones effective at picomolar– >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nanomolar concentrations, exerting organism-wide control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10¹¹– 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >10¹² distinct antibody variants with long-term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (~5– 10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~20 billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species continuity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through hormonally regulated gamete production (up to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of millions of sperm per day in males) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclic reproductive physiology in females.
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily and coordinating immune surveillance across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply
interdependent, multiscale biological architecture, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which trillions of components are dynamically regulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with molecular precision to maintain stability, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptability, and continuity of the human organism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(ChatGPT)
On 14/01/2026 11:11 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/01/2026 03:13, 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:No. Not sure what you mean here.
On 8/01/2026 4:17 am, RonO wrote:You are as wrong as the ID perps for continuing to do what you >>>>>>>> are doing. What is the real information that makes life
On 1/6/2026 6:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:43 am, RonO wrote:It is simply nothing to crow about. It has always been
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.) >>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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 that >>>>>>>>>> extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't pointing out >>>>>>>>>> anything that wasn't already understood decades ago. As a >>>>>>>>>> genetics major at Berkeley in the late 1970's we were required >>>>>>>>>> to take a class called Topics in Genetics. It wasn't just >>>>>>>>>> current topics, but issues that had, had been issues decades >>>>>>>>>> before like McClintock's transposable element research from >>>>>>>>>> the 1930's and 40's. One of the topics was breaking cellular >>>>>>>>>> cycles and was maize research from the 1950's. I can't
remember the name of the researcher, but he was dealing with a >>>>>>>>>> nuclear mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The
chloroplasts could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from >>>>>>>>>> a wild-type plant to the defective plant. This would restore a >>>>>>>>>> functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not
restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with defective >>>>>>>>>> pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes >>>>>>>>>> had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would >>>>>>>>>> produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective >>>>>>>>>> chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make a >>>>>>>>>> functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants and >>>>>>>>>> had to be restored by putting the genetics into another fully >>>>>>>>>> functional cell. Descent with modification produces new
lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is already >>>>>>>>>> working. In this case some cellular function was lost that >>>>>>>>>> had been maintained by all cells coming from preexisting
cells, and that function had to be restored by crossing the >>>>>>>>>> defective cell to a fully functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has been >>>>>>>>>> understood to exist in biology since at least the 1950's, and >>>>>>>>>> likely long before that when cell theory was formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of
modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent with >>>>>>>>>> cell theory. This new information is just as useless to the >>>>>>>>>> ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same reason. We >>>>>>>>>> do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be quantified to >>>>>>>>>> any degree useful for ID perp denial. The information that >>>>>>>>>> exists today has been evolving for billions of years and
passed down each cellular generation.
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code
information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the
information that was important for a functioning cell? This >>>>>>>>>> new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of
information (as well as the functional portion of the genome) >>>>>>>>> to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information necessary >>>>>>>> to create new cells. Life is currently using the genome to
replicate and facilitate that process. In the case of
multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of regulating >>>>>>>> the development of different cell types, but it still has to
generate those additional cell types using the information
contained in the egg cell. That is just how life works. This >>>>>>>> has been understood since we figured out modern cell theory in >>>>>>>> the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps and you don't use >>>>>>>> the important information needed for life is that we do not
understand it well enough to make a big deal about it. We have >>>>>>>> understood that it existed for well over a century, but it just >>>>>>>> can't do much for the ID creationist scam at this time. How are >>>>>>>> you going to claim that there is too much of something that you >>>>>>>> can't even measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT considered >>>>>>>>> in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. Rather, with >>>>>>>>> the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA mutations,
population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic information is, as >>>>>>>>> far as I know, not in scope and not analysed. And that seems >>>>>>>>> like a problem - a fundamental problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological
evolution because it has always been part of the environmental >>>>>>>> component. Phenotype = Environmental component + Genetic component. >>>>>>>
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA + >>>>>>> sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The
"environment" is external to, and other than, the organism.
The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The
existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the
environmental component of the equation. It is the environment in >>>>>> which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and
diseases in the full development of the organism and expression of >>>>>> the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic
component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular
information mess ups during development. Things do not always
work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the
accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution,
and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest avoiding >>>>> it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones,
blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is
mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely "influence" >>>>> development; they act as a primary control system that directs
embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even long-term disease
susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can start
or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week 16).
Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays.
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress hormones >>>>> can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense of overall
growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress responses (HPA >>>>> axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate the
supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal
overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure and
promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body from
rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first
cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was initially
required. Most of what you just put up is information that was not
needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed to develop
within the confines of the egg with no maternal input except for
body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development ran on wheels
dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized egg cell, and
the developmental programing provided by the newly formed diploid
genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been minimal,
just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and creating
more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate more
efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would be
selected for. My take is that these early cells would be composed
of self replicating units. These early self replicating units would >>>> do other things besides self replicate, such as make lipids to
produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first
self replicators. These first self replicators would have had
minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation,
but it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using parts
of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved among these >>>> early self replicators. The ribozymes that would evolve added to
the cellular information that needed to be carried over to the next
generation of replicating cells. RNA was likely the first genome
because it could be used to replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs.
