On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory,
and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences
between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account
for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including
especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences
are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see
any qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides
language. And language is probably not a genetically huge
difference. Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach human
level, the common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen
or less) advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a
couple more for other aspects of our language, and a few more to
adapt our vocal tract. This should not require several millions of
years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the creation
of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest that handful
of mutations could produce the change you describe suggests to me
that you've never created something with new and substantial
functional complexity yourself (not intended as an insult, but an
explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially the
claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional complexity
of a human.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:18:46 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:It's worse than 80Meg, IIRC, it's 80,000 genes, [same as grass]. (Bill Bryson - A Short History Of Nearly Everything)
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in >>>>>> terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and >>>>>> sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative, >>>>>> cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences >>>>> between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account for >>>>> humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including especially
written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences
are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see any >>>>> qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides
language. And language is probably not a genetically huge difference. >>>>> Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach human level, the
common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less)
advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for >>>>> other aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal
tract. This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the creation
of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest that handful
of mutations could produce the change you describe suggests to me that >>>> you've never created something with new and substantial functional
complexity yourself (not intended as an insult, but an explanation of
our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that isn't >>> is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and the bulk
of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, the rest of
the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which is
exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially the
claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional complexity
of a human.
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight,
surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large
and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences
between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account for
humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including especially
written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences are
extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see any
qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides
language. And language is probably not a genetically huge difference.
Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach human level, the
common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less)
advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for
other aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal
tract. This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the creation of
new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe suggests to me that
you've never created something with new and substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an insult, but an explanation of
our very different perspectives).
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
At almost 3000 words, this thread has become far too unwieldy, so I am >>>going to do a reset, picking out what I see as the most salient
points. You are of course free to reintroduce any other points that
you regard as salient.
You:
====
"Is your religion completely without [material]
LOL! What is this doing here? I seem to recall saying that I was
looking for *any* properties, not just "material" properties.
I can't think of any properties that could be looked at that aren't
material -
can you make any suggestions?
properties, just
static noise when examined?"
No, it is not just static noise. To make an analogy with science, dark >>>matter has no material properties but that does not mean that dark
matter is just static noise. We draw conclusions about dark matter
from the effects that it has; the same principle applies to religious >>>belief - we have to draw our conclusions from the effects that it has.
No, dark matter interacts through gravitation. That's how we know
it's there.
Gravitation is a *effect*, not a property.
You:
====
"Could purported miracles be investigated by forensic methods?"
This is a good example of what I mean by jumping to uninformed >>>conclusions. Miracles *are* investigated by forensic methods,
However, you said religious beliefs are examined via circumstantial >>evidence, not forensic methods.
A reported miracle is an event or happening, not a *belief*. It cannot
even be considered for religious belief until after it has been
forensically examined and all potential material; causes ruled out.
at least
within the Catholic Church. Take Lourdes, probably the most well-known >>>place associated with miracles. Before being considered by the Church, >>>every purported miracle is examined thoroughly by the Lourde's Medical >>>Board which is comprised of both Catholic and non-Catholic doctors and >>>nurses; any doctor or nurse visiting Lourdes can apply to be part of
the Board whether they are a believer or non-believer. If the Board >>>thinks a particular case is worth taking further, the case is referred
to the International Lourdes Medical Committee, which is an
international panel of about twenty experts in various medical >>>disciplines and of different religious beliefs. They put the case
through rigorous study. The case is only referred back for
consideration by Church authorities if it meets certain criteria. >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
Placebos, mostly, it seems.
Cite?
I suspect that your understanding is also very poor of what a miracle
is within the Catholic Church. When the Church declares something as a >>>miracle, it is not definitively declaring divine intervention.it
simply states that after rigorous examination, all natural causes have >>>been ruled out,
And why couldn't miracles take place without all natural causes being
ruled out? And this *is* God-of-the-gaps" theology, which you were so >>opposed to elsewhere.
What I have opposed elsewhere is people rejecting scientific
explanation because it is not complete,
mainly driven by the fact that
what science is saying challenged their religious beliefs. This is a
case where the scientists (doctors) themselves are ruling out all
natural causes. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you?
and the Faithful are free to regard it as divine
intervention. Note that *free to regard* bit; the miracle is not part
of Church teaching and Catholics can reject it without in any way >>>contravening Church teaching.
Something about believing whatever you choose to believe doesn't sound >>right.
Yet again, your conclusion is based on a very poor understanding of
the Catholic Church - it is a lot less dogmatic than non-Catholics
generally realise.
You:
====
"Right, but it isn't just science that's disproved your beliefs. It's
the lack of evidence for any religious beliefs and the irrationality
of the people behind them that does so, something that people noticed >>>even before the age of science began."
Two issues here. First of all, there is a well established principle
that science uses against ID/Creation - absence of evidence is not >>>evidence of absence. I happen to have just read an article in
Scientific American (Feb 2026 issue) about consciousness and the >>>challenges it presents for science. This bit seems particularly >>>appropriate here as well:
"All of science rests on inferences about things we cannot see. We
can't see a black hole,
No, they've actually been observed and photographed.
Sorry, hope it doesn't hurt your feelings but I will put more weight
on Christof Koch's opinion about black holes than yours.
[Christof] Koch points out, but we can spend
decades building up theories and creating instruments that let us
infer their existence."
Secondly, you seem to be tarring *all* religious people as irrational;
do you dismiss thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas as irrational
people, let alone the likes of LemaEtre, Mendel, Newton, Galileo, >>>Copernicus?
People can be eminently rational in one area and completely irrational
in another.
Witness Isaac Newton's obsession with alchemy and Biblical
prophesies, Linus Pauling going off the rails on vitamin C, or Albert >>Einstein's resistance to quantum mechanics.
Science showed them to be wrong in what they thought. *Your*
definition of irrationality is simply someone believing something you
don't believe even though you can't show them to be wrong.
You:
====
"I suspect that it's merely a psychological artifact because that's
the only place religious beliefs seem to be prevalent -- that is,
inside people's heads."
That's just another clever soundbite which is actually meaningless
when you consider it more carefully. *Everything* we know, think or
feel is inside our heads. That includes science.
LOL! So does that make you a solipsist?
Where did I suggest that there is no physical reality?
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>happening in evolution.
There's more to "observation" in science than test tubes and weights.
Can you identify *any* form of observation where interpreting the
results is not an intellectual exercise?
All we can do is assess whether that
intellectual explanation does indeed cover the things that it claims
to explain (as the ToE) does. The same principle applies to religious >>>belief (again, IMO, religion does so).
You:
====
"Researchers Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn compared belief in God
and IQs.[6] Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the >>>authors found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than >>>the average IQ of non-atheists. "
There is so much wrong with that that it is hard to know where to
begin so I will just focus again on how badly informed your
conclusions are as you clearly have a very poor understanding of
sampling theory as used in opinion polls.
First of all, you cannot draw any conclusions from a single sample;
that sample may indicate something worth studying further but that is
all it can do; conclusiveness can only be achieved by repeated
sampling.
If it hasn't been demonstrated definitively, it's still quite
suggestive.
The only thing it suggests is that that population group is worth
testing again and it *might* be worth sampling other population groups
to see if the same trend exists. It suggests absolutely nothing
about those other population groups until they are studied. This really is
#101 stuff; if a research student had presented this sort of argument
to me when I was lecturing, I would have told them to go back and read
their sampling textbook.
Secondly and even more importantly, the results of any sampling can
only represent the population from which the sample was drawn. This >>>sample was drawn from U.S. adolescents so, to whatever extent the
results are valid, these results only apply to US adolescents; they >>>cannot be extrapolated to U.S. adults; they cannot be extrapolated
anyone outside the US, adolescent or otherwise. Even allowing for your >>>apparently poor understanding of sampling, I am totally astounded that >>>you would try to use such a sample
LOL! Were you trying to say *small* sample and then looked at the
huge number of data points studied in the research (almost seven
thousand) and changed your mind?
If you are going to start inventing stuff about me like some other
posters in theses parts, this discussion will come to a very quick
end.
So what would prevent the results
from being applicable outside U.S. adolescents?
Nothing prevents it being applicable outside the US or any other group
within the US. We simply *don't know* whether or not it is applicable
- not sure what you cannot understand about that.
to buttress your suggestion that
religious scientists underachieve in career progression because they
are generally less intelligent than non-religious scientists.
No, career progression is caused more by testosterone-based "drive"
than raw intelligence as the primary causal factor in that phenomenon.
So are you now dropping your original suggestion that diminishing
religious belief it is due to atheist scientists having an average >intelligence higher than religious scientists?
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and
sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences
between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account for
humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including especially
written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences
are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see any
qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides
language. And language is probably not a genetically huge difference.
Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach human level, the
common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less)
advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for
other aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal
tract. This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the creation
of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest that handful
of mutations could produce the change you describe suggests to me that
you've never created something with new and substantial functional
complexity yourself (not intended as an insult, but an explanation of
our very different perspectives).
I have worked on computer programs with so much "functional complexity"
that they didn't function (at least, not correctly).
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the environment,
if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would, I think, describe human language as having high functional complexity. Yet all you need to
do to go from a language with a finite and small number of short declarations to a language which allows an infinite number of possible sentences that can express endless ideas is to allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not a trivial one by any means, but not a show-
stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a bigger
brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could happen with a
tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have the larger brain,
that also allows more proficient tool use, which then allows writing,
which then allows libraries, which then allows civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon requires
no new mutations at all?
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the cell
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in >>>>>> terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory,
and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative, >>>>>> cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences
which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language,
including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences
are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see
any qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides
language. And language is probably not a genetically huge
difference. Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach
human level, the common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half
a dozen or less) advantageous mutations for recursive grammar,
maybe a couple more for other aspects of our language, and a few
more to adapt our vocal tract. This should not require several
millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe
suggests to me that you've never created something with new and
substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and chimps, and
the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're interested in
what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those few functional
genetic differences that count.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much regard
for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has various
bits that must be in place in order to get the process of development
going, and that there are many interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the bits that
interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see
happening in evolution.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see
happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a >_Biston betularia_.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:07:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
about those other population groups until they are studied. This really is >>#101 stuff; if a research student had presented this sort of argument
to me when I was lecturing, I would have told them to go back and read >>their sampling textbook.
What's wrong with adolescents as a representative of the population?
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the cell
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is
self-evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences
which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language,
including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences >>>>>> are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see >>>>>> any qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides >>>>>> language. And language is probably not a genetically huge
difference. Chimps already have verbal communication. To reach
human level, the common ancestor would need a few (like maybe half >>>>>> a dozen or less) advantageous mutations for recursive grammar,
maybe a couple more for other aspects of our language, and a few
more to adapt our vocal tract. This should not require several
millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe
suggests to me that you've never created something with new and
substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the genome. >>>>
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and chimps, and
the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're interested in
what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those few functional
genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson ><the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >>peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was
pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come
out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too
was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works
of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be
just ignored,
that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago,
mostly figuratively,
for an uneducated audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a >>_Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:34:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:07:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
about those other population groups until they are studied. This really is >>>#101 stuff; if a research student had presented this sort of argument
to me when I was lecturing, I would have told them to go back and read >>>their sampling textbook.
What's wrong with adolescents as a representative of the population?
On that note, I'm outta here.
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-
evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip
culture besides language. And language is probably not a
genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would
need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous
mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other
aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe
suggests to me that you've never created something with new and
substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the
genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why
you seem to struggle to understand that.
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?
Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine
the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >>>>>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see >>>>> how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but >>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there
more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than >>>>> Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even
expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.
Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to
know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that
science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind." >>>
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has
never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever
since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he
could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the
100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left
standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or
not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists
that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead
of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts
are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the
environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would, I
think, describe human language as having high functional complexity.
Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a finite and small
number of short declarations to a language which allows an infinite
number of possible sentences that can express endless ideas is to
allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not a trivial one by any
means, but not a show- stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a bigger
brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could happen with a
tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have the larger brain,
that also allows more proficient tool use, which then allows writing,
which then allows libraries, which then allows civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon
requires no new mutations at all?
In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase might
be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart (where n > 1).
As a programmer, you know that this requires megabytes of new specific information. Why do you imagine that mere bits would suffice for the
chimp to human scenario?
* Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are
different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same constraints
in relation to functional complexity.
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-
evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a
genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous
mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the
genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every >respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
_____--
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:34:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:07:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
about those other population groups until they are studied. This really is >>>#101 stuff; if a research student had presented this sort of argument
to me when I was lecturing, I would have told them to go back and read >>>their sampling textbook.
What's wrong with adolescents as a representative of the population?
On that note, I'm outta here.Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.
On 1/22/26 1:42 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the
environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would, I
think, describe human language as having high functional complexity.
Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a finite and small
number of short declarations to a language which allows an infinite
number of possible sentences that can express endless ideas is to
allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not a trivial one by any
means, but not a show- stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a
bigger brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could happen
with a tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have the
larger brain, that also allows more proficient tool use, which then
allows writing, which then allows libraries, which then allows
civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon
requires no new mutations at all?
In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase
might be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart (where n
1). As a programmer, you know that this requires megabytes of newspecific information. Why do you imagine that mere bits would suffice
for the chimp to human scenario?
* Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are
different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same
constraints in relation to functional complexity.
I reject your analogy utterly.-a In terms of overall mental ability, the chimp to human increase might better be likened to RAM memory, n
generations apart. All that requires is more of the same, plus some engineering advances in miniaturization. That's still a poor analogy, because neurological processes are not as simple as arrays of flippable bits, but the point remains: Nearly all that is required is more of the
same neurological processes.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a
genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous
mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>
genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>> humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in >>> basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other >>> differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which
subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several metabolic diseases.
_____
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in >>>>> basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>> genome.
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>> humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between >>>>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene >>>>> products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including >>>>> the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other >>>>> differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making >>>>> here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into >>>> the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every >>>> respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which
subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several
metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >>small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairsoops... make that "over 1000"
are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so
have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer
analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a
desktop powered by a potato battery.
--[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x >>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>> genome.
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a
genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous
mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional
complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>> humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in >>>> basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between >>>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene >>>> products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including >>>> the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other >>>> differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into >>> the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every >>> respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which
subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several
metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
--[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x >>
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>> genome.
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>>
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>>>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>> humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>>
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between >>>>>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene >>>>>> products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including >>>>>> the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other >>>>>> differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making >>>>>> here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>>>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into >>>>> the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every >>>>> respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which
subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several
metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >>> small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs
are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
oops... make that "over 1000"
mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so
have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer
analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a
desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson >><the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Where did you get that from?
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own[..]
study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's
books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both
books were totally unconvincing.
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen
Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing
for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that
religious belief is a load of bunkum?
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be
just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas
Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a good example of what I mean by jumping to uninformed
conclusions. Miracles *are* investigated by forensic methods,
However, you said religious beliefs are examined via circumstantial
evidence, not forensic methods.
at least
within the Catholic Church. Take Lourdes, probably the most well-known >>place associated with miracles. Before being considered by the Church, >>every purported miracle is examined thoroughly by the Lourde's Medical >>Board which is comprised of both Catholic and non-Catholic doctors and >>nurses; any doctor or nurse visiting Lourdes can apply to be part of
the Board whether they are a believer or non-believer. If the Board
thinks a particular case is worth taking further, the case is referred
to the International Lourdes Medical Committee, which is an
international panel of about twenty experts in various medical
disciplines and of different religious beliefs. They put the case
through rigorous study. The case is only referred back for
consideration by Church authorities if it meets certain criteria. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
Placebos, mostly, it seems.
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be
identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why
you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?
Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial
evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine
the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for >religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be >generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably >with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal.
What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god.
On 1/18/26 3:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >>>>>>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see >>>>>> how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but >>>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than >>>>>> Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even
expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind." >>>>
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he
could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the
100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left
standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or
not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists
that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead
of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts
are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >support some degree of biblical literalness.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
This is a good example of what I mean by jumping to uninformed >>>conclusions. Miracles *are* investigated by forensic methods,
However, you said religious beliefs are examined via circumstantial >>evidence, not forensic methods.
at least
within the Catholic Church. Take Lourdes, probably the most well-known >>>place associated with miracles. Before being considered by the Church, >>>every purported miracle is examined thoroughly by the Lourde's Medical >>>Board which is comprised of both Catholic and non-Catholic doctors and >>>nurses; any doctor or nurse visiting Lourdes can apply to be part of
the Board whether they are a believer or non-believer. If the Board >>>thinks a particular case is worth taking further, the case is referred
to the International Lourdes Medical Committee, which is an
international panel of about twenty experts in various medical >>>disciplines and of different religious beliefs. They put the case
through rigorous study. The case is only referred back for
consideration by Church authorities if it meets certain criteria. >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
Placebos, mostly, it seems.
I meant to pick up on this specific point because it's a good example
of how your logic goes a bit askew. It didn't seem to register with
you that the fact that most reported cases get dismissed is actually
an indication of how rigorous the procedure actually is.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson >>><the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own[..]
study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>books were totally unconvincing.
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing
for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas
Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a
miss.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of
peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was
pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come
out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too
was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works
of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be
just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago, mostly figuratively, for an uneducated audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a
_Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and >>>>>>>>>>> the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally, >>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>>>>>> humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>>> genome.
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>>>
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which >>>>>>>>>> is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between >>>>>>>> humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>>>
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between >>>>>>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene >>>>>>> products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including >>>>>>> the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making >>>>>>> here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells >>>>>>>>> that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into >>>>>> the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every >>>>>> respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which
subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of
the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >>>> small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs
are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation
of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same
DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just >16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text
1000 times does not increase information.
--mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so
have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer
analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a
desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate
capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture.
I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract.
This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>>>>
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>>>> genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially >>>>>>>>>>> the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>>>>
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between >>>>>>>> humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed, >>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making >>>>>>>> here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>>>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of >>>>>> the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >>>>> small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs
are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation
of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same
DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just
16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text
1000 times does not increase information.
You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
page of text 1000 times can distribute that information to 1000
separate locations. Even you should be able to recognize the power of publishing.
mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so
have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer
analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a
desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:Really? ISTM a reasonable and objective comment in the face of your
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those >>>>>>>>>>> few functional genetic differences that count.
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
...
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggestNo. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans
in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors,
string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate
capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture.
I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract.
This should not require several millions of years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough >>>>>>>>>>>> information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>>>>>
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed, >>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making >>>>>>>>> here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>> bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>>>>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of >>>>>>> the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very >>>>>> small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs >>>>> are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation
of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same >>> DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just
16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text
1000 times does not increase information.
You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
page of text 1000 times can distribute that information to 1000
separate locations. Even you should be able to recognize the power of
publishing.
"Even you should be able to recognize the power of publishing."
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
--mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so
have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer
analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a
desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're >>>>>>>>>>>> interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
...
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggestNo. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans
in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors,
string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate
capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences
which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language,
including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture.
I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract.
This should not require several millions of years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is? >>>>>>>>>>
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed, >>>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>>> bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of >>>>>>>> the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very
small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs >>>>>> are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation >>>> of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same >>>> DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just >>>> 16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text
1000 times does not increase information.
You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
page of text 1000 times can distribute that information to 1000
separate locations. Even you should be able to recognize the power of
publishing.
"Even you should be able to recognize the power of publishing."
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
Really? ISTM a reasonable and objective comment in the face of your
repeated argument that information distribution lacks value. YMMV.
But I'll try to remember that expressing gratuitous umbrage is
something you do.
mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so >>>>>> have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer >>>>>> analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a >>>>>> desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT >>>>>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On 25/01/2026 10:00 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/22/26 1:42 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the
environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would, I
think, describe human language as having high functional complexity.
Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a finite and small
number of short declarations to a language which allows an infinite
number of possible sentences that can express endless ideas is to
allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not a trivial one by any
means, but not a show- stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a
bigger brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could happen
with a tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have the
larger brain, that also allows more proficient tool use, which then
allows writing, which then allows libraries, which then allows
civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon
requires no new mutations at all?
In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase
might be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart (where
n > 1). As a programmer, you know that this requires megabytes of new
specific information. Why do you imagine that mere bits would suffice
for the chimp to human scenario?
* Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are
different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same
constraints in relation to functional complexity.
I reject your analogy utterly.-a In terms of overall mental ability,
the chimp to human increase might better be likened to RAM memory, n
generations apart. All that requires is more of the same, plus some
engineering advances in miniaturization. That's still a poor analogy,
because neurological processes are not as simple as arrays of
flippable bits, but the point remains: Nearly all that is required is
more of the same neurological processes.
"Utterly"? Like I said, we have very different perspectives of how
things are.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/26 3:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but >>>>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or
not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists
that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's parents, parents, grandparents.
It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans >>>>>>>>> in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-
evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps:
civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, >>>>>>>>> string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a
cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the
innate capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very >>>>>>>>> large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive
differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences >>>>>>>> which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, >>>>>>>> including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion. >>>>>>>>
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two
differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have
culture. I don't see any qualitative differences between human >>>>>>>> and chip culture besides language. And language is probably not >>>>>>>> a genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal
communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would >>>>>>>> need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous
mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other >>>>>>>> aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal
tract. This should not require several millions of years.
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the
creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggest >>>>>>> that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe >>>>>>> suggests to me that you've never created something with new and >>>>>>> substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that >>>>>> isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome,
and the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype.
Finally, the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly
identical between humans and chimps too, and the differences are
dependent on the genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point,
which is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone,
especially the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere
near enough information to specify an entity with the massive
functional complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and
chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical
between humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
-aFrom what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved
in basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from
gene products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products,
including the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those
massive other differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged
control layer, but that developmental control is distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between
cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source
of the bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal
genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be
identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why
you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By
the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers, particularly from science.
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?
Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial
evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine
the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for
religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be
generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably
with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal.
What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on
their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion.
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas
of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs
the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him
as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists
and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider
him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact
that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change
the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he
does not exist.
[1] In the biblical sense of someone who speaks the word of God.
On 1/24/26 8:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 25/01/2026 10:00 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/22/26 1:42 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the
environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would,
I think, describe human language as having high functional
complexity. Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a
finite and small number of short declarations to a language which
allows an infinite number of possible sentences that can express
endless ideas is to allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not >>>>> a trivial one by any means, but not a show- stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a
bigger brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could
happen with a tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have
the larger brain, that also allows more proficient tool use, which
then allows writing, which then allows libraries, which then allows >>>>> civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon
requires no new mutations at all?
In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase
might be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart (where
n > 1). As a programmer, you know that this requires megabytes of
new specific information. Why do you imagine that mere bits would
suffice for the chimp to human scenario?
* Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are
different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same
constraints in relation to functional complexity.
I reject your analogy utterly.-a In terms of overall mental ability,
the chimp to human increase might better be likened to RAM memory, n
generations apart. All that requires is more of the same, plus some
engineering advances in miniaturization. That's still a poor analogy,
because neurological processes are not as simple as arrays of
flippable bits, but the point remains: Nearly all that is required is
more of the same neurological processes.
"Utterly"? Like I said, we have very different perspectives of how
things are.
So convince me. Enumerate, with references, the qualitative differences between human and chimp cognition.-a If you can get your list over 500 items, I'll concede your point. Myself, I can't get past three, and I'm guessing on two of those. But then, I have not studied chimp cognition
in depth.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of
peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was
pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come
out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too
was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works
of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
directly observe and measure natural selection.
That assertion, to put
it mildly, is utter bollocks.
Chris
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be
just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago, mostly figuratively, for an uneducated
audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a
_Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson >>>><the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own[..]
study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>books were totally unconvincing.
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing
for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>>religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and
Coyne?
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas >>>Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>miss.
Cite?
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's
parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
Which is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact >told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to
have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the
Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall)
he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing
as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed
we inherited from Adam?
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >>>> literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's
parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
Which is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact
told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to
have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the
Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall)
he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing
as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed
we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal
reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[2] I don't know whether or not MarkE takes it [Adam anmd Eve] as a true story but
whilst he started this original thread, he hasn't been part of this
particular sub-thread.
I don't have a settled position.
I'm genuinely curious about this.
Firstly, what makes you think it might be a real story rather than a figurative one?
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >>>> peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was
pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come
out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too
was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works
of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
directly observe and measure natural selection.
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred
to "what we see happening in evolution."
That assertion, to put
it mildly, is utter bollocks.
It would be if I had made it.
Yet again, I wish people would criticise things I said rather than
things I didn't say.
Chris
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be
just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago, mostly figuratively, for an uneducated
audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a >>>> _Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On 26/01/2026 6:50 pm, jillery wrote:Your fellow member of the royal order of twisted panties couldn't help
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggestNo. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans
in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors,
string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate
capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences
which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language,
including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture.
I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip
culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would
need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other
aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract.
This should not require several millions of years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe
suggests to me that you've never created something with new and
substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a >>>>>>>>>>> broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed, >>>>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>>>> bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of >>>>>>>>> the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>>>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very
small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs >>>>>>> are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K >>>>>>
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation >>>>> of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same >>>>> DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just >>>>> 16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text >>>>> 1000 times does not increase information.
You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
page of text 1000 times can distribute that information to 1000
separate locations. Even you should be able to recognize the power of >>>> publishing.
"Even you should be able to recognize the power of publishing."
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
Really? ISTM a reasonable and objective comment in the face of your
repeated argument that information distribution lacks value. YMMV.
But I'll try to remember that expressing gratuitous umbrage is
something you do.
I'll qualify my assertion as: mere duplication does not increase >information, but rather the resulting distribution and interaction inNow that you have refocused on your "broader argument here", my
the context of the system. Happy to take onboard feedback and finesse a >statement.
You say "your repeated argument that information distribution lacks
value." Ironically, my broader argument here is precisely the opposite:
I've been proposing that the distribution of proteins etc (including >mitochondria and its DNA) constitutes cytoplasmic information.
So...you're agreeing with my overall thesis!
That's great. What implications do you see this has, now that we're
working on this together?
--mitochondria. Second, mitochondria are cells' powerhouses, and so >>>>>>> have an outsized effect on cells' functioning. Using your computer >>>>>>> analogy, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA are roughly comparable to a >>>>>>> desktop powered by a potato battery.
[1] THE CYTOPLASMIC CONTROL OF NUCLEAR ACTIVITY IN ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1968.tb00960.x
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >>>>> literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a >>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's >>>> parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and >>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
Which is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact >>> told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to
have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter >>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the
Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall)
he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing
as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed >>> we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal
reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a
real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally.
And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin >was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.
Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that >should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what
you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[2] I don't know whether or not MarkE takes it [Adam anmd Eve] as a true story but
whilst he started this original thread, he hasn't been part of this
particular sub-thread.
I don't have a settled position.
I'm genuinely curious about this.
Firstly, what makes you think it might be a real story rather than a
figurative one?
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?
Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >rabbit hole, e.g.:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson >>>>>><the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own >>>>>study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>>>books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>>>books were totally unconvincing.[..]
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here, >>>>>again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>>>Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing >>>>>for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>>>>religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and >>>Coyne?
Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and >>understanding the subject that the book is addressing.
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't
insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.
What a coincidence! It turns out I don't need your help with any of
that.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>>>years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>>>1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>>>just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas >>>>>Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>>>Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>>>miss.
Cite?
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large,
and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can >>>>>>>> directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >>>>> peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was
pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come >>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too
was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works >>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
directly observe and measure natural selection.
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred
to "what we see happening in evolution."
"Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection
it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Chris
That assertion, to put
it mildly, is utter bollocks.
It would be if I had made it.
Yet again, I wish people would criticise things I said rather than
things I didn't say.
Chris
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of
years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about
1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>> just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago, mostly figuratively, for an uneducated
audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a >>>>> _Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[2] I don't know whether or not MarkE takes it [Adam anmd Eve] as a true story but
whilst he started this original thread, he hasn't been part of this
particular sub-thread.
I don't have a settled position.
I'm genuinely curious about this.
Firstly, what makes you think it might be a real story rather than a
figurative one?
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?
Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that
rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned
you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that
you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes
but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do
they frighten you?
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
That summary is rather dismissive of literalism as propounded by
evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Section 2 in it seems a fairly accurate summary of what is
"doctrinally essential, regardless of interpretive model."
<quote>
1) God is the intentional Creator of all that exists
* Creation is not self-existent or eternal.
* God is ontologically distinct from creation.
2) Creation is ordered, good, and purposeful
* The world is intelligible, not chaotic or illusory.
* Human beings are part of that order, not accidental intrusions.
3) Humans uniquely bear the image of God
* However one understands the mechanism or timeline, humanity
has a distinctive status and vocation.
3) Human rebellion is real and morally significant
* Sin is not merely ignorance or evolutionary immaturity.
* Alienation from God, others, and creation is a genuine rupture.
</quote>
I don't see anything in that which is challenged by a figurative understanding of Genesis. Neither do I see anything in science that contradicts any of it.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >>>>>> literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >>>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a >>>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what >>>>> science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we >>>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's >>>>> parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and >>>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That >>>>> is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability >>>>> to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
Which is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact >>>> told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to
have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter >>>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the >>>>> Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall) >>>> he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing >>>> as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed >>>> we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal
reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
No
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a
real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally.
And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin
was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.
Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that
should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what
you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of
the Catholic Church.
Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs.
I'll really have to think about that rCa.
On 1/28/26 3:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John HarshmanMaybe you owe me an apology on the basis that you are so smug and >condescending that you are unwilling even to explain what I got wrong or >what a more correct view might be. If this is the only sort of "reply" >you're capable of, better to remain silent.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >>>>>>> literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >>>>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a >>>>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what >>>>>> science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we >>>>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's >>>>>> parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, thatWhich is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact >>>>> told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to >>>>> have that ability?
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and >>>>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That >>>>>> is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability >>>>>> to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil. >>>>>
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter >>>>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the >>>>>> Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall) >>>>> he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing >>>>> as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed >>>>> we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal
reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
No
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a
real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally.
And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin >>> was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.
Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that >>> should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what
you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly
qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of
the Catholic Church.
Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of
confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly
proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs.
I'll really have to think about that rCa.
Very well, you have defeated me.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 06:13:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/26 3:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John HarshmanMaybe you owe me an apology on the basis that you are so smug and
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a >>>>>>>> literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >>>>>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a >>>>>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what >>>>>>> science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we >>>>>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's >>>>>>> parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, thatWhich is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact >>>>>> told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to >>>>>> have that ability?
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and >>>>>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That >>>>>>> is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability >>>>>>> to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil. >>>>>>
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter >>>>>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the >>>>>>> Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no >>>>>>> particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall) >>>>>> he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing >>>>>> as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed >>>>>> we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal
reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
No
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a >>>> real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally. >>>> And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin >>>> was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.
Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that >>>> should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what >>>> you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly
qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of
the Catholic Church.
Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of
confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly
proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs.
I'll really have to think about that rCa.
condescending that you are unwilling even to explain what I got wrong or
what a more correct view might be. If this is the only sort of "reply"
you're capable of, better to remain silent.
Not at all smug or patronizing. I have shown here many times that I am prepared to debate rationally with anyone who is willing to have a
sensible and rational discussion but I don't waste my limited time
with people who make up things about me or misrepresent what I said or
decide my arguments are false before I even express them. I have tried
on a few occasions to have a sensible debate with you but every single
time, you have failed on at least one count and on all of them in this current thread.
Very well, you have defeated me.
Not anything that gives me any particular pleasure; I get far more out
of good, honest debate and discussion.
On 1/28/26 6:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 06:13:59 -0800, John HarshmanHey, I already told you that you've defeated me. Why the need to keep >replying without replying?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/26 3:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John HarshmanMaybe you owe me an apology on the basis that you are so smug and
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to >>>>>>>>> support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a >>>>>>>> unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what >>>>>>>> science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we >>>>>>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's >>>>>>>> parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam.
It is entirely possible, however, thatWhich is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and >>>>>>>> evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That >>>>>>>> is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability >>>>>>>> to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil. >>>>>>>
told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to >>>>>>> have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter >>>>>>>> of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the >>>>>>>> Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no >>>>>>>> particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall) >>>>>>> he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing >>>>>>> as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed
we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal >>>>>> reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that
literal reading.
No
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a >>>>> real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally. >>>>> And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin >>>>> was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil.
Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that >>>>> should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what >>>>> you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly
qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of
the Catholic Church.
Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of
confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly
proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs.
I'll really have to think about that rCa.
condescending that you are unwilling even to explain what I got wrong or >>> what a more correct view might be. If this is the only sort of "reply"
you're capable of, better to remain silent.
Not at all smug or patronizing. I have shown here many times that I am
prepared to debate rationally with anyone who is willing to have a
sensible and rational discussion but I don't waste my limited time
with people who make up things about me or misrepresent what I said or
decide my arguments are false before I even express them. I have tried
on a few occasions to have a sensible debate with you but every single
time, you have failed on at least one count and on all of them in this
current thread.
Very well, you have defeated me.
Not anything that gives me any particular pleasure; I get far more out
of good, honest debate and discussion.
On 1/28/26 10:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The irony; it burns. Let's all sing "smug and patronizing" together.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:47:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/26 6:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 06:13:59 -0800, John HarshmanHey, I already told you that you've defeated me. Why the need to keep
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/26 3:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:09:12 -0800, John HarshmanMaybe you owe me an apology on the basis that you are so smug and
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/26 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:35:50 -0800, John HarshmanSo you reject Catholic teaching on this subject?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[...]
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we >>>>>>>>>> are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's
parents, parents, grandparents.
And thousands of other couples unconnected to Mt-Eve or Y-Adam. >>>>>>>>>
It is entirely possible, however, thatWhich is weird, since God told them not to acquire that ability, in fact
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil. >>>>>>>>>
told them they would die if they did. Now why would he want us not to >>>>>>>>> have that ability?
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the
Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no >>>>>>>>>> particular reason to reject that.
So before Adam ate the apple (or whatever he did to occasion the Fall)
he wasn't a true man? And is knowledge of good and evil the same thing
as the ability to know God, which was the faculty you previously claimed
we inherited from Adam?
Oh golly gee, yet another poster tries to attack me with a literal >>>>>>>> reading of the Bible when I have made it clear that I reject that >>>>>>>> literal reading.
No
Which requires that
there were no true men before Adam? That would require that Adam was a >>>>>>> real person, and thus to that extent the story must be read literally. >>>>>>> And it seems that original sin must be taken literally too, and that sin
was, as you said, acquiring the ability to recognize good and evil. >>>>>>> Whether that involved an apple or not, that's the sin. What part of that
should not be taken literally? It seems to me that those bits are what >>>>>>> you and the Church are saying is the true core of the story.
Maybe I owe you an apology, John, on the basis that you are so highly >>>>>> qualified both in Biblical exegesis and the particular teachings of >>>>>> the Catholic Church.
Or maybe it's just a good example of "Harran's Law" that the level of >>>>>> confidence with which someone attacks religious beliefs is directly >>>>>> proportional to how little they actually know about those beliefs. >>>>>>
I'll really have to think about that rCa.
condescending that you are unwilling even to explain what I got wrong or >>>>> what a more correct view might be. If this is the only sort of "reply" >>>>> you're capable of, better to remain silent.
Not at all smug or patronizing. I have shown here many times that I am >>>> prepared to debate rationally with anyone who is willing to have a
sensible and rational discussion but I don't waste my limited time
with people who make up things about me or misrepresent what I said or >>>> decide my arguments are false before I even express them. I have tried >>>> on a few occasions to have a sensible debate with you but every single >>>> time, you have failed on at least one count and on all of them in this >>>> current thread.
Very well, you have defeated me.
Not anything that gives me any particular pleasure; I get far more out >>>> of good, honest debate and discussion.
replying without replying?
Now you are starting to sound like she-who-must-always-have-the-last
word ;)
Well, at least one of us is. "At least one" could of course include the >number two.Since the two of you take such joy in claiming the other is so
Still, it's also true that at least one of us would be happy to return
to an actual discussion. What were my errors in the last non-whiny post?
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:53 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can >>>>>>>>> directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>>>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >>>>>> peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was >>>>> pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid
not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come >>>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too >>>>> was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works >>>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of
traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent
who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
directly observe and measure natural selection.
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred
to "what we see happening in evolution."
"Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection
it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.
We can directly and measure the *impact* of natural election but we
cannot directly examine NS itself.
For example, we can carry out a detailed physiological examination of
humans, chimps and bonobos and determine how much they physiologically
have in common. We can directly examine their DNA and measure how
little difference there is between them. Both of those examinations
lead us to conclude that they are all descended from a common
ancestor. But that conclusion is a *logical* one i.e. one arrived at
using our intellect, not one found in a test tube or using some sort
of weighing or measuring device.
In common with just about everyone else here on the side of science, I
regard science as not any sort of 'proof', it is *explanations* that
fit all the evidence we have and that may change if we get more
evidence. You seem to struggle with that.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
I shouldn't really have to say this yet again but as you seem
particularly prone to misunderstanding me, I should perhaps make clear
that what I am saying here does not undermine or detract from what
science has figured out about evolution and the role of Natural
Selection. I accept those conclusions as the best possible
explanation of whet we can see and have regularly dismissed the
arguments put forward by other religious believers who try to dismiss
those scientific explanations without offering anything in their
place.
Chris
That assertion, to put
it mildly, is utter bollocks.
It would be if I had made it.
Yet again, I wish people would criticise things I said rather than
things I didn't say.
Chris
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>> just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book
written about 3500 years ago, mostly figuratively, for an uneducated >>>>> audience.
I will see your "not something we can directly examine" and raise you a >>>>>> _Biston betularia_.
Again, that would be better directed to Vincent who reckons the
supernatural cannot exist because it's not something that can be
directly examined.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:42:39 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't >>>insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Because I asked you what effort you had put into understanding
religious belief and reading the Bible was all you offered.
And if the Bible was meant for "uneducated people" as you've tried to
claim elsewhere, why should today's layman then have trouble with >understanding it? I have studied Bart Ehrman and other types of
Biblical literary criticism, but I don't think that's necessary for
deciding whether to be an atheist. Just look around you and use your
common sense for that.
Do you think if someone read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' and
nothing else about evolution that they would be well qualified to
challenge an ID'er?
They would be, yes. The evidence for evolution was as overwhelming in
the 1860s as it is today,
and adding in the evidence for evolution
that's been discovered since then would be just gravy for someone
involved in a debate with an ID proponent.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>population at large,
They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.
You have failed to explain why you think they aren't, and refused to
answer when I asked if you at least accepted that among U.S.
adolescents, atheists are more intelligent than theists.
and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
Do you even bother to read stuff before you cite it or are you
inclined towards quote mining? You cited this study from a wiki
article [1] but only quoted the first sentence. Here is the full
section about that study:
Did you even read what the article said just before your quote below?
I'll include it here, for ease of access:
"In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron
Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ
was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view
reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less
defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going)
were examined.
They note limitations on this since viewing intrinsic
religiosity as being about religious beliefs represents American >Protestantism more than Judaism or Catholicism, both of which see
behavior as just as important as religious beliefs.
They also noted
that the available data did not allow adequate consideration of the
role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship
between religion and intelligence. Most of the studies reviewed were
American and 87% of participants in those studies were from the United >States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. They noted, "Clearly, the
present results are limited to Western societies."