DNA may have evolved to make the genome more stable. All these
additions needed to work within what was already working, and they
added their own sets of information that needed to be passed down in
the physical cells. The code would have evolved after the RNA world >>>> was established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs
like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved sex
and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular information
needed to keep the next generation of cells replicating. All the
information needed to evolve new forms of multicellular life had to
work with what was already working or it didn't make it into the
next generation. What you and the ID perps have to do is determine
what this information is, figure out some way to quantify it so that
you can run your denial scams. Until you can do that you are just
blowing smoke and lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In >>>> the end you simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have
done it anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no
reason why such a god would have to rely on any magical
unexplainable methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming >>>> that his 3 neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe
that they ever needed to exist, and he even understands that they
could exist, but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows
that others have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new
function, but no one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral
mutations being needed. This is pretty much what you are doing with
your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the total
information required. However, given the functional complexity
specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
No.
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
No.
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater than
the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of the
information accumulated by natural selection
No. (And did you just deny design?)
"information [allegedly] accumulated by natural selection"
Mu.
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)?
Would you agree with this: "Genomes alone do not specify finished
organisms. They specify processes that operate inside a richly
structured physical system (the egg, cytoskeleton, gradients, membranes, chromatin states, etc)." (AI)
Would you agree that the "richly structured physical system" contains a significant amount of the information required to develop a human?
Regardless of the above, would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of the information required to develop a human (for example) was extra-genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution (population genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration of a significant component?
Please show your working.
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:This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running
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:The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The >>>>>>>>> existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the >>>>>>>>> environmental component of the equation. It is the environment >>>>>>>>> in which the genetics are expressed.
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: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.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> that extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out anything that wasn't already understood >>>>>>>>>>>>> decades ago. As a genetics major at Berkeley in the late >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1970's we were required to take a class called Topics in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that >>>>>>>>>>>>> had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's >>>>>>>>>>>>> transposable element research from the 1930's and 40's. >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles and was >>>>>>>>>>>>> maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the name >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>> mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts >>>>>>>>>>>>> could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild- >>>>>>>>>>>>> type plant to the defective plant. This would restore a >>>>>>>>>>>>> functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not >>>>>>>>>>>>> restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with defective >>>>>>>>>>>>> pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those heterozygotes >>>>>>>>>>>>> had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of that plant would >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce homozygous mutants that would again have defective >>>>>>>>>>>>> chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make >>>>>>>>>>>>> a functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants >>>>>>>>>>>>> and had to be restored by putting the genetics into another >>>>>>>>>>>>> fully functional cell. Descent with modification produces >>>>>>>>>>>>> new lifeforms, but every change has to work within what is >>>>>>>>>>>>> already working. In this case some cellular function was >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost that had been maintained by all cells coming from >>>>>>>>>>>>> preexisting cells, and that function had to be restored by >>>>>>>>>>>>> crossing the defective cell to a fully functional cell. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been understood to exist in biology since at least the >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's, and likely long before that when cell theory was >>>>>>>>>>>>> formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of >>>>>>>>>>>>> modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>> with cell theory. This new information is just as useless >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. We do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>> quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> information that exists today has been evolving for >>>>>>>>>>>>> billions of years and passed down each cellular generation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code >>>>>>>>>>>>> information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the >>>>>>>>>>>>> information that was important for a functioning cell? >>>>>>>>>>>>> This new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of >>>>>>>>>>>> information (as well as the functional portion of the >>>>>>>>>>>> genome) to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information
necessary to create new cells. Life is currently using the >>>>>>>>>>> genome to replicate and facilitate that process. In the case >>>>>>>>>>> of multicellular life the genome has taken on the job of >>>>>>>>>>> regulating the development of different cell types, but it >>>>>>>>>>> still has to generate those additional cell types using the >>>>>>>>>>> information contained in the egg cell. That is just how life >>>>>>>>>>> works. This has been understood since we figured out modern >>>>>>>>>>> cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the ID perps >>>>>>>>>>> and you don't use the important information needed for life >>>>>>>>>>> is that we do not understand it well enough to make a big >>>>>>>>>>> deal about it. We have understood that it existed for well >>>>>>>>>>> over a century, but it just can't do much for the ID
creationist scam at this time. How are you going to claim >>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of something that you can't even measure? >>>>>>>>>>>
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT
considered in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>> Rather, with the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA >>>>>>>>>>>> mutations, population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic >>>>>>>>>>>> information is, as far as I know, not in scope and not >>>>>>>>>>>> analysed. And that seems like a problem - a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological >>>>>>>>>>> evolution because it has always been part of the
environmental component. Phenotype = Environmental component >>>>>>>>>>> + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA >>>>>>>>>> + sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The >>>>>>>>>> "environment" is external to, and other than, the organism. >>>>>>>>>
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and >>>>>>>>> diseases in the full development of the organism and expression >>>>>>>>> of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic >>>>>>>>> component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular >>>>>>>>> information mess ups during development. Things do not always >>>>>>>>> work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single
privileged control layer, but that developmental control is
distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the >>>>>>>> accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to evolution, >>>>>>>> and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I suggest
avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system, hormones, >>>>>>>> blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect source of
information, i.e. they comprise the support system that is
mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely
"influence" development; they act as a primary control system >>>>>>>> that directs embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even
long-term disease susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can
start or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development,
especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week
16). Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays. >>>>>>>>
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress
hormones can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the expense >>>>>>>> of overall growth, leading to smaller babies and altered stress >>>>>>>> responses (HPA axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate >>>>>>>> the supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal >>>>>>>> overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure >>>>>>>> and promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body
from rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental
component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first >>>>>>> cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was
initially required. Most of what you just put up is information >>>>>>> that was not needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos needed >>>>>>> to develop within the confines of the egg with no maternal input >>>>>>> except for body heat to incubate the eggs. Embryo development >>>>>>> ran on wheels dependent on egg contents, including the fertilized >>>>>>> egg cell, and the developmental programing provided by the newly >>>>>>> formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been
minimal, just enough to keep the cells that split off growing and >>>>>>> creating more cells. Anything that helped the cells replicate >>>>>>> more efficiently producing more cells that could replicate would >>>>>>> be selected for. My take is that these early cells would be
composed of self replicating units. These early self replicating >>>>>>> units would do other things besides self replicate, such as make >>>>>>> lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the first >>>>>>> self replicators. These first self replicators would have had >>>>>>> minimal cellular information to pass down to the next generation, >>>>>>> but it would need to exist. New cells would be forming using
parts of the existing cells. The RNA world would have evolved >>>>>>> among these early self replicators. The ribozymes that would
evolve added to the cellular information that needed to be
carried over to the next generation of replicating cells. RNA >>>>>>> was likely the first genome because it could be used to replicate >>>>>>> ribozymes and structural RNAs. DNA may have evolved to make the >>>>>>> genome more stable. All these additions needed to work within >>>>>>> what was already working, and they added their own sets of
information that needed to be passed down in the physical cells. >>>>>>> The code would have evolved after the RNA world was established, >>>>>>> and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs like tRNAs to
function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved >>>>>>> sex and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular
information needed to keep the next generation of cells
replicating. All the information needed to evolve new forms of >>>>>>> multicellular life had to work with what was already working or >>>>>>> it didn't make it into the next generation. What you and the ID >>>>>>> perps have to do is determine what this information is, figure
out some way to quantify it so that you can run your denial
scams. Until you can do that you are just blowing smoke and lying >>>>>>> to yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end you simply >>>>>>> have to admit to yourself that any god could have done it anyway >>>>>>> that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason why such a >>>>>>> god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable methods to
get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his 3 neutral >>>>>>> mutations exist when he has no reason to believe that they ever >>>>>>> needed to exist, and he even understands that they could exist, >>>>>>> but they would be expected to be very rare. He knows that others >>>>>>> have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a new function, but >>>>>>> no one, not even Behe, has identified 3 neutral mutations being >>>>>>> needed. This is pretty much what you are doing with your empty
denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the
total information required. However, given the functional
complexity specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that:
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the
functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater
than the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of
the information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source
largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to human)? >>>>>
for decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because
the information needed by life was never going to be estimated in
mega bytes or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how >>>>> much information was and continues to be needed to maintain life on >>>>> this planet. We don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone can >>>>> we quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already
existed. It was never the information that the ID perps should have >>>>> been concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA products and
is involved in regulating the production of those RNA products. A >>>>> lot of those RNAs rely on their sequence and are involved in
functions involved with their secondary structure formation or
matching primary sequence with DNA or other RNAs. The RNAs can be >>>>> associated with proteins in order to do these functions. Some of
these RNAs are involved in making protein products using the
genetic code, but the code is not the information that life depends >>>>> on. The code only is needed to replicate a functional protein
accurately and efficiently. The function of the protein is
dependent on the 3 dimensional structure, and how that structure
can interact with other cellular components. It is the information >>>>> in the 3 dimensional structure that is important to anything that
the ID perps should be lying about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to
be tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe
on this planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have
evolved from preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few
changes and you can evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved >>>>> from existing antibody sequences during just one immune response
and involve less than 10 sequence changes. We also have plenty of >>>>> examples where parts of existing proteins have combined to produce
new combinations of already tested protein space. All this means
is that it doesn't seem to be very difficult to evolve the
information needed to make life possible. The 3 dimensional
structures can be produced by pretty much uncountable specific
sequences that will produce a similar enough 3 dimensional
sequence. Gish used to use Yockey's 10^69 number for the
probability of assembling one cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey
also estimated that just using the variation observed in various
cytochrome C sequences that had been obtained at that time that
there was a possible 10^49 possible functional cytochrome C
sequences, and that was limiting the sequence to 104 amino acids.
The same function can be found in sequences up to 130 amino acids
in length. It is not just that, but a 3 dimensional structure is
produced by the current sequence that places 5 amino acids in
specific positions to interact with the heme cofactor, but some
totally different primary sequence could likely produce a different >>>>> 3 dimensional structure that would still have those 5 amino acids
in the working positions. Can the same function be done by 5
different amino acids, or arrangement in a different 3 dimensional
order? This sequence is likely the first one that worked. It has >>>>> evolved over billions of years to do it's job very well, and even
these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing diversity of
sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never dealing >>>>> with the information that they needed to be working with. All they >>>>> ever wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted answers to any >>>>> questions that they might have been asking. You have the same
problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of life gap with a >>>>> non Biblical designer, and your denial is just for denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
Would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of
the information required to develop a human (for example) was extra-
genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution
(population genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration
of a significant component?
You have missed the entire point of how your gap denial not only does
not support your Biblical beliefs, but is not what you think that it
is. Since DNA has been used for genetic replication of RNA and
subsequent protein products encoded in mRNA it became the basis of
the evolution of life on this planet. Every change in the genome had
to keep working within what was already working. The gene centric
approach of quantitative genetics, biological evolution and
developmental biology has always assumed that this was true (all
cells come from preexisting cells). All the changes in the genome
over time have had to work within what was already working. Once
lifeforms became dependent on a genome to replicate life, subsequent
evolution has been dependent on that genome for altering what works
for the lifeform. It became the basis for the evolution of life on
this planet.