The meta-analysis
discussed three possible explanations: First, intelligent people are
less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious
dogma, although this theory was contradicted in mostly atheist
societies such as the Scandinavian populations, where the
religiosity-IQ relationship still existed. Second, intelligent people
tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style,
which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third,
intelligent people may have less need for religious beliefs and
practices, as some of the functions of religiosity can be given by >intelligence instead. Such functions include the presentation of a
sense that the world is orderly and predictable, a sense of personal
control and self-regulation and a sense of enhancing self-esteem and >belongingness.[11]
A 2016 re-analysis of the Zuckerman et al study, found that the
negative intelligence-religiosity associations were weaker and less >generalizable across time, space, samples, measures, and levels of
analysis, but still robust. For example, the negative >intelligence-religiosity association was insignificant with samples
using men, pre-college participants, and taking into account grade
point average. When other variables like education and quality of
human conditions were taken into account, positive relation between IQ
and disbelief in God(s) was reduced.[8] According to Dutton and Van
der Linden, the re-analysis had controls that were too strict (life
quality index and proximity of countries) and also some of the samples
used problematic proxies of religiosity, which took away from the
variance in the correlations. As such, the reduction of significance
in the negative correlation likely reflected a sample anomaly. They
also observed that the "weak but significant" correlation of -.20 on >intelligence and religiosity from the Zuckerman study was also found
when comparing intelligence with other variables like education and >income.[32]
Zuckerman et al. published an updated metanalysis in 2019 with 83
studies finding "strong evidence" of a negative correlation between >religiosity and intelligence of -.20 to -.23.[33] Zuckerman cautioned
that the "effect size of the relation is small", not generalizable
beyond the Western world and that predicting religiosity from
intelligence for individuals is fallible."
<quote>
Researchers Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn compared belief in God and >>IQs.[6] Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors >>found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the
average IQ of non-atheists. The authors also investigated the link
between belief in a god and average national IQs in 137 countries. The >>authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level
of intelligence, which was determined to be "highly statistically >>significant".[6] ('Belief in a god' is not identical to 'religiosity.'
Some nations have high proportions of people who do not believe in a
god, but who may nevertheless be highly religious, following
non-theistic belief systems such as Buddhism or Taoism.)
Other researchers found Nyborg and Lynn's findings questionable since >>sporadic and inconsistent estimates were the basis for atheism rates, >>multiple factors better explain the fluctuations, including reversals,
in both religion and IQ by nations through time; data that
contradicted their hypothesis was minimized, and secularization
debates among scholars were ignored, all of which rendered any >>predictability as unreliable.[7]
The Lynn et al. paper findings were discussed by Professor Gordon
Lynch, from London's Birkbeck College, who expressed concern that the
study failed to take into account a complex range of social, economic
and historical factors, each of which has been shown to interact with >>religion and IQ in different ways.[12] Gallup surveys, for example,
have found that the world's poorest countries are consistently the
most religious, perhaps because religion plays a more functional role >>(helping people cope) in poorer nations.[15] Even at the scale of the >>individual, IQ may not directly cause more disbelief in gods. Dr.
David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very
difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal >>relationship between IQ and religious belief." He adds that other
studies do nevertheless correlate IQ with being willing or able to
question beliefs.[12]
</quote>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
The nations data is somewhat less certain (as opposed to other
measures of intelligence and religiosity), and that appears to be what
is mostly being criticized in your quote. On the "individual level,"
the study is being challenged,
which of course is common in science,
but right now, the data from that study is still suggestive;
and
furthermore your quote doesn't seem to be referring to the huge
meta-analyses mentioned above.
And do you agree with your quote's statement that IQ correlates with
being willing or able to question religious beliefs?
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum
has various bits that must be in place in order to get the process
of development going, and that there are many interactions between
cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the
source of the bits that interact is still the genome, at first the
maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally
into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host
cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated in
nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the previous
nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:53 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can >>>>>>>>>> directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see >>>>>>>>>> happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of >>>>>>> peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was >>>>>> pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid >>>>>> not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come >>>>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of
studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too >>>>>> was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works >>>>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of >>>>>> traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas. >>>>>>
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
directly observe and measure natural selection.
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred
to "what we see happening in evolution."
"Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection
it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.
We can directly and measure the *impact* of natural election but we
cannot directly examine NS itself.
For example, we can carry out a detailed physiological examination of
humans, chimps and bonobos and determine how much they physiologically
have in common. We can directly examine their DNA and measure how
little difference there is between them. Both of those examinations
lead us to conclude that they are all descended from a common
ancestor. But that conclusion is a *logical* one i.e. one arrived at
using our intellect, not one found in a test tube or using some sort
of weighing or measuring device.
In common with just about everyone else here on the side of science, I
regard science as not any sort of 'proof', it is *explanations* that
fit all the evidence we have and that may change if we get more
evidence. You seem to struggle with that.
OK, I am glad you wrote that; I understand now why we seem to be
speaking at cross purposes.
The problem is that you don't know what natural selection is. If you
wrote that on an exam in response to "Explain natural selection" I'm
pretty certain you'd get zero points.
So here's the quickie version:
Natural selection is differential reproductive success. Reproductive
success is usually approached in one of two ways. Absolute reproductive >success (or absolute fitness) is generally the number of offspring you
leave behind. Relative reproductive success (relative fitness) is the >proportion of the following generation you produce, relative to the
_most successful_ individuals in the population. If at all possible
these numbers are assigned to genotypes rather than phenotypes, but >phenotypes are much easier. It works fine for demonstration purposes, >though. Consider a population of 100 individuals, and we're interested
in a single gene with two alleles. Our genotypes are
AA Aa aa
Let's assume these genotypes occur in the following frequencies in the >population and if population size (N)=100, the number of individuals of >those genotypes can be seen in the second row:
AA Aa aa
0.25 0.5 0.25
25 50 25
Now in the absence of natural selection (or other factors that drive >evolution like drift or nonrandom mating) this is a stable population.
These frequencies won't change from generation to generation. However if
NS is occurring one or more genotype will be favored at the expense of
the others.
If we say the homozygous recessive has an advantage we might see the >population change as follows and for ease of computation let's say N
remains 100. We can now add a third row, RF or relative reproductive
success (or relative fitness):
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
And we can add 4th row, which is simply 1-RF. This gives us the
selection coefficient, a measure of the strength of NS operating against >that genotype:
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
1-.4=0.6 1-.5=.5 1-1=0
Now, I did all this off the top of my head. I haven't done this stuff in >ages so I hope I didn't make any bonehead errors. I'd ask the real
experts like Ernest Major to correct me if I did.
But I am pretty certain I got the big picture correct. I hope you see
that natural selection can indeed be quantified, and people have been
doing so for a long, long time. I mentioned the peppered moth (_Biston >betularia_) in an earlier post. That was one of the very first examples
of NS to be demonstrated, and it was revisited when the Disco boys
raised a bunch of spurious objections to it. The example held up just
fine. Another great example is, of course, Darwin's finches. Darwin (who >would darn near anaphylaxe if he got too close to math) had great >illustrations and ideas (as you mentioned) about the bills of the
finches. But Rosemary and Peter Grant from Princeton studied the beaks
for a couple decades and quantified size changes in response to >environmental stresses.
You can also see that in my example, you're examining the effect of NS
that has already occurred. I'd add that once you know a selection >coefficient, it can used to make some interesting predictions. One
obvious thing you can do is estimate the number of generations it will
take to eliminate a deleterious allele. The trivial example is a lethal >dominant allele: it will be eliminated in a single generation. But if
you have a selection coefficient you can also estimate the number of >generations it will take to eliminate a deleterious recessive allele
from the population. That will take much longer even if the allele is >lethal, since it can hide in heterozygous individuals.
The list could be expanded....a LOT. Take my word for it- NS can be >measured, folded, spindled and mutilated and its secrets wrested from >nature.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:38:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 6:50 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:That's not at all what I'm inferring. Note again: the rest of the
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
...
We have very different intuition on what's involved with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation of new and substantial functional complexity. To suggestNo. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans
in terms of what either can and have accomplished is self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors,
string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumulative, cultural process, but even that relies on the innate
capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between humans and chimps, at least the differences
which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language,
including especially written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture.
I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip
culture besides language. And language is probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetically huge difference. Chimps already have verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. To reach human level, the common ancestor would
need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other
aspects of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract.
This should not require several millions of years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that handful of mutations could produce the change you describe
suggests to me that you've never created something with new and
substantial functional complexity yourself (not intended as an
insult, but an explanation of our very different perspectives).
And yet, there it is. 90% of your genome is junk, and the 10% that
isn't is a bit less than 1% different from a chimpanzee genome, and
the bulk of those differences have no effect on phenotype. Finally,
the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps too, and the differences are dependent on the
genome.
You may have (understandably) lost track of my original point, which
is exactly what you're inferring: that the genome alone, especially
the claimed 10% functional portion of 80MB, is nowhere near enough
information to specify an entity with the massive functional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity of a human.
cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between humans and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimps, and the differences are dependent on the genome. If you're
interested in what makes a human, as opposed to a chimp, it's those
few functional genetic differences that count.
Both these assertions are contended:
- "the rest of the cell that you appeal to is mostly identical between
humans and chimps"
My deduction is that it's not. On what basis do you say that it is?
From what do you make this deduction? The bulk of a cell is involved in
basic metabolism and housekeeping, with a function identical over a
broad range of organisms. Development likewise is very similar between
humans and chimps. And again, most of the cell is constructed from gene
products and products of metabolism reliant on gene products, including
the maternal contributions to the zygote. What would those massive other
differences be?
- "the differences are dependent on the genome"
Dennis Noble, for example, proposes there is no single privileged >>>>>>>>>>>>> control layer, but that developmental control is distributed, >>>>>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal.
True enough, but not in any way contradictory to the claim I'm making
here. The genome is where changes happen.
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum has
various bits that must be in place in order to get the process of
development going, and that there are many interactions between cells
that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the
bits that interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome
and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally into
the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly every
respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>>>>> bi-directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus and
extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
Once again, keep in mind that mt-DNA are extra-nuclear aka "part of >>>>>>>>>> the cytoplasm". Also, poorly matched mt-DNA and nDNA causes several >>>>>>>>>> metabolic diseases.
True. mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs which is 0.0005% of the nDNA, so a very
small fraction of the "digital" information in the zygote.
That's an overly simplistic analysis. First, those 16,569 base pairs >>>>>>>> are repeated in every mitochondria, and some cells have over 100K >>>>>>>
oops... make that "over 1000"
Noted. Yes, the impact of mitochondria is significant in the operation >>>>>> of the cell.
In terms of information quantity though, 1000 mitochondria with the same >>>>>> DNA does not multiply the information a thousand-fold. It's still just >>>>>> 16,569 base pairs - in the same way that photocopying a page of text >>>>>> 1000 times does not increase information.
You continue to assert overly simplistic analyses. Photocopying a
page of text 1000 times can distribute that information to 1000
separate locations. Even you should be able to recognize the power of >>>>> publishing.
"Even you should be able to recognize the power of publishing."
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
Really? ISTM a reasonable and objective comment in the face of your
repeated argument that information distribution lacks value. YMMV.
But I'll try to remember that expressing gratuitous umbrage is
something you do.
Your fellow member of the royal order of twisted panties couldn't help
but toss some tuppence elsethread in support your gratuitous umbrage.
Well played, MarkE.
I'll qualify my assertion as: mere duplication does not increase
information, but rather the resulting distribution and interaction in
the context of the system. Happy to take onboard feedback and finesse a
statement.
You say "your repeated argument that information distribution lacks
value." Ironically, my broader argument here is precisely the opposite:
I've been proposing that the distribution of proteins etc (including
mitochondria and its DNA) constitutes cytoplasmic information.
So...you're agreeing with my overall thesis!
That's great. What implications do you see this has, now that we're
working on this together?
Now that you have refocused on your "broader argument here", my
understanding is it's to challenge the ability of DNA to provide the
complex information necessary to create humans. I regret to dissolve
your delusions. However, since DNA, whether nuclear or mitochondrial, creates the proteins which create your "cytoplasmic information", your simplistic analyses doesn't support your broader argument here, and
neither do I. Despite the risk of posting yet another "gratuitous
insult", not sure how even you don't understand how your own line of reasoning shows the source of information in cells is its DNA.
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum
has various bits that must be in place in order to get the process >>>>>> of development going, and that there are many interactions between >>>>>> cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the
source of the bits that interact is still the genome, at first the >>>>>> maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally
into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host
cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated in
nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in the
cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the previous
nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply
mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed that
DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with
its chemical and structural/physical properties and interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids,
and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of
the most molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog* information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential "analog"
information in the cytoplasm.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.
Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own[..]
study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>>> books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>>> books were totally unconvincing.
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>>> Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing >>>>> for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that
religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and
Coyne?
Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and
understanding the subject that the book is addressing.
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't
insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.
What a coincidence! It turns out I don't need your help with any of
that.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>>> just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas
Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>>> Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>>> miss.
Cite?
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of
statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary. >>>>>>Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own >>>>>> study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>>>> books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>>>> books were totally unconvincing.[..]
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>>>> Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing >>>>>> for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>>>>> religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and
Coyne?
Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and
understanding the subject that the book is addressing.
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't
insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.
What a coincidence! It turns out I don't need your help with any of
that.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>>>> just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas >>>>>> Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>>>> Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>>>> miss.
Cite?
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of
statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/26 3:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but >>>>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or
not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists
that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's parents, parents, grandparents. It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
On 27/01/2026 4:56 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/24/26 8:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 25/01/2026 10:00 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/22/26 1:42 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the
environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would, >>>>>> I think, describe human language as having high functional
complexity. Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a
finite and small number of short declarations to a language which >>>>>> allows an infinite number of possible sentences that can express
endless ideas is to allow recursive grammar. That's one change.
Not a trivial one by any means, but not a show- stopper either.
Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a
bigger brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could
happen with a tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have >>>>>> the larger brain, that also allows more proficient tool use, which >>>>>> then allows writing, which then allows libraries, which then
allows civilization.
Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon
requires no new mutations at all?
In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase
might be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart
(where n > 1). As a programmer, you know that this requires
megabytes of new specific information. Why do you imagine that mere >>>>> bits would suffice for the chimp to human scenario?
* Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are
different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same
constraints in relation to functional complexity.
I reject your analogy utterly.-a In terms of overall mental ability,
the chimp to human increase might better be likened to RAM memory, n
generations apart. All that requires is more of the same, plus some
engineering advances in miniaturization. That's still a poor
analogy, because neurological processes are not as simple as arrays
of flippable bits, but the point remains: Nearly all that is
required is more of the same neurological processes.
"Utterly"? Like I said, we have very different perspectives of how
things are.
So convince me. Enumerate, with references, the qualitative
differences between human and chimp cognition.-a If you can get your
list over 500 items, I'll concede your point. Myself, I can't get past
three, and I'm guessing on two of those. But then, I have not studied
chimp cognition in depth.
Here's an AI summary of key cognitive differences:
"Social Cognition: Humans possess "shared intentionality," the unique motivation and ability to collaborate, learn socially, and exchange information within cultural groups. Human toddlers significantly
outperform adult chimpanzees in social tasks, such as understanding
goals and imitation.
Language & Communication: The human brain has specialized anatomical structures for language, including expanded connections between Broca's
and Wernicke's areas that are weak or absent in apes.
Theory of Mind: Humans have a more intricate ability to understand
others' beliefs and intentions. While apes show basic level-1
perspective taking, humans process complex social cues and facial expressions far more extensively.
Working Memory: Research published in ScienceDirect suggests chimpanzee working memory (WM) capacity is approximately 2 -# 1 items, compared to
the human average of 7 -# 2. Interestingly, chimpanzees show stronger connectivity in regions related to spatial working memory than humans."
It's difficult to quantify these differences in terms of some measure functional complexity, I acknowledge that. Would you agree though that
these changes are novel, structural and qualitative, and not just the
same brain scaled up?
Say we had an AI system that in some way was equivalent to a chimpanzee,
and we developed it to become, in a similar way, equivalent to a human.
What design and development input would we expect would be needed?
The theory of evolution itself recognises that new and substantial
function is hard-won by natural selection ratcheting up small gains
through countless trials.
All this flies in the face of your claim that "All you need is a bigger brain...That could happen with a tiny change to one regulator gene".
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary. >>>>>>Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own >>>>>> study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>>>> books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>>>> books were totally unconvincing.[..]
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>>>> Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing >>>>>> for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>>>>> religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and
Coyne?
Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and
understanding the subject that the book is addressing.
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't
insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.
What a coincidence! It turns out I don't need your help with any of
that.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>>>> just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas >>>>>> Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>>>> Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>>>> miss.
Cite?
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of
statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:05:08 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:42:39 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't >>>>insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Because I asked you what effort you had put into understanding
religious belief and reading the Bible was all you offered.
And if the Bible was meant for "uneducated people" as you've tried to
claim elsewhere, why should today's layman then have trouble with >>understanding it? I have studied Bart Ehrman and other types of
Biblical literary criticism, but I don't think that's necessary for >>deciding whether to be an atheist. Just look around you and use your >>common sense for that.
Ah, back to your idea that religious believers are just kinda dumb.
Do you think if someone read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' and
nothing else about evolution that they would be well qualified to >>>challenge an ID'er?
They would be, yes. The evidence for evolution was as overwhelming in
the 1860s as it is today,
Ah yes, all that stuff about DNA and epigenetics and all the other
stuff that has been discovered related to biology are not really all
that important; I guess you reckon those guys who put so much effort
into developing the Modern Synthesis for example, would have been
better spending their time on something else.
and adding in the evidence for evolution
that's been discovered since then would be just gravy for someone
involved in a debate with an ID proponent.
You ignore the fact that those ID proponents, at least the better
qualified ones, will know all this stuff inside out. When I get into a
debate with someone, I like to think I am at least familiar with the
stuff they will bring up; your mileage apparently varies.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>>population at large,
They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.
You have failed to explain why you think they aren't, and refused to
answer when I asked if you at least accepted that among U.S.
adolescents, atheists are more intelligent than theists.
I told you that it is #101 statistics. It's even referred to in the
very first paragraph of the additional stuff you've added in below -
again I wonder do you even read stuff before you cite it.
and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being >>>>discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
Do you even bother to read stuff before you cite it or are you
inclined towards quote mining? You cited this study from a wiki
article [1] but only quoted the first sentence. Here is the full
section about that study:
Did you even read what the article said just before your quote below?
Yes, but I didn't refer to it because you had made a big enough mess
of the stuff you did post so I dealt with that.
I'll include it here, for ease of access:
So you try to move the goal posts and end up scoring yet another own
goal. Seeing as you have difficulty understanding it, I'll take you
through some of the key points.
"In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron
Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ
was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view >>reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less
defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going)
were examined.
Note that bit - that the correlation only applied when they considered >religiosity in a particular way.
They note limitations on this since viewing intrinsic
religiosity as being about religious beliefs represents American >>Protestantism more than Judaism or Catholicism, both of which see
behavior as just as important as religious beliefs.
A perfect example of what I was trying to get through to you about the >results of a survey only applying to the population from which the
sample group was drawn,
They also noted
that the available data did not allow adequate consideration of the
role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship
between religion and intelligence. Most of the studies reviewed were >>American and 87% of participants in those studies were from the United >>States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. They noted, "Clearly, the
present results are limited to Western societies."
Again, a clear-cut statement that the results of a survey only apply
to the population from which the sample was drawn. Do you believe me
now?
The meta-analysis
discussed three possible explanations: First, intelligent people are
less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious >>dogma, although this theory was contradicted in mostly atheist
societies such as the Scandinavian populations, where the
religiosity-IQ relationship still existed. Second, intelligent people
tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style,
which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third,
intelligent people may have less need for religious beliefs and
practices, as some of the functions of religiosity can be given by >>intelligence instead. Such functions include the presentation of a
sense that the world is orderly and predictable, a sense of personal >>control and self-regulation and a sense of enhancing self-esteem and >>belongingness.[11]
So even the researchers themselves identified three different possible >explanations and there are of course many others. This is the
difference between correlation and causation which you don't seem to
grasp.
A 2016 re-analysis of the Zuckerman et al study, found that the
negative intelligence-religiosity associations were weaker and less >>generalizable across time, space, samples, measures, and levels of >>analysis, but still robust. For example, the negative >>intelligence-religiosity association was insignificant with samples
using men, pre-college participants, and taking into account grade
point average. When other variables like education and quality of
human conditions were taken into account, positive relation between IQ
and disbelief in God(s) was reduced.[8] According to Dutton and Van
der Linden, the re-analysis had controls that were too strict (life
quality index and proximity of countries) and also some of the samples
used problematic proxies of religiosity, which took away from the
variance in the correlations. As such, the reduction of significance
in the negative correlation likely reflected a sample anomaly. They
also observed that the "weak but significant" correlation of -.20 on >>intelligence and religiosity from the Zuckerman study was also found
when comparing intelligence with other variables like education and >>income.[32]
More stuff showing why you can't take the results from a sample
population and applied to a different population
Zuckerman et al. published an updated metanalysis in 2019 with 83
studies finding "strong evidence" of a negative correlation between >>religiosity and intelligence of -.20 to -.23.[33] Zuckerman cautioned
that the "effect size of the relation is small", not generalizable
beyond the Western world and that predicting religiosity from
intelligence for individuals is fallible."
Please stop and read that last sentence at least six times. Maybe then
it might register with you.
<quote>
Researchers Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn compared belief in God and >>>IQs.[6] Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors >>>found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the >>>average IQ of non-atheists. The authors also investigated the link >>>between belief in a god and average national IQs in 137 countries. The >>>authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level
of intelligence, which was determined to be "highly statistically >>>significant".[6] ('Belief in a god' is not identical to 'religiosity.' >>>Some nations have high proportions of people who do not believe in a
god, but who may nevertheless be highly religious, following
non-theistic belief systems such as Buddhism or Taoism.)
Other researchers found Nyborg and Lynn's findings questionable since >>>sporadic and inconsistent estimates were the basis for atheism rates, >>>multiple factors better explain the fluctuations, including reversals,
in both religion and IQ by nations through time; data that
contradicted their hypothesis was minimized, and secularization
debates among scholars were ignored, all of which rendered any >>>predictability as unreliable.[7]
The Lynn et al. paper findings were discussed by Professor Gordon
Lynch, from London's Birkbeck College, who expressed concern that the >>>study failed to take into account a complex range of social, economic
and historical factors, each of which has been shown to interact with >>>religion and IQ in different ways.[12] Gallup surveys, for example,
have found that the world's poorest countries are consistently the
most religious, perhaps because religion plays a more functional role >>>(helping people cope) in poorer nations.[15] Even at the scale of the >>>individual, IQ may not directly cause more disbelief in gods. Dr.
David Hardman of London Metropolitan University says: "It is very >>>difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal >>>relationship between IQ and religious belief." He adds that other
studies do nevertheless correlate IQ with being willing or able to >>>question beliefs.[12]
</quote>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
The nations data is somewhat less certain (as opposed to other
measures of intelligence and religiosity), and that appears to be what
is mostly being criticized in your quote. On the "individual level,"
the study is being challenged,
No - the overall reliability of the research and the general
applicability of its conclusions are being challenged.
which of course is common in science,
but right now, the data from that study is still suggestive;
Suggestive, perhaps, to someone suffering from confirmation bias.
and furthermore your quote doesn't seem to be referring to the huge >>meta-analyses mentioned above.
It was you who originally quoted from that later part of the article -
I just added in the bits that you had left out. Anyway, what you have
added in from before it confirms everything I have said about problems
with the survey that you so heavily rely on.
And do you agree with your quote's statement that IQ correlates with
being willing or able to question religious beliefs?
You really should learn that although Wikipedia is generally a good
guide, anything they say in it should be double checked. It is
generally easy to do that because wiki's is strict on references. Here
is what David Hardman actually said:
"It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate
a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless,
there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of
intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps
willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions." >https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html
Note first of all that he distinguishes between causal and
correlation, something that you seem to struggle to grasp.
Secondly, he makes no claim about any correlation - he says "there is evidence"
- when somebody uses that expression, they are de facto saying saying
that the evidence is not conclusive.
You might also note something else in that article, that Professor
Lynn on whose work you so heavily rely,
has provoked controversy in
the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex. Here's a
bit more about him:
"Richard Lynn (20 February 1930 - July 2023) was a controversial
English psychologist and self-described "scientific racist"[1] who
advocated for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence. He
was the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly, a white supremacist
journal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Not the sort of guy whose conclusions I would put much reliance on.
YMMV and apparently does.
Leaving all that aside, intelligent people being more inclined to
question stuff would be no surprise to me at all, in fact it would tie
in with my own general experience. The people who have generated the
most progress in science are generally scientists who were
particularly clever, were able to question stuff that was already
thought about, and were clever enough to follow through on their
questions.
The exact same process applies to theologians; Augustine , for
example, wrote several volumes asking different questions about
Genesis and trying to figure out what they mean. I guess he actually
was a pretty intelligent guy after all. Or Aquinas with his 1.8m words >exploring questions about religious belief; I guess he wasn't much of
a "dumb ox" after all.
I am supposed to be an intelligent person; I say "supposed" because I
have always scored high on IQ tests - probably similar to those used
in the surveys you are relying on - but I know that those tests can be
a very dubious measure of real intelligence.
Nevertheless, I am
someone who questions *everything* to find out more about it; indeed,
in my early days in this newsgroup I used the pseudonym "always asking >questions".
That questioning includes my religious beliefs. You, onthe
other hand have irrevocably made up your mind about religious belief
without any real study of it;
you read the Bible, made up your mind
and didn't see any need to explore any further questions. I leave you
to figure out for yourself what that implies about your own
intelligence.
On 29/01/2026 11:37, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in order to get the
process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by
the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still the >>>>>>> genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally
into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the
host cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated
in nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences
in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete
symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular
machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply
mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed
that DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? (Along
with its chemical and structural/physical properties and interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species
are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid >> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
When did you do that experiment?
What experiments have been done don't support your hypothesis.
-
alias Ernest Major
On 30/01/2026 1:07 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 29/01/2026 11:37, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in order to get the
process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by >>>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally >>>>> into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the
host cell. In many instances, altered function has been
demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently support normal
development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences
in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete
symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based
molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can
be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we
agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information?
(Along with its chemical and structural/physical properties and
interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species
are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid
molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
When did you do that experiment?
What experiments have been done don't support your hypothesis.
-
alias Ernest Major
Folch 2009 bucardo live-birth-then-death https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093691X08007784
Wang 2020 SCNT epigenetic reprogramming failures https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00205/full
Jiang 2011 iSCNT depends on mtDNA / species compatibility https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014805
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much
regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum
has various bits that must be in place in order to get the process >>>>>> of development going, and that there are many interactions between >>>>>> cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. But the
source of the bits that interact is still the genome, at first the >>>>>> maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally
into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the host
cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated in
nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in the
cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the previous
nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply
mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed that
DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with
its chemical and structural/physical properties and interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids,
and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of
the most molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog* information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential "analog"
information in the cytoplasm.
On 1/29/26 3:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 1:07 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 29/01/2026 11:37, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that >>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to get >>>>>>>>> the process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by >>>>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very
quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity
characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered
function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently
support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences >>>>> in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi- >>>>>> directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus >>>>>> and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But
yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But
that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-
based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base
pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as
*digital* information? (Along with its chemical and structural/
physical properties and interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species >>>> are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid
molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
When did you do that experiment?
What experiments have been done don't support your hypothesis.
-
alias Ernest Major
Folch 2009 bucardo live-birth-then-death
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093691X08007784
Wang 2020 SCNT epigenetic reprogramming failures
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/
fgene.2020.00205/full
Jiang 2011 iSCNT depends on mtDNA / species compatibility
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014805
Your claim was about humans and chimps. Try again.
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in order to get the
process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by
the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still the >>>>>>> genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally
into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the
host cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated
in nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences
in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete
symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular
machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply
mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed
that DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? (Along
with its chemical and structural/physical properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species
are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid >> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital information
as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I think,
are the lipids.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of symbols.
And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can provide
evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim here is empty.
The most likely reason for failure in such a case would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that
any of the other cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly
different.
On 30/01/2026 11:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 1:07 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 29/01/2026 11:37, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that >>>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that there are many >>>>>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by >>>>>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to
speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very
quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity
characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered
function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently
support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in >>>>>> the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in
differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is
bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we
must conclude that information is initially present in both the >>>>>>> nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue
form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But
yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But
that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of >>>>>> DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-
based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base
pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as
*digital* information? (Along with its chemical and structural/
physical properties and interactions.)
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution
of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular
species are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs,
proteins, lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city"
consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, >>>>> 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, >>>>> 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single >>>>> cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run early development before >>>>> the embryonic genome activates.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in
magnitude carry information rather than discrete symbols, the
cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and structuring of these
represents a substantial amount of information that is,
effectively, *analog* information.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on >>>>> the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
When did you do that experiment?
What experiments have been done don't support your hypothesis.
-
alias Ernest Major
Folch 2009 bucardo live-birth-then-death
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093691X08007784
Wang 2020 SCNT epigenetic reprogramming failures
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/
fgene.2020.00205/full
Jiang 2011 iSCNT depends on mtDNA / species compatibility
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014805
Your claim was about humans and chimps. Try again.
The references demonstrate problems with very near species. It only gets worse for humans/chimps. Try again.
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much >>>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in order to get the
process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by >>>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.
However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the
cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally >>>>> into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in
nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the
host cell. In many instances, altered function has been
demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently support normal
development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences
in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-
directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus
and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,
proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that
information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete
symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based
molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can
be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we
agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information?
(Along with its chemical and structural/physical properties and
interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a definition
and identification of actual digital information, and large amount of it
at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien lifeform
and see 0s and 1s pour out?
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species
are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid
molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities"
(i.e. the definition of analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I
think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, they are certainly are.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of
symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can provide
evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim here is empty.
The most likely reason for failure in such a case would probably be
incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that
any of the other cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly
different.
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that >>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to get >>>>>>>>> the process of development going, and that there are many
interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by >>>>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding. >>>>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very
quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity
characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered
function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently
support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in
the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the
previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences >>>>> in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi- >>>>>> directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must
conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus >>>>>> and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form
respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But
yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But
that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-
based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base
pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as
*digital* information? (Along with its chemical and structural/
physical properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a definition
and identification of actual digital information, and large amount of
it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien
lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of
cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species >>>> are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,
lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of
approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA
molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid
molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the
human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic
genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but to
the concentration gradients and distribution profile of countless
copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical
quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I
think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, they
are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal genome.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,
smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude
carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's
concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*
information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of
symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on
the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a
human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential
"analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can provide
evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim here is empty.
The most likely reason for failure in such a case would probably be
incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt
that any of the other cytoplasmic "information" would be
significantly different.
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that >>>>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that there are many >>>>>>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly controlled >>>>>>>>>>> by the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is >>>>>>>>>>> still the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the >>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene
coding. However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate >>>>>>>> that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do >>>>>>>> (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very
quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered
function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently
support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are >>>>>>> in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the >>>>>>> previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in
differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>> bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we >>>>>>>> must conclude that information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>> nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue >>>>>>>> form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But >>>>>>> yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But >>>>>>> that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of >>>>>>> DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-
based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base
pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as >>>>>> *digital* information? (Along with its chemical and structural/
physical properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy. >>>>
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien
lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution >>>>>> of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular
species are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs,
proteins, lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city"
consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, >>>>>> 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules,
10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single >>>>>> cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run early development
before the embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but to
the concentration gradients and distribution profile of countless
copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical
quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I
think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, they
are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of
course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal
genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that is
the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under genetic
*specification*. To what extent their quantity and distribution is
under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic specification,
if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm are
causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels of
organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous, >>>>>> smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in
magnitude carry information rather than discrete symbols, the
cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and structuring of these >>>>>> represents a substantial amount of information that is,
effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of
symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences
on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone >>>>>> a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential >>>>>> "analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can provide >>>>> evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim here is
empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a case would
probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial
genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic "information"
would be significantly different.
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that >>>>>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that there are >>>>>>>>>>>> many interactions between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of the bits that >>>>>>>>>>>> interact is still the genome, at first the maternal genome >>>>>>>>>>>> and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene
coding. However, doesn't the following (for example)
demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the >>>>>>>>> DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very >>>>>>>>> quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered >>>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are >>>>>>>> in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from >>>>>>>> the previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in
differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>>> bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we >>>>>>>>> must conclude that information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>>> nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue >>>>>>>>> form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But >>>>>>>> yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But >>>>>>>> that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form >>>>>>>> of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule- >>>>>>> based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described >>>>>>> as *digital* information? (Along with its chemical and
structural/ physical properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien
lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As, Gs,
Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem
these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded
by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:
"No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a definition
and identification of actual digital information, and large amount of it
at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts without
me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems you are
being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution >>>>>>> of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular >>>>>>> species are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, >>>>>>> proteins, lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city"
consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+
ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-|
metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most >>>>>>> molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run >>>>>>> early development before the embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but
to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of
countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly
varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog
information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I
think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above,
they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of
course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal
genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that is
the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under genetic
*specification*. To what extent their quantity and distribution is
under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm are
causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels of
organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins act
as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by continuous, >>>>>>> smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in
magnitude carry information rather than discrete symbols, the
cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and structuring of these >>>>>>> represents a substantial amount of information that is,
effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of
symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences >>>>>>> on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't
clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is
essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can
provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim
here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a case
would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial >>>>>> genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic "information"
would be significantly different.
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without >>>>>>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the ovum has various bits that must be in place in >>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the >>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example)
demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the >>>>>>>>>> DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very >>>>>>>>>> quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered >>>>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are >>>>>>>>> in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from >>>>>>>>> the previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>> differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is >>>>>>>>>> bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we >>>>>>>>>> must conclude that information is initially present in both >>>>>>>>>> the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and >>>>>>>>>> analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But >>>>>>>>> yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But >>>>>>>>> that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form >>>>>>>>> of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in
discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule- >>>>>>>> based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital
information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described >>>>>>>> as *digital* information? (Along with its chemical and
structural/ physical properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien
lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As,
Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem
these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores heritable
information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded
by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:
"No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and large
amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written
sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts
without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems
you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your
responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is.
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something as
straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there of a
meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic
distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000
distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum
cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. >>>>>>>> This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# >>>>>>>> protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA >>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It >>>>>>>> is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the human body, >>>>>>>> pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic genome >>>>>>>> activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but >>>>>> to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of
countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly
varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog
information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I >>>>>>> think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above,
they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of
course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal
genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that is
the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under genetic
*specification*. To what extent their quantity and distribution is
under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm are
causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels of
organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins act
as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by
continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where
differences in magnitude carry information rather than discrete >>>>>>>> symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and
structuring of these represents a substantial amount of
information that is, effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of >>>>>>> symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences >>>>>>>> on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't
clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is >>>>>>>> essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can
provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim
here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a case >>>>>>> would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and
mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic >>>>>>> "information" would be significantly different.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary. >>>>>>>Where did you get that from?
===================================
Me:
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own >>>>>>> study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's >>>>>>> books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both >>>>>>> books were totally unconvincing.[..]
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here, >>>>>>> again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen >>>>>>> Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing >>>>>>> for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that >>>>>>> religious belief is a load of bunkum?
You:
I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.
===========================================
And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and
Coyne?
Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and
understanding the subject that the book is addressing.
What makes you think I don't understand the Bible? Because I don't
insist that it be read non-literally all the time?
Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.
What a coincidence! It turns out I don't need your help with any of
that.
Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of >>>>>>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about >>>>>>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be >>>>>>>> just ignored,
So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin? Or is Thomas >>>>>>> Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?
However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa >>>>>>> Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.
Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a >>>>>> miss.
Cite?
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of
statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
On 1/25/26 7:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be >>>> identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why
you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible
observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to
transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
Because those definitions are epistemologically useless. They say that
the supernatural is, at best, folklore.-a If a streetlight goes off as I walk under it, I can attribute that to an invisible agent and say it is supernatural. If I see spikes on the top of ice cubes that held level
water when I put the tray in the freezer, I see that as departing from
the usual and can call it supernatural. If I believe Trump is possessed
by the devil, I can call his deeds supernatural.
You already know that, so why do you continue to use the word?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By
the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers,
particularly from science.
Okay. Next question, then: How can it be distinguished from the placebo effect?
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?
Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial
evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine
the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for
religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be
generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably >>> with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal.
What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on
their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion.
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas
of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs
the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for
example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him
as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists
and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider
him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact
that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change
the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he
does not exist.
That's because you cherry-pick your evidence. Yes, people who share a
common culture often see God in the same way. But many other people come
to wildly *different* conclusions. About the number of gods, for
example. Or about their character. Or about whether God went away after creation.
Have you read the book _The Sun Does Shine_ by Anthony Ray Hinton? It is
a true story of just one of the many travesties of justice caused by
normal people using circumstantial evidence, especially selectively. I
don't credit circumstantial evidence with much value at all.
On 1/2/26 4:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/01/2026 12:24 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.a Let's look at your
scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
aaaaaaaa 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
aaaaaaaa 3. fine tuning
God did it.
aaaaaaaa 4. origin of life
God did it.
aaaaaaaa 5. macroevolution
God did it.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 6.a My car won't start
God did it.a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence >>>>>>>>>>> to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of >>>>>>>>>>> more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative >>>>>>>>>>> in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate >>>>>>>>>>> endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any >>>>>>> consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.a It's just that we can't >>>>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but >>>>> insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the >>>>> light is better there.
How so?
You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
science (i.e. under the lampost).
Okay.a In your case you announcea "Found them!"a when you find an
unusual pebble in the dark.a I, on the other hand, am always willing
to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp
post before announcing success.
No, but enough on an analogy.
You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy, >>> etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural
explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the
current time.a It's just not possible!
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanationse. Reinvent the scientific method, since it looks to have been lost or abandoned in the intervening 1000 years.
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
On 28/01/2026 8:16 pm, jillery wrote:[snipped a lot]
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:38:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 6:50 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 26/01/2026 3:20 pm, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:20:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 25/01/2026 6:44 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:13:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 3:49 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:20 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:36 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/01/2026 3:48 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
The different individual brick types represent specific proteins,
described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you are the cytoplasm.
This is a simplification to make a point. In the case of a cell, my
proposal is that developmental control is distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm.
You may not agree with this, but can you see how it is logically possible?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:35:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
Why did the scorpion sting the frog?
No surprise for one whiner to support another with gratuituous noise. Apparently they can't help themselves.
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150 years that said the similar things when comparing white people with indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?
Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that
rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned
you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that
you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes
but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do
they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion of science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my approach.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>> analogy.
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that the ovum has various bits that must be in place >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example)
demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the >>>>>>>>>>> DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very >>>>>>>>>>> quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered >>>>>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such >>>>>>>>>> are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated >>>>>>>>>> from the previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result >>>>>>>>>> in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow >>>>>>>>>>> is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg
paradox, we must conclude that information is initially >>>>>>>>>>> present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively >>>>>>>>>>> digital and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. >>>>>>>>>> But yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you >>>>>>>>>> mean. But that information is inherited, over the long term, >>>>>>>>>> in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by
rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2
billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with its >>>>>>>>> chemical and structural/ physical properties and interactions.) >>>>>>>>
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and >>>>>>> large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien
lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As,
Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem
these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores
heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied
and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that
DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information?" To which
you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy." >>>
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:
"No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written
sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts
without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems
you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your
responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, and
Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of 0s and
1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is. It's
a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with electrical states representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. Which confirms it.