The genome never represented all the information needed to produce a
functional lifeform, it only became the basis for replication of that
lifeform. By the time single celled eukaryotes evolved the genome
consisted of multiple units of DNA. These evolved into eukaryotic
chromosomes and mitosis evolved to make sure that a full set of
chromosomes always made it into the two daughter cells. Sexual
reproduction evolved among these initial eukaryotic single celled
organisms. These lifeforms were using the genome to replicate their
cellular lineage. All the genomic changes had to work within what
was already working in the cell, and the genome was used to not only
be larger, but more efficiently transfer the genetic information to
the next generation. Changes in the genome changed these organisms,
but all the changes had to work within what was already working.
This just means that we can study the genomic changes in order to
determine how life has evolved on this planet. All the changes that
have evolved over time had worked within what was already working
within the cells. The new information maintained and altered the
existing cellular information needed to make the lifeform. The
genome relies on and perpetuates the cellular information needed to
create single celled organisms and multicelullar lifeforms like us.
Ron Okimoto
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.
Your continued misunderstanding of reality is noted. What do you not understand about DNA genomes evolving after the first living cells existed. This means that DNA needed to work within what was already working to replicate life. After DNA genomes evolved you likely had
more stable production of needed RNAs. Before you had DNA genomes RNAs were likely made using RNA templates. The issue with RNA double helices
is that DNA is a more stable genetic material because DNA double helices
are more resistant to degredation than RNA. The genetic code likely evolved after RNAs began making peptide chains. DNA could have evolved after the genetic code evolved, but my guess is that DNA genomes would
have evolved early due to their stability. Each step had to work within what was already working to replicate cells. Once DNA genomes had
evolved and structural RNAs and mRNAs were being produced all life forms after this would depend on the DNA to RNA to protein molecular dogma
that exists today, but the whole system is still dependent on the
cellular information that existed before DNA genomes evolved. Things
have been added to this original cellular information, and likely a lot
has been replaced by newer information cycles, but they are all derived
from what existed before.
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.
What do you not understand about the DNA genome having to work within
what was already working. This is still true. DNA has to be in a functioning cell before it can produce another cell. This is no
mystery, and has been understood for a very long time.
If Noble was shown to be right, would my logic then be valid?
No. Because Noble is just trying to make a big deal about how life has always existed. It would just be his misunderstanding of the central
dogma of molecular biology and how it relates to life that you would be agreeing with.
Ron Okimoto
All genetics has to work within what is already working in >>>>>>>>>>> the lifeform. If new variants do not work within that >>>>>>>>>>> context the organism dies and has no phenotype and that >>>>>>>>>>> lineage ends. Each new evolutionary innovation has to work >>>>>>>>>>> within what is already working or it is not passed on to >>>>>>>>>>> future generations.
This is why specified complexity had to distinguish scam >>>>>>>>>>> specified complexity to "lesser specified complexity" that >>>>>>>>>>> could be observed being created constantly in nature.
It is why Behe had to use neutral mutations to try to salvage >>>>>>>>>>> his ID scam IC claims. New mutations that change the
function of a protein happen all the time, and there is no >>>>>>>>>>> limit for how many can occur. Behe had to posit that there >>>>>>>>>>> were proteins in his IC systems that required 3 neutral >>>>>>>>>>> mutations to have been specified within a certain time limit >>>>>>>>>>> (number of generations). He needed neutral mutations because >>>>>>>>>>> they could not be selected for and would require random >>>>>>>>>>> processes to get them into the same cell lineage. He needed a >>>>>>>>>>> time limit because at this time there are so many neutral >>>>>>>>>>> mutations in nearly all the proteins in all the lineages that >>>>>>>>>>> when some single mutation occurs that changes the function it >>>>>>>>>>> is likely using several of the past neutral mutations to >>>>>>>>>>> create that new function. The ID scam has the issue that 2 >>>>>>>>>>> neutral mutations have been observed to create a new
function. Behe acknowledges that this would be expected to >>>>>>>>>>> routinely occur with out designer intervention. This would >>>>>>>>>>> be Dembski's "lesser" specified complexity. Behe is trying >>>>>>>>>>> to find what he claims would be evidence for intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design in nature, but he has not found it yet, and he refuses >>>>>>>>>>> to look for it in his IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The ID perps are just getting around to admitting that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have been bogusly in denial of something that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never understood. All the denial about the genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic code was just dishonest stupidity. They never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood the information that really existed.
All this means is that they should now understand that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have to start lying about something that isn't fully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, and that they can't quantify in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that there is too much of it to have had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate by natural means.
How can you claim that there is an issue if you do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the issue enough to figure out if there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem or not?
The genetic code isn't the information that life depends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on. It has always been understood that a cell is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than it's genome, and that the products of the genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code depended on the 3 dimensional information created by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RNA and protein products of genes. This encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information has to work within what 3 dimensional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information that already exists in the cell. All changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to work within what is already working. This had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true before the genetic code evolved. All the genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code has done is that it has improved the efficiency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reproduction of the cell, and it has grown in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to direct the development of multicellular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisms from a single cell. The genome needs a fully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional cell in order to do this, and every functional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addition had to work within what had already been working. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All the ID perps are admitting to is that they never had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an argument in the first place because they never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood what they were lying about, and they still do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what they are lying about in order to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any type of rational argument.
Just think about this for a moment. Sternberg has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed that he has been thinking about this issue for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time. He is the ID perp that dishonestly got Meyer's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cambrian explosion nonsense peer reviewed by his chosen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers. He subsequently quit science (he was never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fired nor did he lose his office space) and quit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participating in the scientific endeavor. His most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent scientific publication on his web page is from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2005, and he joined the ID perp scam outfit in 2007 in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to support the bait and switch scam. He could not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use his scientific expertise to support the ID scam, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spent around 8 years messing with gaps in the whale >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil record (he was an invertebrate taxonomist, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to prevaricate about whale evolution). Behe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed his gap stupidity by claiming that whale >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution was just the type of evolution expected to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred by Darwinian mechanisms in 2014. Behe was really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming that his designer would have done it some other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. Behe tried to denigrate that type of biological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution by calling it "devolution" but evolution is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution. Sternberg had to start working on something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new, so he is getting around to admitting that the ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perps have never been lying about what they should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been lying about in the first place.
Ron Okimoto
[1] FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCESS AND ITS MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form a single cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible distinguishes this cell from countless others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2, then 4, 8, 16, and so on. These early divisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the original >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already on trajectories that will lead to radically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetries—subtle differences in molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations, mechanics, and timing—bias later cell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *blastocyst* — a hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing a biochemical dialogue with the mother that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cells “decide” their roles through local interactions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules, and why implantation succeeds or fails so often >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes
*gastrulation*, often called *the most important event >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* → nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* → muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* → gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axes—head to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tail, back to front, left to right—are established. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cellular movements that look, under a microscope, almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types and assemble into organs. Neural cells wire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves into circuits. Blood vessels branch through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* left–right symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell “knows” the whole plan, yet the whole plan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neural connectivity) are specified without explicit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals are the same. Small genetic differences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences interact throughout development to shape: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the end—it emerges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuously, from the very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macroscopic individuality, especially in the brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blends genetic rules, physical law, cellular context, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self- organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryology, we still lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * and a unifying theory of biological development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique human being remains one of the most profound and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT)
______________
[2] THE HUMAN BODY COMPRISES 11 MAJOR PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each exhibiting high functional complexity through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scale, precision, and cross-system integration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. The *nervous system* provides rapid information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing, with ~86 billion neurons and ~10¹⁴–10¹⁵ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synapses enabling millisecond- scale control while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consuming ~20% of resting metabolic energy. Humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess ~2–3× more cortical neurons than great apes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this difference alone implies orders of magnitude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater combinatorial processing capacity, given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synaptic scaling; human prefrontal cortex expansion to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~25–30% of the total cortex gives disproportionately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dense long- range connections enabling abstract >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning, symbolic thought, counterfactual planning, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and recursive language.
2. The *circulatory system* sustains organism-wide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport via ~100,000 km of blood vessels and a heart >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that beats ~100,000 times per day, continuously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributing oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and immune cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. The *respiratory system* enables gas exchange through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~300 million alveoli generating ~70 m² of surface area, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing ~10,000 liters of air per day.
4. The *digestive system* converts food into
bioavailable energy along a ~9 m tract, with ~30–40 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trillion gut microbes and ~30–40 m² of absorptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface area in the small intestine.
5. The *endocrine system* coordinates long-range >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulation using hormones effective at picomolar– >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nanomolar concentrations, exerting organism-wide control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through nested feedback loops.
6. The *immune system* provides adaptive defense with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10¹¹– 10¹² active immune cells and the capacity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate >10¹² distinct antibody variants with long-term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory.
7. The *musculoskeletal system* enables movement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural support through ~206 bones and ~600 muscles, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with continuous mechanical loading and bone remodeling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (~5– 10% annually).
8. The *integumentary system* forms a multifunctional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protective interface covering ~1.5–2.0 m² and containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~20 billion cells, integrating mechanical protection, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensation, and immune signaling.
9. The *urinary (renal) system* maintains chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homeostasis by filtering ~180 liters of blood per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across ~2 million nephrons, reabsorbing >99% of filtrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high selectivity.
10. The *reproductive system* supports species >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuity through hormonally regulated gamete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production (up to hundreds of millions of sperm per day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in males) and cyclic reproductive physiology in females. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
11. The *lymphatic system* complements circulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immunity by returning ~2–4 liters of interstitial fluid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily and coordinating immune surveillance across >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of lymph nodes.
Taken together, these systems form a deeply
interdependent, multiscale biological architecture, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which trillions of components are dynamically regulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with molecular precision to maintain stability, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adaptability, and continuity of the human organism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(ChatGPT)
On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>You have fundamental misunderstandings of how biological evolution
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:49:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
You have fundamental misunderstandings of how biological evolution
works. First, individuals don't evolve genetically; populations
evolve over time across generations. Second, biological evolution
happens when the environment changes which individuals reproduce more,
and which reproduce less, descendants. Third, the environment acts on individuals, whether or not their phenotypes result from genes or a
"rich informational architecture".
So, even if you and Noble were shown to be right, you would still have
to explain how Noble's "rich informational architecture" vs
"gene-centric Darwinism" alter how 1) evolution actually works, 2) how different characteristics arise, and 3) how descendants inherit them.
Short of that, you're making a lot of noise over nothing.
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:The DNA of the egg and sperm are the genetic component. The >>>>>>>>>> existing cellular component of the egg is accounted for in the >>>>>>>>>> environmental component of the equation. It is the
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:To clarify further, rather than crowing, I'm actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> almost sheepishly acknowledging ID's appeal to an
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that extant life depended on it, so Sternberg isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointing out anything that wasn't already understood >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades ago. As a genetics major at Berkeley in the late >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1970's we were required to take a class called Topics in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Genetics. It wasn't just current topics, but issues that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had, had been issues decades before like McClintock's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transposable element research from the 1930's and 40's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the topics was breaking cellular cycles and was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maize research from the 1950's. I can't remember the name >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the researcher, but he was dealing with a nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutation that messed up chloroplasts. The chloroplasts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could not be reactivated by crossing pollen from a wild- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type plant to the defective plant. This would restore a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional nuclear gene, but the chloroplasts were not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> restored. You could do the reciprocal cross with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defective pollen crossed to a wild-type plant and those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heterozygotes had functional chloroplasts, but selfs of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that plant would produce homozygous mutants that would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again have defective chloroplasts.