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something as
straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there of a
meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic
distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000
distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum
cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. >>>>>>>>> This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# >>>>>>>>> protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA >>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It >>>>>>>>> is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the human
body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic >>>>>>>>> genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital
information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but >>>>>>> to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of
countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly
varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog
information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I >>>>>>>> think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, >>>>>>> they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of >>>>>> course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal >>>>>> genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that is >>>>> the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under
genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity and
distribution is under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm
are causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels
of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins
act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by
continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where
differences in magnitude carry information rather than discrete >>>>>>>>> symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and
structuring of these represents a substantial amount of
information that is, effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of >>>>>>>> symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major
influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason >>>>>>>>> you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: >>>>>>>>> there is essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can
provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim >>>>>>>> here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a case >>>>>>>> would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and
mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic >>>>>>>> "information" would be significantly different.
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>>> analogy.
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that the ovum has various bits that must be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place in order to get the process of development going, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But the source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the bits that interact is still the genome, at first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example)
demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the >>>>>>>>>>>> DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced
experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear
activity characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, >>>>>>>>>>>> altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such >>>>>>>>>>> are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated >>>>>>>>>>> from the previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result >>>>>>>>>>> in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow >>>>>>>>>>>> is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg >>>>>>>>>>>> paradox, we must conclude that information is initially >>>>>>>>>>>> present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in
effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. >>>>>>>>>>> But yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you >>>>>>>>>>> mean. But that information is inherited, over the long term, >>>>>>>>>>> in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by >>>>>>>>>> rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2
billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with its >>>>>>>>>> chemical and structural/ physical properties and interactions.) >>>>>>>>>
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and >>>>>>>> large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien >>>>>>>> lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As,
Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem
these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores
heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied
and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that
DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information?" To which
you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:
"No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written
sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts
without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems
you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your
responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, and
Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of 0s
and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it
is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with electrical
states representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What would
not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. Which
confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But
that's a much clearer statement than you have ever made.
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something as
straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there of a
meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic
distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum
cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. >>>>>>>>>> This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# >>>>>>>>>> protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA
molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It >>>>>>>>>> is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the human >>>>>>>>>> body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic >>>>>>>>>> genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital >>>>>>>>> information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, >>>>>>>> but to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of >>>>>>>> countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly
varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog
information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, >>>>>>>>> I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, >>>>>>>> they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? Of >>>>>>> course that's under genetic control, originally from the maternal >>>>>>> genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that
is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under
genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity and
distribution is under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm
are causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels >>>>>> of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins
act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by
continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where
differences in magnitude carry information rather than
discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, >>>>>>>>>> and structuring of these represents a substantial amount of >>>>>>>>>> information that is, effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of >>>>>>>>> symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too. >>>>>>>>>
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major
influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason >>>>>>>>>> you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: >>>>>>>>>> there is essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can >>>>>>>>> provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim >>>>>>>>> here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a >>>>>>>>> case would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and
mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other
cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly different.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 03:07:58 -0500If only Harran and MarkE would follow your advice.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:35:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:31:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why the gratuitous insult in the middle of a civil debate?
Why did the scorpion sting the frog?
No surprise for one whiner to support another with gratuituous noise.
Apparently they can't help themselves.
Personal insults (on either side) don't improve anybody's position
- attack the argument not the man.
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point that the ovum has various bits that must be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place in order to get the process of development going, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source of the bits that interact is still the genome, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example) >>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they >>>>>>>>>>>>> very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>> activity characteristic of the host cell. In many
instances, altered function has been demonstrated in nuclei >>>>>>>>>>>>> which subsequently support normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such >>>>>>>>>>>> are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated >>>>>>>>>>>> from the previous nucleus. Differences between genomes >>>>>>>>>>>> result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow >>>>>>>>>>>>> is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox, we must conclude that information is initially >>>>>>>>>>>>> present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in
effectively digital and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. >>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you >>>>>>>>>>>> mean. But that information is inherited, over the long term, >>>>>>>>>>>> in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by >>>>>>>>>>> rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 >>>>>>>>>>> billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with >>>>>>>>>>> its chemical and structural/ physical properties and
interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>>>> analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a >>>>>>>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, >>>>>>>>> and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien >>>>>>>>> lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As, >>>>>> Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem >>>>> these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores
heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are
copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we
agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again
with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a
definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a
written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts
without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems >>>>> you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your
responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, and
Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of 0s
and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it
is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with electrical
states representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What would
not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. Which
confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But
that's a much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps that's
my elec eng background. But I have stated those definitions several
times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum is a miniature galaxy
of molecules, with features and structure at different scales. The
question is, how important and unique is this at the point of conception
and with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I
admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You don't
have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, and so you use
a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble the bricks into the
model. The different individual brick types represent specific proteins, described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for
the resulting model comes from you and also from other specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it does show how, in the
case of a cell, that developmental control might be distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an
inherent chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something
as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there
of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic
distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum >>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. >>>>>>>>>>> This a vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately 10-|-# >>>>>>>>>>> protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| >>>>>>>>>>> tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid >>>>>>>>>>> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells >>>>>>>>>>> in the human body, pre-loaded to run early development before >>>>>>>>>>> the embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital >>>>>>>>>> information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, >>>>>>>>> but to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of >>>>>>>>> countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly >>>>>>>>> varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog >>>>>>>>> information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, >>>>>>>>>> I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, >>>>>>>>> they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? >>>>>>>> Of course that's under genetic control, originally from the
maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that >>>>>>> is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under >>>>>>> genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity and
distribution is under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm >>>>>>> are causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple levels >>>>>>> of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts
causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins >>>>>> act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by
continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than
discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration,
distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection >>>>>>>>>> of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too. >>>>>>>>>>
The genome codes for the proteins and has other majorI doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can >>>>>>>>>> provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim >>>>>>>>>> here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in such a >>>>>>>>>> case would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and >>>>>>>>>> mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other
influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason >>>>>>>>>>> you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is chimp >>>>>>>>>>> cell: there is essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>
cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[snippage]
[was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal? >>>>Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned
you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that
you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes
but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do
they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
[Snipping helps focus]
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion ofSo in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that,
science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science
alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my
approach.
presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?
[]
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not
anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great
approach, IMO.
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such >>>>>>>>>>>>> are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed andNow if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point that the ovum has various bits that must be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place in order to get the process of development going, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source of the bits that interact is still the genome, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>
translated from the previous nucleus. Differences between >>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox, we must conclude that information is initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>> present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean. But that information is inherited, over the long >>>>>>>>>>>>> term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by >>>>>>>>>>>> rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 >>>>>>>>>>>> billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion >>>>>>>>>>>> bits of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with >>>>>>>>>>>> its chemical and structural/ physical properties and
interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>>>>> analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a >>>>>>>>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, >>>>>>>>>> and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien >>>>>>>>>> lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an
analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of
As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you
deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores >>>>>> heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are
copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we
agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again
with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a >>>>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, and
large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a
written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts
without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it
seems you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in >>>>>> your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, and >>>>> Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of 0s
and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it
is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with electrical
states representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What would
not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. Which
confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But
that's a much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps that's
my elec eng background. But I have stated those definitions several
times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of information
and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum is a miniature
galaxy of molecules, with features and structure at different scales.
The question is, how important and unique is this at the point of
conception and with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly
persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I
hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it may
help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You don't
have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, and so you
use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble the bricks into
the model. The different individual brick types represent specific
proteins, described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D
printer is ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm.
The plan for the resulting model comes from you and also from other
specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and DNA
is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence information
(it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it does show how, in
the case of a cell, that developmental control might be distributed,
multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an
inherent chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from parts that are transcribed from the genome and, some of them, translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a maternal ribosome, but these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy, you have to
make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D printer was
printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need to have the most important parts
of the printer made of specifications, not printed; not sure how that
would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort by
the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something >>>>>> as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there >>>>>> of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, >>>>>>>>>> but to the concentration gradients and distribution profile of >>>>>>>>>> countless copies of each, representing "continuous, smoothly >>>>>>>>>> varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog >>>>>>>>>> information below).The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamicYou will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital >>>>>>>>>>> information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy. >>>>>>>>>>
distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and
metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of >>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ >>>>>>>>>>>> mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most >>>>>>>>>>>> molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to >>>>>>>>>>>> run early development before the embryonic genome activates. >>>>>>>>>>>
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, >>>>>>>>>>> nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated
above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? >>>>>>>>> Of course that's under genetic control, originally from the >>>>>>>>> maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not that >>>>>>>> is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are under >>>>>>>> genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity and
distribution is under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum cytoplasm >>>>>>>> are causally bidirectional and distributed across multiple
levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts >>>>>>> causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal proteins >>>>>>> act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration,
distribution, and structuring of these represents a
substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection >>>>>>>>>>> of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too. >>>>>>>>>>>
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is >>>>>>>>>>>> chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information in the >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can >>>>>>>>>>> provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your >>>>>>>>>>> claim here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in >>>>>>>>>>> such a case would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear >>>>>>>>>>> and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other >>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 31/01/2026 1:50 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[snippage]
[was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal? >>>>>Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >>>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned
you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that
you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes
but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do >>>> they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
[Snipping helps focus]
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion ofSo in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full
science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science
alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my
approach.
explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that,
presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?
[]
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not
anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great
approach, IMO.
I can appreciate how my general approach may cause frustration - freedom
to attack materialism with no reciprocal obligation to defend >supernaturalism (in my case, Christianity).
On TO moist of us are attacking and defending most of the time (which I >weirdly "enjoy", and certainly value in order to test and sharpen ideas
and understanding).
However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly
defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and >polemical opposition.
What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150
years that said the similar things when comparing white people with
indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and
materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.
Of course you'd have to clarify if your "materialism" is a
denigrated view of "scientific knowledge".
"God in the details?"
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 20:37:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2026 1:50 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[snippage]
[was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal? >>>>>>Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >>>>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned >>>>> you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that >>>>> you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes >>>>> but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do >>>>> they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
[Snipping helps focus]
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion ofSo in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full
science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science >>>> alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my
approach.
explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that,
presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?
[]
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not
anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great
approach, IMO.
I can appreciate how my general approach may cause frustration - freedom
to attack materialism with no reciprocal obligation to defend
supernaturalism (in my case, Christianity).
On TO moist of us are attacking and defending most of the time (which I
weirdly "enjoy", and certainly value in order to test and sharpen ideas
and understanding).
Do you not think that testing your religious beliefs might sharpen
them too?
However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly
defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and
polemical opposition.
As a religious believer, I am regularly defending those beliefs
against greater numerical and polemical opposition here but it has not undermined them in any way, it has in some ways sharpened them as you
find with your interpretation of science.
What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?
On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a
unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what
science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we
are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's
parents, parents, grandparents. It is entirely possible, however, that
the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and
evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That
is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability
to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.
That is very different from how I read it. In my interpretation, you and
I (and everyone else) are Adam and Eve. The story is about our
relationship with God and about difficulties which arise from moral >judgment. I see the story as virtually worthless if it is about past >history.
TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter
of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the
Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no
particular reason to reject that.
So "question authority" does not apply to your church?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated from the previous nucleus. Differences between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes result in differences in expression.Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a point that the ovum has various bits that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in place in order to get the process of development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going, and that there are many interactions between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells that are not directly controlled by the genome. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the source of the bits that interact is still the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genome, at first the maternal genome and later the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control and telling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a
chicken-and-egg paradox, we must conclude that
information is initially present in both the nucleus and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean. But that information is inherited, over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?
A digital information medium stores heritable information >>>>>>>>>>>>> in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion >>>>>>>>>>>>> bits of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information? (Along with >>>>>>>>>>>>> its chemical and structural/ physical properties and >>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still >>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a >>>>>>>>>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, >>>>>>>>>>> and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an >>>>>>>>>>> alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an >>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of >>>>>>>> As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context." >>>>>>>
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you
deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores >>>>>>> heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that are
copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we
agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an
analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again
with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of >>>>>>> a definition and identification of actual digital information,
and large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a
written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My
impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts >>>>>>> without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it
seems you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist >>>>>>> in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs,
and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what
it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of 0s >>>>> and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what it >>>>> is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with
electrical states representing binary numbers. (In response to your >>>>> "What would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same.
Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition,
the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is
analog. But that's a much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps
that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those definitions
several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of information
and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum is a miniature
galaxy of molecules, with features and structure at different scales.
The question is, how important and unique is this at the point of
conception and with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly
persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited,
I hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it may
help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You don't
have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, and so you
use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble the bricks into
the model. The different individual brick types represent specific
proteins, described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D
printer is ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the
cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model comes from you and also
from other specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and DNA
is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence information
(it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it does show how,
in the case of a cell, that developmental control might be
distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and
cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising any
control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates them into
proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from parts that are
transcribed from the genome and, some of them, translated in a
ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a maternal ribosome, but
these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy,
you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D
printer was printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And the
ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need to have the
most important parts of the printer made of specifications, not
printed; not sure how that would actually work in the analogy. Anyway,
no control of any sort by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm exercise
over the nucleus?
The following overview of Systems Biology gives
confirmation of what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g., developmental
change, evolutionary change and physiological stability) are generated,
and is based on the realization that they may involve many events at
levels extending from genes and protein interactions up to the
environment (the broad view of systems biology), with a particular focus
on the roles of protein networks (the narrow view), and with causality
being distributed. While this view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist approach, it should be emphasized that it builds on the successes of that approach.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than as a
Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena involve events distributed across many levels, with causation going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the execution of a single, top-down program
located in the genome, or anywhere else."
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something >>>>>>> as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is
there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, >>>>>>>>>>> but to the concentration gradients and distribution profile >>>>>>>>>>> of countless copies of each, representing "continuous,The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, andYou will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital >>>>>>>>>>>> information as DNA is, though again that's still analogy. >>>>>>>>>>>
metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of >>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ >>>>>>>>>>>>> mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most >>>>>>>>>>>>> molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to >>>>>>>>>>>>> run early development before the embryonic genome activates. >>>>>>>>>>>>
smoothly varying physical quantities" (i.e. the definition of >>>>>>>>>>> analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, >>>>>>>>>>>> nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated >>>>>>>>>>> above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the information? >>>>>>>>>> Of course that's under genetic control, originally from the >>>>>>>>>> maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not >>>>>>>>> that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are >>>>>>>>> under genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity >>>>>>>>> and distribution is under genetic *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum
cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed across >>>>>>>>> multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm exerts >>>>>>>> causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal
proteins act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean. >>>>>>>>
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration,
distribution, and structuring of these represents a >>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection >>>>>>>>>>>> of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information >>>>>>>>>>>> too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is >>>>>>>>>>>>> chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can >>>>>>>>>>>> provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your >>>>>>>>>>>> claim here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in >>>>>>>>>>>> such a case would probably be incompatibility of the nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>> and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/01/2026 6:22 am, sticks wrote:
On 12/30/2025 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
---snip---
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to
support 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of
more of these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative
in some shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate
endeavour, and is not a requirement for 2-5.
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies.-a The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points.-a Very well
done and it is not a difficult read.-a For me, this book steeled the
issues. He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then
builds upon it.-a I wish I could provide some quotes and more details,
but I had a full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right
now, sorry. They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the
giants in the fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock
does.-a They get into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with
tactics like Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
Similar to what Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a
worthwhile read.
Thanks, I haven't seen that one, though have read a number like it (including Meyer).
The tired, fallacious dismissals I think are being increasingly exposed.
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150 >>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with
indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and
materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.
Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to
that.
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,
somehow or other figure out consciousness.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:43:20 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:53 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris ThompsonI don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can >>>>>>>>>>> directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to >>>>>>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see
happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of
peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was >>>>>>> pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid >>>>>>> not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come >>>>>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of >>>>>>> studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too >>>>>>> was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works >>>>>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of >>>>>>> traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas. >>>>>>>
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary. >>>>>>
directly observe and measure natural selection.
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred >>>>> to "what we see happening in evolution."
"Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection >>>> it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.
We can directly and measure the *impact* of natural election but we
cannot directly examine NS itself.
For example, we can carry out a detailed physiological examination of
humans, chimps and bonobos and determine how much they physiologically
have in common. We can directly examine their DNA and measure how
little difference there is between them. Both of those examinations
lead us to conclude that they are all descended from a common
ancestor. But that conclusion is a *logical* one i.e. one arrived at
using our intellect, not one found in a test tube or using some sort
of weighing or measuring device.
In common with just about everyone else here on the side of science, I
regard science as not any sort of 'proof', it is *explanations* that
fit all the evidence we have and that may change if we get more
evidence. You seem to struggle with that.
OK, I am glad you wrote that; I understand now why we seem to be
speaking at cross purposes.
The problem is that you don't know what natural selection is. If you
wrote that on an exam in response to "Explain natural selection" I'm
pretty certain you'd get zero points.
So here's the quickie version:
Natural selection is differential reproductive success. Reproductive
success is usually approached in one of two ways. Absolute reproductive
success (or absolute fitness) is generally the number of offspring you
leave behind. Relative reproductive success (relative fitness) is the
proportion of the following generation you produce, relative to the
_most successful_ individuals in the population. If at all possible
these numbers are assigned to genotypes rather than phenotypes, but
phenotypes are much easier. It works fine for demonstration purposes,
though. Consider a population of 100 individuals, and we're interested
in a single gene with two alleles. Our genotypes are
AA Aa aa
Let's assume these genotypes occur in the following frequencies in the
population and if population size (N)=100, the number of individuals of
those genotypes can be seen in the second row:
AA Aa aa
0.25 0.5 0.25
25 50 25
Now in the absence of natural selection (or other factors that drive
evolution like drift or nonrandom mating) this is a stable population.
These frequencies won't change from generation to generation. However if
NS is occurring one or more genotype will be favored at the expense of
the others.
If we say the homozygous recessive has an advantage we might see the
population change as follows and for ease of computation let's say N
remains 100. We can now add a third row, RF or relative reproductive
success (or relative fitness):
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
And we can add 4th row, which is simply 1-RF. This gives us the
selection coefficient, a measure of the strength of NS operating against
that genotype:
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
1-.4=0.6 1-.5=.5 1-1=0
Now, I did all this off the top of my head. I haven't done this stuff in
ages so I hope I didn't make any bonehead errors. I'd ask the real
experts like Ernest Major to correct me if I did.
Sorry, but your "quickie" is more of an answer to a question on an undergraduate assignment. You don't need to be a biologist to
understand the principles of NS. If I was asked to explain it, I would
say something like this:
Actually, those are not my own words. They come from this:
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/natural-selection/
They do, however, represent exactly what I understand about NS. I
struggle to see why you think I don't understand it, or at least the
key principles.
But I am pretty certain I got the big picture correct. I hope you see
that natural selection can indeed be quantified, and people have been
doing so for a long, long time. I mentioned the peppered moth (_Biston
betularia_) in an earlier post. That was one of the very first examples
of NS to be demonstrated, and it was revisited when the Disco boys
raised a bunch of spurious objections to it. The example held up just
fine. Another great example is, of course, Darwin's finches. Darwin (who
would darn near anaphylaxe if he got too close to math) had great
illustrations and ideas (as you mentioned) about the bills of the
finches. But Rosemary and Peter Grant from Princeton studied the beaks
for a couple decades and quantified size changes in response to
environmental stresses.
You can also see that in my example, you're examining the effect of NS
that has already occurred. I'd add that once you know a selection
coefficient, it can used to make some interesting predictions. One
obvious thing you can do is estimate the number of generations it will
take to eliminate a deleterious allele. The trivial example is a lethal
dominant allele: it will be eliminated in a single generation. But if
you have a selection coefficient you can also estimate the number of
generations it will take to eliminate a deleterious recessive allele
from the population. That will take much longer even if the allele is
lethal, since it can hide in heterozygous individuals.
The list could be expanded....a LOT. Take my word for it- NS can be
measured, folded, spindled and mutilated and its secrets wrested from
nature.
I distinguish between *evidence* and *conclusions*. Sure we can and do
gather incredible evidence about the changes taking place in peppered
moths and finches' beaks and, as I said earlier, about physiology and
DNA - science in the last century and a half since Darwin has done a
near incredible job in assembling masses of evidence across a whole
range of areas to support his original ideas (no pun intended).
I consider Natural Selection as the name we give to the process that
we *conclude* is the only thing to *logically* explain that evidence.
I go back to what I said earlier about Darwin's identification of NS
as being pure inspiration (based on lots of perspiration) "prompting
Huxley to declare "How incredibly stupid not to have thought of that."
Note Huxley's choice of words "thought of".
As I said in another post, perhaps we are at cross purposes because we
are running up against what GBS said about two countries divided by a
common language.
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists DoGod doesn't support creation. Creationists do.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:13:43 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be >>>>> identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why >>>>> you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By
the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers,
particularly from science.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?
Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial >>>>> evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine >>>>> the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for
religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be
generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably >>>> with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal. >>>> What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god. >>>
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on
their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. Eyewitness
testimony is direct evidence. DNA residues at a crime scene are
circumstantial evidence, as are fingerprints.
They are also both *forensic* evidence which is the expression I used.
As an aside, a relative of
mine- a 20-year detective on NYPD- was always amused when someone said
"That's only circumstantial evidence." He despised eyewitness testimony.
It was unreliable and easily challenged. He put away many more criminals
with circumstantial evidence than eyewitness testimony.
Did you even read what I said to Vincent earlier about circumstantial evidence?
Here it is again:
"I had the unpleasant
experience of sitting through a murder trial which was based entirely
on circumstantial evidence. Instructing the jury, the judge carefully explained to the jury how they should treat the circumstantial
evidence. He explained that the probative value of such evidence lies
in how much of it there is and how the various pieces fit together. He
made the comparison with the strands of a rope; those individual
strands are weak on their own but wrapped together, they can form an extremely strong rope. He said the same applies to circumstantial
evidence; each individual piece may be open to challenge but
ultimately the pieces have to be considered together."
I don't see any contradiction between that and what your detective
friend had to say.
Perhaps we are running up against what George Bernard Shaw said about
wo countries divided by a common language.
Chris
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas
of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs
the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for
example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him
as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists
and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider
him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact
that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change
the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he
does not exist.
[1] In the biblical sense of someone who speaks the word of God.
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
...
Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a point that the ovum has various bits that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of the bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that interact is still the genome, at first the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal genome and later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene coding. However, doesn't the following (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many instances, altered function has been demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in nuclei which subsequently support normal
development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated from the previous nucleus. Differences between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes result in differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> egg paradox, we must conclude that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially present in both the nucleus and extra-nuclear, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in effectively digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean. But that information is inherited, over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the long term, in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable information >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule- based molecular machinery. The human genome at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Along with its chemical and structural/ physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still >>>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a >>>>>>>>>>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, >>>>>>>>>>>> and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an >>>>>>>>>>>> alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an >>>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of >>>>>>>>> As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context." >>>>>>>>
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you >>>>>>>> deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium
stores heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences that >>>>>>>> are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are >>>>>>>> we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>> analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again >>>>>>>> with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of >>>>>>>> a definition and identification of actual digital information, >>>>>>>> and large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a
written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My >>>>>>>> impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts >>>>>>>> without me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it >>>>>>>> seems you are being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist >>>>>>>> in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, >>>>>>> and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not what >>>>>>> it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of
0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not
what it is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon with >>>>>> electrical states representing binary numbers. (In response to
your "What would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same.
Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition,
the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is
analog. But that's a much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps
that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those definitions
several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of information
and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum is a miniature
galaxy of molecules, with features and structure at different
scales. The question is, how important and unique is this at the
point of conception and with subsequent development? I'm posing this
partly persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding is
limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it may
help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You
don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, and
so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble the
bricks into the model. The different individual brick types
represent specific proteins, described by the specifications,
representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you (and the
printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model
comes from you and also from other specifications (representing
regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and
DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence
information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it
does show how, in the case of a cell, that developmental control
might be distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between
nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship
between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising any
control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates them
into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from parts that
are transcribed from the genome and, some of them, translated in a
ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a maternal ribosome, but
these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy,
you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D
printer was printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And the
ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need to have the
most important parts of the printer made of specifications, not
printed; not sure how that would actually work in the analogy.
Anyway, no control of any sort by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg
problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm exercise
over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of what
I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology is an
approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g., developmental
change, evolutionary change and physiological stability) are
generated, and is based on the realization that they may involve many
events at levels extending from genes and protein interactions up to
the environment (the broad view of systems biology), with a particular
focus on the roles of protein networks (the narrow view), and with
causality being distributed. While this view is explicitly the
opposite of the reductionist approach, it should be emphasized that it
builds on the successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about evolutionary
change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, but of course it can
be influenced by the environment, including the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the genome; it happens to phenotypes.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than as a
Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena
involve events distributed across many levels, with causation going
downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to suggest that
such complex phenomena derive from the execution of a single, top-down
program located in the genome, or anywhere else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But it's
also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede
something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what >>>>>>>> hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under geneticThe ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and
metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most >>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run early development before the embryonic genome >>>>>>>>>>>>>> activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's still >>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and distribution >>>>>>>>>>>> profile of countless copies of each, representing
"continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities" (i.e. the >>>>>>>>>>>> definition of analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, >>>>>>>>>>>>> nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated >>>>>>>>>>>> above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the
information? Of course that's under genetic control,
originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not >>>>>>>>>> that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins are >>>>>>>>>> under genetic *specification*. To what extent their quantity >>>>>>>>>> and distribution is under genetic *control* is the question. >>>>>>>>>
specification, if it's the word "control" you care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum
cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed across >>>>>>>>>> multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm
exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the maternal >>>>>>>>> proteins act as transcription factors. If that's what you mean. >>>>>>>>>
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration,
distribution, and structuring of these represents a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a
collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of dosage >>>>>>>>>>>>> information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can >>>>>>>>>>>>> provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim here is empty. The most likely reason for failure in >>>>>>>>>>>>> such a case would probably be incompatibility of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly >>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about >>>>> 150
years that said the similar things when comparing white people with
indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and
materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.
Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the
standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by
definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to
that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",
with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,
somehow or other figure out consciousness.
The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of
the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding
the science) will reject the explanation. Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150 >>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with
indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and
materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.
Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the
standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by
definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to
that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",
with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on >consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,
somehow or other figure out consciousness.
The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of
the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding
the science) will reject the explanation.
Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
That is total bullshit - please identify any single finding of science
that has ever been rejected by 9.9% of the general public.
Now you are starting to sound like she-who-must-always-have-the-lastA reason for that is illustrated by your well-earned nom de plume "NeverAnswersQuestions".
word ;)
On 31/01/2026 1:50 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[snippage]
[was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal? >>>>Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned
you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that
you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes
but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do >>> they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
[Snipping helps focus]
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion ofSo in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that, presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?
science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science
alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my
approach.
[]
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not
anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great
approach, IMO.
I can appreciate how my general approach may cause frustration - freedom
to attack materialism with no reciprocal obligation to defend supernaturalism (in my case, Christianity).
On TO moist of us are attacking and defending most of the time (which I weirdly "enjoy", and certainly value in order to test and sharpen ideas
and understanding). However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and polemical opposition.
What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >scientific position?
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
--
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 20:37:52 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/01/2026 1:50 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
[snippage]
[was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]
Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal? >>>>>>Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that >>>>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:
You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned >>>>> you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that >>>>> you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes >>>>> but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do >>>>> they frighten you?
In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:
[Snipping helps focus]
"In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion ofSo in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full
science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science >>>> alone."
The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my
approach.
explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that,
presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?
[]
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5
Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not
anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great
approach, IMO.
I can appreciate how my general approach may cause frustration - freedom
to attack materialism with no reciprocal obligation to defend
supernaturalism (in my case, Christianity).
Having a faith doesn't have to (indeed shouldn't) prevent you
questioning it.
On TO moist of us are attacking and defending most of the time (which I
weirdly "enjoy", and certainly value in order to test and sharpen ideas
and understanding). However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly
defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and
polemical opposition.
The reason, I imagine, for polecism is your refusal to look at science
and the conclusions it gives to many of your bible-based "facts"
that are easily shown to be wrong.
What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?
I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated, I think it was implied when you stated
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable)
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>> item,
example of
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>> item,
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.
'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:...
On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without much regard for what kind of organism, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a point that the ovum has various bits that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be in place in order to get the process of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development going, and that there are many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits that interact is still the genome, at first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene coding. However, doesn't the following (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many instances, altered function has been demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in nuclei which subsequently support normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated from the previous nucleus. Differences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between genomes result in differences in expression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and- egg paradox, we must conclude that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially present in both the nucleus and extra- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular machinery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *digital* information? (Along with its chemical and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural/ physical properties and interactions.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definition and identification of actual digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be >>>>>>>>>>> an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written
sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context." >>>>>>>>>>
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you >>>>>>>>>> deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium >>>>>>>>>> stores heritable information in discrete symbolic sequences >>>>>>>>>> that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular
machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described >>>>>>>>>> as *digital* information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an >>>>>>>>>> analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again >>>>>>>>>> with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application >>>>>>>>>> of a definition and identification of actual digital
information, and large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>> information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My >>>>>>>>>> impression is you're more than able to understand these
concepts without me needing to laboriously explain them.
Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or deliberately >>>>>>>>>> obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, Cs, >>>>>>>>> and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not >>>>>>>>> what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence of >>>>>>>> 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's not >>>>>>>> what it is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in silicon
with electrical states representing binary numbers. (In response >>>>>>>> to your "What would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. >>>>>>>> Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set >>>>>>> of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set >>>>>>> of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your
definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the
cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer statement than you >>>>>>> have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps
that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those definitions >>>>>> several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of
information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum
is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and structure at >>>>>> different scales. The question is, how important and unique is
this at the point of conception and with subsequent development?
I'm posing this partly persuaded I admit, but recognising that my >>>>>> understanding is limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine >>>>>> curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it
may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You
don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks,
and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble
the bricks into the model. The different individual brick types
represent specific proteins, described by the specifications,
representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you (and the
printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model
comes from you and also from other specifications (representing
regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and >>>>>> DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence
information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it
does show how, in the case of a cell, that developmental control
might be distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between
nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship
between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising
any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates
them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from parts
that are transcribed from the genome and, some of them, translated
in a ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a maternal
ribosome, but these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So
in your analogy, you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer.
Even your first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, just
someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not
protein, so you need to have the most important parts of the
printer made of specifications, not printed; not sure how that
would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort
by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm
exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of what
I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology is
an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g.,
developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological
stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that they
may involve many events at levels extending from genes and protein
interactions up to the environment (the broad view of systems
biology), with a particular focus on the roles of protein networks
(the narrow view), and with causality being distributed. While this
view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist approach, it
should be emphasized that it builds on the successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about evolutionary
change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, but of course it
can be influenced by the environment, including the cytoplasm. And
selection doesn't happen to the genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and
control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy,
mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, but it
isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and the
cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious terminology.
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm contains
heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are others.
The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be concentrations
and concentration gradients. Concentrations are heritable, in a way,
over the very short term. Concentration gradients aren't even heritable
over that term. And the molecules involved are produced from the genome
or in metabolic processes that rely on molecules produced from the
genome. And that's where inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what precedes it.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than as a
Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena
involve events distributed across many levels, with causation going
downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to suggest that
such complex phenomena derive from the execution of a single, top-
down program located in the genome, or anywhere else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But it's
also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede
something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, what >>>>>>>>>> hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo40,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct molecular species are present in the human ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, lipids, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+
mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecule-rich single cells in the human body, pre-loaded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run early development before the embryonic genome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and distribution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> profile of countless copies of each, representing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities" (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of analog information below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the
information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins >>>>>>>>>>>> are under genetic *specification*. To what extent their >>>>>>>>>>>> quantity and distribution is under genetic *control* is the >>>>>>>>>>>> question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic >>>>>>>>>>> specification, if it's the word "control" you care about. >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed across >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>> exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the
maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's >>>>>>>>>>> what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution, and structuring of these represents a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim here is empty. The most likely reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure in such a case would probably be incompatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the other cytoplasmic "information" would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly different.
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.
'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>> scientific position?
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>> item,
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
I think it was implied when you stated
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be >dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>> scientific position?
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>> item,
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a >religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I
asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently
from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If
so, would you agree that it is?
Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:13:43 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be >>>>>> identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why >>>>>> you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil >>>> 2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By
the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers,
particularly from science.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about? >>>>>>Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial >>>>>> evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine >>>>>> the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to
religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for >>>>> religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be >>>>> generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably >>>>> with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal. >>>>> What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god. >>>>
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on >>>> their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. Eyewitness
testimony is direct evidence. DNA residues at a crime scene are
circumstantial evidence, as are fingerprints.
They are also both *forensic* evidence which is the expression I used.
As an aside, a relative of
mine- a 20-year detective on NYPD- was always amused when someone said
"That's only circumstantial evidence." He despised eyewitness testimony. >>> It was unreliable and easily challenged. He put away many more criminals >>> with circumstantial evidence than eyewitness testimony.
Did you even read what I said to Vincent earlier about circumstantial
evidence?
Here it is again:
"I had the unpleasant
experience of sitting through a murder trial which was based entirely
on circumstantial evidence. Instructing the jury, the judge carefully
explained to the jury how they should treat the circumstantial
evidence. He explained that the probative value of such evidence lies
in how much of it there is and how the various pieces fit together. He
made the comparison with the strands of a rope; those individual
strands are weak on their own but wrapped together, they can form an
extremely strong rope. He said the same applies to circumstantial
evidence; each individual piece may be open to challenge but
ultimately the pieces have to be considered together."
I don't see any contradiction between that and what your detective
friend had to say.
Perhaps we are running up against what George Bernard Shaw said about
wo countries divided by a common language.
I call your attention to what you wrote (still intact, above):
"You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on
their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion."
In the above paragraph you lumped seeing a suspect at a crime scene >(circumstantial evidence) with eyewitness testimony (direct evidence)
and labeled both circumstantial evidence.
Chris
Chris
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas
of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs >>>> the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for >>>> example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him >>>> as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists >>>> and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider
him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact
that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change
the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he
does not exist.
[1] In the biblical sense of someone who speaks the word of God.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:43:20 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:53 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris ThompsonI don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot >>>>>>> directly observe and measure natural selection.
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The ToE was developed
inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can >>>>>>>>>>>> directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see
happening in evolution.
Wow wow wow wow.
And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of
peer-reviewed articles go POOF!
As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,
ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was >>>>>>>> pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid >>>>>>>> not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come >>>>>>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of >>>>>>>> studying evolution.
The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too >>>>>>>> was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works >>>>>>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of >>>>>>>> traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas. >>>>>>>>
It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent >>>>>>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary. >>>>>>>
Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred >>>>>> to "what we see happening in evolution."
"Natural Selection is not something we can
directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection >>>>> it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.
We can directly and measure the *impact* of natural election but we
cannot directly examine NS itself.
For example, we can carry out a detailed physiological examination of
humans, chimps and bonobos and determine how much they physiologically >>>> have in common. We can directly examine their DNA and measure how
little difference there is between them. Both of those examinations
lead us to conclude that they are all descended from a common
ancestor. But that conclusion is a *logical* one i.e. one arrived at
using our intellect, not one found in a test tube or using some sort
of weighing or measuring device.
In common with just about everyone else here on the side of science, I >>>> regard science as not any sort of 'proof', it is *explanations* that
fit all the evidence we have and that may change if we get more
evidence. You seem to struggle with that.
OK, I am glad you wrote that; I understand now why we seem to be
speaking at cross purposes.
The problem is that you don't know what natural selection is. If you
wrote that on an exam in response to "Explain natural selection" I'm
pretty certain you'd get zero points.
So here's the quickie version:
Natural selection is differential reproductive success. Reproductive
success is usually approached in one of two ways. Absolute reproductive
success (or absolute fitness) is generally the number of offspring you
leave behind. Relative reproductive success (relative fitness) is the
proportion of the following generation you produce, relative to the
_most successful_ individuals in the population. If at all possible
these numbers are assigned to genotypes rather than phenotypes, but
phenotypes are much easier. It works fine for demonstration purposes,
though. Consider a population of 100 individuals, and we're interested
in a single gene with two alleles. Our genotypes are
AA Aa aa
Let's assume these genotypes occur in the following frequencies in the
population and if population size (N)=100, the number of individuals of
those genotypes can be seen in the second row:
AA Aa aa
0.25 0.5 0.25
25 50 25
Now in the absence of natural selection (or other factors that drive
evolution like drift or nonrandom mating) this is a stable population.
These frequencies won't change from generation to generation. However if >>> NS is occurring one or more genotype will be favored at the expense of
the others.
If we say the homozygous recessive has an advantage we might see the
population change as follows and for ease of computation let's say N
remains 100. We can now add a third row, RF or relative reproductive
success (or relative fitness):
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
And we can add 4th row, which is simply 1-RF. This gives us the
selection coefficient, a measure of the strength of NS operating against >>> that genotype:
AA Aa aa
0.2 0.3 0.5
20 30 50
20/50=0.4 30/50=0.5 50/50=1.0
1-.4=0.6 1-.5=.5 1-1=0
Now, I did all this off the top of my head. I haven't done this stuff in >>> ages so I hope I didn't make any bonehead errors. I'd ask the real
experts like Ernest Major to correct me if I did.
Sorry, but your "quickie" is more of an answer to a question on an
undergraduate assignment. You don't need to be a biologist to
understand the principles of NS. If I was asked to explain it, I would
say something like this:
What I wrote sounds geared to undergraduates because it is. I wrote it >because you didn't seem to grasp (and honestly, never acknowledge) that >natural selection can be measured and analyzed mathematically.
(snip correct but rather irrelevant text)
Actually, those are not my own words. They come from this:
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/natural-selection/
They do, however, represent exactly what I understand about NS. I
struggle to see why you think I don't understand it, or at least the
key principles.
Because you wrote, and I quote, "Natural Selection is not something we
can directly examine by putting it inside a test tube or picking up to
measure or weigh..."
and that's absolutely incorrect, but you've never retracted it. My >undergraduate example showing exactly how it's measured went right past
you.
And you've used a lot of words in the post but are never clear whether
you accept that natural selection can be measured. It can be assigned
values from zero (no selection) to close to zero (which is what most
natural selection exhibits) to near 1.0, which is exceedingly rare in
nature but common in controlled breeding (artificial selection).
Chris
But I am pretty certain I got the big picture correct. I hope you see
that natural selection can indeed be quantified, and people have been
doing so for a long, long time. I mentioned the peppered moth (_Biston
betularia_) in an earlier post. That was one of the very first examples
of NS to be demonstrated, and it was revisited when the Disco boys
raised a bunch of spurious objections to it. The example held up just
fine. Another great example is, of course, Darwin's finches. Darwin (who >>> would darn near anaphylaxe if he got too close to math) had great
illustrations and ideas (as you mentioned) about the bills of the
finches. But Rosemary and Peter Grant from Princeton studied the beaks
for a couple decades and quantified size changes in response to
environmental stresses.
You can also see that in my example, you're examining the effect of NS
that has already occurred. I'd add that once you know a selection
coefficient, it can used to make some interesting predictions. One
obvious thing you can do is estimate the number of generations it will
take to eliminate a deleterious allele. The trivial example is a lethal
dominant allele: it will be eliminated in a single generation. But if
you have a selection coefficient you can also estimate the number of
generations it will take to eliminate a deleterious recessive allele >>>from the population. That will take much longer even if the allele is
lethal, since it can hide in heterozygous individuals.
The list could be expanded....a LOT. Take my word for it- NS can be
measured, folded, spindled and mutilated and its secrets wrested from
nature.
I distinguish between *evidence* and *conclusions*. Sure we can and do
gather incredible evidence about the changes taking place in peppered
moths and finches' beaks and, as I said earlier, about physiology and
DNA - science in the last century and a half since Darwin has done a
near incredible job in assembling masses of evidence across a whole
range of areas to support his original ideas (no pun intended).
I consider Natural Selection as the name we give to the process that
we *conclude* is the only thing to *logically* explain that evidence.
I go back to what I said earlier about Darwin's identification of NS
as being pure inspiration (based on lots of perspiration) "prompting
Huxley to declare "How incredibly stupid not to have thought of that."
Note Huxley's choice of words "thought of".
As I said in another post, perhaps we are at cross purposes because we
are running up against what GBS said about two countries divided by a
common language.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and
beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to
reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the >impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.
Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make
their point. It is very effective.
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of
statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable >>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be
a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older
and have different eye colors than the original native population.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 11:24:37 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>>>population at large,
They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.
You have failed to explain why you think they aren't, and refused to >>>answer when I asked if you at least accepted that among U.S.
adolescents, atheists are more intelligent than theists.
I told you that it is #101 statistics. It's even referred to in the
very first paragraph of the additional stuff you've added in below -
again I wonder do you even read stuff before you cite it.
You refused to answer *again*! "It's Statistics 101" does not address
the question.
So you try to move the goal posts and end up scoring yet another own
goal. Seeing as you have difficulty understanding it, I'll take you
through some of the key points.
What goal posts have been moved?
Note that bit - that the correlation only applied when they considered >>religiosity in a particular way.
No, it just made it less well-defined. It didn't make it
inapplicable.
Actually, you just assumed that the results only applied to the group
being studied. Here, the authors spelled out the limitations of the
study, rather than just assuming it.
Again, a clear-cut statement that the results of a survey only apply
to the population from which the sample was drawn. Do you believe me
now?
Well, do you accept the results for Western societies?
No, I recently posted the fact that when two variables A and B are >correlated, that implies that A causes B, or B causes A, or that both
A and B are caused by the same thing. You chose to ignore that
statement, though.
So statistics can only be used in the most constricted of ways in the
social sciences?
Zuckerman et al. published an updated metanalysis in 2019 with 83
studies finding "strong evidence" of a negative correlation between >>>religiosity and intelligence of -.20 to -.23.[33] Zuckerman cautioned >>>that the "effect size of the relation is small", not generalizable
beyond the Western world and that predicting religiosity from >>>intelligence for individuals is fallible."
Please stop and read that last sentence at least six times. Maybe then
it might register with you.
I've already read it. Here's my comments on it:
1) the effect is small -- I never said it wasn't, but his statement
does seem to indicate that it *exists*, right? Is that something you
would agree with?
2) it's not generalizable beyond the Western world -- I didn't say it
could be. That conclusion is left to other studies.
3) predicting religiosity from intelligence is fallible -- obviously,
science is not infallible like the Catholic Church is supposed to be;
maybe that confused you, here?
No - the overall reliability of the research and the general
applicability of its conclusions are being challenged.
Yeah, that's what it was being challenged about.
"Richard Lynn (20 February 1930 - July 2023) was a controversial
English psychologist and self-described "scientific racist"[1] who >>advocated for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence. He
was the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly, a white supremacist
journal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Not the sort of guy whose conclusions I would put much reliance on.
YMMV and apparently does.
With your ad hominems to guide you,
Leaving all that aside, intelligent people being more inclined to
question stuff would be no surprise to me at all, in fact it would tie
in with my own general experience. The people who have generated the
most progress in science are generally scientists who were
particularly clever, were able to question stuff that was already
thought about, and were clever enough to follow through on their
questions.
So would you agree that more intelligent people are more likely to
criticize Church teachings?
in my early days in this newsgroup I used the pseudonym "always asking >>questions".
I remember that. How did the group respond to your pseudonym?
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.
'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is >uncomfortable?The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>> scientific position?
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>> item,
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me
on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.
I think it was implied when you stated
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others
who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea
of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all
being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction
in that argument.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed
out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would
have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have
been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the
fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire population were all descended.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 17:49:39 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150 >>>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with >>>>>> indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and >>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.
Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the
standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by
definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to
that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",
with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam
Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost identical Cambridge Dictionary definition
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
- things that cannot be explained by science
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on
consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.
Science has been able to figure out where processes happen in the
brain but nothing about what consciousness even is let along where it
comes from. As I've described it before, it's like an electronics
engineer analysing the electronic processes going on in my PC as I
type this response and claiming that gives him understanding of where
the ideas are coming from that I am using the PC to express. No need
to take my word from it, here is what a detailed analysis in this
month's Scientific American has to say:
"Yet understanding brain-network complexity does not solve the mystery
of consciousness. These findings can help explain how a brain can
reach the state of consciousness but not what happens once it's gotten
there, Mashour points out. Changes in someone's PCI value can't
explain, for example, why The Dress looks blue and black one moment
and white and gold the next. It can't explain how a toothache feels
different from a headache, how someone without functioning circulation
can have a near-death experience, or how the psychedelic drug
5-MeO-DMT makes time seem to stop and obliterates your sense of self."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness-science-faces-its-hardest-problem-yet/
The article also relates the story of how back in 1998, at a consciousness-science conference in Germany, Christof Koch bet
philosopher David Chalmers a case of wine that researchers would
discover a "clear" pattern of brain activation underlying
consciousness within 25 years. At a June 2023 conference in New York
City, Koch walked onto the stage and publicly gave Chalmers his case
of wine, conceding that he had lost their bet.
This is the article that I mentioned to you a couple of days ago, you
really hold read it before making any more claims about science and consciousness. I don't think that link is paywalled; if it is you can
get it here:
https://archive.is/wglRh
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,
somehow or other figure out consciousness.
The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of
the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding
the science) will reject the explanation.
That is total bullshit - please identify any single finding of science
that has ever been rejected by 9.9% of the general public.
Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
That sounds like projection.
On 1/31/26 10:27 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 12:49 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of
chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and >>>>>>>> spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only
about 150
years that said the similar things when comparing white people with >>>>>>> indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and >>>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way. >>>>
standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by
definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to >>>> that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of)
nature", with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You're saying that, by definition, God does not exist?
I'm saying that if God exists, God is not supernatural according to the
most literal definition of "supernatural".
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and
beliefs?
It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain anything. Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by
"God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.
With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the
impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.
Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make
their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather
than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>>>> item,Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me
on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.
I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression
that that was the position of the author of the book from which this
example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off? >>>
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. CommonI think it was implied when you stated
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with >>>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others
who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on
something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea
of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all
being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction
in that argument.
ancestor for all humans? No.
That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans. >>>> no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be >>>> dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed
out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would
have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have
been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the
fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire
population were all descended.
(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous
generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a
big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak ><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[a]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable >>>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be
a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older >>and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal
aspect, not physical attributes.
Every survey I have ever seen trying
to determine attitudes among the general population has been based on
a sample population carefully selected to demographically represent
the general population. Age is one of the main demographic factors
used - trying to assess the attitude of the general population from a
sample based on adolescents only is sheer nonsense.
I am reminded of
the old saying attributed (possibly wrongly) to Mark Twain that when
he was 14 he was disgusted at how little his father knew; when he got
to 21 he was amazed at how much his father had learned in 7 years.
That is just one of the issues with that survey on intelligence
assessment let alone the religiosity where issues are identified in
the Wiki article that Vincent cited.
The firs one is how they defined intelligence:
"Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for
abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional >knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and >problem-solving. It can be described as the ability to perceive or
infer information and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to
adaptive behaviors within an environment or context ... Most
psychologists believe that intelligence can be divided into various
domains or competencies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
So what domain or competency did they use? The paper is paywalled so I
can't see; if Vincent knows, he should have told us; if not, he
shouldn't be putting so much reliance on the survey.
Once they defined intelligence, how did they measure it? IQ tests are >notorious for cultural basis
as well as many other flaws:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/understanding-the-flaws-behind-the-iq-test-43690
<quote>
Aiming to measure the innate intelligence of the human population, IQ
tests work by aggregating the scores from several distinct tasks into
a singular number representing the person's cognitive ability. The
tests also have numerous methodological flaws that we're only just
beginning to understand.
"I think IQ testing has done far more harm than good,"
says British
Psychologist Ken Richardson, author of Understanding Intelligence.
"And it's time we moved beyond the ideologically corruptible
mechanical model of IQ to a far deeper and wider appreciation of >intelligence."
So how did the researchers avoid all the problems to arrive at a
single number? Again, the paper is paywalled so I can't see; if
Vincent knows, he should have told us; if not, he shouldn't be putting
so much reliance on the survey.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:19:51 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 11:24:37 +0000, Martin Harran[lots of snipping for focus]
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>>>>population at large,
They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.
You have failed to explain why you think they aren't, and refused to >>>>answer when I asked if you at least accepted that among U.S. >>>>adolescents, atheists are more intelligent than theists.
I told you that it is #101 statistics. It's even referred to in the
very first paragraph of the additional stuff you've added in below - >>>again I wonder do you even read stuff before you cite it.
You refused to answer *again*! "It's Statistics 101" does not address
the question.
It really does. See my reply to Mark earlier today for some general >principles; here is just one source that goes into technical detail on
using sampling for surveys.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772906024005089
So you try to move the goal posts and end up scoring yet another own >>>goal. Seeing as you have difficulty understanding it, I'll take you >>>through some of the key points.
What goal posts have been moved?
You started off by quoting the survey by Nyborg and Lynn to buttress
your claim that the increased rates of atheism that the PEW study
showed among those achieving higher positions in science was due to
atheists being more intelligent than religious believers.
When I
pointed out that that study was disparaged by other experts in the
very article you cited, you tried to change to other studies.
Unfortunately for you, as I pointed out, that was an own goal because
the same flaws applied to those studies also.
Note that bit - that the correlation only applied when they considered >>>religiosity in a particular way.
No, it just made it less well-defined. It didn't make it
inapplicable.
How can you apply anything as a general principle if it is not
well-defined?
Actually, you just assumed that the results only applied to the group
being studied. Here, the authors spelled out the limitations of the
study, rather than just assuming it.
You are the one who completely ignored the limitations and seem
determined to continue ignoring them.
Again, a clear-cut statement that the results of a survey only apply
to the population from which the sample was drawn. Do you believe me
now?
Well, do you accept the results for Western societies?
No, because it was done on *American* students and American culture is
not representative of the rest of Western society.
And again, to
whatever extent they might apply, they would apply only to
adolescents.
No, I recently posted the fact that when two variables A and B are >>correlated, that implies that A causes B, or B causes A, or that both
A and B are caused by the same thing. You chose to ignore that
statement, though.
You chose to ignore the fact that they might be totally unrelated as
the example I gave you earlier about swimming pool deaths correllated
with the number of movies made by Nicholas Cage.
So statistics can only be used in the most constricted of ways in the >>social sciences?
Yes - but not just in social sciences, anywhere that sampling is used.
Zuckerman et al. published an updated metanalysis in 2019 with 83 >>>>studies finding "strong evidence" of a negative correlation between >>>>religiosity and intelligence of -.20 to -.23.[33] Zuckerman cautioned >>>>that the "effect size of the relation is small", not generalizable >>>>beyond the Western world and that predicting religiosity from >>>>intelligence for individuals is fallible."
Please stop and read that last sentence at least six times. Maybe then
it might register with you.
I've already read it. Here's my comments on it:
1) the effect is small -- I never said it wasn't, but his statement
does seem to indicate that it *exists*, right? Is that something you
would agree with?
It tells me that something *might* exist but we can't tell for sure at
this stage.
2) it's not generalizable beyond the Western world -- I didn't say it
could be. That conclusion is left to other studies.
And studies I gave a link to earlier showed that America is an outlier
in religious trends among Western nations; you don't interpret general
trends from an outlier - at least you don't if you know anything at
all about statistics,
3) predicting religiosity from intelligence is fallible -- obviously, >>science is not infallible like the Catholic Church is supposed to be;
maybe that confused you, here?
So infallibility in the Catholic Church that you haven't a clue about
but don't let that stop you from trying to make claims about it.
No - the overall reliability of the research and the general >>>applicability of its conclusions are being challenged.
Yeah, that's what it was being challenged about.
So why do you persist in trying to use it to buttress your claim about >atheist scientists being more intelligent than ones who are religious >believers?
"Richard Lynn (20 February 1930 - July 2023) was a controversial
English psychologist and self-described "scientific racist"[1] who >>>advocated for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence. He >>>was the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly, a white supremacist >>>journal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Not the sort of guy whose conclusions I would put much reliance on.
YMMV and apparently does.
With your ad hominems to guide you,
So 'ad hominem' is yet another thing you don't really grasp. I wasn't >attacking Lynn just because of his racism,
I was attacking him because
of his track record in statistical research where he previously
claimed to show a link between intelligence and skin colour. That link
has been totally debunked
which means at best he doesn't know how to
apply statistics, at worst he massaged if not falsified the data to
reach conclusions that matched his worldview. That is where his racism
comes in - the suspicion that he may have deliberately massaged or
falsified the data.
If you had a serious illness, would you place your trust in a doctor
with a track record of misdiagnosis?
Leaving all that aside, intelligent people being more inclined to >>>question stuff would be no surprise to me at all, in fact it would tie
in with my own general experience. The people who have generated the
most progress in science are generally scientists who were
particularly clever, were able to question stuff that was already
thought about, and were clever enough to follow through on their >>>questions.
So would you agree that more intelligent people are more likely to >>criticize Church teachings?
Of course they do - the late Pope Francis himself said that "a faith
without doubts cannot advance".
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-02/pope-francis-faith-doubts-book-interview-don-pozza.html
in my early days in this newsgroup I used the pseudonym "always asking >>>questions".
I remember that. How did the group respond to your pseudonym?
Mostly indifference as far as I remember. There was one poster who
tried to make something negative of it but I don't think anyone has
taken that poster seriously for a long time.
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and
beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to
reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>> beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to
reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
(which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>> scientific position?
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>> item,
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for
things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a
religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I
asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently
from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If
so, would you agree that it is?
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the process of development going, and that there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are many interactions between cells that are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly controlled by the genome. But the source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the bits that interact is still the genome, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first the maternal genome and later the zygote's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene coding. However, doesn't the following (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nuclear activity characteristic of the host cell. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In many instances, altered function has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such are in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated from the previous nucleus. Differences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between genomes result in differences in expression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is initially present in both the nucleus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- nuclear, in effectively digital and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular machinery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described as *digital* information? (Along with its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical and structural/ physical properties and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definition and identification of actual digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be >>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital
information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do >>>>>>>>>>> you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information >>>>>>>>>>> medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic >>>>>>>>>>> sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular >>>>>>>>>>> machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately
described as *digital* information?" To which you responded: >>>>>>>>>>>
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still >>>>>>>>>>> an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>> information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? >>>>>>>>>>> My impression is you're more than able to understand these >>>>>>>>>>> concepts without me needing to laboriously explain them. >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or
deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, >>>>>>>>>> Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>> not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence >>>>>>>>> of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>> not what it is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in
silicon with electrical states representing binary numbers. (In >>>>>>>>> response to your "What would not be an analogy? Computer memory.") >>>>>>>>>
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. >>>>>>>>> Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set >>>>>>>> of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set >>>>>>>> of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your
definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the
cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer statement than >>>>>>>> you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps >>>>>>> that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those
definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an
exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of
information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum >>>>>>> is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and structure >>>>>>> at different scales. The question is, how important and unique is >>>>>>> this at the point of conception and with subsequent development? >>>>>>> I'm posing this partly persuaded I admit, but recognising that my >>>>>>> understanding is limited, I hope also tentatively and with
genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it >>>>>>> may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You >>>>>>> don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, >>>>>>> and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble >>>>>>> the bricks into the model. The different individual brick types >>>>>>> represent specific proteins, described by the specifications,
representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you (and the >>>>>>> printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model >>>>>>> comes from you and also from other specifications (representing >>>>>>> regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; and >>>>>>> DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein sequence
information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical entity). But it >>>>>>> does show how, in the case of a cell, that developmental control >>>>>>> might be distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between >>>>>>> nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship >>>>>>> between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising
any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates
them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from parts >>>>>> that are transcribed from the genome and, some of them, translated >>>>>> in a ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a maternal
ribosome, but these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So >>>>>> in your analogy, you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. >>>>>> Even your first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, just
someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not
protein, so you need to have the most important parts of the
printer made of specifications, not printed; not sure how that
would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort >>>>>> by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm
exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation ofSure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about evolutionary
what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology is
an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g.,
developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological
stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that they >>>>> may involve many events at levels extending from genes and protein
interactions up to the environment (the broad view of systems
biology), with a particular focus on the roles of protein networks
(the narrow view), and with causality being distributed. While this >>>>> view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist approach, it
should be emphasized that it builds on the successes of that approach. >>>>
change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, but of course it
can be influenced by the environment, including the cytoplasm. And
selection doesn't happen to the genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and
control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory networks
composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy,
mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, but it
isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and the
cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information in
the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious
terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm contains
heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are others.
The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be
concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration gradients
aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules involved are
produced from the genome or in metabolic processes that rely on
molecules produced from the genome. And that's where inheritance
happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions as
to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity, heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than as
a Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena
involve events distributed across many levels, with causation going >>>>> downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to suggest that >>>>> such complex phenomena derive from the execution of a single, top-
down program located in the genome, or anywhere else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But
it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever that
means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation? >>>>>>>>>>I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About
20,000rCo40,000 distinct molecular species are present in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-|
metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the most molecule-rich single cells in the human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body, pre-loaded to run early development before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and
distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of
information, nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the proteins >>>>>>>>>>>>> are under genetic *specification*. To what extent their >>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity and distribution is under genetic *control* is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>> specification, if it's the word "control" you care about. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed across >>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>> exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the >>>>>>>>>>>> maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's >>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in magnitude carry information rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's concentration, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution, and structuring of these represents a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim here is empty. The most likely reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure in such a case would probably be incompatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the other cytoplasmic "information" would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly different.
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the bits that interact is still the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genome, at first the maternal genome and later >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gene coding. However, doesn't the following (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they very quickly assume, in nearly every respect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nuclear activity characteristic of the host >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cell. In many instances, altered function has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and such are in the cytoplasm, having been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed and translated from the previous nucleus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Differences between genomes result in differences in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is initially present in both the nucleus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- nuclear, in effectively digital and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular machinery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described as *digital* information? (Along with its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical and structural/ physical properties and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a definition and identification of actual digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and large amount of it at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be >>>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do >>>>>>>>>>>> you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information >>>>>>>>>>>> medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic >>>>>>>>>>>> sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based
molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be
accurately described as *digital* information?" To which you >>>>>>>>>>>> responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still >>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>> information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? >>>>>>>>>>>> My impression is you're more than able to understand these >>>>>>>>>>>> concepts without me needing to laboriously explain them. >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or
deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, >>>>>>>>>>> Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>>> not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence >>>>>>>>>> of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>> not what it is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in
silicon with electrical states representing binary numbers. >>>>>>>>>> (In response to your "What would not be an analogy? Computer >>>>>>>>>> memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the same. >>>>>>>>>> Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set >>>>>>>>> of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set >>>>>>>>> of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your
definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the >>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer statement than >>>>>>>>> you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps >>>>>>>> that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those
definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an >>>>>>>> exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of
information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the ovum >>>>>>>> is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and structure >>>>>>>> at different scales. The question is, how important and unique >>>>>>>> is this at the point of conception and with subsequent
development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I admit, but
recognising that my understanding is limited, I hope also
tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it >>>>>>>> may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis: >>>>>>>>
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You >>>>>>>> don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, >>>>>>>> and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then assemble >>>>>>>> the bricks into the model. The different individual brick types >>>>>>>> represent specific proteins, described by the specifications, >>>>>>>> representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you (and the >>>>>>>> printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model >>>>>>>> comes from you and also from other specifications (representing >>>>>>>> regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; >>>>>>>> and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein
sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical
entity). But it does show how, in the case of a cell, that
developmental control might be distributed, multilevel, and
circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent
chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising >>>>>>> any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates >>>>>>> them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from
parts that are transcribed from the genome and, some of them,
translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a
maternal ribosome, but these are eventually replaced by home-made >>>>>>> ones. So in your analogy, you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D >>>>>>> printer. Even your first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, >>>>>>> just someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not >>>>>>> protein, so you need to have the most important parts of the
printer made of specifications, not printed; not sure how that
would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any
sort by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm
exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of
what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology is >>>>>> an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g.,
developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological
stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that
they may involve many events at levels extending from genes and
protein interactions up to the environment (the broad view of
systems biology), with a particular focus on the roles of protein >>>>>> networks (the narrow view), and with causality being distributed. >>>>>> While this view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist
approach, it should be emphasized that it builds on the successes >>>>>> of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about evolutionary >>>>> change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, but of course it >>>>> can be influenced by the environment, including the cytoplasm. And
selection doesn't happen to the genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and
control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory networks
composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy,
mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, but
it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and
the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information in
the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious
terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify, that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm contains
heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are others.
The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be
concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules
involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes that
rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where
inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions as
to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity,
heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments in
cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course those
are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents are regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Note, for one thing, that the zygote's cytoplasm is all maternal, so to
the extent that it's important, it minimizes the role of the male parent
in inheritance, as his entire contribution is half the nuclear genome.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than as >>>>>> a Formal ProgramI agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena
involve events distributed across many levels, with causation
going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to
suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the execution of a >>>>>> single, top- down program located in the genome, or anywhere else." >>>>>
it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever
that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation? >>>>>>>>>>>I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason.
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40,000 distinct molecular species are present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules,
10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human body, pre-loaded to run early development before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information reiterated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proteins are under genetic *specification*. To what extent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their quantity and distribution is under genetic *control* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> specification, if it's the word "control" you care about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>> exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where differences in magnitude carry information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentration, distribution, and structuring of these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents a substantial amount of information that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you can't clone a human by implanting human DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is chimp cell: there is essential "analog" information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide evidence that it was tried and didn't work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim here is empty. The most likely reason for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure in such a case would probably be
incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, that's because various transcription factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and such are in the cytoplasm, having been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed and translated from the previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in expression.Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the host cell. In many instances, altered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus and extra- nuclear, in effectively digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described as *digital* information? (Along with its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical and structural/ physical properties and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a definition and identification of actual digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and large amount of it at that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?
I'm interested to hear your response to this.
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information >>>>>>>>>>>>> medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based >>>>>>>>>>>>> molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information?" To which >>>>>>>>>>>>> you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still >>>>>>>>>>>>> an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that >>>>>>>>>>>>> a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be >>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? >>>>>>>>>>>>> My impression is you're more than able to understand these >>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts without me needing to laboriously explain them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or
deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, >>>>>>>>>>>> Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>>>> not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written sequence >>>>>>>>>>> of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>>> not what it is. It's a set of logic gates implemented in >>>>>>>>>>> silicon with electrical states representing binary numbers. >>>>>>>>>>> (In response to your "What would not be an analogy? Computer >>>>>>>>>>> memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a >>>>>>>>>> set of discrete states while analog information is defined as >>>>>>>>>> a set of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your >>>>>>>>>> definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the >>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer statement than >>>>>>>>>> you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; perhaps >>>>>>>>> that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those
definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an >>>>>>>>> exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications. >>>>>>>>>
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of
information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and
structure at different scales. The question is, how important >>>>>>>>> and unique is this at the point of conception and with
subsequent development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I
admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I hope >>>>>>>>> also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but it >>>>>>>>> may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis: >>>>>>>>>
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. You >>>>>>>>> don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for bricks, >>>>>>>>> and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You then
assemble the bricks into the model. The different individual >>>>>>>>> brick types represent specific proteins, described by the
specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, >>>>>>>>> and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for >>>>>>>>> the resulting model comes from you and also from other
specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; >>>>>>>>> and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein
sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical
entity). But it does show how, in the case of a cell, that
developmental control might be distributed, multilevel, and >>>>>>>>> circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent >>>>>>>>> chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not exercising >>>>>>>> any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up and translates >>>>>>>> them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self-assembles from
parts that are transcribed from the genome and, some of them, >>>>>>>> translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to start with a
maternal ribosome, but these are eventually replaced by
home-made ones. So in your analogy, you have to make the 3D
printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D printer was printed >>>>>>>> on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly >>>>>>>> made of RNA, not protein, so you need to have the most important >>>>>>>> parts of the printer made of specifications, not printed; not >>>>>>>> sure how that would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no
control of any sort by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem. >>>>>>>
exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of >>>>>>> what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology >>>>>>> is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g.,
developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological
stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that
they may involve many events at levels extending from genes and >>>>>>> protein interactions up to the environment (the broad view of
systems biology), with a particular focus on the roles of protein >>>>>>> networks (the narrow view), and with causality being distributed. >>>>>>> While this view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist
approach, it should be emphasized that it builds on the successes >>>>>>> of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome,
but of course it can be influenced by the environment, including
the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the genome; it
happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and
control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy,
mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, but
it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus andNo, we haven't established that. I would say that the information in
the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms respectively. >>>>
the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious
terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, the
genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify,
that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm contains >>>>> heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are
others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be
concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules
involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes that
rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where
inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions
as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity,
heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments in
cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course
those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents are
regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the genome
are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
whether mRNAs are
translated or silenced,
whether proteins are modified, activated, or
destroyed,
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones)
and relaying them back to the nucleus.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library containing
all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city deciding which books
get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The city is not free to invent
new books, but it has enormous power over which ones matter.
Note, for one thing, that the zygote's cytoplasm is all maternal, so
to the extent that it's important, it minimizes the role of the male
parent in inheritance, as his entire contribution is half the nuclear
genome.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than >>>>>>> as a Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena >>>>>>> involve events distributed across many levels, with causation
going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to
suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the execution of >>>>>>> a single, top- down program located in the genome, or anywhere
else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But
it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever
that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation? >>>>>>>>>>>>I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40,000 distinct molecular species are present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run early >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development before the embryonic genome activates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below).
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, nor, I think, are the lipids.
Applying the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reiterated above, they are certainly are.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proteins are under genetic *specification*. To what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent their quantity and distribution is under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification, if it's the word "control" you care about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where differences in magnitude carry information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentration, distribution, and structuring of these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents a substantial amount of information that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, effectively, *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a reason you can't clone a human by implanting human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA is chimp cell: there is essential "analog" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in the cytoplasm.
I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can provide evidence that it was tried and didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, your claim here is empty. The most likely reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for failure in such a case would probably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>>> beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to
reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
(which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
(theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.
For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a >potential recipient of those);
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 22:21:02 -0500, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:13:43 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be >>>>>>> identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why >>>>>>> you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil >>>>> 2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By >>>>> the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers,
particularly from science.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about? >>>>>>>Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial >>>>>>> evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when
available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine >>>>>>> the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to >>>>>>> religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for >>>>>> religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be >>>>>> generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably >>>>>> with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal. >>>>>> What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god. >>>>>
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the >>>>> suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles >>>>> that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on >>>>> their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be >>>>> used to reach a particular conclusion.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. Eyewitness >>>> testimony is direct evidence. DNA residues at a crime scene are
circumstantial evidence, as are fingerprints.
They are also both *forensic* evidence which is the expression I used.
As an aside, a relative of
mine- a 20-year detective on NYPD- was always amused when someone said >>>> "That's only circumstantial evidence." He despised eyewitness testimony. >>>> It was unreliable and easily challenged. He put away many more criminals >>>> with circumstantial evidence than eyewitness testimony.
Did you even read what I said to Vincent earlier about circumstantial
evidence?
Here it is again:
"I had the unpleasant
experience of sitting through a murder trial which was based entirely
on circumstantial evidence. Instructing the jury, the judge carefully
explained to the jury how they should treat the circumstantial
evidence. He explained that the probative value of such evidence lies
in how much of it there is and how the various pieces fit together. He
made the comparison with the strands of a rope; those individual
strands are weak on their own but wrapped together, they can form an
extremely strong rope. He said the same applies to circumstantial
evidence; each individual piece may be open to challenge but
ultimately the pieces have to be considered together."
I don't see any contradiction between that and what your detective
friend had to say.
Perhaps we are running up against what George Bernard Shaw said about
wo countries divided by a common language.
I call your attention to what you wrote (still intact, above):
"You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on
their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion."
In the above paragraph you lumped seeing a suspect at a crime scene
(circumstantial evidence) with eyewitness testimony (direct evidence)
and labeled both circumstantial evidence.
I'm sorry, I don't want to seem obtuse, but I don't see any
significant difference in the evidential value between Woman A saying
she saw Mr X at the scene of a crime and Woman B saying she met Mr Y
walking along the road. Can you explain your logic a bit more?
Chris
Chris
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas >>>>> of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs >>>>> the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for >>>>> example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him >>>>> as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists >>>>> and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider
him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact >>>>> that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change >>>>> the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he >>>>> does not exist.
[1] In the biblical sense of someone who speaks the word of God.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god' >>>>>>> to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>>>> beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to >>>>> reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to >>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
(which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
(theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.
For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a
potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
the existence of such a creature?
On 3/02/2026 1:10 am, jillery wrote:No. To beat the point to death and beyond resurrection, whatever its
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias
etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and
beliefs?
It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their
perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is >>> uncomfortable?
The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain
anything. Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by
"God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.
With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.
Are you saying that because God doesn't provide an explanation according
to the scientific method, a supernatural creator cannot have any >expectations over their creation?
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 22:21:02 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:13:43 -0500, Chris Thompson
<the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 09:14:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]
We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be >>>>>>>> identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why >>>>>>>> you seem to struggle to understand that.
How do you define "supernatural"?
Merriam-Webster works for me:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
<quote>
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil >>>>>> 2
a
: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b
: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
</quote>
You already know that so why are you asking?
In particular, how can it be
distinguished from "make-believe"?
By the effect it has on people generally and myself in particular. By >>>>>> the fact that it does not ignore or contradict any known answers,
particularly from science.
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about? >>>>>>>>Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial >>>>>>>> evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by
circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when >>>>>>>> available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial
evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine >>>>>>>> the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to >>>>>>>> religious belief.
I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for >>>>>>> religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be >>>>>>> generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably
with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal. >>>>>>> What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god. >>>>>>
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is; >>>>>> there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the >>>>>> suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles >>>>>> that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on >>>>>> their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be >>>>>> used to reach a particular conclusion.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence. Eyewitness >>>>> testimony is direct evidence. DNA residues at a crime scene are
circumstantial evidence, as are fingerprints.
They are also both *forensic* evidence which is the expression I used. >>>>
As an aside, a relative of
mine- a 20-year detective on NYPD- was always amused when someone said >>>>> "That's only circumstantial evidence." He despised eyewitness testimony. >>>>> It was unreliable and easily challenged. He put away many more criminals >>>>> with circumstantial evidence than eyewitness testimony.
Did you even read what I said to Vincent earlier about circumstantial
evidence?
Here it is again:
"I had the unpleasant
experience of sitting through a murder trial which was based entirely
on circumstantial evidence. Instructing the jury, the judge carefully
explained to the jury how they should treat the circumstantial
evidence. He explained that the probative value of such evidence lies
in how much of it there is and how the various pieces fit together. He >>>> made the comparison with the strands of a rope; those individual
strands are weak on their own but wrapped together, they can form an
extremely strong rope. He said the same applies to circumstantial
evidence; each individual piece may be open to challenge but
ultimately the pieces have to be considered together."
I don't see any contradiction between that and what your detective
friend had to say.
Perhaps we are running up against what George Bernard Shaw said about
wo countries divided by a common language.
I call your attention to what you wrote (still intact, above):
"You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence with conclusions
reached from that evidence. Circumstantial evidence is what it is;
there is no inherent difference between somebody saying they saw the
suspect running away from the scene and a woman telling the apostles
that she has met and talked to Christ after he was crucified and
buried. Both pieces of evidence are to error and don't prove a case on >>> their own, but taken with other circumstantial evidence, they can be
used to reach a particular conclusion."
In the above paragraph you lumped seeing a suspect at a crime scene
(circumstantial evidence) with eyewitness testimony (direct evidence)
and labeled both circumstantial evidence.
I'm sorry, I don't want to seem obtuse, but I don't see any
significant difference in the evidential value between Woman A saying
she saw Mr X at the scene of a crime and Woman B saying she met Mr Y
walking along the road. Can you explain your logic a bit more?
The difference is between a person who says they saw someone who'd been >killed and then rose from the dead, and a person who said they saw a
suspect running from the scene of a crime.
Chris
Chris
Chris
You are right to some extent about people having different
conclusions. Many people will come to similar conclusions - the areas >>>>>> of commonality among the various Christian denominations far outweighs >>>>>> the differences between them. That doesn't apply everywhere; Isam, for >>>>>> example, does not recognise Christ as divine but it does recognise him >>>>>> as a great prophet [1], second only to Muhammed. Others like Buddhists >>>>>> and Sikhs have some respect for him as a teacher but don't consider >>>>>> him at all to have been a prophet.
But so what? There are areas of science where there are widely
different conclusions drawn; abiogenesis is one example but the fact >>>>>> that there are different ideas about how it happened does not change >>>>>> the fact that it *did* happen. Similarly, the fact that different
people have different conclusions about what God is does not mean he >>>>>> does not exist.
[1] In the biblical sense of someone who speaks the word of God.
On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the >>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.
Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make
their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be
predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather
than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you
or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe. I am puzzled
then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me. Please don't.
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>????
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians withDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me
on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.
I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression
that that was the position of the author of the book from which this
example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off? >>>>
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. CommonI think it was implied when you statedDo you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with >>>>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity. >>>>
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others
who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on
something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea
of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all
being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction
in that argument.
ancestor for all humans? No.
That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor >>> (of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous >>> generations who were not descended from them.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans. >>>>> no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be >>>>> dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed >>>> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would >>>> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have
been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the
fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire
population were all descended.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a
big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>>> item,Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for
things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
Then why do you keep replying to me?
Would it not be simpler to reply to
what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?
And sometimes it's hard to tell just what you're saying and what you
aren't.
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a
religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I
asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently >>>from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If
so, would you agree that it is?
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the >>>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.
Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make >>>> their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be
predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather
than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you
or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe. I am puzzled
then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me. Please don't.
When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to
show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't
want to misrepresent anyone?
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god' >>>>>>>> to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>>>>> beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to >>>>>> reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to >>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the >>>> God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy >>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists >>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
(theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.
For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a
potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain
anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
On 2/1/26 1:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 17:49:39 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and >>>>>>>> spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150 >>>>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with >>>>>>> indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and >>>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way. >>>>
standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by
definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to >>>> that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",
with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam
Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost
identical Cambridge Dictionary definition
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
- things that cannot be explained by science
Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell >people what they are.
People do it all the time in all kinds of contexts.
The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including >dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.
And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that
your idea of "supernatural"?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on
consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.
Science has been able to figure out where processes happen in the
brain but nothing about what consciousness even is let along where it
comes from. As I've described it before, it's like an electronics
engineer analysing the electronic processes going on in my PC as I
type this response and claiming that gives him understanding of where
the ideas are coming from that I am using the PC to express. No need
to take my word from it, here is what a detailed analysis in this
month's Scientific American has to say:
"Yet understanding brain-network complexity does not solve the mystery
of consciousness. These findings can help explain how a brain can
reach the state of consciousness but not what happens once it's gotten
there, Mashour points out. Changes in someone's PCI value can't
explain, for example, why The Dress looks blue and black one moment
and white and gold the next. It can't explain how a toothache feels
different from a headache, how someone without functioning circulation
can have a near-death experience, or how the psychedelic drug
5-MeO-DMT makes time seem to stop and obliterates your sense of self."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness-science-faces-its-hardest-problem-yet/
The article also relates the story of how back in 1998, at a
consciousness-science conference in Germany, Christof Koch bet
philosopher David Chalmers a case of wine that researchers would
discover a "clear" pattern of brain activation underlying
consciousness within 25 years. At a June 2023 conference in New York
City, Koch walked onto the stage and publicly gave Chalmers his case
of wine, conceding that he had lost their bet.
This is the article that I mentioned to you a couple of days ago, you
really hold read it before making any more claims about science and
consciousness. I don't think that link is paywalled; if it is you can
get it here:
https://archive.is/wglRh
Like I said, we don't know everything. But what we do know is not zero.
Not by any means. Being able to cure phantom limb pain or repeatedly
induce out-of-body experiences is not nothing.
As for science not being able to say what consciousness is, that is a >message that I have repeated many times myself. How can you explain >something when you don't know what it is you're supposed to explain?
But
that is a problem more of philosophy than of science. Science is doing a >bang-up job of investigating memory, perception, decision-making, and
other components that probably go into making up consciousness.
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,
somehow or other figure out consciousness.
The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of
the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding
the science) will reject the explanation.
That is total bullshit - please identify any single finding of science
that has ever been rejected by 9.9% of the general public.
The 99.9% may be hyperbole, but there are and have been areas of science >that are rejected by well over half of the general public. (You are >insulated from the worst of this by not living in the U.S.)
And I
strongly suspect that a full explanation of consciousness will be more >poorly received than evolution by close to an order of magnitude. Just >consider how *you* would received a scientific argument that free will
does not exist.
Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
That sounds like projection.
No, it is experience on talk.origins.
On 2/3/2026 2:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought >>>>> was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the >>>>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner. >>>>> Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make >>>>> their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be
predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather
than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you
or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe. I am puzzled
then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me. Please don't.
When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to
show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't
want to misrepresent anyone?
You could start by acknowledging your question above about what I think
is something you have completely made up.
I have no idea why, but
assume it is because it is a topic you would like to discuss. It simply
is missing from anything I have said or what the book attempts to do.
Being someone who has actually read the book, I would think you surely
know this.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians withDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me >>>>> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.
I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression >>>> that that was the position of the author of the book from which this
example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common
I think it was implied when you statedDo you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with >>>>>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity. >>>>>
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others >>>>> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on >>>>> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea >>>>> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all
being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction >>>>> in that argument.
ancestor for all humans? No.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans. >>>>>> no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be >>>>>> dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed >>>>> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would >>>>> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have >>>>> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the
fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire
population were all descended.
????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor >>>> (of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous >>>> generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a
big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly
in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I
thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:26:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 1:10 am, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get anyI came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
worshipper feedback.
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?
e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I
can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>> beliefs?
It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their
perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is >>>> uncomfortable?
The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain
anything. Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by
"God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.
With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.
Are you saying that because God doesn't provide an explanation according
to the scientific method, a supernatural creator cannot have any
expectations over their creation?
No. To beat the point to death and beyond resurrection, whatever its
type or expectations, invoking "God" as an explanation provides
nothing but emotional comfort for those who find that explanation
comforting.
And in the spirit of answering innuendos, rejecting God as an
explanation is different from rejecting God or morality. Whatever
your basis for moral accountability, history shows God has been used
to justify any and all behavior people felt like doing.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.
'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god' >>>>>>>>> to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and
beliefs?
Similarly, do you reject God
You mean reject the idea of God. After all, there's no God there to >>>>>>> reject.
because the idea of moral accountability is
uncomfortable?
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to >>>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the >>>>> God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy >>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists >>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
(theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.
For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a
potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain
anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm aWhich we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those). >>>
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to >>>>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the >>>>>> God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy >>>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists >>>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way
(theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence. >>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a
potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain >>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm aWhich we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those). >>>>
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other >person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify
and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:18:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to >>>>>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the >>>>>>> God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy >>>>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists >>>>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way >>>>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence. >>>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a >>>>>> potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain >>>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm aWhich we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those). >>>>>
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying
the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other
person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify
and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
Sure. I'll go first.