The researcher proposed that part of what it takes to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a functional cell had been lost in the homozygous mutants >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and had to be restored by putting the genetics into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another fully functional cell. Descent with modification >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces new lifeforms, but every change has to work >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within what is already working. In this case some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cellular function was lost that had been maintained by all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells coming from preexisting cells, and that function had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be restored by crossing the defective cell to a fully >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional cell.
This just means that Sternbergs new information scam has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been understood to exist in biology since at least the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's, and likely long before that when cell theory was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulated.
All cells come from preexisting cells is a core tenet of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern cell theory. Genetics had to be fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with cell theory. This new information is just as useless >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the ID scam as IC well matched parts, and for the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. We do not know exactly what it is, and it can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantified to any degree useful for ID perp denial. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information that exists today has been evolving for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions of years and passed down each cellular generation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How long have I been claiming that the genetic code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information denial was bogus? Was the code ever the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information that was important for a functioning cell? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This new information denial is just as bogus.
Just checking if I understand you correctly. I think you're >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreeing that the ovum must contain significant amounts of >>>>>>>>>>>>> information (as well as the functional portion of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> genome) to specify the resulting organism?
The egg cell is known to contain all the information
necessary to create new cells. Life is currently using the >>>>>>>>>>>> genome to replicate and facilitate that process. In the >>>>>>>>>>>> case of multicellular life the genome has taken on the job >>>>>>>>>>>> of regulating the development of different cell types, but >>>>>>>>>>>> it still has to generate those additional cell types using >>>>>>>>>>>> the information contained in the egg cell. That is just how >>>>>>>>>>>> life works. This has been understood since we figured out >>>>>>>>>>>> modern cell theory in the 20th century. The reason why the >>>>>>>>>>>> ID perps and you don't use the important information needed >>>>>>>>>>>> for life is that we do not understand it well enough to make >>>>>>>>>>>> a big deal about it. We have understood that it existed for >>>>>>>>>>>> well over a century, but it just can't do much for the ID >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist scam at this time. How are you going to claim >>>>>>>>>>>> that there is too much of something that you can't even >>>>>>>>>>>> measure?
If yes, then it seems that this information is NOT
considered in the mechanisms and mathematics of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather, with the gene- centric paradigm it's all about DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations, population genetics, etc. The extra-genomic >>>>>>>>>>>>> information is, as far as I know, not in scope and not >>>>>>>>>>>>> analysed. And that seems like a problem - a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
What do you think?
This information hasn't mattered in our models of biological >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution because it has always been part of the
environmental component. Phenotype = Environmental component >>>>>>>>>>>> + Genetic component.
No. Not sure what you mean here.
Phenotype = embryonic development of (ovum DNA + ovum non-DNA >>>>>>>>>>> + sperm DNA)
The ovum non-DNA is not the "environmental component". The >>>>>>>>>>> "environment" is external to, and other than, the organism. >>>>>>>>>>
environment in which the genetics are expressed.
The existing cellular component is just as important an
environmental influence as womb, and things like nutrition and >>>>>>>>>> diseases in the full development of the organism and
expression of the genetic phenotype.
Think of developmental defects like spina bifida. The genetic >>>>>>>>>> component is low and the phenotype is mainly due to cellular >>>>>>>>>> information mess ups during development. Things do not always >>>>>>>>>> work out as they should.
Ron Okimoto
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single
privileged control layer, but that developmental control is >>>>>>>>> distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal.
This may be something of semantic quibble. However, given the >>>>>>>>> accepted use of the term "environment" in relation to
evolution, and challenges such as Noble's to gene-centrism, I >>>>>>>>> suggest avoiding it in this context.
The contribution of the the mother, her immune system,
hormones, blood supply, womb, placenta etc are an indirect
source of information, i.e. they comprise the support system >>>>>>>>> that is mandatory for embryonic development. Actually (from >>>>>>>>> Gemini):
"The mother’s hormones and immune system do not merely
"influence" development; they act as a primary control system >>>>>>>>> that directs embryo implantation, organ maturation, and even >>>>>>>>> long-term disease susceptibility."
E.g., "Maternal hormones act as signaling molecules that can >>>>>>>>> start or interrupt critical developmental processes.
Thyroid Hormones (TH): Crucial for fetal brain development, >>>>>>>>> especially before the fetus can produce its own (around week >>>>>>>>> 16). Low maternal TH is linked to lower child IQ and motor delays. >>>>>>>>>
Glucocorticoids (Cortisol): High levels of maternal stress
hormones can prematurely trigger organ maturation at the
expense of overall growth, leading to smaller babies and
altered stress responses (HPA axis) in adulthood.
Insulin-Like Growth Factors (IGFs): IGF-I and IGF-II regulate >>>>>>>>> the supply of nutrients across the placenta, preventing fetal >>>>>>>>> overgrowth or undergrowth.
Progesterone: Essential for maintaining the uterine structure >>>>>>>>> and promoting immune tolerance, preventing the mother's body >>>>>>>>> from rejecting the embryo."
What is important to consider about the cellular environmental >>>>>>>> component is that it has been evolving for as long as the first >>>>>>>> cells existed.