You believe atheists are afraid of evidence pointing to the existence
of God because we want to behave immorally, which we can't do freely
if there is a caring and moral God watching over us.
Now, what is my position (which, I should point out, is partly a
refutation of your position I recited above)?
On 3/02/2026 7:18 pm, jillery wrote:If it exists and if it has expectations, how are we to know what those expectations are? Revelation? Whose revelation should we accept, and
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:26:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 1:10 am, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life >>>>>>>> began.
'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions >>>>> and
beliefs?
It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their
perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral
accountability is
uncomfortable?
The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain
anything.-a Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by
"God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.
With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.
Are you saying that because God doesn't provide an explanation according >>> to the scientific method, a supernatural creator cannot have any
expectations over their creation?
No.-a To beat the point to death and beyond resurrection, whatever its
type or expectations, invoking "God" as an explanation provides
nothing but emotional comfort for those who find that explanation
comforting.
There are two mutually exclusive hypotheses of reality: materialism and supernaturalism (super-materialism if you like).
You reject one of these out-of-hand, based on your assessment that it "doesn't explain anything". Bold move.
Moreover, your "doesn't explain anything" assertion is on the basis that super-materialism cannot be examined within materialism.
A hot mess of category errors, logical inconsistencies, and a tiresome
shell game reheating simplistic tropes and lazy strawmen.
And in the spirit of answering innuendos, rejecting God as an
explanation is different from rejecting God or morality.-a Whatever
your basis for moral accountability, history shows God has been used
to justify any and all behavior people felt like doing.
On 4/02/2026 11:08 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:18:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the >>>>>>>> God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy >>>>>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists >>>>>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way >>>>>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence. >>>>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a >>>>>>> potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain >>>>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying >>>>>> the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other
person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify
and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
Sure. I'll go first.
You believe atheists are afraid of evidence pointing to the existence
of God because we want to behave immorally, which we can't do freely
if there is a caring and moral God watching over us.
No. But as I say, this process often needs to be iterative. A dialogue.
So allow me to clarify.
I did not say (or intend to imply a generalisation) that atheists "are >afraid of evidence pointing to the existence of God because they want to >behave immorally."
Rather, I was stating the *risk* of bias both ways: for the theist, a
[risk of a] desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a potential >recipient of those); for the atheist, a [risk of a] desire to disconfirm
a God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Note also that I'm not saying (or intending to imply a generalisation)
that atheists "want to behave immorally". Obviously these concepts are >connected, but the distinction is real and important (which I can
elaborate on as needed).
In short, my point is to challenge the notion that theists are
intrinsically more subject to bias than atheists. Instead, on both sides
of this debate, the theist and the atheist both have potential biases (a >risk of), derived from the hope/fear of the metaphysical positions being >right/wrong respectively.
Now, if you can say that back to me, and comment/critique if you like, >excellent.
Now, what is my position (which, I should point out, is partly a
refutation of your position I recited above)?
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:04:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>>>> item,Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>> position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for
things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
Then why do you keep replying to me?
Maybe because I'm a polite guy who doesn't like ignoring people
without explanation. There are, of course, exceptions but it's very
short list, hard to get onto and you haven't quite reached the
criteria yet.
Would it not be simpler to reply to
what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?
Nah, there has never been a 'simple' conversation with you.
And sometimes it's hard to tell just what you're saying and what you
aren't.
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a
religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I
asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently
from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If >>>> so, would you agree that it is?
On 3/02/2026 7:18 pm, jillery wrote:You're relying too much on your perceptions and beliefs. One more
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:26:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/02/2026 1:10 am, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any >>>>>> worshipper feedback.I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began. >>>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.
What if, in reality, God did it?
What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it? >>>>>> e.g.
Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'
to comfort you?
Marx's "opium of the people"?
Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias >>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I >>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and >>>>> beliefs?
It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their
perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.
Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is >>>>> uncomfortable?
The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain
anything. Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by
"God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.
With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.
Are you saying that because God doesn't provide an explanation according >>> to the scientific method, a supernatural creator cannot have any
expectations over their creation?
No. To beat the point to death and beyond resurrection, whatever its
type or expectations, invoking "God" as an explanation provides
nothing but emotional comfort for those who find that explanation
comforting.
There are two mutually exclusive hypotheses of reality: materialism and >supernaturalism (super-materialism if you like).
You reject one of these out-of-hand, based on your assessment that it >"doesn't explain anything". Bold move.
Moreover, your "doesn't explain anything" assertion is on the basis that >super-materialism cannot be examined within materialism.That sounds more like what you posted. I await your list of what and
A hot mess of category errors, logical inconsistencies, and a tiresome
shell game reheating simplistic tropes and lazy strawmen.
--And in the spirit of answering innuendos, rejecting God as an
explanation is different from rejecting God or morality. Whatever
your basis for moral accountability, history shows God has been used
to justify any and all behavior people felt like doing.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:04:51 -0800, John HarshmanYou have shown repeatedly that you have no criteria, unless you count
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>>>> item,Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>> position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for
things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
Then why do you keep replying to me?
Maybe because I'm a polite guy who doesn't like ignoring people
without explanation. There are, of course, exceptions but it's very
short list, hard to get onto and you haven't quite reached the
criteria yet.
Would it not be simpler to reply to
what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?
Nah, there has never been a 'simple' conversation with you.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 12:26:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 11:08 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:18:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
(which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way >>>>>>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence. >>>>>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a >>>>>>>> potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain >>>>>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying >>>>>>> the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other
person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify
and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
Sure. I'll go first.
You believe atheists are afraid of evidence pointing to the existence
of God because we want to behave immorally, which we can't do freely
if there is a caring and moral God watching over us.
No. But as I say, this process often needs to be iterative. A dialogue.
So allow me to clarify.
I did not say (or intend to imply a generalisation) that atheists "are
afraid of evidence pointing to the existence of God because they want to
behave immorally."
Rather, I was stating the *risk* of bias both ways: for the theist, a
[risk of a] desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a potential
recipient of those); for the atheist, a [risk of a] desire to disconfirm
a God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those). >>
Note also that I'm not saying (or intending to imply a generalisation)
that atheists "want to behave immorally". Obviously these concepts are
connected, but the distinction is real and important (which I can
elaborate on as needed).
In short, my point is to challenge the notion that theists are
intrinsically more subject to bias than atheists. Instead, on both sides
of this debate, the theist and the atheist both have potential biases (a
risk of), derived from the hope/fear of the metaphysical positions being
right/wrong respectively.
If there are biases, they're irrelevant to whether an Intelligent
Designer exists, at least as presented by ID proponents. So ID
proponents shouldn't, and atheists don't, use the idea to prop up
their supposed biases. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by accountability and judgment, though.
Now, if you can say that back to me, and comment/critique if you like,
excellent.
Now, what is my position (which, I should point out, is partly a
refutation of your position I recited above)?
So when are you going to state my position in your own words?
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I'm interested to hear your response to this.
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, that's because various transcription factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and such are in the cytoplasm, having been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed and translated from the previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in expression.Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the host cell. In many instances, altered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequently support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus and extra- nuclear, in effectively digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and analogue form respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Along with its chemical and structural/ physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a definition and identification of actual digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and large amount of it at that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information >>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium stores heritable information in discrete symbolic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information?" To which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these concepts without me needing to laboriously explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, G, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written
sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, >>>>>>>>>>>> but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic gates
implemented in silicon with electrical states representing >>>>>>>>>>>> binary numbers. (In response to your "What would not be an >>>>>>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a >>>>>>>>>>> set of discrete states while analog information is defined as >>>>>>>>>>> a set of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts >>>>>>>>>>> your definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of >>>>>>>>>>> the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer statement >>>>>>>>>>> than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known;
perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated those >>>>>>>>>> definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in an >>>>>>>>>> exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications. >>>>>>>>>>
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of
information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and >>>>>>>>>> structure at different scales. The question is, how important >>>>>>>>>> and unique is this at the point of conception and with
subsequent development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I >>>>>>>>>> admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I >>>>>>>>>> hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but >>>>>>>>>> it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this hypothesis: >>>>>>>>>>
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. >>>>>>>>>> You don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for >>>>>>>>>> bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You >>>>>>>>>> then assemble the bricks into the model. The different
individual brick types represent specific proteins, described >>>>>>>>>> by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is >>>>>>>>>> ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>> The plan for the resulting model comes from you and also from >>>>>>>>>> other specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc). >>>>>>>>>>
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; >>>>>>>>>> and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein
sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical >>>>>>>>>> entity). But it does show how, in the case of a cell, that >>>>>>>>>> developmental control might be distributed, multilevel, and >>>>>>>>>> circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent >>>>>>>>>> chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not
exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up >>>>>>>>> and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self- >>>>>>>>> assembles from parts that are transcribed from the genome and, >>>>>>>>> some of them, translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to >>>>>>>>> start with a maternal ribosome, but these are eventually
replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy, you have to >>>>>>>>> make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D printer >>>>>>>>> was printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And the
ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need to >>>>>>>>> have the most important parts of the printer made of
specifications, not printed; not sure how that would actually >>>>>>>>> work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort by the
ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm
exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of >>>>>>>> what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology >>>>>>>> is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g.,
developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological
stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that >>>>>>>> they may involve many events at levels extending from genes and >>>>>>>> protein interactions up to the environment (the broad view of >>>>>>>> systems biology), with a particular focus on the roles of
protein networks (the narrow view), and with causality being
distributed. While this view is explicitly the opposite of the >>>>>>>> reductionist approach, it should be emphasized that it builds on >>>>>>>> the successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, >>>>>>> but of course it can be influenced by the environment, including >>>>>>> the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the genome; it
happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and >>>>>> control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy,
mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, but >>>>> it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and >>>>>> the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms respectively. >>>>>No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information
in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious
terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of
discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition,
the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog." >>>>
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify,
that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm
contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are
others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be
concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules
involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes
that rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where
inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions
as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity,
heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments in
cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course
those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents are
regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the
genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into mRNA
and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this.
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides
the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city deciding
which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The city is not
free to invent new books, but it has enormous power over which ones
matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of parts created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond to the books that are checked out themselves. And which books are checked out is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
Note, for one thing, that the zygote's cytoplasm is all maternal, so
to the extent that it's important, it minimizes the role of the male
parent in inheritance, as his entire contribution is half the nuclear
genome.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than >>>>>>>> as a Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex phenomena >>>>>>>> involve events distributed across many levels, with causation >>>>>>>> going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little sense to
suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the execution of >>>>>>>> a single, top- down program located in the genome, or anywhere >>>>>>>> else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But >>>>>>> it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever >>>>>>> that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded conversation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, perhaps that's the point.
The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of cellular structures. About 20,000rCo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40,000 distinct molecular species are present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting of approximately 10-|-# protein molecules, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA molecules, 10rU| tRNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|-| metabolite molecules, 10-|rU| lipid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single cells in the human body, pre-loaded to run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> early development before the embryonic genome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> units, but to the concentration gradients and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below).
Applying the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reiterated above, they are certainly are.
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, nor, I think, are the lipids. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proteins are under genetic *specification*. To what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent their quantity and distribution is under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification, if it's the word "control" you care about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exerts causation over the nucleus, because some of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maternal proteins act as transcription factors. If that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where differences in magnitude carry information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentration, distribution, and structuring of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these represents a substantial amount of information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is, effectively, *analog* information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a reason you can't clone a human by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can provide evidence that it was tried and didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, your claim here is empty. The most likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason for failure in such a case would probably be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatibility of the nuclear and mitochondrial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genomes. I doubt that any of the other cytoplasmic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "information" would be significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
I'm interested to hear your response to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in nuclei which subsequently support normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and such are in the cytoplasm, having been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed and translated from the previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus and extra- nuclear, in effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Along with its chemical and structural/ physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual digital information, and large amount of it at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital
information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these concepts without me needing to laboriously explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic gates >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in silicon with electrical states representing >>>>>>>>>>>>> binary numbers. (In response to your "What would not be an >>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a >>>>>>>>>>>> set of discrete states while analog information is defined >>>>>>>>>>>> as a set of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts >>>>>>>>>>>> your definition, the genome is digital while some fraction >>>>>>>>>>>> of the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer >>>>>>>>>>>> statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated >>>>>>>>>>> those definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in >>>>>>>>>>> an exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications. >>>>>>>>>>>
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of >>>>>>>>>>> information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and >>>>>>>>>>> structure at different scales. The question is, how important >>>>>>>>>>> and unique is this at the point of conception and with
subsequent development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I >>>>>>>>>>> admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I >>>>>>>>>>> hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but >>>>>>>>>>> it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this
hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. >>>>>>>>>>> You don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for >>>>>>>>>>> bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You >>>>>>>>>>> then assemble the bricks into the model. The different
individual brick types represent specific proteins, described >>>>>>>>>>> by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is >>>>>>>>>>> ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>> The plan for the resulting model comes from you and also from >>>>>>>>>>> other specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc). >>>>>>>>>>>
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; >>>>>>>>>>> and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein >>>>>>>>>>> sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical >>>>>>>>>>> entity). But it does show how, in the case of a cell, that >>>>>>>>>>> developmental control might be distributed, multilevel, and >>>>>>>>>>> circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent >>>>>>>>>>> chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not
exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up >>>>>>>>>> and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self- >>>>>>>>>> assembles from parts that are transcribed from the genome and, >>>>>>>>>> some of them, translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to >>>>>>>>>> start with a maternal ribosome, but these are eventually
replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy, you have to >>>>>>>>>> make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D
printer was printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And >>>>>>>>>> the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need >>>>>>>>>> to have the most important parts of the printer made of
specifications, not printed; not sure how that would actually >>>>>>>>>> work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort by the >>>>>>>>>> ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>> exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of >>>>>>>>> what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology >>>>>>>>> is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g., >>>>>>>>> developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological >>>>>>>>> stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that >>>>>>>>> they may involve many events at levels extending from genes and >>>>>>>>> protein interactions up to the environment (the broad view of >>>>>>>>> systems biology), with a particular focus on the roles of
protein networks (the narrow view), and with causality being >>>>>>>>> distributed. While this view is explicitly the opposite of the >>>>>>>>> reductionist approach, it should be emphasized that it builds >>>>>>>>> on the successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, >>>>>>>> but of course it can be influenced by the environment, including >>>>>>>> the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the genome; it >>>>>>>> happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and >>>>>>> control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy, >>>>>>> mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like,
but it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and >>>>>>> the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms
respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information >>>>>> in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious >>>>>> terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of >>>>> discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition,
the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog." >>>>>
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify,
that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm
contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are
others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be >>>>>> concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules >>>>>> involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes
that rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where >>>>>> inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions >>>>> as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity,
heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments
in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course
those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents are
regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the
genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into
mRNA and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this.
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides
the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city deciding
which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The city is not
free to invent new books, but it has enormous power over which ones
matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of parts
created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond to the
books that are checked out themselves. And which books are checked out
is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
0. Cytoplasm Affects The Number Of Vertebrae In Carp-goldfish Clones sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
When the nucleus of a common carp, Cyprinus carpio was transferred into
the enucleated egg cell of a goldfish, Carassius auratus, the result is
a cross-species clone with vertebral number closer to that of a goldfish than of a carp but with more rounded body of a carp. The team behind the experiment conclude that the egg cytoplasm, and not the genetic code of
the transplanted nucleus, influenced this aspect of the skeleton as the cloned fish developed.
1. Centriole and Basal Body Templating
Centrioles (and the basal bodies that anchor cilia) do not form spontaneously from a "recipe" in the DNA. Instead, they require a
physical template.
The Mechanism: New centrioles are usually assembled adjacent to pre- existing ones. The geometry, symmetry, and orientation of the "mother" centriole dictate the formation of the "daughter."
Heritability: If the arrangement of centrioles is altered, that new
spatial configuration can be propagated through cell divisions, even
though the genes for the protein components (tubulin, etc.) remain identical.
2. Prions and Protein-Conformation States
Prions are perhaps the purest form of "analogue" heritability. They represent information stored entirely in the shape of a molecule.
The Example (Saccharomyces cerevisiae): In yeast, the $[PSI+]$ factor is
a non-Mendelian trait. It is not caused by a DNA mutation, but by a
specific protein ($Sup35$) misfolding into an amyloid aggregate.
Transmission: When a yeast cell divides, these misfolded "seeds" are
passed through the cytoplasm to the daughter cell, where they act as templates to misfold newly synthesized proteins. This changes the cell's phenotype (e.g., its ability to read through stop codons) across generations.
3. The Maternal Effect (Ooplasmic Segregation)
In many organisms, the earliest stages of development are controlled entirely by the "spatial geography" of the egg's cytoplasm, established
by the mother.
The Example (Drosophila): The "Bicoid" protein gradient is established
in the egg before fertilization. The concentration of this protein at
one end of the cell defines the "head" of the future embryo.
Inheritance: The offspring's body plan is determined by the physical distribution of molecules in the mother's cytoplasm rather than the offspring's own zygotic DNA.
4. Cortical Inheritance in Ciliates
As mentioned in the references, Paramecium and Tetrahymena provide the
most striking evidence of "structural memory."
The Experiment: Researchers used micro-surgery to flip a row of cilia 180-#.
The Result: When the cell divided, the "upside-down" row was copied. The daughter cells inherited the inverted pattern. Since the DNA was
untouched, this proved that the cell cortex contains its own blueprint
for organization that is independent of the nucleus.
5. Metabolic Steady-States (Epigenetic Loops)
Information can be stored in the "on/off" status of a metabolic pathway.
The Mechanism: If a specific protein activates its own production (a positive feedback loop), a high concentration of that protein becomes a heritable state.
Transmission: During division, the daughter cell receives a high concentration of the protein, which keeps the "loop" running. If the concentration were to drop below a certain threshold (the "analogue"
limit), the trait would vanish forever, despite the gene still being present.
grandmotherrCOs ovum raA motherrCOs zygote raA motherrCOs oocytes raA your zygote
Cells inherit *cells*, not instructions to rebuild cells from scratch.
Note, for one thing, that the zygote's cytoplasm is all maternal, so
to the extent that it's important, it minimizes the role of the male
parent in inheritance, as his entire contribution is half the
nuclear genome.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than >>>>>>>>> as a Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex
phenomena involve events distributed across many levels, with >>>>>>>>> causation going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little >>>>>>>>> sense to suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the >>>>>>>>> execution of a single, top- down program located in the genome, >>>>>>>>> or anywhere else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But >>>>>>>> it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever >>>>>>>> that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, perhaps that's the point.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic distribution of cellular structures. About >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000rCo 40,000 distinct molecular species are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. This a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most molecule-rich single cells in the human body, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-loaded to run early development before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituent units, but to the concentration gradients >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information below).
Applying the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reiterated above, they are certainly are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, nor, I think, are the lipids. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proteins are under genetic *specification*. To what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent their quantity and distribution is under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic specification, if it's the word "control" you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm exerts causation over the nucleus, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the maternal proteins act as transcription >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities, where differences in magnitude carry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information rather than discrete symbols, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structuring of these represents a substantial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a reason you can't clone a human by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can provide evidence that it was tried and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't work, your claim here is empty. The most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely reason for failure in such a case would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
On 2/3/26 12:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:04:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians withDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>>>>> scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>> position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for
things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
Then why do you keep replying to me?
Maybe because I'm a polite guy who doesn't like ignoring people
without explanation. There are, of course, exceptions but it's very
short list, hard to get onto and you haven't quite reached the
criteria yet.
Are you acquainted with the term "Minnesota nice" or, alternatively, >"passive-aggressive"?
Would it not be simpler to reply to
what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?
Nah, there has never been a 'simple' conversation with you.
Should you not welcome a challenge? I find this refusal to engage
extremely annoying. Rude, too. Is that what you're going for?
And sometimes it's hard to tell just what you're saying and what you
aren't.
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a >>>>> religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I
asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently
from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If >>>>> so, would you agree that it is?
On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression >>>>> that that was the position of the author of the book from which this >>>>> example was taken.
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me >>>>>> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you. >>>>>
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common
I think it was implied when you statedDo you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with >>>>>>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity. >>>>>>
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others >>>>>> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on >>>>>> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea >>>>>> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all >>>>>> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction >>>>>> in that argument.
ancestor for all humans? No.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed >>>>>> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would >>>>>> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have >>>>>> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the >>>>>> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire >>>>>> population were all descended.
The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor >>>>> (of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous >>>>> generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a >>>> big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly
in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I
thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.
problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a
common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far
back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This
problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not
one of many.
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:45:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak >><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[rCa]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable >>>>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >>>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >>>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be >>>a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >>>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older >>>and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal >>aspect, not physical attributes.
Marks on a paper are just as physical as types of eye color.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:12:30 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression >>>>>> that that was the position of the author of the book from which this >>>>>> example was taken.
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me >>>>>>> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that >>>>>>> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you. >>>>>>
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common >>>>>> ancestor for all humans? No.
I think it was implied when you statedDo you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity. >>>>>>>
*scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others >>>>>>> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on >>>>>>> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science >>>>>>> generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea >>>>>>> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all >>>>>>> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction >>>>>>> in that argument.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed >>>>>>> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would >>>>>>> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all >>>>>>> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have >>>>>>> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the >>>>>>> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire >>>>>>> population were all descended.
The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor >>>>>> (of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous >>>>>> generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a >>>>> big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly
in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I
thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.
problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a
common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far
back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This
problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not
one of many.
We discussed this at some length starting with my post on Thu, 15 Jan
2026 09:15:47 +0000 where I introduced the 'true men' (humans with
capability of recognizing God) concept that the Pope applied to
evolution. That is why I thought you were playing Groundhog Day with
me.
Essentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about
other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed
that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become
fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that
there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but
pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in
when he first identified NS.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church'sThus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:49:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:45:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak >>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[a]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable >>>>>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a >>>>> survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >>>>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >>>>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be >>>>a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >>>>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older >>>>and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal >>>aspect, not physical attributes.
Marks on a paper are just as physical as types of eye color.
Now you are just trying to be silly
so I think this discussion really has exceeded its shelf life.
On 4/02/2026 3:19 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 12:26:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 11:08 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:18:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
No, that can't be it. There's no reason to be morally accountable to
some Cosmic Designer.
On what basis do you assert that?
The lack of a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the
God of the Bible.
A creator may well have expectations of their creation.
Or "they" may not. So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy
away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists
(which you haven't demonstrated, of course).
You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way >>>>>>>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence. >>>>>>>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a >>>>>>>>> potential recipient of those);
Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be. So do you really gain >>>>>>>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?
for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a
God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).
Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an
Intelligent Designer. So what do we gain metaphysically by denying >>>>>>>> the existence of such a creature?
Again, you're not following the logic here.
How am I supposedly doing that?
I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other >>>>> person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify >>>>> and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.
Sure. I'll go first.
You believe atheists are afraid of evidence pointing to the existence
of God because we want to behave immorally, which we can't do freely
if there is a caring and moral God watching over us.
No. But as I say, this process often needs to be iterative. A dialogue.
So allow me to clarify.
I did not say (or intend to imply a generalisation) that atheists "are
afraid of evidence pointing to the existence of God because they want to >>> behave immorally."
Rather, I was stating the *risk* of bias both ways: for the theist, a
[risk of a] desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a potential
recipient of those); for the atheist, a [risk of a] desire to disconfirm >>> a God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those). >>>
Note also that I'm not saying (or intending to imply a generalisation)
that atheists "want to behave immorally". Obviously these concepts are
connected, but the distinction is real and important (which I can
elaborate on as needed).
In short, my point is to challenge the notion that theists are
intrinsically more subject to bias than atheists. Instead, on both sides >>> of this debate, the theist and the atheist both have potential biases (a >>> risk of), derived from the hope/fear of the metaphysical positions being >>> right/wrong respectively.
If there are biases, they're irrelevant to whether an Intelligent
Designer exists, at least as presented by ID proponents. So ID
proponents shouldn't, and atheists don't, use the idea to prop up
their supposed biases. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by
accountability and judgment, though.
This is helpful. It demonstrates that even after I've painstakingly >re-explained my proposition, you are unable or unwilling to say it back
to me.
To be very clear, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you
you re-present my argument to demonstrate you've grasped its structure
and logic (simple as it is this case). Having done that, by all means >challenge and disagree.
But you can't or won't. Which is why meaningful discussion with you is
not possible.
And let's be real, Vincent. We both know you have no real interest in an >open-minded, respectful dialogue.
Now, if you can say that back to me, and comment/critique if you like,
excellent.
Now, what is my position (which, I should point out, is partly a
refutation of your position I recited above)?
So when are you going to state my position in your own words?
On 2026-02-04 6:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:12:30 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression >>>>>>> that that was the position of the author of the book from which this >>>>>>> example was taken.
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>>>>> position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me >>>>>>>> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that >>>>>>>> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you. >>>>>>>
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common >>>>>>> ancestor for all humans? No.
I think it was implied when you statedDo you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the >>>>>>>> *scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others >>>>>>>> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on >>>>>>>> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science >>>>>>>> generally?
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity. >>>>>>>>
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea >>>>>>>> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all >>>>>>>> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction >>>>>>>> in that argument.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed >>>>>>>> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would >>>>>>>> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all >>>>>>>> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have >>>>>>>> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the >>>>>>>> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire >>>>>>>> population were all descended.
The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor
(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous
generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a >>>>>> big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly
in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I
thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.
problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a
common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far
back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This
problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not
one of many.
We discussed this at some length starting with my post on Thu, 15 Jan
2026 09:15:47 +0000 where I introduced the 'true men' (humans with
capability of recognizing God) concept that the Pope applied to
evolution. That is why I thought you were playing Groundhog Day with
me.
Essentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about
other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed
that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become
fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that
there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but
pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in
when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism
for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that >inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this
in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no >indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support
for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated >>>>>>> suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed >>>>>>>> in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce >>>>>>>> most of the changes in the genome of evolving populations.
According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the
number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation >>>>>>>> rate. Thus, in every evolving population there will be 100 new >>>>>>>> fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 >>>>>>>> million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The average >>>>>>>> generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this
corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time >>>>>>>> that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. >>>>>>>> What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>>>>>> the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites- >>>>>>>> in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and
endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long
legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe. >>>>>>>>
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; >>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative >>>>>>>> societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced >>>>>>>> muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility;
precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly
adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are
required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral
mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these
accounted for in the time available?
accounted for is simple: you should understand that a number of >>>>>>> mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the ones that
eventually became fixed would have happened during human
evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore a small >>>>>>> sample of a much larger number than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe* >>>>>
blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is
it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps
and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free
lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, and
I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight,
surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large
and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
What you're saying, and I agree, is that the substantive differences
between humans and chimps, at least the differences which account for humans' great achievements, are (1) language, including especially
written language, and (2) cultural cohesion.
Where I disagree with you is your claim that those two differences are extreme. First, chimpanzees already have culture. I don't see any qualitative differences between human and chip culture besides language.
And language is probably not a genetically huge difference. Chimps
already have verbal communication. To reach human level, the common
ancestor would need a few (like maybe half a dozen or less) advantageous mutations for recursive grammar, maybe a couple more for other aspects
of our language, and a few more to adapt our vocal tract. This should
not require several millions of years.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 20:26:36 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/3/26 12:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:04:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanI'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians withDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>> position?
How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in
engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for >>>>> things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?
Then why do you keep replying to me?
Maybe because I'm a polite guy who doesn't like ignoring people
without explanation. There are, of course, exceptions but it's very
short list, hard to get onto and you haven't quite reached the
criteria yet.
Are you acquainted with the term "Minnesota nice" or, alternatively,
"passive-aggressive"?
OK, I'll not try to play nice any more.
Would it not be simpler to reply to
what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?
Nah, there has never been a 'simple' conversation with you.
Should you not welcome a challenge? I find this refusal to engage
extremely annoying. Rude, too. Is that what you're going for?
And sometimes it's hard to tell just what you're saying and what you
aren't.
If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a >>>>>> religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I >>>>>> asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently >>>>> >from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If >>>>>> so, would you agree that it is?
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
I'm interested to hear your response to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
...On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, you have a point that the ovum has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various bits that must be in place in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many interactions between cells that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not directly controlled by the genome. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source of the bits that interact is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genome, at first the maternal genome and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later the zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in nuclei which subsequently support normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development." [1]
Sure, that's because various transcription factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and such are in the cytoplasm, having been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed and translated from the previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in expression.
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that information is initially present in both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus and extra- nuclear, in effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context. But yes, proteins contain information, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's what you mean. But that information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as *digital* information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Along with its chemical and structural/ physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual digital information, and large amount of it at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital
information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these concepts without me needing to laboriously explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Therefore, it seems you are being disingenuous or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately obstructionist in your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that way, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic gates >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in silicon with electrical states representing >>>>>>>>>>>>> binary numbers. (In response to your "What would not be an >>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a >>>>>>>>>>>> set of discrete states while analog information is defined >>>>>>>>>>>> as a set of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts >>>>>>>>>>>> your definition, the genome is digital while some fraction >>>>>>>>>>>> of the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much clearer >>>>>>>>>>>> statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated >>>>>>>>>>> those definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in >>>>>>>>>>> an exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins implications. >>>>>>>>>>>
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of >>>>>>>>>>> information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and >>>>>>>>>>> structure at different scales. The question is, how important >>>>>>>>>>> and unique is this at the point of conception and with
subsequent development? I'm posing this partly persuaded I >>>>>>>>>>> admit, but recognising that my understanding is limited, I >>>>>>>>>>> hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but >>>>>>>>>>> it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this
hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. >>>>>>>>>>> You don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for >>>>>>>>>>> bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You >>>>>>>>>>> then assemble the bricks into the model. The different
individual brick types represent specific proteins, described >>>>>>>>>>> by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D printer is >>>>>>>>>>> ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>> The plan for the resulting model comes from you and also from >>>>>>>>>>> other specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc). >>>>>>>>>>>
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-replication; >>>>>>>>>>> and DNA is more than a static look-up library of protein >>>>>>>>>>> sequence information (it's also a dynamic physio-chemical >>>>>>>>>>> entity). But it does show how, in the case of a cell, that >>>>>>>>>>> developmental control might be distributed, multilevel, and >>>>>>>>>>> circularly causal between nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent >>>>>>>>>>> chicken-and-egg relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not
exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up >>>>>>>>>> and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self- >>>>>>>>>> assembles from parts that are transcribed from the genome and, >>>>>>>>>> some of them, translated in a ribosome. Obviously you need to >>>>>>>>>> start with a maternal ribosome, but these are eventually
replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy, you have to >>>>>>>>>> make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your first 3D
printer was printed on a 3D printer, just someone else's. And >>>>>>>>>> the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, so you need >>>>>>>>>> to have the most important parts of the printer made of
specifications, not printed; not sure how that would actually >>>>>>>>>> work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort by the >>>>>>>>>> ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>> exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation of >>>>>>>>> what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems biology >>>>>>>>> is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena (e.g., >>>>>>>>> developmental change, evolutionary change and physiological >>>>>>>>> stability) are generated, and is based on the realization that >>>>>>>>> they may involve many events at levels extending from genes and >>>>>>>>> protein interactions up to the environment (the broad view of >>>>>>>>> systems biology), with a particular focus on the roles of
protein networks (the narrow view), and with causality being >>>>>>>>> distributed. While this view is explicitly the opposite of the >>>>>>>>> reductionist approach, it should be emphasized that it builds >>>>>>>>> on the successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, >>>>>>>> but of course it can be influenced by the environment, including >>>>>>>> the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the genome; it >>>>>>>> happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality and >>>>>>> control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy, >>>>>>> mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like,
but it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus and >>>>>>> the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms
respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information >>>>>> in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your dubious >>>>>> terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set of >>>>> discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of
continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition,
the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog." >>>>>
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify,
that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm
contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are
others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be >>>>>> concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules >>>>>> involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes
that rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where >>>>>> inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises questions >>>>> as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying fidelity,
heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where developments
in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course
those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents are
regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the
genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into
mRNA and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this.
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides
the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city deciding
which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The city is not
free to invent new books, but it has enormous power over which ones
matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of parts
created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond to the
books that are checked out themselves. And which books are checked out
is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
0. Cytoplasm Affects The Number Of Vertebrae In Carp-goldfish Clones sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
When the nucleus of a common carp, Cyprinus carpio was transferred into
the enucleated egg cell of a goldfish, Carassius auratus, the result is
a cross-species clone with vertebral number closer to that of a goldfish than of a carp but with more rounded body of a carp. The team behind the experiment conclude that the egg cytoplasm, and not the genetic code of
the transplanted nucleus, influenced this aspect of the skeleton as the cloned fish developed.
1. Centriole and Basal Body Templating
Centrioles (and the basal bodies that anchor cilia) do not form spontaneously from a "recipe" in the DNA. Instead, they require a
physical template.
The Mechanism: New centrioles are usually assembled adjacent to
pre-existing ones. The geometry, symmetry, and orientation of the
"mother" centriole dictate the formation of the "daughter."
Heritability: If the arrangement of centrioles is altered, that new
spatial configuration can be propagated through cell divisions, even
though the genes for the protein components (tubulin, etc.) remain identical.
2. Prions and Protein-Conformation States
Prions are perhaps the purest form of "analogue" heritability. They represent information stored entirely in the shape of a molecule.
The Example (Saccharomyces cerevisiae): In yeast, the $[PSI+]$ factor is
a non-Mendelian trait. It is not caused by a DNA mutation, but by a
specific protein ($Sup35$) misfolding into an amyloid aggregate.
Transmission: When a yeast cell divides, these misfolded "seeds" are
passed through the cytoplasm to the daughter cell, where they act as templates to misfold newly synthesized proteins. This changes the cell's phenotype (e.g., its ability to read through stop codons) across generations.
3. The Maternal Effect (Ooplasmic Segregation)
In many organisms, the earliest stages of development are controlled entirely by the "spatial geography" of the egg's cytoplasm, established
by the mother.
The Example (Drosophila): The "Bicoid" protein gradient is established
in the egg before fertilization. The concentration of this protein at
one end of the cell defines the "head" of the future embryo.
Inheritance: The offspring's body plan is determined by the physical distribution of molecules in the mother's cytoplasm rather than the offspring's own zygotic DNA.
4. Cortical Inheritance in Ciliates
As mentioned in the references, Paramecium and Tetrahymena provide the
most striking evidence of "structural memory."
The Experiment: Researchers used micro-surgery to flip a row of cilia 180-#.
The Result: When the cell divided, the "upside-down" row was copied. The daughter cells inherited the inverted pattern. Since the DNA was
untouched, this proved that the cell cortex contains its own blueprint
for organization that is independent of the nucleus.
5. Metabolic Steady-States (Epigenetic Loops)
Information can be stored in the "on/off" status of a metabolic pathway.
The Mechanism: If a specific protein activates its own production (a positive feedback loop), a high concentration of that protein becomes a heritable state.
Transmission: During division, the daughter cell receives a high concentration of the protein, which keeps the "loop" running. If the concentration were to drop below a certain threshold (the "analogue"
limit), the trait would vanish forever, despite the gene still being present.
Note, for one thing, that the zygote's cytoplasm is all maternal, so
to the extent that it's important, it minimizes the role of the male
parent in inheritance, as his entire contribution is half the
nuclear genome.
* In addition to digital information in cytoplasmic mtDNA
And in proteins and RNAs, if you want to get picky.
2.5. The Genome Should be seen as Database/Resource rather than >>>>>>>>> as a Formal Program
There is an obvious corollary to the idea that complex
phenomena involve events distributed across many levels, with >>>>>>>>> causation going downwards as well as upwards: it makes little >>>>>>>>> sense to suggest that such complex phenomena derive from the >>>>>>>>> execution of a single, top- down program located in the genome, >>>>>>>>> or anywhere else."
I agree that it's silly to think of the genome as a program. But >>>>>>>> it's also silly to think of it as a database/resource, whatever >>>>>>>> that means.
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY rCo THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/2/2/414
If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something as straightforward and non-contentious as this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what hope is there of a meaningful, open-minded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation?
I think there's no hope, but we disagree on the reason. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, perhaps that's the point.
So it's the variation in concentration that's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? Of course that's under genetic control, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally from the maternal genome.The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic distribution of cellular structures. About >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000rCo 40,000 distinct molecular species are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RNAs, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. This a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast "factory/city" consisting of approximately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-|-# protein molecules, 10rU+ ribosomes, 10rU+ mRNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10rU| tRNA molecules, 10-|-| metabolite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules, 10-|rU| lipid molecules. It is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most molecule-rich single cells in the human body, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-loaded to run early development before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embryonic genome activates.
You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information as DNA is, though again that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still analogy.
I'm referring not to the sequence of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituent units, but to the concentration gradients >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and distribution profile of countless copies of each, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities" (i.e. the definition of analog >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information below).
Applying the definition of analog information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reiterated above, they are certainly are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The metabolite molecules are not any sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, nor, I think, are the lipids. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The proposition we are debating is precisely whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that is the case. The amino acid sequences in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proteins are under genetic *specification*. To what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent their quantity and distribution is under genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *control* is the question.
The concentrations of the proteins are also under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic specification, if it's the word "control" you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care about.
I'm exploring the hypothesis that the nucleus and ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm are causally bidirectional and distributed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across multiple levels of organisation.
Whatever that means. Now you could say that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm exerts causation over the nucleus, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the maternal proteins act as transcription >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors. If that's what you mean.
If "analog" information is information represented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by continuous, smoothly varying physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities, where differences in magnitude carry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information rather than discrete symbols, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm's concentration, distribution, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structuring of these represents a substantial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of information that is, effectively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *analog* information.
There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of symbols. And DNA has a fair amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage information too.
The genome codes for the proteins and has other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major influences on the cytoplasm, to be sure. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a reason you can't clone a human by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential "analog" information in the cytoplasm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can provide evidence that it was tried and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't work, your claim here is empty. The most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely reason for failure in such a case would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably be incompatibility of the nuclear and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mitochondrial genomes. I doubt that any of the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasmic "information" would be significantly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
On 4/02/2026 10:32 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information.
I'm interested to hear your response to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...
Sure, that's because various transcription >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors and such are in the cytoplasm, having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been transcribed and translated from the previous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus. Differences between genomes result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences in expression.Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get the process of development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going, and that there are many interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bits that interact is still the genome, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at first the maternal genome and later the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for example) demonstrate that the cytoplasm is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to resolve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a chicken- and- egg paradox, we must conclude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that information is initially present in both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nucleus and extra- nuclear, in effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital and analogue form respectively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context. But yes, proteins contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, if that's what you mean. But that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is inherited, over the long term, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be accurately described as *digital* information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Along with its chemical and structural/ physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties and interactions.)
That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still an analogy.
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual digital information, and large amount of it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital*
information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information, and large amount of it at that." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand these concepts without me needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic gates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in silicon with electrical states representing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> binary numbers. (In response to your "What would not be an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> set of discrete states while analog information is defined >>>>>>>>>>>>> as a set of continuous variables? If so, then if one >>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts your definition, the genome is digital while some >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a much >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated >>>>>>>>>>>> those definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in >>>>>>>>>>>> an exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins
implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of >>>>>>>>>>>> information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and >>>>>>>>>>>> structure at different scales. The question is, how
important and unique is this at the point of conception and >>>>>>>>>>>> with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly
persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding is >>>>>>>>>>>> limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, but >>>>>>>>>>>> it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this >>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for >>>>>>>>>>>> bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You >>>>>>>>>>>> then assemble the bricks into the model. The different >>>>>>>>>>>> individual brick types represent specific proteins,
described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D >>>>>>>>>>>> printer is ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model comes from you >>>>>>>>>>>> and also from other specifications (representing regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>> DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not
self-replication; and DNA is more than a static look-up >>>>>>>>>>>> library of protein sequence information (it's also a dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>> physio-chemical entity). But it does show how, in the case >>>>>>>>>>>> of a cell, that developmental control might be distributed, >>>>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and >>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship between >>>>>>>>>>>> these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not
exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up >>>>>>>>>>> and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome self- >>>>>>>>>>> assembles from parts that are transcribed from the genome >>>>>>>>>>> and, some of them, translated in a ribosome. Obviously you >>>>>>>>>>> need to start with a maternal ribosome, but these are
eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your analogy, >>>>>>>>>>> you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. Even your >>>>>>>>>>> first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, just someone >>>>>>>>>>> else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not protein, >>>>>>>>>>> so you need to have the most important parts of the printer >>>>>>>>>>> made of specifications, not printed; not sure how that would >>>>>>>>>>> actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control of any sort >>>>>>>>>>> by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>> exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation >>>>>>>>>> of what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems
biology is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena >>>>>>>>>> (e.g., developmental change, evolutionary change and
physiological stability) are generated, and is based on the >>>>>>>>>> realization that they may involve many events at levels
extending from genes and protein interactions up to the
environment (the broad view of systems biology), with a
particular focus on the roles of protein networks (the narrow >>>>>>>>>> view), and with causality being distributed. While this view >>>>>>>>>> is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist approach, it >>>>>>>>>> should be emphasized that it builds on the successes of that >>>>>>>>>> approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the genome, >>>>>>>>> but of course it can be influenced by the environment,
including the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the >>>>>>>>> genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality >>>>>>>> and control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as energy, >>>>>>>> mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, >>>>>>> but it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus >>>>>>>> and the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms
respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the information >>>>>>> in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we use your
dubious terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set
of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set of >>>>>> continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your definition, >>>>>> the genome is digital while some fraction of the cytoplasm is
analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the
cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify,
that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm
contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are
others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would be >>>>>>> concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations are
heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration
gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the molecules >>>>>>> involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic processes >>>>>>> that rely on molecules produced from the genome. And that's where >>>>>>> inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion follow from what
precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises
questions as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying
fidelity, heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where
developments in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course
those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents
are regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the
genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into
mRNA and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this.
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides
the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city deciding
which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The city is not
free to invent new books, but it has enormous power over which ones
matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of parts
created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond to the
books that are checked out themselves. And which books are checked
out is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
0. Cytoplasm Affects The Number Of Vertebrae In Carp-goldfish Clones
sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
When the nucleus of a common carp, Cyprinus carpio was transferred
into the enucleated egg cell of a goldfish, Carassius auratus, the
result is a cross-species clone with vertebral number closer to that
of a goldfish than of a carp but with more rounded body of a carp. The
team behind the experiment conclude that the egg cytoplasm, and not
the genetic code of the transplanted nucleus, influenced this aspect
of the skeleton as the cloned fish developed.
1. Centriole and Basal Body Templating
Centrioles (and the basal bodies that anchor cilia) do not form
spontaneously from a "recipe" in the DNA. Instead, they require a
physical template.
The Mechanism: New centrioles are usually assembled adjacent to pre-
existing ones. The geometry, symmetry, and orientation of the "mother"
centriole dictate the formation of the "daughter."
Heritability: If the arrangement of centrioles is altered, that new
spatial configuration can be propagated through cell divisions, even
though the genes for the protein components (tubulin, etc.) remain
identical.
2. Prions and Protein-Conformation States
Prions are perhaps the purest form of "analogue" heritability. They
represent information stored entirely in the shape of a molecule.
The Example (Saccharomyces cerevisiae): In yeast, the $[PSI+]$ factor
is a non-Mendelian trait. It is not caused by a DNA mutation, but by a
specific protein ($Sup35$) misfolding into an amyloid aggregate.
Transmission: When a yeast cell divides, these misfolded "seeds" are
passed through the cytoplasm to the daughter cell, where they act as
templates to misfold newly synthesized proteins. This changes the
cell's phenotype (e.g., its ability to read through stop codons)
across generations.
3. The Maternal Effect (Ooplasmic Segregation)
In many organisms, the earliest stages of development are controlled
entirely by the "spatial geography" of the egg's cytoplasm,
established by the mother.
The Example (Drosophila): The "Bicoid" protein gradient is established
in the egg before fertilization. The concentration of this protein at
one end of the cell defines the "head" of the future embryo.
Inheritance: The offspring's body plan is determined by the physical
distribution of molecules in the mother's cytoplasm rather than the
offspring's own zygotic DNA.
4. Cortical Inheritance in Ciliates
As mentioned in the references, Paramecium and Tetrahymena provide the
most striking evidence of "structural memory."
The Experiment: Researchers used micro-surgery to flip a row of cilia
180-#.
The Result: When the cell divided, the "upside-down" row was copied.
The daughter cells inherited the inverted pattern. Since the DNA was
untouched, this proved that the cell cortex contains its own blueprint
for organization that is independent of the nucleus.
5. Metabolic Steady-States (Epigenetic Loops)
Information can be stored in the "on/off" status of a metabolic pathway.
The Mechanism: If a specific protein activates its own production (a
positive feedback loop), a high concentration of that protein becomes
a heritable state.
Transmission: During division, the daughter cell receives a high
concentration of the protein, which keeps the "loop" running. If the
concentration were to drop below a certain threshold (the "analogue"
limit), the trait would vanish forever, despite the gene still being
present.
It occurred to me that the generational pathway of the ovum (the
maternal germline) could shed light on potential cytoplasmic
inheritance. And indeed, the maternal germline forms a *continuous cytoplasmic lineage*, parallel torCobut distinct fromrCothe genetic lineage. The detail behind this strongly supports a systems-level view of inheritance, where heredity flows through *cells*, not just through
*genes*.
Please don't complain about the following AI exploration of this because
you dislike AI - critique it on its merits.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but >>>>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or
not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists
that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's
literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they
do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes
in the literal story in Genesis.
They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still
want to believe in Genesis. It is your literal interpretation of the
Bible that makes you do what you do. You know that the Bible can't be
taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about? You and
these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs
in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out
because nature is not Biblical. You know that already with your
geocentrism denial. Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that
believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about
geocentrism and the firmament. He had enough on the ball to understand
that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that
the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical
notions.
Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand
that nature is not Biblical,
Please give a single example of where I said nature is biblical.
but you can't give up on trying to justify
your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature. It is just as
wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades. There is no such thing
as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the
authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as
bad as the ID perps. The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID
science was going to support their Biblical beliefs. If the ID perps
had succeeded in filling the Top Six gaps in the order in which they
must have occurred in this universe, it would just be more science to
deny. The authors do not disclose that nature is not Biblical on their
web site for their book, so my guess is that they are as dishonest as
the ID perps conning the rubes with their science.
I am going on a trip, so I won't be posting to TO for a couple weeks.
I think a break from the rubbish you post here would do you no harm.
Ron Okimoto
The accommodation
seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to >>>> the garden of eden. This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not
have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and
could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran >>>> still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day.
The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam >>>> and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the
other land animals. He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first >>>> humans. There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real
science. The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not
geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not >>>> occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of >>>> time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from >>>> 8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we >>>> do not have evidence that those 8 people were derived from Adam and Eve >>>> in just 10 generation. The scientific creationists and ID perps came up >>>> empty, with no science supporting their Biblical beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 6:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:12:30 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position? >>>>>>>>>>>>
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book? >>>>>>>>>>>
position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me >>>>>>>>> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that >>>>>>>>> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you. >>>>>>>>
that that was the position of the author of the book from which this >>>>>>>> example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common >>>>>>>> ancestor for all humans? No.
I think it was implied when you stated
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the >>>>>>>>> *scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others >>>>>>>>> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on >>>>>>>>> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science >>>>>>>>> generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea >>>>>>>>> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all >>>>>>>>> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction >>>>>>>>> in that argument.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed
out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would
have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all >>>>>>>>> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have >>>>>>>>> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the >>>>>>>>> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire >>>>>>>>> population were all descended.
The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor
(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous
generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a >>>>>>> big thing this side of the Atlantic :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly >>>>> in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I >>>>> thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day. >>>>>
problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a
common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far
back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This
problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not
one of many.
We discussed this at some length starting with my post on Thu, 15 Jan
2026 09:15:47 +0000 where I introduced the 'true men' (humans with
capability of recognizing God) concept that the Pope applied to
evolution. That is why I thought you were playing Groundhog Day with
me.
Essentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about
other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed
that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become
fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that
there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but
pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in
when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism
for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that
inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this
in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support
for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its teachings.
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, I assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your own
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 6:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:12:30 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates
<cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous >>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates
<cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognition of GodDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notable) example of
started with one couple is of any great significance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theologians with
nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participant
in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, the only
place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the recent book
I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was a minor
item,
science confirming a biblical position while
discomfirming a previous
scientific position?
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>>> position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. >>>>>>>>>>>>> What was that
something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book? >>>>>>>>>>>>
position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have
challenged me
on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that >>>>>>>>>> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better >>>>>>>>>> from you.
I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, >>>>>>>>> impression
that that was the position of the author of the book from which >>>>>>>>> this
example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." >>>>>>>>> bit left off?
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common >>>>>>>>> ancestor for all humans? No.
I think it was implied when you stated
that in your experience on-line that the scientists you >>>>>>>>>>> interacted with
were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of >>>>>>>>>>> humanity.
Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the >>>>>>>>>> *scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the >>>>>>>>>> others
who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their >>>>>>>>>> opinions on
something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science >>>>>>>>>> generally?
Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss >>>>>>>>>> the idea
of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans >>>>>>>>>> all
being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the
contradiction
in that argument.
Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of >>>>>>>>>>> extant humans.
no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans >>>>>>>>>>> there will be
dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
--
[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]
[end note]That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I >>>>>>>>>> pointed
out that the extant population at the time the Bible was
written would
have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all >>>>>>>>>> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam >>>>>>>>>> would have
been much closer in time to that population that doesn't
change the
fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that >>>>>>>>>> entire
population were all descended.
The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the >>>>> problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a????That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common >>>>>>>>> ancestor
(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from >>>>>>>>> previous
generations who were not descended from them.
--
Ah rCa I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's >>>>>>>> not a
big thing this side of the Atlantic-a :)
What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly >>>>>> in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of-a 'true' humans. I >>>>>> thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day. >>>>>>
common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far >>>>> back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This >>>>> problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not >>>>> one of many.
We discussed this at some length starting with my post on Thu, 15 Jan
2026 09:15:47 +0000 where I introduced the 'true men' (humans with
capability of recognizing God) concept that the Pope applied to
evolution. That is why I thought you were playing Groundhog Day with
me.
Essentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed
that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that
there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but
pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in
when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism
for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that
inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its
teachings.
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of
the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 08:32:53 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/3/2026 2:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought >>>>>> was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the >>>>>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner. >>>>>> Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make >>>>>> their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be
predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather >>>>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you >>>> or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe. I am puzzled
then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me. Please don't.
When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to
show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't
want to misrepresent anyone?
You could start by acknowledging your question above about what I think
is something you have completely made up.
It is not something I "completely made up", it is what I concluded
from what you wrote:
"I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with
the impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable
manner. Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to
further make their point. It is very effective."
In their book, after lengthy analysis of the mathematically unlikely
factors that lead to the anthropic principle, the authors state as one
of their two "proofs":
"The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle." (p 221)
I made what seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion that when you
described their arguments as "excellently done" and "very effective",
that you were endorsing their conclusion about the anthropic
principle. Are you now saying you don't endorse it? If so, I will unhesitatingly withdraw what I said and unreservedly apologise for
causing any misrepresentation of your views.
I have no idea why, but
assume it is because it is a topic you would like to discuss. It simply
is missing from anything I have said or what the book attempts to do.
Being someone who has actually read the book, I would think you surely
know this.
I've just quoted the authors' own conclusion about fine-tuning. What
have I missed in the book?
On 2/4/26 3:59 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 4/02/2026 10:32 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>> exercise over the nucleus?
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information.
I'm interested to hear your response to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still an analogy.
...
Sure, that's because various transcription >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors and such are in the cytoplasm, having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been transcribed and translated from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous nucleus. Differences between genomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result in differences in expression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get the process of development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going, and that there are many interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bits that interact is still the genome, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at first the maternal genome and later the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from gene coding. However, doesn't the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following (for example) demonstrate that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what to do (so to speak):
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another cell, they very quickly assume, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve a chicken- and- egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in both the nucleus and extra- nuclear, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively digital and analogue form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context. But yes, proteins contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, if that's what you mean. But that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is inherited, over the long term, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be accurately described as *digital* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? (Along with its chemical and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural/ physical properties and interactions.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual digital information, and large amount of it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information?" To which you responded:
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenged again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate application of a definition and
identification of actual digital information, and large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand these concepts without me needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of As, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic gates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in silicon with electrical states
representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set of discrete states while analog information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined as a set of continuous variables? If so, then if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one accepts your definition, the genome is digital while >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; >>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated >>>>>>>>>>>>> those definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> an exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins
implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of >>>>>>>>>>>>> information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features and >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure at different scales. The question is, how >>>>>>>>>>>>> important and unique is this at the point of conception and >>>>>>>>>>>>> with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly >>>>>>>>>>>>> persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding is >>>>>>>>>>>>> limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine curiosity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this >>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego bricks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't have any to hand, but you have specifications for >>>>>>>>>>>>> bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to fabricate them. You >>>>>>>>>>>>> then assemble the bricks into the model. The different >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual brick types represent specific proteins, >>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the specifications, representing DNA. The 3D >>>>>>>>>>>>> printer is ribosomes, and you (and the printer etc) are the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm. The plan for the resulting model comes from you >>>>>>>>>>>>> and also from other specifications (representing regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA function etc).
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self-
replication; and DNA is more than a static look-up library >>>>>>>>>>>>> of protein sequence information (it's also a dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>> physio-chemical entity). But it does show how, in the case >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a cell, that developmental control might be distributed, >>>>>>>>>>>>> multilevel, and circularly causal between nucleus and >>>>>>>>>>>>> cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg relationship between >>>>>>>>>>>>> these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not >>>>>>>>>>>> exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show up >>>>>>>>>>>> and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome >>>>>>>>>>>> self- assembles from parts that are transcribed from the >>>>>>>>>>>> genome and, some of them, translated in a ribosome.
Obviously you need to start with a maternal ribosome, but >>>>>>>>>>>> these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your >>>>>>>>>>>> analogy, you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. >>>>>>>>>>>> Even your first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, just >>>>>>>>>>>> someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of RNA, not >>>>>>>>>>>> protein, so you need to have the most important parts of the >>>>>>>>>>>> printer made of specifications, not printed; not sure how >>>>>>>>>>>> that would actually work in the analogy. Anyway, no control >>>>>>>>>>>> of any sort by the ribosome, and no chicken-egg problem. >>>>>>>>>>>
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation >>>>>>>>>>> of what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems >>>>>>>>>>> biology is an approach to understanding how complex phenomena >>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., developmental change, evolutionary change and
physiological stability) are generated, and is based on the >>>>>>>>>>> realization that they may involve many events at levels >>>>>>>>>>> extending from genes and protein interactions up to the >>>>>>>>>>> environment (the broad view of systems biology), with a >>>>>>>>>>> particular focus on the roles of protein networks (the narrow >>>>>>>>>>> view), and with causality being distributed. While this view >>>>>>>>>>> is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist approach, it >>>>>>>>>>> should be emphasized that it builds on the successes of that >>>>>>>>>>> approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the
genome, but of course it can be influenced by the environment, >>>>>>>>>> including the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't happen to the >>>>>>>>>> genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality >>>>>>>>> and control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory
networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as
energy, mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, >>>>>>>> but it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus >>>>>>>>> and the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms >>>>>>>>> respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the
information in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we >>>>>>>> use your dubious terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set >>>>>>> of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set >>>>>>> of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your
definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the
cytoplasm is analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the >>>>>>> cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To clarify, >>>>>> that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily".
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm
contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are >>>>>>>> others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would >>>>>>>> be concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations >>>>>>>> are heritable, in a way, over the very short term. Concentration >>>>>>>> gradients aren't even heritable over that term. And the
molecules involved are produced from the genome or in metabolic >>>>>>>> processes that rely on molecules produced from the genome. And >>>>>>>> that's where inheritance happens. Nor does your conclusion
follow from what precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises
questions as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying
fidelity, heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where
developments in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of course >>>>>> those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic contents
are regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome.
Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the
genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the
nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into
mRNA and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this.
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus provides >>>>> the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like context,
enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city
deciding which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The
city is not free to invent new books, but it has enormous power
over which ones matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of
parts created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond to
the books that are checked out themselves. And which books are
checked out is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
0. Cytoplasm Affects The Number Of Vertebrae In Carp-goldfish Clones
sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
When the nucleus of a common carp, Cyprinus carpio was transferred
into the enucleated egg cell of a goldfish, Carassius auratus, the
result is a cross-species clone with vertebral number closer to that
of a goldfish than of a carp but with more rounded body of a carp.
The team behind the experiment conclude that the egg cytoplasm, and
not the genetic code of the transplanted nucleus, influenced this
aspect of the skeleton as the cloned fish developed.
1. Centriole and Basal Body Templating
Centrioles (and the basal bodies that anchor cilia) do not form
spontaneously from a "recipe" in the DNA. Instead, they require a
physical template.
The Mechanism: New centrioles are usually assembled adjacent to pre-
existing ones. The geometry, symmetry, and orientation of the
"mother" centriole dictate the formation of the "daughter."
Heritability: If the arrangement of centrioles is altered, that new
spatial configuration can be propagated through cell divisions, even
though the genes for the protein components (tubulin, etc.) remain
identical.
2. Prions and Protein-Conformation States
Prions are perhaps the purest form of "analogue" heritability. They
represent information stored entirely in the shape of a molecule.
The Example (Saccharomyces cerevisiae): In yeast, the $[PSI+]$ factor
is a non-Mendelian trait. It is not caused by a DNA mutation, but by
a specific protein ($Sup35$) misfolding into an amyloid aggregate.
Transmission: When a yeast cell divides, these misfolded "seeds" are
passed through the cytoplasm to the daughter cell, where they act as
templates to misfold newly synthesized proteins. This changes the
cell's phenotype (e.g., its ability to read through stop codons)
across generations.
3. The Maternal Effect (Ooplasmic Segregation)
In many organisms, the earliest stages of development are controlled
entirely by the "spatial geography" of the egg's cytoplasm,
established by the mother.
The Example (Drosophila): The "Bicoid" protein gradient is
established in the egg before fertilization. The concentration of
this protein at one end of the cell defines the "head" of the future
embryo.
Inheritance: The offspring's body plan is determined by the physical
distribution of molecules in the mother's cytoplasm rather than the
offspring's own zygotic DNA.
4. Cortical Inheritance in Ciliates
As mentioned in the references, Paramecium and Tetrahymena provide
the most striking evidence of "structural memory."
The Experiment: Researchers used micro-surgery to flip a row of cilia
180-#.
The Result: When the cell divided, the "upside-down" row was copied.
The daughter cells inherited the inverted pattern. Since the DNA was
untouched, this proved that the cell cortex contains its own
blueprint for organization that is independent of the nucleus.
5. Metabolic Steady-States (Epigenetic Loops)
Information can be stored in the "on/off" status of a metabolic pathway. >>>
The Mechanism: If a specific protein activates its own production (a
positive feedback loop), a high concentration of that protein becomes
a heritable state.
Transmission: During division, the daughter cell receives a high
concentration of the protein, which keeps the "loop" running. If the
concentration were to drop below a certain threshold (the "analogue"
limit), the trait would vanish forever, despite the gene still being
present.
It occurred to me that the generational pathway of the ovum (the
maternal germline) could shed light on potential cytoplasmic
inheritance. And indeed, the maternal germline forms a *continuous
cytoplasmic lineage*, parallel torCobut distinct fromrCothe genetic
lineage. The detail behind this strongly supports a systems-level view
of inheritance, where heredity flows through *cells*, not just through
*genes*.
Please don't complain about the following AI exploration of this
because you dislike AI - critique it on its merits.
Sorry, no. I don't argue with AI. And now I suspect you're using AI for
lots of other replies too, and that will discourage me from replying in
the future.
On 5/02/2026 5:50 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/4/26 3:59 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 4/02/2026 10:32 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:Oversimplified. Dependency is bi-directional.
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be an analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digital information.
I'm interested to hear your response to this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's still an analogy.
Sure, that's because various transcription >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors and such are in the cytoplasm, having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been transcribed and translated from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous nucleus. Differences between genomes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result in differences in expression. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now if you're interested in what makes an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organism, without much regard for what kind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of organism, you have a point that the ovum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to get the process of development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going, and that there are many interactions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between cells that are not directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by the genome. But the source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bits that interact is still the genome, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at first the maternal genome and later the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.
Certainly all proteins in the cell are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced from gene coding. However, doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following (for example) demonstrate that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cytoplasm is in control and telling the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DNA what to do (so to speak): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is concluded that whenever nuclei are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced experimentally into the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of another cell, they very quickly assume, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly every respect, the nuclear activity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances, altered function has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support normal development." [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the critical logic: if the direction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control flow is bi- directional, then to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve a chicken- and- egg paradox, we must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude that information is initially present >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in both the nucleus and extra- nuclear, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively digital and analogue form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively.
"Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context. But yes, proteins contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, if that's what you mean. But that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is inherited, over the long term, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the form of DNA.
On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A digital information medium stores heritable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information in discrete symbolic sequences that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are copied and decoded by rule- based molecular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of digital information. Are we agreed that DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be accurately described as *digital* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information? (Along with its chemical and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural/ physical properties and interactions.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of a definition and identification of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual digital information, and large amount of it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at that.
What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open an alien lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To recap:
You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context."
I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis do you deem these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information medium stores heritable information in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decoded by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that DNA can be accurately described as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *digital* information?" To which you responded: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still an analogy."
We're making progress, but still not there. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenged again with: "No, it's not an analogy, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a legitimate application of a definition and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identification of actual digital information, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large amount of it at that."
You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also be digital information."
Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? My impression is you're more than able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand these concepts without me needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your responses.
You understand that DNA is not a written sequence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As, G, Cs, and Ts, right? We can represent it that way, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's not what it is.
You understand that computer memory is not a written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of 0s and 1s, right? We can represent it that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, but that's not what it is. It's a set of logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gates implemented in silicon with electrical states >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing binary numbers. (In response to your "What >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be an analogy? Computer memory.")
ironically, your response to my criticism is more of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. Which confirms it.
Would you then say that digital information is defined as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set of discrete states while analog information is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined as a set of continuous variables? If so, then if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one accepts your definition, the genome is digital while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some fraction of the cytoplasm is analog. But that's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much clearer statement than you have ever made.
Yes. I had assumed these definitions were widely known; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's my elec eng background. But I have stated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those definitions several times in this thread.
Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an exploratory spirit, somewhat aside from origins >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implications.
Clearly the nuclear DNA is a hugely important source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information and causality in the cell. The cytoplasm of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ovum is a miniature galaxy of molecules, with features >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and structure at different scales. The question is, how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> important and unique is this at the point of conception >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with subsequent development? I'm posing this partly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persuaded I admit, but recognising that my understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is limited, I hope also tentatively and with genuine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> curiosity.
Here's an analogy I've recently used - it's approximate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it may help illustrate the in-principle logic of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis:
You are building a model of the Titanic out of Lego >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bricks. You don't have any to hand, but you have
specifications for bricks, and so you use a 3D printer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fabricate them. You then assemble the bricks into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> model. The different individual brick types represent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific proteins, described by the specifications, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing DNA. The 3D printer is ribosomes, and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and the printer etc) are the cytoplasm. The plan for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting model comes from you and also from other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifications (representing regulatory DNA function etc). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simplifications include: it's obviously not self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication; and DNA is more than a static look-up library >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of protein sequence information (it's also a dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physio-chemical entity). But it does show how, in the case >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a cell, that developmental control might be
distributed, multilevel, and circularly causal between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nucleus and cytoplasm (an inherent chicken-and-egg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship between these).
I see a few problems here. First, the ribosome is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> exercising any control. It just takes whatever mRNAs show >>>>>>>>>>>>> up and translates them into proteins. Second, the ribosome >>>>>>>>>>>>> self- assembles from parts that are transcribed from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> genome and, some of them, translated in a ribosome. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you need to start with a maternal ribosome, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> these are eventually replaced by home-made ones. So in your >>>>>>>>>>>>> analogy, you have to make the 3D printer on a 3D printer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even your first 3D printer was printed on a 3D printer, >>>>>>>>>>>>> just someone else's. And the ribosome is mostly made of >>>>>>>>>>>>> RNA, not protein, so you need to have the most important >>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the printer made of specifications, not printed; >>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure how that would actually work in the analogy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, no control of any sort by the ribosome, and no >>>>>>>>>>>>> chicken-egg problem.
My wondering is, how much ongoing control does the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>>>> exercise over the nucleus?
Possible, but your example above is not such a case.
The following overview of Systems Biology gives confirmation >>>>>>>>>>>> of what I'm proposing:
"This paper takes the straightforward view that systems >>>>>>>>>>>> biology is an approach to understanding how complex
phenomena (e.g., developmental change, evolutionary change >>>>>>>>>>>> and physiological stability) are generated, and is based on >>>>>>>>>>>> the realization that they may involve many events at levels >>>>>>>>>>>> extending from genes and protein interactions up to the >>>>>>>>>>>> environment (the broad view of systems biology), with a >>>>>>>>>>>> particular focus on the roles of protein networks (the >>>>>>>>>>>> narrow view), and with causality being distributed. While >>>>>>>>>>>> this view is explicitly the opposite of the reductionist >>>>>>>>>>>> approach, it should be emphasized that it builds on the >>>>>>>>>>>> successes of that approach.
Sure. All that stuff is true, except for the bit about
evolutionary change. Evolutionary change happens in the >>>>>>>>>>> genome, but of course it can be influenced by the
environment, including the cytoplasm. And selection doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> happen to the genome; it happens to phenotypes.
I think you're agreeing then that nucleus-cytoplasm causality >>>>>>>>>> and control are bidirectional?
Of course. Gene regulation happens, and there are regulatory >>>>>>>>> networks composed of gene products and other things too.
To exercise control, information is required (as well as
energy, mechanism, etc).
I suppose you can call anything at all information if you like, >>>>>>>>> but it isn't clear what you would mean by that.
As we've established, information resides in both the nucleus >>>>>>>>>> and the cytoplasm, in primarily digital and analogue* forms >>>>>>>>>> respectively.
No, we haven't established that. I would say that the
information in the cytoplasm is primarily digital, even if we >>>>>>>>> use your dubious terminology.
You said this above:
"Would you then say that digital information is defined as a set >>>>>>>> of discrete states while analog information is defined as a set >>>>>>>> of continuous variables? If so, then if one accepts your
definition, the genome is digital while some fraction of the
cytoplasm is analog."
I'm not sure why you're now saying that the "information in the >>>>>>>> cytoplasm is primarily digital"?
Perhaps you didn't notice that I said "some fraction". To
clarify, that fraction is not the majority, hence not "primarily". >>>>>>>
Therefore, is the necessary conclusion this: the cytoplasm >>>>>>>>>> contains heritable analog information?
Nope. The biggest problem there is "heritable", but there are >>>>>>>>> others. The only "analog" information you have mentioned would >>>>>>>>> be concentrations and concentration gradients. Concentrations >>>>>>>>> are heritable, in a way, over the very short term.
Concentration gradients aren't even heritable over that term. >>>>>>>>> And the molecules involved are produced from the genome or in >>>>>>>>> metabolic processes that rely on molecules produced from the >>>>>>>>> genome. And that's where inheritance happens. Nor does your >>>>>>>>> conclusion follow from what precedes it.
The hypothesis of analogue cytoplasmic information raises
questions as to its quantity, physical instantiation, copying >>>>>>>> fidelity, heritability, phenotype impact, etc. Let's see where >>>>>>>> developments in cell biology, embryology etc lead.
Aren't copying fidelity and heritability the same thing? Of
course those are things that depend on the genome. Cytoplasmic
contents are regularly replaced, and that's dependent on the genome. >>>>>>
While the genome encodes specific protein sequences and provides
regulatory functions, the cytoplasm determines which parts of the >>>>>> genome are actually used, when, and how strongly.
Cytoplasmic control includes which transcription factors enter the >>>>>> nucleus,
Does it? Or do the transcription factors that are transcribed into
mRNA and then translated enter the nucleus?
what epigenetic state the DNA is in,
It would in general be the transcription factors that determine this. >>>>>
whether mRNAs are translated or silenced,
Generally, that would be regulatory RNAs.
whether proteins are modified, activated, or destroyed,
Proteins would do that.
sensing environmental signals (nutrients, stress, hormones) and
relaying them back to the nucleus.
And proteins would do that.
Control is bidirectional but asymmetric, where the nucleus
provides the instructions, and the cytoplasm provides things like >>>>>> context, enforcement, and interpretation.
Who knows what any of those words mean to you here?
Continuing with the city analogy, The nucleus is the library
containing all the books (genes). The cytoplasm is the city
deciding which books get checked out, utilised, or ignored. The
city is not free to invent new books, but it has enormous power
over which ones matter.
Your analogies are uniformly bad. Note that the city is made of
parts created from the books, and I suppose that would correspond
to the books that are checked out themselves. And which books are
checked out is determined by the books previously checked out.
Now, what is inherited?
0. Cytoplasm Affects The Number Of Vertebrae In Carp-goldfish Clones
sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
When the nucleus of a common carp, Cyprinus carpio was transferred
into the enucleated egg cell of a goldfish, Carassius auratus, the
result is a cross-species clone with vertebral number closer to that
of a goldfish than of a carp but with more rounded body of a carp.
The team behind the experiment conclude that the egg cytoplasm, and
not the genetic code of the transplanted nucleus, influenced this
aspect of the skeleton as the cloned fish developed.
1. Centriole and Basal Body Templating
Centrioles (and the basal bodies that anchor cilia) do not form
spontaneously from a "recipe" in the DNA. Instead, they require a
physical template.
The Mechanism: New centrioles are usually assembled adjacent to pre-
existing ones. The geometry, symmetry, and orientation of the
"mother" centriole dictate the formation of the "daughter."
Heritability: If the arrangement of centrioles is altered, that new
spatial configuration can be propagated through cell divisions, even
though the genes for the protein components (tubulin, etc.) remain
identical.
2. Prions and Protein-Conformation States
Prions are perhaps the purest form of "analogue" heritability. They
represent information stored entirely in the shape of a molecule.
The Example (Saccharomyces cerevisiae): In yeast, the $[PSI+]$
factor is a non-Mendelian trait. It is not caused by a DNA mutation,
but by a specific protein ($Sup35$) misfolding into an amyloid
aggregate.
Transmission: When a yeast cell divides, these misfolded "seeds" are
passed through the cytoplasm to the daughter cell, where they act as
templates to misfold newly synthesized proteins. This changes the
cell's phenotype (e.g., its ability to read through stop codons)
across generations.
3. The Maternal Effect (Ooplasmic Segregation)
In many organisms, the earliest stages of development are controlled
entirely by the "spatial geography" of the egg's cytoplasm,
established by the mother.
The Example (Drosophila): The "Bicoid" protein gradient is
established in the egg before fertilization. The concentration of
this protein at one end of the cell defines the "head" of the future
embryo.
Inheritance: The offspring's body plan is determined by the physical
distribution of molecules in the mother's cytoplasm rather than the
offspring's own zygotic DNA.
4. Cortical Inheritance in Ciliates
As mentioned in the references, Paramecium and Tetrahymena provide
the most striking evidence of "structural memory."
The Experiment: Researchers used micro-surgery to flip a row of
cilia 180-#.
The Result: When the cell divided, the "upside-down" row was copied.
The daughter cells inherited the inverted pattern. Since the DNA was
untouched, this proved that the cell cortex contains its own
blueprint for organization that is independent of the nucleus.
5. Metabolic Steady-States (Epigenetic Loops)
Information can be stored in the "on/off" status of a metabolic
pathway.
The Mechanism: If a specific protein activates its own production (a
positive feedback loop), a high concentration of that protein
becomes a heritable state.
Transmission: During division, the daughter cell receives a high
concentration of the protein, which keeps the "loop" running. If the
concentration were to drop below a certain threshold (the "analogue"
limit), the trait would vanish forever, despite the gene still being
present.
It occurred to me that the generational pathway of the ovum (the
maternal germline) could shed light on potential cytoplasmic
inheritance. And indeed, the maternal germline forms a *continuous
cytoplasmic lineage*, parallel torCobut distinct fromrCothe genetic
lineage. The detail behind this strongly supports a systems-level
view of inheritance, where heredity flows through *cells*, not just
through *genes*.
Please don't complain about the following AI exploration of this
because you dislike AI - critique it on its merits.
Sorry, no. I don't argue with AI. And now I suspect you're using AI
for lots of other replies too, and that will discourage me from
replying in the future.
I think we're still working out how to appropriately use AI. It is
becoming alarmingly capable. As a rule, I apply less scrutiny to AI
output for well-established topics, and for contentious issues use the references it provides. And always in context of actively engaging the
topic at hand. Fair enough not to argue with AI. In this instance though
I gather it has only summarised standard biology.
AI aside, the generational pathway of the ovum is, as I said,
intriguing: "The cytoplasm of oocytes or embryos is known to harbor cytoplasmic factors, including maternal messenger RNA (mRNA), maternally stored proteins, energy substrates, and mitochondria that will impact
the proper completion of meiosis, fertilization, and early
preimplantation development of the embryo. These factors are believed to
be indispensable for enabling gamete genome reprogramming to an
embryonic or totipotent state..." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8395835/
I've been pressing the cytoplasmic inheritance hypothesis as a
prediction of my information calculation, i.e. a mere 80MB in the genome implies that a large amount of information must reside in the ovum cytoplasm. I do acknowledge that it seems problematic (at least counter- intuitive) for large amounts of information to be stored in analogue
form in the cytoplasmic structure and transmitted with sufficiently high fidelity.
Regarding the "information problem": as I've previously shared here, ID
has also reached a similar conclusion, but it proposes a rather more
radical solution of an "immaterial genome", even coining "Plato-of-the- gap". Enjoy: https://scienceandculture.com/2025/05/sternbergs- immaterial-genome-intelligent-design-in-the-present-tense/
Martin has an unfortunate tendency to refer to a single source coupleThus, a months-long topic where Harran repeatedly and explicitly
when he means one couple of many. All he appears to mean (as far as I
can understand his unclear statements) is that there is nothing
preventing one of those couples from being the biblical Adam and Eve,
and that we inherited "the ability to know God" from them in some way, >presumably not genetic.
What the book meant by anything is unclear, and he won't say. What >mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam have to do with any of that is
also unclear, and he won't say. And what coalescence has to do with any
of that is, you guessed it, unclear, and he won't say. And when you try
to drill down on any of those questions, he becomes increasingly annoyed
and unwilling to respond in any substantive way. As is happening with
you now.
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists, >>>>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent >>>>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely
already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you
regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's
literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they
do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes
in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
and you were the one that
brought in Adam and Eve. What is that if not one literal interpretation
of the Bible? You understand that there is no single literal
interpretation of the Bible because so many interpretations have been >invalidated and are not consistent with what we have discovered about >nature. The guys like you and the authors of the book that are still
trying to use science to support their Biblical beliefs are just doing >something that is stupid and dishonest at this time because everyone
should understand that nature was never Biblical, and science is just
the study of nature. All that they can ever expect to do is to
demonstrate that nature is not what is described in the Bible.
They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still
want to believe in Genesis. It is your literal interpretation of the
Bible that makes you do what you do. You know that the Bible can't be
taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about? You and
these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs
in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out
because nature is not Biblical. You know that already with your
geocentrism denial. Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that
believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about
geocentrism and the firmament. He had enough on the ball to understand
that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that >>> the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical
notions.
Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand >>> that nature is not Biblical,
Please give a single example of where I said nature is biblical.
Your claim about Adam and Eve puts you in that category of trying to fit >nature into a Biblical context. You brought up Origen. Origen
understood that the Bible was wrong about a lot of things about nature,
but he did not give up on some of the existing Biblical notions. You >haven't either. Instead you have to deny that interpretations like >geocentrism never existed.
but you can't give up on trying to justify
your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature. It is just as >>> wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades. There is no such thing
as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the
authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as
bad as the ID perps. The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID >>> science was going to support their Biblical beliefs. If the ID perps
had succeeded in filling the Top Six gaps in the order in which they
must have occurred in this universe, it would just be more science to
deny. The authors do not disclose that nature is not Biblical on their
web site for their book, so my guess is that they are as dishonest as
the ID perps conning the rubes with their science.
I am going on a trip, so I won't be posting to TO for a couple weeks.
I think a break from the rubbish you post here would do you no harm.
You need to face reality instead of run from the past interpretations of
the Bible. The creation that exists is not the creation described in
the Bible. Using science will never support your Biblical beliefs.
Origen and Augustine understood that nature was not Biblical, but it did
not matter to their faith, and my take is that they would have readily
given up on their notions of the firmament and geocentrism with no
issues. These authors have apparently given up on the flat young earth,
and geocentrism, but for some stupid reason they are still trying to
support their Biblical beliefs with science without informing the rubes
that read their book that such an endeavor has never supported anyone's >Biblical beliefs. Old earth creationists like the Reason to Believe ex >IDiots still want the Genesis order of creation to be viable, but that
is already understood to not be the case. Young earth, flat earth and >geocentric creationists still exist. Most of the IDiots that were left >posting in 2017 quit the ID scam because the Top Six gaps were never
going to be filled by their Biblical god, and any valid IDiotic science >would have just been more science to deny. Those are the type of >creationist rubes that want to be lied to by the authors of the book
under discussion.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The accommodation
seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to >>>>> the garden of eden. This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not >>>>> have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and
could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran >>>>> still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day. >>>>> The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam >>>>> and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the
other land animals. He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first >>>>> humans. There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real
science. The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not
geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not >>>>> occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of >>>>> time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from >>>>> 8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we >>>>> do not have evidence that those 8 people were derived from Adam and Eve >>>>> in just 10 generation. The scientific creationists and ID perps came up >>>>> empty, with no science supporting their Biblical beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
On 2/3/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 08:32:53 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/3/2026 2:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought >>>>>>> was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the
impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner. >>>>>>> Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make >>>>>>> their point. It is very effective.
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be
predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather >>>>>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
Putting aside that your question seems to claim I have made this
argument of yours for now.
The important part and something you snipped
is the authors stated purpose of the book: "shed light for you on the >question of the existence or non-existence of a creator God, one of the
most important questions of our lives which is being posed today in >completely new terms."
Later I state what matters to me, "The important
thing, and the purpose of the book, is the existence or non-existence of >God."
You can dive down any areas of inquiry you wish, but for me the
important part is the combined impossibility of the precision of the
fine tuning. The "proof" you selected below to warrant your question I >suppose, is from a little further in the book. I get what I need from
their Conclusion at the end of chapter 9. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: >"These are only a handful of the most incredible fine-tunings that serve
to illustrate the "anthropic principle." The sum total of all these
physical improbabilities is mathematical confirmation that the Universe
is not the result of chance. That a creator God exists is the only
obvious conclusion. This proof is, in our opinion, as strong as the
evidence predicting the heat death of the Universe and of cosmology as
we know it. Let us not forget that these different proofs are perfectly >independent of each other."