What you see in humans are a lot of additions to what was
initially required. Most of what you just put up is information >>>>>>>> that was not needed when mammals laid eggs and the embryos
needed to develop within the confines of the egg with no
maternal input except for body heat to incubate the eggs.
Embryo development ran on wheels dependent on egg contents,
including the fertilized egg cell, and the developmental
programing provided by the newly formed diploid genome.
Initially this cellular information would have likely been
minimal, just enough to keep the cells that split off growing >>>>>>>> and creating more cells. Anything that helped the cells
replicate more efficiently producing more cells that could
replicate would be selected for. My take is that these early >>>>>>>> cells would be composed of self replicating units. These early >>>>>>>> self replicating units would do other things besides self
replicate, such as make lipids to produce the cell membrane.
My take is that conglomerates of lipids could have been the
first self replicators. These first self replicators would have >>>>>>>> had minimal cellular information to pass down to the next
generation, but it would need to exist. New cells would be
forming using parts of the existing cells. The RNA world would >>>>>>>> have evolved among these early self replicators. The ribozymes >>>>>>>> that would evolve added to the cellular information that needed >>>>>>>> to be carried over to the next generation of replicating cells. >>>>>>>> RNA was likely the first genome because it could be used to
replicate ribozymes and structural RNAs. DNA may have evolved to >>>>>>>> make the genome more stable. All these additions needed to work >>>>>>>> within what was already working, and they added their own sets >>>>>>>> of information that needed to be passed down in the physical
cells. The code would have evolved after the RNA world was
established, and still requires ribozymes and structural RNAs >>>>>>>> like tRNAs to function.
By the time multicellular life evolved life had already evolved >>>>>>>> sex and there was a very well evolved system of the cellular
information needed to keep the next generation of cells
replicating. All the information needed to evolve new forms of >>>>>>>> multicellular life had to work with what was already working or >>>>>>>> it didn't make it into the next generation. What you and the ID >>>>>>>> perps have to do is determine what this information is, figure >>>>>>>> out some way to quantify it so that you can run your denial
scams. Until you can do that you are just blowing smoke and
lying to yourself and anyone listening to you. In the end you >>>>>>>> simply have to admit to yourself that any god could have done it >>>>>>>> anyway that it looks like it was done, and there is no reason >>>>>>>> why such a god would have to rely on any magical unexplainable >>>>>>>> methods to get it done. Behe has resorted to claiming that his >>>>>>>> 3 neutral mutations exist when he has no reason to believe that >>>>>>>> they ever needed to exist, and he even understands that they
could exist, but they would be expected to be very rare. He >>>>>>>> knows that others have found 2 neutral mutations resulting in a >>>>>>>> new function, but no one, not even Behe, has identified 3
neutral mutations being needed. This is pretty much what you are >>>>>>>> doing with your empty denial arguments.
Ron Okimoto
I acknowledge that I'm not able to calculate an estimate of the >>>>>>> total information required. However, given the functional
complexity specified in [1] and [2] below, would you agree that: >>>>>>>
1. The information required must be much greater than 80MB (the >>>>>>> functional human genome information amount)
2. Therefore, additional information must be cellular (ovum
cytoplasm, membrane, organelles)
3. If total information is (say) an order of magnitude greater
than the genome's 80MB, then extra-genomic information is 90% of >>>>>>> the information accumulated by natural selection
4. That being the case, why is this majority information source >>>>>>> largely ignored when evaluating evolution (e.g. from chimp to
human)?
This is just as much of a scam as the ID perps have been running
for decades. No one cares about your 80 Mega byte number because >>>>>> the information needed by life was never going to be estimated in >>>>>> mega bytes or mega bases. You don't even know how to estimate how >>>>>> much information was and continues to be needed to maintain life
on this planet. We don't even know what a lot of it is, let alone >>>>>> can we quantify it.
The genome's information would have evolved after life already
existed. It was never the information that the ID perps should
have been concerned with because the DNA only produces RNA
products and is involved in regulating the production of those RNA >>>>>> products. A lot of those RNAs rely on their sequence and are
involved in functions involved with their secondary structure
formation or matching primary sequence with DNA or other RNAs.
The RNAs can be associated with proteins in order to do these
functions. Some of these RNAs are involved in making protein
products using the genetic code, but the code is not the
information that life depends on. The code only is needed to
replicate a functional protein accurately and efficiently. The
function of the protein is dependent on the 3 dimensional
structure, and how that structure can interact with other cellular >>>>>> components. It is the information in the 3 dimensional structure >>>>>> that is important to anything that the ID perps should be lying
about.
It is just a fact that very little of the protein space has had to >>>>>> be tested in order to produce the variety of life that we observe >>>>>> on this planet. The vast majority of existing protein genes have >>>>>> evolved from preexisting genes by gene duplication. Just a few
changes and you can evolve a new function. Abzymes can be evolved >>>>>> from existing antibody sequences during just one immune response
and involve less than 10 sequence changes. We also have plenty of >>>>>> examples where parts of existing proteins have combined to produce >>>>>> new combinations of already tested protein space. All this means >>>>>> is that it doesn't seem to be very difficult to evolve the
information needed to make life possible. The 3 dimensional
structures can be produced by pretty much uncountable specific
sequences that will produce a similar enough 3 dimensional
sequence. Gish used to use Yockey's 10^69 number for the
probability of assembling one cytochrome C sequence, but Yockey
also estimated that just using the variation observed in various
cytochrome C sequences that had been obtained at that time that
there was a possible 10^49 possible functional cytochrome C
sequences, and that was limiting the sequence to 104 amino acids. >>>>>> The same function can be found in sequences up to 130 amino acids >>>>>> in length. It is not just that, but a 3 dimensional structure is >>>>>> produced by the current sequence that places 5 amino acids in
specific positions to interact with the heme cofactor, but some
totally different primary sequence could likely produce a
different 3 dimensional structure that would still have those 5
amino acids in the working positions. Can the same function be
done by 5 different amino acids, or arrangement in a different 3
dimensional order? This sequence is likely the first one that
worked. It has evolved over billions of years to do it's job very >>>>>> well, and even these evolved tight constraints allow an amazing
diversity of sequences that can do that job.