Bollore, Michel-Yves; Bonnassies, Olivier. God, the Science, the
Evidence (pp. 212-213). Palomar. Kindle Edition.
You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you >>>>> or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe. I am puzzled >>>>> then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me. Please don't. >>>>When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to
show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't >>>> want to misrepresent anyone?
You could start by acknowledging your question above about what I think
is something you have completely made up.
It is not something I "completely made up", it is what I concluded
from what you wrote:
"I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought
was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with
the impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable
manner. Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to
further make their point. It is very effective."
In their book, after lengthy analysis of the mathematically unlikely
factors that lead to the anthropic principle, the authors state as one
of their two "proofs":
"The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle." (p 221)
I made what seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion that when you
described their arguments as "excellently done" and "very effective",
that you were endorsing their conclusion about the anthropic
principle. Are you now saying you don't endorse it? If so, I will
unhesitatingly withdraw what I said and unreservedly apologise for
causing any misrepresentation of your views.
I have no idea why, but
assume it is because it is a topic you would like to discuss. It simply >>> is missing from anything I have said or what the book attempts to do.
Being someone who has actually read the book, I would think you surely
know this.
I've just quoted the authors' own conclusion about fine-tuning. What
have I missed in the book?
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, I >assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your ownEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed
that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that
there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but
pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in
when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism
for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that
inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its
teachings.
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of
the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 12:55:28 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:49:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:45:26 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak >>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[rCa]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>>>>>> population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by >>>>>>>> adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being >>>>>>>> discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a >>>>>> survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population. >>>>>> Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >>>>>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >>>>>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be >>>>>a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >>>>>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older >>>>>and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal >>>>aspect, not physical attributes.
Marks on a paper are just as physical as types of eye color.
Now you are just trying to be silly
You're determined to avoid measuring what's going on inside the human
brain, aren't you?
so I think this discussion really has exceeded its shelf life.
Well, no one's forcing you to be here. Suit yourself.
On 2/4/26 3:32 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making
stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post
are just another of your rambling diatribes.
You need to face reality instead of run from the past interpretations of >the Bible. The creation that exists is not the creation described in
the Bible. Using science will never support your Biblical beliefs.
[snip long, but ignored, standard response]
...that would do.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, IEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed >>>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that >>>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but >>>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in >>>>> when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism >>>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that
inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its
teachings.
assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your own
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of
the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in
only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts
only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the
Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to generation through the Bible."
Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on
the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight
'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of
working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one. In
their references, they include the following paper that I find even
more interesting:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA
and concludes that
"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of
recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of
everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a
few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one
or of all living humans."
On 2026-02-05 4:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>Right, so, no single source couple for all (including earlier
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, IEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed >>>>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that >>>>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but >>>>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in >>>>>> when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism >>>>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that >>>>> inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>>>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>>>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's >>>>>> teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its >>>> teachings.
assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your own
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of
the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in
only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts
only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the
Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to
generation through the Bible."
Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on
the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight
'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of
working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one. In
their references, they include the following paper that I find even
more interesting:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA
and concludes that
"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of
recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of
everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a
few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one
or of all living humans."
generations ie dead people) humans. Like I thought.
--
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or >>>>>>> otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that >>>>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has >>>>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever >>>>>>> since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely >>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you >>>>> regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's
literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they >>>> do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes
in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making
stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post
are just another of your rambling diatribes.
and you were the one that
brought in Adam and Eve. What is that if not one literal interpretation
of the Bible? You understand that there is no single literal
interpretation of the Bible because so many interpretations have been
invalidated and are not consistent with what we have discovered about
nature. The guys like you and the authors of the book that are still
trying to use science to support their Biblical beliefs are just doing
something that is stupid and dishonest at this time because everyone
should understand that nature was never Biblical, and science is just
the study of nature. All that they can ever expect to do is to
demonstrate that nature is not what is described in the Bible.
They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still
want to believe in Genesis. It is your literal interpretation of the
Bible that makes you do what you do. You know that the Bible can't be >>>> taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about? You and >>>> these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs >>>> in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out
because nature is not Biblical. You know that already with your
geocentrism denial. Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that >>>> believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about
geocentrism and the firmament. He had enough on the ball to understand >>>> that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that >>>> the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical >>>> notions.
Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand >>>> that nature is not Biblical,
Please give a single example of where I said nature is biblical.
Your claim about Adam and Eve puts you in that category of trying to fit
nature into a Biblical context. You brought up Origen. Origen
understood that the Bible was wrong about a lot of things about nature,
but he did not give up on some of the existing Biblical notions. You
haven't either. Instead you have to deny that interpretations like
geocentrism never existed.
but you can't give up on trying to justify
your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature. It is just as >>>> wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades. There is no such thing >>>> as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the
authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as >>>> bad as the ID perps. The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID >>>> science was going to support their Biblical beliefs. If the ID perps
had succeeded in filling the Top Six gaps in the order in which they
must have occurred in this universe, it would just be more science to
deny. The authors do not disclose that nature is not Biblical on their >>>> web site for their book, so my guess is that they are as dishonest as
the ID perps conning the rubes with their science.
I am going on a trip, so I won't be posting to TO for a couple weeks.
I think a break from the rubbish you post here would do you no harm.
You need to face reality instead of run from the past interpretations of
the Bible. The creation that exists is not the creation described in
the Bible. Using science will never support your Biblical beliefs.
Origen and Augustine understood that nature was not Biblical, but it did
not matter to their faith, and my take is that they would have readily
given up on their notions of the firmament and geocentrism with no
issues. These authors have apparently given up on the flat young earth,
and geocentrism, but for some stupid reason they are still trying to
support their Biblical beliefs with science without informing the rubes
that read their book that such an endeavor has never supported anyone's
Biblical beliefs. Old earth creationists like the Reason to Believe ex
IDiots still want the Genesis order of creation to be viable, but that
is already understood to not be the case. Young earth, flat earth and
geocentric creationists still exist. Most of the IDiots that were left
posting in 2017 quit the ID scam because the Top Six gaps were never
going to be filled by their Biblical god, and any valid IDiotic science
would have just been more science to deny. Those are the type of
creationist rubes that want to be lied to by the authors of the book
under discussion.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The accommodation
seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to >>>>>> the garden of eden. This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not >>>>>> have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and >>>>>> could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran >>>>>> still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day. >>>>>> The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam >>>>>> and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the >>>>>> other land animals. He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first >>>>>> humans. There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real
science. The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not
geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not >>>>>> occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of >>>>>> time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from >>>>>> 8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we >>>>>> do not have evidence that those 8 people were derived from Adam and Eve >>>>>> in just 10 generation. The scientific creationists and ID perps came up >>>>>> empty, with no science supporting their Biblical beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 12:32:50 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
[...]
[snip long, but ignored, standard response]
...that would do.
You will hopefully note that I am generally fairly good at snipping.
Problem here is that if you snip *anything* from a post by Ron, no
matter how irrelevant it is, he simply pastes it all back again in his response and adds another diatribe accusing you of running away :(
On 2/5/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>>>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>>>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>>>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>>>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion >>>>>>>>> with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way. >>>>>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or >>>>>>>> otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to >>>>>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that
science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an >>>>>>>> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has
never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever
since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely >>>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>>>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the
literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you >>>>>> regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's
literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they >>>>> do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes
in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making
stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post
are just another of your rambling diatribes.
You were the one describing what was in the book.
I just went to their
web page to see what the authors were claiming, and there is no doubt
that they are Biblical creationists.
Run from reality
it won't do you
any good. You are the one in denial of Biblical geocentrism. You were
the one that brought Origen into this discussion
without understanding
how Origen related to your creationist denial and how these authors were >never going to support their Biblical beliefs with their scientific
approach because that had already failed a very long time ago. Origen >understood that nature could not be used to support his Biblical
beliefs, and the discrepancy between reality and the Biblical >interpretations did not matter to his faith. He may have continued to
be a geocentrist and believed in the Biblical firmament, but he would
have likely been among the first to understand that future conflicts
with reality would not matter. Nature had already failed to support >Biblical creationism. There is absolutely no reason to use science to >support Biblical beliefs at this time when science is just the best
means we have of understanding nature.
Ron Okimoto
and you were the one that
brought in Adam and Eve. What is that if not one literal interpretation >>> of the Bible? You understand that there is no single literal
interpretation of the Bible because so many interpretations have been
invalidated and are not consistent with what we have discovered about
nature. The guys like you and the authors of the book that are still
trying to use science to support their Biblical beliefs are just doing
something that is stupid and dishonest at this time because everyone
should understand that nature was never Biblical, and science is just
the study of nature. All that they can ever expect to do is to
demonstrate that nature is not what is described in the Bible.
They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still
want to believe in Genesis. It is your literal interpretation of the >>>>> Bible that makes you do what you do. You know that the Bible can't be >>>>> taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about? You and >>>>> these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs >>>>> in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out
because nature is not Biblical. You know that already with your
geocentrism denial. Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that >>>>> believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about >>>>> geocentrism and the firmament. He had enough on the ball to understand >>>>> that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that >>>>> the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical >>>>> notions.
Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand >>>>> that nature is not Biblical,
Please give a single example of where I said nature is biblical.
Your claim about Adam and Eve puts you in that category of trying to fit >>> nature into a Biblical context. You brought up Origen. Origen
understood that the Bible was wrong about a lot of things about nature,
but he did not give up on some of the existing Biblical notions. You
haven't either. Instead you have to deny that interpretations like
geocentrism never existed.
but you can't give up on trying to justifyI think a break from the rubbish you post here would do you no harm.
your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature. It is just as >>>>> wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades. There is no such thing >>>>> as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the >>>>> authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as >>>>> bad as the ID perps. The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID >>>>> science was going to support their Biblical beliefs. If the ID perps >>>>> had succeeded in filling the Top Six gaps in the order in which they >>>>> must have occurred in this universe, it would just be more science to >>>>> deny. The authors do not disclose that nature is not Biblical on their >>>>> web site for their book, so my guess is that they are as dishonest as >>>>> the ID perps conning the rubes with their science.
I am going on a trip, so I won't be posting to TO for a couple weeks. >>>>
You need to face reality instead of run from the past interpretations of >>> the Bible. The creation that exists is not the creation described in
the Bible. Using science will never support your Biblical beliefs.
Origen and Augustine understood that nature was not Biblical, but it did >>> not matter to their faith, and my take is that they would have readily
given up on their notions of the firmament and geocentrism with no
issues. These authors have apparently given up on the flat young earth, >>> and geocentrism, but for some stupid reason they are still trying to
support their Biblical beliefs with science without informing the rubes
that read their book that such an endeavor has never supported anyone's
Biblical beliefs. Old earth creationists like the Reason to Believe ex
IDiots still want the Genesis order of creation to be viable, but that
is already understood to not be the case. Young earth, flat earth and
geocentric creationists still exist. Most of the IDiots that were left
posting in 2017 quit the ID scam because the Top Six gaps were never
going to be filled by their Biblical god, and any valid IDiotic science
would have just been more science to deny. Those are the type of
creationist rubes that want to be lied to by the authors of the book
under discussion.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The accommodation
seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to
the garden of eden. This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not >>>>>>> have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and >>>>>>> could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran
still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day. >>>>>>> The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam >>>>>>> and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the >>>>>>> other land animals. He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first >>>>>>> humans. There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real >>>>>>> science. The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not
geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not >>>>>>> occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of >>>>>>> time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from >>>>>>> 8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we >>>>>>> do not have evidence that those 8 people were derived from Adam and Eve >>>>>>> in just 10 generation. The scientific creationists and ID perps came up
empty, with no science supporting their Biblical beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 07:38:47 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 12:55:28 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:49:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:45:26 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak >>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[a]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the >>>>>>>>> population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by >>>>>>>>> adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being >>>>>>>>> discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a >>>>>>> survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population. >>>>>>> Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any >>>>>>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as >>>>>>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be >>>>>>a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences >>>>>>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older >>>>>>and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal >>>>>aspect, not physical attributes.
Marks on a paper are just as physical as types of eye color.
Now you are just trying to be silly
You're determined to avoid measuring what's going on inside the human >>brain, aren't you?
so I think this discussion really has exceeded its shelf life.
Well, no one's forcing you to be here. Suit yourself.
I'll leave you with a parting thought. If you really want to persevere
with your idea that atheist scientists are more intelligent than
theist ones, you really need figure out a way of dealing with the fact
that 86% of Nobel Prize winners from 1901 to 2000 were religious (65% >Christian, 21% Jewish) with only 10.5% being atheists, agnostics, and >freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in science with
religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% in Physics
and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, agnostics,
and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature where they
account for 35%.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 19:01:10 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be >>>>>>> predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather >>>>>>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?
Putting aside that your question seems to claim I have made this
argument of yours for now.
It's how everybody I know of uses the anthropic principle. You talk
only about the sheer improbability of the various constants that make
up the anthropic principle but those who use it as an argument for God
do so on the basis that life could not have developed if even one of
those constants had been fractionally different. That is how the
authors use it, quoting for example Steven Weinberg: "Life as we know
it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had
slightly different values" and Arno Penzias: "Astronomy leads us to a
unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with
the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might
say 'supernatural') plan."
That understanding of the relevance of fine tuning is what drove my
question to you; if you have some other understanding of the relevance
then it would be helpful if you would explain it.
The important part and something you snipped
is the authors stated purpose of the book: "shed light for you on the
question of the existence or non-existence of a creator God, one of the
most important questions of our lives which is being posed today in
completely new terms."
That is only one part of their purpose, they want to use *evidence*, including from science, to support their claim - that is demonstrated
in the very title of the book. Also, in that introductory section that
you quote from, they go on to say "Until recently, believing in God
seemed incompatible with science. Now, unexpectedly, science appears
to have become God's ally. Materialism, which has always been a belief
just like any other, is seriously shaken as a result."
Later I state what matters to me, "The important
thing, and the purpose of the book, is the existence or non-existence of
God."
In that regard, I would suggest that the book has little to offer you
or me as we both already are convinced of the existence of God. I see
the value of the book as more for those whose faith may be undermined
by false claims made against religious belief or unbelievers who may
not seriously consider belief because they mistakenly think science
has effectively replaced it. That's where I believe the book has some
value - exposing some of the utterly nonsensical claims that are made
against religious beliefs.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, IEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed >>>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the
ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that >>>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but >>>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in >>>>> when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism >>>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that
inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no
indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's
teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its
teachings.
assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your own
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of
the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in
only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts
only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the
Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to generation through the Bible."
Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on
the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight
'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of
working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one.
In
their references, they include the following paper that I find even
more interesting:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA
and concludes that
"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of
recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of
everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a
few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one
or of all living humans."
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:47:07 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 4:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>Right, so, no single source couple for all (including earlier
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, I >>>> assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your ownEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>>>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed >>>>>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the >>>>>>> ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>>>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that >>>>>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but >>>>>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in >>>>>>> when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism >>>>>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that >>>>>> inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>>>>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no >>>>>> indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>>>>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's >>>>>>> teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its >>>>> teachings.
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of >>>> the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in
only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts
only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the
Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to
generation through the Bible."
Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on
the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight
'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of
working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one. In
their references, they include the following paper that I find even
more interesting:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA
and concludes that
"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of
recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of
everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a
few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one
or of all living humans."
generations ie dead people) humans. Like I thought.
You don't accept that the exact same principles of a MRCA within 70 to
170 generations would have applied to the people living at the time
the Bible was written?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:45:51 -0800
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/26 3:32 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 2:14 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/2/26 6:05 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2026 12:11 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/1/26 6:02 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 2/02/2026 3:44 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 10:18 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
Ridiculous!
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:47:07 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 4:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>Right, so, no single source couple for all (including earlier
wrote:
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, I >>>> assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your ownEssentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about >>>>>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed >>>>>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a
descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the >>>>>>> ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become >>>>>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a
biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that >>>>>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but >>>>>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in >>>>>>> when he first identified NS.
Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism >>>>>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that >>>>>> inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this >>>>>> in detail.
Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no >>>>>> indication that it is inherited at all.
Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support >>>>>> for the biblical position.
Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.
That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's >>>>>>> teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for
getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.
--
Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying
what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct
misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its >>>>> teachings.
interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of >>>> the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.
If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to
accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.
The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in
only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts
only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the
Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to
generation through the Bible."
Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on
the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight
'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of
working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one. In
their references, they include the following paper that I find even
more interesting:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA
and concludes that
"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of
recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of
everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years
ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a
few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one
or of all living humans."
generations ie dead people) humans. Like I thought.
You don't accept that the exact same principles of a MRCA within 70 to
170 generations would have applied to the people living at the time
the Bible was written?
--
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
From the book:
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
The fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.The problem I have with the 'fine tuning' argument is that it is based
They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.-a When
you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine
tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the way they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible from purely materialistic means.-a Next they spend time on the Multiverse.-a It is currently the best and really only alternative the naturalist has to counter the conclusions of the evidence the book presents as current scientific consensus.-a I see why they did the chapter, especially since
I personally think it is a batshit crazy idea, but it was not necessary
to include it in the book.-a It's a purely theoretical idea, and simply
is not scientific.-a To the materialist it just gives an example of something that might have happened since we know the supernatural
doesn't.-a It gives them more time.
They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: The
Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."-a Again, the numbers are
not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown
by research to be effectively impossible.-a As with the first two, the
Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.-a An example is the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex
molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the
cosmic origins of life."-a I would EXPECT findings like this and suggest
it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really does
nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.-a It just gives them
more time.
[snip]
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:24:22 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/1/26 1:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 17:49:39 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the >>>>> standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2025-12-17, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and >>>>>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and >>>>>>>>> spaceflight, for example.
I would just make the observation that there were people only about 150
years that said the similar things when comparing white people with >>>>>>>> indigenous people.
It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and >>>>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints. >>>>>>>
Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way. >>>>>
there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by >>>>> definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to >>>>> that.
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature", >>>> with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition
is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam
Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost
identical Cambridge Dictionary definition
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
- things that cannot be explained by science
Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell
people what they are.
A definition is useless unless people accept with the definition. Can
you cite any source that supports the definition you give above?
The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including
dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.
And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that
your idea of "supernatural"?
No, there is a distinct difference between not having an answer at
present but good reason to think that we will get one in the future
compared to not being able to see where we might even start to look
for an answer - cf for example the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural
I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific
evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both
evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.
Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in
explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that
religious believers term the soul.
That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on
consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.
Science has been able to figure out where processes happen in the
brain but nothing about what consciousness even is let along where it
comes from. As I've described it before, it's like an electronics
engineer analysing the electronic processes going on in my PC as I
type this response and claiming that gives him understanding of where
the ideas are coming from that I am using the PC to express. No need
to take my word from it, here is what a detailed analysis in this
month's Scientific American has to say:
"Yet understanding brain-network complexity does not solve the mystery
of consciousness. These findings can help explain how a brain can
reach the state of consciousness but not what happens once it's gotten
there, Mashour points out. Changes in someone's PCI value can't
explain, for example, why The Dress looks blue and black one moment
and white and gold the next. It can't explain how a toothache feels
different from a headache, how someone without functioning circulation
can have a near-death experience, or how the psychedelic drug
5-MeO-DMT makes time seem to stop and obliterates your sense of self."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness-science-faces-its-hardest-problem-yet/
The article also relates the story of how back in 1998, at a
consciousness-science conference in Germany, Christof Koch bet
philosopher David Chalmers a case of wine that researchers would
discover a "clear" pattern of brain activation underlying
consciousness within 25 years. At a June 2023 conference in New York
City, Koch walked onto the stage and publicly gave Chalmers his case
of wine, conceding that he had lost their bet.
This is the article that I mentioned to you a couple of days ago, you
really hold read it before making any more claims about science and
consciousness. I don't think that link is paywalled; if it is you can
get it here:
https://archive.is/wglRh
Like I said, we don't know everything. But what we do know is not zero.
Not by any means. Being able to cure phantom limb pain or repeatedly
induce out-of-body experiences is not nothing.
What do those things tell us about consciousness?
Wilder Penfield was one of the leaning neuroscientists of the 20th
century; he was regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and
developed the process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients
which allowed him to observe and record the effect of stimulating
various parts of the brain. He found he was able to stimulate various muscular reactions as well as inducing dream-like states but he never
ever encountered anything that could be considered to be reasoning or abstract thought or evoke anything that resembled 'things seen or felt
in ordinary experience'. [1]
Penfield started his career as a convinced materialist and ended it as
a convinced dualist:
""For my own part, after years of striving to explain the
mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to
the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be
logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does
consist of two fundamental elements. If that is true, it
could still be true that energy required comes to the mind
during waking hours through the highest brain-mechanism.
Because it seems to me certain that it will always be
quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of
neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems
to me that the mind develops and matures independently
throughout an individual's life as though it were a continuing
element, and because a computer (which the
brain is) must be programmed and operated by an
agency capable of independent understanding, I am
forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be
explained on the basis of two fundamental elements. This,
to my mind, offers the greatest likelihood of leading us
to the final understanding toward which so many stalwart
scientists strive." [2]
[1] Cobb, Matthew. The Idea of the Brain: A History: SHORTLISTED FOR
THE
BAILLIE GIFFORD PRIZE 2020 (p. 337). Profile. Kindle Edition.
[2] [Penfield, W. (2015) Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain, Princeton University Press, p80 (Originally published 1975)]
As for science not being able to say what consciousness is, that is a
message that I have repeated many times myself. How can you explain
something when you don't know what it is you're supposed to explain?
You seem to have the rather strange idea that we have to understand
something *before* we figure it out. Einstein had no understanding of relativity when he started his investigations; the same with Darwin
and Natural Selection. In both cases, they only knew that *something*
was going on and set out to figure out that *something*.
But
that is a problem more of philosophy than of science. Science is doing a
bang-up job of investigating memory, perception, decision-making, and
other components that probably go into making up consciousness.
I thoroughly disagree with those
who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at
finding out how material things function, that they will eventually, >>>>> somehow or other figure out consciousness.
The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of
the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding
the science) will reject the explanation.
That is total bullshit - please identify any single finding of science
that has ever been rejected by 9.9% of the general public.
The 99.9% may be hyperbole, but there are and have been areas of science
that are rejected by well over half of the general public. (You are
insulated from the worst of this by not living in the U.S.)
The US accounts for about 4.2% of world population. I think *you* are
the one who needs to be careful about extrapolating your US experience
to the wider world - especially considering the sort of nonsense that
is going on in the US nowadays.
And I
strongly suspect that a full explanation of consciousness will be more
poorly received than evolution by close to an order of magnitude. Just
consider how *you* would received a scientific argument that free will
does not exist.
If it was backed up by actual evidence, of course I would accept it.
Can you identify even one area of science based on actual evidence
that I have ever rejected?
You are the one who is rejecting what scientists say. I have given you
a number of leading scientists in the fields of neurosurgery and consciousness who say we are nowhere near figuring out consciousness.
Can you cite even one who disagrees?
Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
That sounds like projection.
No, it is experience on talk.origins.
No, it seems like you are so utterly convinced that the supernatural
is a figment of the imagination that you cannot even consider anything
that might undermine that conviction.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
[rCa]
Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of >>>>>> statistical surveys.
You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the
population at large, and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by
adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being
discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.
You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable >>>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any
demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as
handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be
a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences
such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older
and have different eye colors than the original native population.
Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal
aspect, not physical attributes. Every survey I have ever seen trying
to determine attitudes among the general population has been based on
a sample population carefully selected to demographically represent
the general population. Age is one of the main demographic factors
used - trying to assess the attitude of the general population from a
sample based on adolescents only is sheer nonsense. I am reminded of
the old saying attributed (possibly wrongly) to Mark Twain that when
he was 14 he was disgusted at how little his father knew; when he got
to 21 he was amazed at how much his father had learned in 7 years.
That is just one of the issues with that survey on intelligence
assessment let alone the religiosity where issues are identified in
the Wiki article that Vincent cited.
The firs one is how they defined intelligence:
"Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for
abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. It can be described as the ability to perceive or
infer information and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to
adaptive behaviors within an environment or context ... Most
psychologists believe that intelligence can be divided into various
domains or competencies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
So what domain or competency did they use? The paper is paywalled so I
can't see; if Vincent knows, he should have told us; if not, he
shouldn't be putting so much reliance on the survey.
Once they defined intelligence, how did they measure it? IQ tests are notorious for cultural basis as well as many other flaws:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/understanding-the-flaws-behind-the-iq-test-43690
<quote>
Aiming to measure the innate intelligence of the human population, IQ
tests work by aggregating the scores from several distinct tasks into
a singular number representing the person's cognitive ability. The
tests also have numerous methodological flaws that we're only just
beginning to understand.
"I think IQ testing has done far more harm than good," says British Psychologist Ken Richardson, author of Understanding Intelligence.
"And it's time we moved beyond the ideologically corruptible
mechanical model of IQ to a far deeper and wider appreciation of intelligence."
So how did the researchers avoid all the problems to arrive at a
single number? Again, the paper is paywalled so I can't see; if
Vincent knows, he should have told us; if not, he shouldn't be putting
so much reliance on the survey.
On 2026-02-05 11:47 a.m., sticks wrote:
[snip]
The fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the
implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.
They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.-a When
you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine
tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the
way they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible
from purely materialistic means.-a Next they spend time on the
Multiverse.-a It is currently the best and really only alternative the
naturalist has to counter the conclusions of the evidence the book
presents as current scientific consensus.-a I see why they did the
chapter, especially since I personally think it is a batshit crazy
idea, but it was not necessary to include it in the book.-a It's a
purely theoretical idea, and simply is not scientific.-a To the
materialist it just gives an example of something that might have
happened since we know the supernatural doesn't.-a It gives them more
time.
They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: The
Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."-a Again, the numbers are
not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown
by research to be effectively impossible.-a As with the first two, the
Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this
mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.-a An example
is the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex
molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the
cosmic origins of life."-a I would EXPECT findings like this and
suggest it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really
does nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.-a It just gives
them more time.
[snip]
The problem I have with the 'fine tuning' argument is that it is based
on a sample of one and requires some unfounded assumptions to calculate probabilities. Without making some assumptions we cannot get probabilities.
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
-aFrom the book:<blink>
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular
organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and
macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that >>>>>>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the >>>>>>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left >>>>>>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead >>>>>>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and >>>>>>>>>>>> that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to >>>>>>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there >>>>>>>>>>> more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.
Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or >>>>>>>>> otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to
know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that
science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an >>>>>>>>> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has
never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever
since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely >>>>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts >>>>>>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the >>>>>>> literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you >>>>>>> regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's
literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they >>>>>> do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes >>>>> in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making
stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post
are just another of your rambling diatribes.
You were the one describing what was in the book.
Where did I describe the authors as accepting the literal version of
Genesis as described by you? No handwaving - please quote exactly what
I said.
I just went to their
web page to see what the authors were claiming, and there is no doubt
that they are Biblical creationists.
From the book:
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
A arher strange account for Biblical creationists, to put it mildly!
Run from reality
I'd certainly run away from *your* version of reality.
it won't do you
any good. You are the one in denial of Biblical geocentrism. You were
the one that brought Origen into this discussion
Actually was the authors who brought Origen in to show that the
Catholic Church never taught the literal version of Genesis as
described by you - I simply quoted it from the book.
without understanding
how Origen related to your creationist denial and how these authors were
never going to support their Biblical beliefs with their scientific
approach because that had already failed a very long time ago. Origen
understood that nature could not be used to support his Biblical
beliefs, and the discrepancy between reality and the Biblical
interpretations did not matter to his faith. He may have continued to
be a geocentrist and believed in the Biblical firmament, but he would
have likely been among the first to understand that future conflicts
with reality would not matter. Nature had already failed to support
Biblical creationism. There is absolutely no reason to use science to
support Biblical beliefs at this time when science is just the best
means we have of understanding nature.
Ron Okimoto
and you were the one that
brought in Adam and Eve. What is that if not one literal interpretation >>>> of the Bible? You understand that there is no single literal
interpretation of the Bible because so many interpretations have been
invalidated and are not consistent with what we have discovered about
nature. The guys like you and the authors of the book that are still
trying to use science to support their Biblical beliefs are just doing >>>> something that is stupid and dishonest at this time because everyone
should understand that nature was never Biblical, and science is just
the study of nature. All that they can ever expect to do is to
demonstrate that nature is not what is described in the Bible.
They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still
want to believe in Genesis. It is your literal interpretation of the >>>>>> Bible that makes you do what you do. You know that the Bible can't be >>>>>> taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about? You and >>>>>> these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs >>>>>> in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out
because nature is not Biblical. You know that already with your
geocentrism denial. Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that >>>>>> believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about >>>>>> geocentrism and the firmament. He had enough on the ball to understand >>>>>> that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that >>>>>> the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical >>>>>> notions.
Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand >>>>>> that nature is not Biblical,
Please give a single example of where I said nature is biblical.
Your claim about Adam and Eve puts you in that category of trying to fit >>>> nature into a Biblical context. You brought up Origen. Origen
understood that the Bible was wrong about a lot of things about nature, >>>> but he did not give up on some of the existing Biblical notions. You
haven't either. Instead you have to deny that interpretations like
geocentrism never existed.
but you can't give up on trying to justifyI think a break from the rubbish you post here would do you no harm.
your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature. It is just as >>>>>> wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades. There is no such thing >>>>>> as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the >>>>>> authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as >>>>>> bad as the ID perps. The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID >>>>>> science was going to support their Biblical beliefs. If the ID perps >>>>>> had succeeded in filling the Top Six gaps in the order in which they >>>>>> must have occurred in this universe, it would just be more science to >>>>>> deny. The authors do not disclose that nature is not Biblical on their >>>>>> web site for their book, so my guess is that they are as dishonest as >>>>>> the ID perps conning the rubes with their science.
I am going on a trip, so I won't be posting to TO for a couple weeks. >>>>>
You need to face reality instead of run from the past interpretations of >>>> the Bible. The creation that exists is not the creation described in
the Bible. Using science will never support your Biblical beliefs.
Origen and Augustine understood that nature was not Biblical, but it did >>>> not matter to their faith, and my take is that they would have readily >>>> given up on their notions of the firmament and geocentrism with no
issues. These authors have apparently given up on the flat young earth, >>>> and geocentrism, but for some stupid reason they are still trying to
support their Biblical beliefs with science without informing the rubes >>>> that read their book that such an endeavor has never supported anyone's >>>> Biblical beliefs. Old earth creationists like the Reason to Believe ex >>>> IDiots still want the Genesis order of creation to be viable, but that >>>> is already understood to not be the case. Young earth, flat earth and >>>> geocentric creationists still exist. Most of the IDiots that were left >>>> posting in 2017 quit the ID scam because the Top Six gaps were never
going to be filled by their Biblical god, and any valid IDiotic science >>>> would have just been more science to deny. Those are the type of
creationist rubes that want to be lied to by the authors of the book
under discussion.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
The accommodation
seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to
the garden of eden. This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not >>>>>>>> have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and >>>>>>>> could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran
still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day. >>>>>>>> The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam
and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the >>>>>>>> other land animals. He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first
humans. There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real >>>>>>>> science. The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not >>>>>>>> geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not
occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of >>>>>>>> time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from
8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we
do not have evidence that those 8 people were derived from Adam and Eve
in just 10 generation. The scientific creationists and ID perps came up
empty, with no science supporting their Biblical beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
There are two mutually exclusive hypotheses of reality: materialism and supernaturalism (super-materialism if you like).
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John HarshmanAlthough not directly stated,
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God >>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly >>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with >>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other thanDo you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of >>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous >>>>>> scientific position?
theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant >>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only >>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book >>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor >>>>>>> item,
Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?
It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that >>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?
So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific
position?
So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me
on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that
carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.
On 2/5/2026 10:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there
more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.
Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or >>>>>>>>>> otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to
know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that
science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an >>>>>>>>>> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has
never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever
since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>>>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the
100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left
standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>>>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead
of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely >>>>>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts
are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the >>>>>>>> literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you >>>>>>>> regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's >>>>>>> literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they >>>>>>> do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes >>>>>> in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making
stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post
are just another of your rambling diatribes.
You were the one describing what was in the book.
Where did I describe the authors as accepting the literal version of
Genesis as described by you? No handwaving - please quote exactly what
I said.
You go up and look it up in this mess of a thread. You were the one >throwing in creation mythology like Y chromosom Adam and mitochondrial
eve when discussing the science of the book.
Their web site claims that the book is about "Does modern science point >toward the existence of a creator God?" Both authors are Catholic you
have to find that out from other sources for Bollore, but Bonnassies
claims to have a license of theology from the Institut Catholique de
Paris and claims to be a convert to Christianity.
The description of
what is in the book seems to be standard IDiocy.
They seem no better
than the ID perps in posing their gap denial arguments.
I just went to their
web page to see what the authors were claiming, and there is no doubt
that they are Biblical creationists.
From the book:
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular
organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and
macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
A arher strange account for Biblical creationists, to put it mildly!
Meyer claims that a 25 million year period that existed over half a
billion years ago is too short a period of time to account for the
evolution of all the kinds of animals that evolved during that time. My >guess is that the above quote is used for the same type of denial
stupidity in order to involve a creator into the evolution of the
diversity of life and us. It is just meant to fool the Biblical
creationist rubes. Meyer never wanted the rubes to understand the
argument, he only wanted them to wallow in the take home message denial.
Meyer's Cambrian explosion argument does not support the Big Tent of
Biblical creationism and was only meant to perpetuate the denial.
Run from reality
I'd certainly run away from *your* version of reality.
You usually do.
it won't do you
any good. You are the one in denial of Biblical geocentrism. You were
the one that brought Origen into this discussion
Actually was the authors who brought Origen in to show that the
Catholic Church never taught the literal version of Genesis as
described by you - I simply quoted it from the book.
It is you that are in denial of what the church fathers like Origen >believed, and caused the church stupidity about geocentrism.
No matter
what you claim there are still Catholic flat earth, young earth, old
earth, and geocentric Biblical creationists.
They exist due to their
Biblical beliefs, that cannot be supported by science.
These guys do not make the point that science will never support
Biblical creationism on their web page, and they should tell the rubes
that fact very clearly, likely in the introduction to the book.
There is no good reason to use science to support anyone's Biblical
beliefs at this time, and guys like Origen understood that nature did
not support the Biblical description of nature.
Most of the IDiots on
TO quit the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the fact that
any legitimate ID science would have just been more science for Biblical >creationists to deny. My guess is that these authors likely use all the
Top Six IDiotic gap denial arguments in their book for the same >fool-the-rubes reason that the ID perps have. That would be all that
they were doing by selling the book.
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:<blink>
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular
organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and
macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
[more snip]
--
On 5/02/2026 11:25 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:45:51 -0800
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
Ridiculous!
It's called dialogue.
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:23:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2026 10:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The examples do not exist. The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there
more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even >>>>>>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.
Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or >>>>>>>>>>> otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to
know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that
science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an >>>>>>>>>>> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has
never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever
since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he >>>>>>>>>> could never name any of them. For some reason Harran can't accept the
100% failure rate for god did it explanations. The only examples left
standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or >>>>>>>>>> not. If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists >>>>>>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead
of wallowing in the gap denial.
The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely >>>>>>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed. The two creation accounts
are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.
You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the >>>>>>>>> literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you >>>>>>>>> regard so lowly.
You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's >>>>>>>> literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they >>>>>>>> do.
What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes >>>>>>> in the literal story in Genesis.
The authors of the book under discussion,
No, they don't You really should read what people write before making >>>>> stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post >>>>> are just another of your rambling diatribes.
You were the one describing what was in the book.
Where did I describe the authors as accepting the literal version of
Genesis as described by you? No handwaving - please quote exactly what
I said.
You go up and look it up in this mess of a thread. You were the one
throwing in creation mythology like Y chromosom Adam and mitochondrial
eve when discussing the science of the book.
In other words, you can't quote me because what you posted about me
and the authors was a crock of shit. Nothing new there.
Their web site claims that the book is about "Does modern science point
toward the existence of a creator God?" Both authors are Catholic you
have to find that out from other sources for Bollore, but Bonnassies
claims to have a license of theology from the Institut Catholique de
Paris and claims to be a convert to Christianity.
So what?
The description of
what is in the book seems to be standard IDiocy.
No, it is not. And you really, really, really should not make claims
about books you have not read.
They seem no better
than the ID perps in posing their gap denial arguments.
I just went to their
web page to see what the authors were claiming, and there is no doubt
that they are Biblical creationists.
From the book:
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular
organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and
macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
A arher strange account for Biblical creationists, to put it mildly!
Meyer claims that a 25 million year period that existed over half a
billion years ago is too short a period of time to account for the
evolution of all the kinds of animals that evolved during that time. My
guess is that the above quote is used for the same type of denial
stupidity in order to involve a creator into the evolution of the
diversity of life and us. It is just meant to fool the Biblical
creationist rubes. Meyer never wanted the rubes to understand the
argument, he only wanted them to wallow in the take home message denial.
Meyer's Cambrian explosion argument does not support the Big Tent of
Biblical creationism and was only meant to perpetuate the denial.
Meyer has nothing to do with this discussion. Poor attempt at moving
the goal posts.
Run from reality
I'd certainly run away from *your* version of reality.
You usually do.
it won't do you
any good. You are the one in denial of Biblical geocentrism. You were >>>> the one that brought Origen into this discussion
Actually was the authors who brought Origen in to show that the
Catholic Church never taught the literal version of Genesis as
described by you - I simply quoted it from the book.
It is you that are in denial of what the church fathers like Origen
believed, and caused the church stupidity about geocentrism.
Ah, I keep forgetting that you know far more about Catholic teaching
and history than reputable historians the Catholic Church's own
theologians; been educated by a real top notch, anonymous blogging geocentrist.
No matter
what you claim there are still Catholic flat earth, young earth, old
earth, and geocentric Biblical creationists.
Of the 1.4 billion Catholics in teh world, I have only ever heard of 3
who are geocentrists - Tony Pagano who used to post here, Robert
Sungenis and the anonymous blogger guy who you adopted as your mentor
in all things Catholic. Can you identify any others?
They exist due to their
Biblical beliefs, that cannot be supported by science.
These guys do not make the point that science will never support
Biblical creationism on their web page, and they should tell the rubes
that fact very clearly, likely in the introduction to the book.
There is no good reason to use science to support anyone's Biblical
beliefs at this time, and guys like Origen understood that nature did
not support the Biblical description of nature.
And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion
agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.
Most of the IDiots on
TO quit the ID scam when they had their faces rubbed in the fact that
any legitimate ID science would have just been more science for Biblical
creationists to deny. My guess is that these authors likely use all the
Top Six IDiotic gap denial arguments in their book for the same
fool-the-rubes reason that the ID perps have. That would be all that
they were doing by selling the book.
Do you never get tired of ranting about ID to people who don't support
ID?
[rCa]
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:<blink>
<quote>
It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated
300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years
ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4
million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7
million years ago).
And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long
process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise
to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally
fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this
question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation
ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the
chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common
point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of
all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather
extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular
organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which
then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From
there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with
man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something
we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism
capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and
macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
[more snip]
--
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 08:35:04 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/02/2026 11:25 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[]
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:45:51 -0800
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
I call it "not snipping".On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:
Ridiculous!
It's called dialogue.
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust<double blink>
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with
dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with
dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass. >> I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of
Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with
dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass. >>> I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of
Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as
the common ancestor.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with
dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of
Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor, it was just I don't
think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
On 2/7/2026 4:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2026 09:08:29 +0000, Martin HarranFrom your site:
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
The church fathers were all Biblical
geocentrists,
You reckon they *all* were yet you have never been able to identify
Here's a genuine Catholic source for you, not some anonymous
geocentist blogger:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis
[rCa]
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/bad-religion-bad-science
Someone trying to refute the geocentric Catholics that you don't want to >believe exist.