The ID perps have always been blowing smoke, and were never
dealing with the information that they needed to be working with. >>>>>> All they ever wanted was to scam the rubes, they never wanted
answers to any questions that they might have been asking. You
have the same problem. You don't even want to fill the origin of >>>>>> life gap with a non Biblical designer, and your denial is just for >>>>>> denial purposes.
Ron Okimoto
Would you agree that if it was shown that a significant amount of
the information required to develop a human (for example) was
extra- genomic, then the current gene-centric approach to evolution >>>>> (population genetics, etc) is minimising or excluding consideration >>>>> of a significant component?
You have missed the entire point of how your gap denial not only
does not support your Biblical beliefs, but is not what you think
that it is. Since DNA has been used for genetic replication of RNA >>>> and subsequent protein products encoded in mRNA it became the basis
of the evolution of life on this planet. Every change in the genome >>>> had to keep working within what was already working. The gene
centric approach of quantitative genetics, biological evolution and
developmental biology has always assumed that this was true (all
cells come from preexisting cells). All the changes in the genome
over time have had to work within what was already working. Once
lifeforms became dependent on a genome to replicate life, subsequent
evolution has been dependent on that genome for altering what works
for the lifeform. It became the basis for the evolution of life on
this planet.
The genome never represented all the information needed to produce a
functional lifeform, it only became the basis for replication of
that lifeform. By the time single celled eukaryotes evolved the
genome consisted of multiple units of DNA. These evolved into
eukaryotic chromosomes and mitosis evolved to make sure that a full
set of chromosomes always made it into the two daughter cells.
Sexual reproduction evolved among these initial eukaryotic single
celled organisms. These lifeforms were using the genome to
replicate their cellular lineage. All the genomic changes had to
work within what was already working in the cell, and the genome was
used to not only be larger, but more efficiently transfer the
genetic information to the next generation. Changes in the genome
changed these organisms, but all the changes had to work within what
was already working.
This just means that we can study the genomic changes in order to
determine how life has evolved on this planet. All the changes that >>>> have evolved over time had worked within what was already working
within the cells. The new information maintained and altered the
existing cellular information needed to make the lifeform. The
genome relies on and perpetuates the cellular information needed to
create single celled organisms and multicelullar lifeforms like us.
Ron Okimoto
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.
Your continued misunderstanding of reality is noted. What do you not
understand about DNA genomes evolving after the first living cells
existed. This means that DNA needed to work within what was already
working to replicate life. After DNA genomes evolved you likely had
more stable production of needed RNAs. Before you had DNA genomes
RNAs were likely made using RNA templates. The issue with RNA double
helices is that DNA is a more stable genetic material because DNA
double helices are more resistant to degredation than RNA. The
genetic code likely evolved after RNAs began making peptide chains.
DNA could have evolved after the genetic code evolved, but my guess is
that DNA genomes would have evolved early due to their stability.
Each step had to work within what was already working to replicate
cells. Once DNA genomes had evolved and structural RNAs and mRNAs
were being produced all life forms after this would depend on the DNA
to RNA to protein molecular dogma that exists today, but the whole
system is still dependent on the cellular information that existed
before DNA genomes evolved. Things have been added to this original
cellular information, and likely a lot has been replaced by newer
information cycles, but they are all derived from what existed before.
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.
What do you not understand about the DNA genome having to work within
what was already working. This is still true. DNA has to be in a
functioning cell before it can produce another cell. This is no
mystery, and has been understood for a very long time.
If Noble was shown to be right, would my logic then be valid?
No. Because Noble is just trying to make a big deal about how life
has always existed. It would just be his misunderstanding of the
central dogma of molecular biology and how it relates to life that you
would be agreeing with.
Ron Okimoto
You don't seem to grasp the implications of what I and Noble are saying (regardless of whether you agree with it). It's much more than just
making "a big deal about how life has always existed":
* 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.
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:
SNIP:
On 1/14/2026 7:49 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:
<snip>
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
<snip>
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:49:32 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/01/2026 12:41 pm, MarkE wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
You have fundamental misunderstandings of how biological evolution
works. First, individuals don't evolve genetically; populations
evolve over time across generations. Second, biological evolution
happens when the environment changes which individuals reproduce more,
and which reproduce less, descendants. Third, the environment acts on individuals, whether or not their phenotypes result from genes or a
"rich informational architecture".
So, even if you and Noble were shown to be right, you would still have
to explain how Noble's "rich informational architecture" vs
"gene-centric Darwinism" alter how 1) evolution actually works, 2) how different characteristics arise, and 3) how descendants inherit them.
Short of that, you're making a lot of noise over nothing.
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:
<snip>
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
<snip>
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.
| Sysop: | datGSguy |
|---|---|
| Location: | Eugene, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 219:25:07 |
| Calls: | 361 |
| Calls today: | 34 |
| Files: | 14 |
| D/L today: |
77 files (1,274K bytes) |
| Messages: | 5,781 |
| Posted today: | 1 |