"Galileo well knew that the Fathers of the Church held to a geocentric
view of the universe and taught the same in a unanimous way as any other >view would have been immediately recognized by them as against Scripture
and common sense or reason"
This quote comes from an article on Galileo's heresy,
and just shows
that other scholars acknowledge that the Church fathers were
geocentrists. The author of the article up on your web site wanted to
deny that the church fathers ever "taught" geocentrism, and he does not >refute that they were geocentrists. They just wrote about things in >geocentric terms.
This is just evidence from your source that all the church fathers were >geocentrists. Denial is stupid and dishonest.
Google:
Saint Augustine (354-430) generally adhered to the geocentric, or >earth-centered, cosmology prevalent in his time, consistent with both >ancient Greek science and a literal reading of Scripture. While
accepting the Earth as the center, he famously advised against using >scripture to contradict scientific evidence, warning against "reckless" >interpretation of physical phenomena.
Google:
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD), an influential early Christian >theologian, operated within the dominant ancient Greco-Roman
cosmological framework, which was geocentric. He largely accepted the >prevailing scientific understanding of his time-derived from thinkers
like Aristotle and later codified by Ptolemy-that the Earth was a
stationary sphere at the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, >planets, and stars revolving around it.
Google: Early church fathers and geocentrism
Early Church Fathers, including Augustine, Basil, and Jerome, largely >endorsed a geocentric (earth-centered) universe, aligning with the
dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology of their era and a literal
reading of scriptures describing a stationary earth. They viewed the
heavens revolving around a stable, central Earth, emphasizing its
symbolic role in salvation history.
Key Aspects of Early Church Views on Geocentrism:
Universal Assumption: The Church Fathers, along with most ancient
thinkers, did not see a need to debate the structure of the cosmos, >accepting that the earth was at the center and immovable.
Scriptural Interpretation: Many Fathers interpreted passages, such as
Joshua 10:12 (where the sun is commanded to stand still) and Psalms >mentioning the earth's stability, as literal, scientific, and
theological truths.
Denial of reality is stupid and dishonest.
On 2/7/2026 3:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/6/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
In other words, you can't quote me because what you posted about me
and the authors was a crock of shit. Nothing new there.
No. It just means that you know what you have already put up, and it
isn't worth looking for the junk.
LOL, you've put up some flimsy excuses in the past, that mut be just
about the most flimsy ever!
Do you deny putting up the adam and eve junk?
[rCa]
It means that they are Biblical creationists, and they are selling the
junk to other Biblical creationists like Sticks.
WOW, Biblical creationists who accept everything science has to say
from the Big Bang to abiogenesis to evolution - weirdest Biblical
creationists I ever met!
Like the ID perps they are basically scam artists if they do not tell
the rubes that the science does not support their Biblical beliefs.
What science gaps are they putting up.
None. Well maybe a wee bit about fine-tuning but I've already said
that I think that is the weakest part of the book.
Big Bang, fine tuning, the flagellum looks designed. How much evolution
is too much to occur without a creator? You just put up their evolution >scenario, what do they claim about the creator for that? The Top Six
gaps are just the best fool the rubes gap denial stupidity put up by the
ID perps. Glenn kept putting up their second rate junk in order to run
in denial of what the Top Six meant.
"What science gaps are they putting up. What is too complex to have
evolved and indicates some creator was involved? It sounds like
standard IDiocy. "This looks like it was designed by a creator" would
sum up their scientific descriptions."
This is what you ran from and removed without marking your snip. Was
there some reason besides running that you did it?
[rCa]
Big SNIP. I guess they are doing just what Meyer does. No better than
the ID perps.
The church fathers were all Biblical
geocentrists,
You reckon they *all* were yet you have never been able to identify
even one.
Your geocentrism denial is just stupid at this time. Grow up and face >reality.
Origen and Augustine are noted examples. Just look it up. They were
all considered to be geocentists. It is the reason for the change made
by the Inquisition. You know this but have to lie to yourself about it.
What does your inability to deal with the Bible being wrong about
geocentrism and the fact that the church fathers believed the Biblical >interpretation was valid mean to your current denial?
Nature is not Biblical. If these authors do not tell the creationist
rubes like you this simple fact, they are no better than the ID perps.
[rCa]
So what does the limits of your knowledge have to do with what fraction
of Catholics are still geocentrists. More than one blogger are
conservative enough Catholics to be geocentrists,
Yet you cannot identify even one other than the three that I
mentioned.
This is just a stupid argument. Why should my knowledge of geocentric >Catholics mean anything when it is widely agreed that all the church
fathers were geocentrists, and it is obvious that geocentric Catholics
still exist? The Inquisition made heliocentrism into a formal heresy >because all the church fathers held the scriptural geocentric view point.
the anti geocentric Catholics verified all that
blogger's claims.
Yet again, you cannot identify even one of these "anti-geocentric
Catholics that verified the claims.
You got the links, and ran. End of that story. I even put up links
that they had to the original documents, and you ran. You need to go
back and look at what you could never deal with.
(I realise that this is getting tiresome but that is more a reflection
of how much you repeat this crap rather than my pointing it out,)
Why keep lying about reality? It is stupid and nothing will ever change >because you know what you could not deal with in the past.
You should learn from your past fiascos, but you never have.
[rCa]
You should have learned from their mistakes, but you never did.
Yet again you offer at advice to others that you would be much better
taking yourself.
You SNIPed this out and did not deal with it, so my guess is that you
can't face this reality either.
QUOTE:
And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion
agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.
There is when the agreement isn't really an agreement. Just take the
Big Bang. What we understand about the Big Bang is that it is the
closest thing to a creation event that we have been able to understand
to a level of certainty that would classify it as some fact of nature.
The Big Bang has resulted in a non Biblical universe. The universe that
was created is not the one described in the Bible. To use the Big Bang
to support your Biblical beliefs is dishonest and stupid (the YEC
understand this to be true because the AIG uses the Big Bang gap denial
to support creationism, but it is one of the science topics that the >creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards of the
public schools). All that can be honestly accomplished is to understand >that some creator may exist, but that creator is unlikely to be the
creator described in the Bible.
Science is never going to support your
Biblical beliefs. The only reason to understand the science is to get a >better understanding of what the creation actually is, and this will
result in the full understanding that the creation is not Biblical.
Biblical creationists have to deal with this fact before being rubes for
the ID scam and the Biblical creationist authors of the book under >discussion. Creationists like you, MarkE, and Sticks have to deal with
this fact instead of wallow in denial about stupid things like
geocentrism and what we don't know about the origin of life.
END QUOTE:
Ron Okimoto
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, >>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double >>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as >>> the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every >generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor, it was just I don't
think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make
excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
--
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, >>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double >>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as >>> the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every >generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor, it was just I don't
think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make
excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
On 2026-02-05 11:47 a.m., sticks wrote:
[snip]
Some parts of this limiting shows some flexibility, other bits not soThe fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.
They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.a When
you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine
tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the way they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible from purely materialistic means.a Next they spend time on the Multiverse.a It is currently the best and really only alternative the naturalist has to counter the conclusions of the evidence the book presents as current scientific consensus.a I see why they did the chapter, especially since
I personally think it is a batshit crazy idea, but it was not necessary
to include it in the book.a It's a purely theoretical idea, and simply
is not scientific.a To the materialist it just gives an example of something that might have happened since we know the supernatural doesn't.a It gives them more time.
They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: TheThe problem I have with the 'fine tuning' argument is that it is based
Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."a Again, the numbers are
not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown
by research to be effectively impossible.a As with the first two, the
Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.a An example is the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the cosmic origins of life."a I would EXPECT findings like this and suggest
it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really does
nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.a It just gives them more time.
[snip]
on a sample of one and requires some unfounded assumptions to calculate probabilities. Without making some assumptions we cannot get probabilities.
If I give you a bag of coloured marbles and you reach in and pull one
out and it is black, what is the prior probability that you would pick a black marble? Well, you did pick one, so the probability was not zero.
And that is all you know without some assumptions.
Without knowing how many marbles and how may are black, then the
probability is somewhere between >0 and 1.
never be scared of detailing all their assumptions, even and especially
if there are alternate views. I would think we can all agree on that.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as >>>> the common ancestor.
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as<double blink>
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, >>>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double >>>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every
generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans
have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time, all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor, it was just I don't
think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make
excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
--
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:56:00 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2026 4:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2026 09:08:29 +0000, Martin HarranFrom your site:
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[...]
The church fathers were all Biblical
geocentrists,
You reckon they *all* were yet you have never been able to identify
Here's a genuine Catholic source for you, not some anonymous
geocentist blogger:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis
[rCa]
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/bad-religion-bad-science
Someone trying to refute the geocentric Catholics that you don't want to
believe exist.
You mean the ones that you can identify, only 3 of out of 1.3 billion Catholics? Oh, those 3 exist, maybe a few others but it beats me why
you get so het up about them; with 1.4 billion member there are bound
to be all sorts of kooks and weirdos in there, some of them are even
Trump supporters!
"Galileo well knew that the Fathers of the Church held to a geocentric
view of the universe and taught the same in a unanimous way as any other
view would have been immediately recognized by them as against Scripture
and common sense or reason"
This quote comes from an article on Galileo's heresy,
What article?
and just shows
that other scholars acknowledge that the Church fathers were
geocentrists. The author of the article up on your web site wanted to
deny that the church fathers ever "taught" geocentrism, and he does not
refute that they were geocentrists. They just wrote about things in
geocentric terms.
This is just evidence from your source that all the church fathers were
geocentrists. Denial is stupid and dishonest.
Google:
Saint Augustine (354-430) generally adhered to the geocentric, or
earth-centered, cosmology prevalent in his time, consistent with both
ancient Greek science and a literal reading of Scripture. While
accepting the Earth as the center, he famously advised against using
scripture to contradict scientific evidence, warning against "reckless"
interpretation of physical phenomena.
Google:
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD), an influential early Christian
theologian, operated within the dominant ancient Greco-Roman
cosmological framework, which was geocentric. He largely accepted the
prevailing scientific understanding of his time-derived from thinkers
like Aristotle and later codified by Ptolemy-that the Earth was a
stationary sphere at the center of the universe, with the sun, moon,
planets, and stars revolving around it.
Google: Early church fathers and geocentrism
Early Church Fathers, including Augustine, Basil, and Jerome, largely
endorsed a geocentric (earth-centered) universe, aligning with the
dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology of their era and a literal
reading of scriptures describing a stationary earth. They viewed the
heavens revolving around a stable, central Earth, emphasizing its
symbolic role in salvation history.
Key Aspects of Early Church Views on Geocentrism:
Universal Assumption: The Church Fathers, along with most ancient
thinkers, did not see a need to debate the structure of the cosmos,
accepting that the earth was at the center and immovable.
Scriptural Interpretation: Many Fathers interpreted passages, such as
Joshua 10:12 (where the sun is commanded to stand still) and Psalms
mentioning the earth's stability, as literal, scientific, and
theological truths.
LOL, you move from your geocentrist mentor to AI and though your
geocentrist mentor insists that *all* the Fathers taught geocentrism,
the AI can't even give a single cite from even one of them.
Denial of reality is stupid and dishonest.
Yes it is, so you should stop it. Geocentrism was never a teaching of
the Catholic Church no matter how much you try to make it out to have
been and, in your mind, maybe still is. As a scientist, you should
know well that if you want to find out stuff you should go to
reputable sources; in this case what the Catholic Church has said or reputable scholars who have studied it - not a geocentrist kook or
vague AI summaries
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2026 3:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/6/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
In other words, you can't quote me because what you posted about me
and the authors was a crock of shit. Nothing new there.
No. It just means that you know what you have already put up, and it
isn't worth looking for the junk.
LOL, you've put up some flimsy excuses in the past, that mut be just
about the most flimsy ever!
Do you deny putting up the adam and eve junk?
What Adam and Eve junk did I put up? Again, direct quotation required,
not vague handwaving from you.
[rCa]
It means that they are Biblical creationists, and they are selling the >>>> junk to other Biblical creationists like Sticks.
WOW, Biblical creationists who accept everything science has to say
from the Big Bang to abiogenesis to evolution - weirdest Biblical
creationists I ever met!
Like the ID perps they are basically scam artists if they do not tell
the rubes that the science does not support their Biblical beliefs.
What science gaps are they putting up.
None. Well maybe a wee bit about fine-tuning but I've already said
that I think that is the weakest part of the book.
Big Bang, fine tuning, the flagellum looks designed. How much evolution
is too much to occur without a creator? You just put up their evolution
scenario, what do they claim about the creator for that? The Top Six
gaps are just the best fool the rubes gap denial stupidity put up by the
ID perps. Glenn kept putting up their second rate junk in order to run
in denial of what the Top Six meant.
"What science gaps are they putting up. What is too complex to have
evolved and indicates some creator was involved? It sounds like
standard IDiocy. "This looks like it was designed by a creator" would
sum up their scientific descriptions."
Again you insist that you know what the authors said without even
needing what they actually wrote.
This is what you ran from and removed without marking your snip. Was
there some reason besides running that you did it?
Nope, didn't run from anything that related to what was being
discussed. I did ignore some of the mindless crap that had nothing to
with what is under discussion. I've left some in this time as an illustration, your mindless crap about people running from the "Top
Six" like Glenn and others you keep referring to who haven't even been
here for the last two years since Google Groups ended .
[rCa]
Big SNIP. I guess they are doing just what Meyer does. No better than
the ID perps.
The church fathers were all Biblical
geocentrists,
You reckon they *all* were yet you have never been able to identify
even one.
Your geocentrism denial is just stupid at this time. Grow up and face
reality.
Origen and Augustine are noted examples. Just look it up. They were
all considered to be geocentists. It is the reason for the change made
by the Inquisition. You know this but have to lie to yourself about it.
What does your inability to deal with the Bible being wrong about
geocentrism and the fact that the church fathers believed the Biblical
interpretation was valid mean to your current denial?
Nature is not Biblical. If these authors do not tell the creationist
rubes like you this simple fact, they are no better than the ID perps.
[rCa]
So what does the limits of your knowledge have to do with what fraction >>>> of Catholics are still geocentrists. More than one blogger are
conservative enough Catholics to be geocentrists,
Yet you cannot identify even one other than the three that I
mentioned.
This is just a stupid argument. Why should my knowledge of geocentric
Catholics mean anything when it is widely agreed that all the church
fathers were geocentrists, and it is obvious that geocentric Catholics
still exist? The Inquisition made heliocentrism into a formal heresy
because all the church fathers held the scriptural geocentric view point.
the anti geocentric Catholics verified all that
blogger's claims.
Yet again, you cannot identify even one of these "anti-geocentric
Catholics that verified the claims.
You got the links, and ran. End of that story. I even put up links
that they had to the original documents, and you ran. You need to go
back and look at what you could never deal with.
You misquoted stuff from Wikipedia and from the official Catholic site
I gave you. Reputable historians stated the charge against Galileo and
then stated that the charge was totally unfounded. You got a weird
idea that their stating of the charge was somehow an endorsement of it
and couldn't get away from that idea. You really need to cleanse your
mind of the junk that's in it and go back and read those articles
again.
(I realise that this is getting tiresome but that is more a reflection
of how much you repeat this crap rather than my pointing it out,)
Why keep lying about reality? It is stupid and nothing will ever change
because you know what you could not deal with in the past.
You should learn from your past fiascos, but you never have.
[rCa]
You should have learned from their mistakes, but you never did.
Yet again you offer at advice to others that you would be much better
taking yourself.
You SNIPed this out and did not deal with it, so my guess is that you
can't face this reality either.
QUOTE:
And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion
agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.
There is when the agreement isn't really an agreement. Just take the
Big Bang. What we understand about the Big Bang is that it is the
closest thing to a creation event that we have been able to understand
to a level of certainty that would classify it as some fact of nature.
The Big Bang has resulted in a non Biblical universe. The universe that
was created is not the one described in the Bible. To use the Big Bang
to support your Biblical beliefs is dishonest and stupid (the YEC
understand this to be true because the AIG uses the Big Bang gap denial
to support creationism, but it is one of the science topics that the
creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards of the
public schools). All that can be honestly accomplished is to understand
that some creator may exist, but that creator is unlikely to be the
creator described in the Bible.
The creator that *you* think is described in the Bible. Pope Francis
didn't think that way:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand
<quote>
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining
God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that
is not so," Francis told the gathering, where he also dedicated a
statue of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. God, Francis said, "created
human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that
he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
</quote>
But then again, he was only a pope, what would he know about Catholic teaching rCa
Science is never going to support your
Biblical beliefs. The only reason to understand the science is to get a
better understanding of what the creation actually is, and this will
result in the full understanding that the creation is not Biblical.
Biblical creationists have to deal with this fact before being rubes for
the ID scam and the Biblical creationist authors of the book under
discussion. Creationists like you, MarkE, and Sticks have to deal with
this fact instead of wallow in denial about stupid things like
geocentrism and what we don't know about the origin of life.
END QUOTE:
Ron Okimoto
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Here we go again. Clearly Harran will fall on his sword rather than
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2026 3:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 2/6/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
In other words, you can't quote me because what you posted about me >>>>>> and the authors was a crock of shit. Nothing new there.
No. It just means that you know what you have already put up, and it >>>>> isn't worth looking for the junk.
LOL, you've put up some flimsy excuses in the past, that mut be just
about the most flimsy ever!
Do you deny putting up the adam and eve junk?
What Adam and Eve junk did I put up? Again, direct quotation required,
not vague handwaving from you.
QUOTE:
They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam. I know that you and I have argued this one before; my argument
was that it is only an issue if someone argues that they were the
*only* common ancestor but the Hebrews did not claim that - the story
of Cain going to live in the land of Nod is a clear indication that
they accepted there were other humans around at that time..
END QUOTE:
This comes from a 1/5 post of yours to Harshman describing what was
claimed in the book. You seem to have memory lapse of what you claimed >about the book.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 16:30:14 -0600Oops!----------------------------------------^^^^^
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
[]...
Someone who is proud of their work should
never be scared of detailing all their assumptions, even and especially
if there are alternate views. I would think we can all agree on that.
But are they backed up by evidence (and I *don't* mean quotes from a book
written a few thousand years ago).
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.<double blink>
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with
dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and
married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of
Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor,
it was just I don't
think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as >>>> the common ancestor.
wrote:
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as<double blink>
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, >>>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double >>>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every
generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans
have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time, all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
[more snip]
--
On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust?
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou >>>>>>>>>> art dust<double blink>
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this >>>>>>>>>> month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of >>>>>>> your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses
(loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck
eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the
double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching >>> to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every
generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me >>> to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >>> have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an
individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time,-a all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major river flows through Egypt.
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Grasping at straws methinks.
On 2/12/26 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust?
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou >>>>>>>>>> art dust<double blink>
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this >>>>>>>>>> month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of >>>>>>> your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses
(loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck >>>>>> eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the >>>>>> double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs. >>>> Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching >>> to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every >>> generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there >>> will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me >>> to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its >>> own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >>> have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor >>> one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an
individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time,-a all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major river flows through Egypt.
Now if we could only find the place where four rivers flow out of Eden, including the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile.
On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as >>>>> the common ancestor.
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as<double blink>
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the >>>>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs, >>>>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double >>>>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"? >>>>>> That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching >>> to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every
generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me >>> to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >>> have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an
individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time, all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major >river flows through Egypt.
On 2/8/26 8:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
I can't find that list. What I can find is this:
"I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with."
And I swear that you have several times denied saying anything of the
sort. Perhaps you think that they put work into it but failed to show
such a thing? But why would you be glad?
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
--
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:00:10 -0800
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/12/26 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Now if we could only find the place where four rivers flow out of Eden,
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden >>>>>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust?
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou >>>>>>>>>>>> art dust<double blink>
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this >>>>>>>>>>>> month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of >>>>>>>>> your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of >>>>>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses
(loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck >>>>>>>> eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the >>>>>>>> double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors >>>>>> gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs. >>>>>> Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument, >>>>>> initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one >>>>>> couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but >>>>> some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I >>>>> worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching >>>>> to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly >>>>> well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press >>>>> and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every >>>>> generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there >>>>> will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me >>>>> to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced >>>>> the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its >>>>> own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans >>>>> have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea >>>>> that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor >>>>> one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I >>>> was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science >>>> agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an >>>> individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time,-a all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major
river flows through Egypt.
including the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile.
Easy enough {though clearly the Nile has to be dropped} 2 out of 3
ain't bad.
https://britbrief.co.uk/health/research/ancient-riverbeds-may-be-biblical-edens-lost-rivers.html
(OK they flow into Eden).
(I note there's a lot of non-brit news in there)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:39:14 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/26 8:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
I can't find that list. What I can find is this:
You seem to be having memory problems.
You replied to that post and asked for some examples. [1]
I replied to you, giving a list of about 10 examples of the sort of
things I was referring to. [2]
You replied again and gave your opinion (mostly handwaving) about the
various examples [3]
In that post you made your stupid claim about me thinking MT-Eve and
Y-Adam were a couple. I may have been a bit harsh on you (no pun
intended) when I rebuked you for that. When you can't even remember
things you yourself posted earlier in this discussion, it's probably a
bit unfair to expect you to remember me explicitly correcting you at
least twice about that in previous discussions.
[1] Message-ID: <RMCcndEjBfCAwMT0nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800
[2] Message-ID: <8jhnlkhvb32c5uoc665iu2a0hrhjqslt3b@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000
[3] Message-ID: <mL-dnSf8SfLtTcb0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800
"I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with."
And I swear that you have several times denied saying anything of the
sort. Perhaps you think that they put work into it but failed to show
such a thing? But why would you be glad?
I never said that science was *forced* to accept them which is what
you claimed I said. Memory issues again, apparently.
On 2/14/26 6:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:39:14 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/26 8:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
I can't find that list. What I can find is this:
You seem to be having memory problems.
You replied to that post and asked for some examples. [1]
I replied to you, giving a list of about 10 examples of the sort of
things I was referring to. [2]
You replied again and gave your opinion (mostly handwaving) about the
various examples [3]
In that post you made your stupid claim about me thinking MT-Eve and
Y-Adam were a couple. I may have been a bit harsh on you (no pun
intended) when I rebuked you for that. When you can't even remember
things you yourself posted earlier in this discussion, it's probably a
bit unfair to expect you to remember me explicitly correcting you at
least twice about that in previous discussions.
I still don't know why you brought up mt-Eve and Y-Adam. That's part of
the confusion. The other part is your constant reference to "a single >couple".
[1] Message-ID: <RMCcndEjBfCAwMT0nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800
[2] Message-ID: <8jhnlkhvb32c5uoc665iu2a0hrhjqslt3b@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000
[3] Message-ID: <mL-dnSf8SfLtTcb0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800
Unfortunately, all those have fallen off my server, and I can't look
them up. Could you quote the ten examples again? I can remember only the
big bang and mt-Eve. Hey, I'm old.
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:26:08 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/26 6:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 06:39:14 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/26 8:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
I can't find that list. What I can find is this:
You seem to be having memory problems.
You replied to that post and asked for some examples. [1]
I replied to you, giving a list of about 10 examples of the sort of
things I was referring to. [2]
You replied again and gave your opinion (mostly handwaving) about the
various examples [3]
In that post you made your stupid claim about me thinking MT-Eve and
Y-Adam were a couple. I may have been a bit harsh on you (no pun
intended) when I rebuked you for that. When you can't even remember
things you yourself posted earlier in this discussion, it's probably a
bit unfair to expect you to remember me explicitly correcting you at
least twice about that in previous discussions.
I still don't know why you brought up mt-Eve and Y-Adam. That's part of
the confusion. The other part is your constant reference to "a single
couple".
[1] Message-ID: <RMCcndEjBfCAwMT0nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800
[2] Message-ID: <8jhnlkhvb32c5uoc665iu2a0hrhjqslt3b@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000
[3] Message-ID: <mL-dnSf8SfLtTcb0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800
Unfortunately, all those have fallen off my server, and I can't look
them up. Could you quote the ten examples again? I can remember only the
big bang and mt-Eve. Hey, I'm old.
Yet you were able to quote the original, older post.
Just another example of you trying to put the blame elsewhere instead
of simply accepting that you got something wrong. That's nothing to do
with being old, it's just to do with being a prick.
I never said that science was *forced* to accept them which is what
you claimed I said. Memory issues again, apparently.
Not sure what I'm supposed to have got wrong. I can't find the list.
That's all I'm saying. Why not repost just to be helpful? Are you quite
sure who the prick is?
On 2/12/26 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Now if we could only find the place where four rivers flow out of Eden, including the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The
On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou >>>>>>>>>>> art dust<double blink>
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this >>>>>>>>>>> month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
WOW.
Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with >>>>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?
Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out >>>>>>>> of your ass.
I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and >>>>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic).
Lots of
Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses
(loved the
music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.
Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck >>>>>>> eggs,
that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the >>>>>>> double
blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>> rCa"?
That is what I was responding to.
[rCa]
sudden
jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust?
mud?) as
the common ancestor.
OK, my mistake.
If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs. >>>>> Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some
coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every >>>> generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there >>>> will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed
to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its >>>> own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant
humans
have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor >>>> one but a bad one.
I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no
idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I
was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and
the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science
agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an
individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can
do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies
whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular
point in time,-a all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago
regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church
today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.
Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam
and Eve story.
In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a
major river flows through Egypt.
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:55:47 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure what I'm supposed to have got wrong. I can't find the list.
And your seerver also deletes your Sent Mail on whatever programme you
use to post.
Keep digging, John.
That's all I'm saying. Why not repost just to be helpful? Are you quite
sure who the prick is?
Yes, I'm very sure.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >> >[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than >> >> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor
the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to
do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
--Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:55:47 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure what I'm supposed to have got wrong. I can't find the list.
And your seerver also deletes your Sent Mail on whatever programme you
use to post.
First of all they do a lengthy discussion on the Hebrew awareness of a
finite beginning and finite end to the universe as we have already
discussed.
Time - ancient Hebrews considered time to relate only to this universe
and only came into being with it with the past, the present and the
future being one thing to God; that ties in with modern conclusions
about space-time curvature.
Most if not all ancient civilisations thought the sun and the moon
were gods; the Hebrews never thought that, they always recognised the
moon and sun as celestial objects.
They also point out that the Hebrews never deified any mortal being
unlike most other civilisations e.g. the Egyptians with their pharaohs
and the Romans with their emperors; they regarded man in physical
terms to be nothing beyond matter which again science has obviously confirmed.
They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam. I know that you and I have argued this one before; my argument
was that it is only an issue if someone argues that they were the
*only* common ancestor but the Hebrews did not claim that - the story
of Cain going to live in the land of Nod is a clear indication that
they accepted there were other humans around at that time..
The Hebrews believed that notwithstanding the figurative language of
Genesis, man came from the mud of the earth; as the authors put it:
"Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our first parent, is matter"
which is exactly what modern science has figured out.
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the
human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than >> >> >> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -
the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as
it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor
the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to
do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,
yet you wanted to
claim here the opposite.
Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand >by?
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
You misquoted stuff from Wikipedia and from the official Catholic site
I gave you. Reputable historians stated the charge against Galileo and
then stated that the charge was totally unfounded. You got a weird
idea that their stating of the charge was somehow an endorsement of it
and couldn't get away from that idea. You really need to cleanse your
mind of the junk that's in it and go back and read those articles
again.
Why lie about the situation. I did not quote mine.
The quotes were
just what those sources were contending. That is why you ran.
You
tried to put up an irrelevant quote about the sentencing not calling it
a formal heresy when that had already been acknowledged by both sides of
the Catholic geocentric argument.
Just because it was only written as a
heresy does not mean that heliocentrism was not considered to be heresy.
The question was if it was a formal heresy charge like it was in 1616.
Your own source called it a heresy charge in both cases. They did not
distinguish between formal heresy and heresy. The Anti geocentric
Catholics did not want it to be a formal heresy charge the second time >because of papal involvement.
Lying about the past doesn't change what you can't deal with above that
you did not address.
(I realise that this is getting tiresome but that is more a reflection >>>> of how much you repeat this crap rather than my pointing it out,)
Why keep lying about reality? It is stupid and nothing will ever change >>> because you know what you could not deal with in the past.
You should learn from your past fiascos, but you never have.
[rCa]
You should have learned from their mistakes, but you never did.
Yet again you offer at advice to others that you would be much better
taking yourself.
You SNIPed this out and did not deal with it, so my guess is that you
can't face this reality either.
QUOTE:
And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion
agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.
There is when the agreement isn't really an agreement. Just take the
Big Bang. What we understand about the Big Bang is that it is the
closest thing to a creation event that we have been able to understand
to a level of certainty that would classify it as some fact of nature.
The Big Bang has resulted in a non Biblical universe. The universe that >>> was created is not the one described in the Bible. To use the Big Bang
to support your Biblical beliefs is dishonest and stupid (the YEC
understand this to be true because the AIG uses the Big Bang gap denial
to support creationism, but it is one of the science topics that the
creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards of the
public schools). All that can be honestly accomplished is to understand >>> that some creator may exist, but that creator is unlikely to be the
creator described in the Bible.
The creator that *you* think is described in the Bible. Pope Francis
didn't think that way:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand
<quote>
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining
God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that
is not so," Francis told the gathering, where he also dedicated a
statue of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. God, Francis said, "created
human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that
he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
</quote>
But then again, he was only a pope, what would he know about Catholic
teaching rCa
He is admitting that the creation is not Biblical. What do you not >understand? The only way that the Big Bang is in agreement with
Biblical beliefs is if you acknowledge that what is written in the Bible
is wrong. He is claiming that the lack of agreement with what is
written in the Bible does not matter. You just have to believe that the >Bible isn't reliable in it's description of what the creator did. Your >above quote is ambiguous about the creation of humans. It reads as if >Francis is claiming that humans are created by the natural laws that he
gave each one, so that they could develop to reach fulfillment. It is
not Biblical to have humans created by the natural laws that came to
exist with the Big Bang. It is also a deistic notion that Denton has,
and likely is not what Francis would want to believe. My take is that >Francis believes in an interactive god like theistic evolutionists like >Kenneth Miller believes in. This just means that there is no agreement
with Biblical creationism. How did the creator create the universe?
How did the creator create plants, sea creatures and birds, and then
land animals including humans?
Francis is admitting that the creation (nature) is not Biblical, and
that the only way to reconcile this fact with his religious beliefs is
to discount Biblical interpretations. He isn't using science to support
his religious beliefs. He is accommodating (changing) his religious
beliefs due to what we learn about the creation. This is no different
than what Origen and Augustine did. The Big Bang is not in agreement
with Biblical based theology, but Francis is saying that, that does not >matter to his faith. Most of the IDiotic creationist rubes are still
YEC, and do not agree with Francis. The Big Bang is one of the science >topics that the YEC want to remove from public school science standards.
MarkE and Sticks likely do not agree with Francis, or they would not
be wallowing in IDiotic gap denial.
Ron Okimoto
Science is never going to support your
Biblical beliefs. The only reason to understand the science is to get a >>> better understanding of what the creation actually is, and this will
result in the full understanding that the creation is not Biblical.
Biblical creationists have to deal with this fact before being rubes for >>> the ID scam and the Biblical creationist authors of the book under
discussion. Creationists like you, MarkE, and Sticks have to deal with
this fact instead of wallow in denial about stupid things like
geocentrism and what we don't know about the origin of life.
END QUOTE:
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:03:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You misquoted stuff from Wikipedia and from the official Catholic site
I gave you. Reputable historians stated the charge against Galileo and
then stated that the charge was totally unfounded. You got a weird
idea that their stating of the charge was somehow an endorsement of it
and couldn't get away from that idea. You really need to cleanse your
mind of the junk that's in it and go back and read those articles
again.
Why lie about the situation. I did not quote mine.
The quotes were
just what those sources were contending. That is why you ran.
FFS, how long are you going to keep up this nonsense?
Here is the site again and the quotes from the people you label as "anti-geocentrists" who you claimed supported your argument that heliocentrism was a heresy:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote from the official account by the Catholic Church>
That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be
doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be
unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however,
whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is
clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it
was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no
difficulty in regard of infallibility, *this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree*. [My emphasis added] Nor is the
case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's
decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for
the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings
which were judged harmful.
[rCa]
Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by
writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy.
Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the
pope - who knew that the course he took could not convict him
as pope - and not of the body which calls itself the Church."
And von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all,
for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.
</quote>
Have you no idea how stupid you are making yourself look by insisting
that these "anti-geocentrists" support your claim that heliocentrism
really was a heresy?
You
tried to put up an irrelevant quote about the sentencing not calling it
a formal heresy when that had already been acknowledged by both sides of
the Catholic geocentric argument.
I already explained to you what "formal" and "informal" means in
regard to heresy (whether the person knew it was heresy) but
apparently that is beyond your comprehension skills.
Just because it was only written as a
heresy does not mean that heliocentrism was not considered to be heresy.
The question was if it was a formal heresy charge like it was in 1616.
Your own source called it a heresy charge in both cases. They did not
distinguish between formal heresy and heresy. The Anti geocentric
Catholics did not want it to be a formal heresy charge the second time
because of papal involvement.
Lying about the past doesn't change what you can't deal with above that
you did not address.
(I realise that this is getting tiresome but that is more a reflection >>>>> of how much you repeat this crap rather than my pointing it out,)
Why keep lying about reality? It is stupid and nothing will ever change >>>> because you know what you could not deal with in the past.
You should learn from your past fiascos, but you never have.
[rCa]
You should have learned from their mistakes, but you never did.
Yet again you offer at advice to others that you would be much better >>>>> taking yourself.
You SNIPed this out and did not deal with it, so my guess is that you
can't face this reality either.
QUOTE:
And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion >>>>> agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.
There is when the agreement isn't really an agreement. Just take the
Big Bang. What we understand about the Big Bang is that it is the
closest thing to a creation event that we have been able to understand >>>> to a level of certainty that would classify it as some fact of nature. >>>> The Big Bang has resulted in a non Biblical universe. The universe that >>>> was created is not the one described in the Bible. To use the Big Bang >>>> to support your Biblical beliefs is dishonest and stupid (the YEC
understand this to be true because the AIG uses the Big Bang gap denial >>>> to support creationism, but it is one of the science topics that the
creationists have wanted to remove from the science standards of the
public schools). All that can be honestly accomplished is to understand >>>> that some creator may exist, but that creator is unlikely to be the
creator described in the Bible.
The creator that *you* think is described in the Bible. Pope Francis
didn't think that way:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand
<quote>
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining
God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that
is not so," Francis told the gathering, where he also dedicated a
statue of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. God, Francis said, "created
human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that
he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
</quote>
But then again, he was only a pope, what would he know about Catholic
teaching rCa
He is admitting that the creation is not Biblical. What do you not
understand? The only way that the Big Bang is in agreement with
Biblical beliefs is if you acknowledge that what is written in the Bible
is wrong. He is claiming that the lack of agreement with what is
written in the Bible does not matter. You just have to believe that the
Bible isn't reliable in it's description of what the creator did. Your
above quote is ambiguous about the creation of humans. It reads as if
Francis is claiming that humans are created by the natural laws that he
gave each one, so that they could develop to reach fulfillment. It is
not Biblical to have humans created by the natural laws that came to
exist with the Big Bang. It is also a deistic notion that Denton has,
and likely is not what Francis would want to believe. My take is that
Francis believes in an interactive god like theistic evolutionists like
Kenneth Miller believes in. This just means that there is no agreement
with Biblical creationism. How did the creator create the universe?
How did the creator create plants, sea creatures and birds, and then
land animals including humans?
Francis is admitting that the creation (nature) is not Biblical, and
that the only way to reconcile this fact with his religious beliefs is
to discount Biblical interpretations. He isn't using science to support
his religious beliefs. He is accommodating (changing) his religious
beliefs due to what we learn about the creation. This is no different
than what Origen and Augustine did. The Big Bang is not in agreement
with Biblical based theology, but Francis is saying that, that does not
matter to his faith. Most of the IDiotic creationist rubes are still
YEC, and do not agree with Francis. The Big Bang is one of the science
topics that the YEC want to remove from public school science standards.
MarkE and Sticks likely do not agree with Francis, or they would not
be wallowing in IDiotic gap denial.
Ron Okimoto
Science is never going to support your
Biblical beliefs. The only reason to understand the science is to get a >>>> better understanding of what the creation actually is, and this will
result in the full understanding that the creation is not Biblical.
Biblical creationists have to deal with this fact before being rubes for >>>> the ID scam and the Biblical creationist authors of the book under
discussion. Creationists like you, MarkE, and Sticks have to deal with >>>> this fact instead of wallow in denial about stupid things like
geocentrism and what we don't know about the origin of life.
END QUOTE:
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our
first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the >> >> >> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position - >> >> the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust
and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >> >> it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor
the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to
do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be
useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really
should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a
par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.
The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,
Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000
years ago.
yet you wanted to
claim here the opposite.
Really?
Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible
and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms
points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?
So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand >by?
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:28:29 +0000It's no surprise that Harran replies to your reasonably accurate
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans >> >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed >> >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our >> >> >> >> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the >> >> >> >> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position - >> >> >> the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >> >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >> >> >> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >> >> >> it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor
the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to
do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be
useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really
should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a
par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.
The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,
Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000
years ago.
yet you wanted to
claim here the opposite.
Really?
Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >> >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms
points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?
No.
a) it's not what I said, b) you've failed to make a clear clase that that >science has vindicated some (or even any) biblical passages.
If only Harran would follow his own advice and KF himself.So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand >> >by?
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
I'm going to give up at this (lack of any) point.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:28:29 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans >> >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed >> >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>[more snipping]
wrote:
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our >> >> >> >> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the >> >> >> >> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than
cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???
No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position - >> >> >> the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >> >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >> >> >> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >> >> >> it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.
Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life
into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor
the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to
do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be
useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really
should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a
par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.
The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,
Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000
years ago.
yet you wanted to
claim here the opposite.
Really?
Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >> >> >> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some
key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them
out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was
inert material.
So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms
points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?
No.
a) it's not what I said, b) you've failed to make a clear clase that that >science has vindicated some (or even any) biblical passages.
So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand >> >by?
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
I'm going to give up at this (lack of any) point.
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
My guess
is that these documents and the later Papal involvement in the second >Galileo case are just covered up by claiming that these were not
official papal actions.
On 2/3/26 7:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:24:22 -0800, Mark Isaak
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature", >>>>> with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition >>>>> is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam
Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost
identical Cambridge Dictionary definition
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
- things that cannot be explained by science
Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell
people what they are.
A definition is useless unless people accept with the definition. Can
you cite any source that supports the definition you give above?
The etymology of the word "supernatural."
The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including >>> dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.
And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that
your idea of "supernatural"?
No, there is a distinct difference between not having an answer at
present but good reason to think that we will get one in the future
compared to not being able to see where we might even start to look
for an answer - cf for example the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
I seriously doubt that anyone in the mid-1400s would have good reason to >think that we would, in the future, have a good reason to expect to have
an explanation of why the sun shines, much less of schizophrenia.
But let's accept your definition for now. How do you determine whether
there is good reason to expect that we will understand something in the >future? Do you say that abiogenesis is supernatural? Mark E certainly >expects us never to understand it. How about schizophrenia? Before you >answer, consider that understanding schizophrenia will probably entail >understanding consciousness.
Finally, consider Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly >scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly >right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very
probably wrong."
Wilder Penfield was one of the leaning neuroscientists of the 20th
century; he was regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and
developed the process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients
which allowed him to observe and record the effect of stimulating
various parts of the brain. He found he was able to stimulate various
muscular reactions as well as inducing dream-like states but he never
ever encountered anything that could be considered to be reasoning or
abstract thought or evoke anything that resembled 'things seen or felt
in ordinary experience'. [1]
Penfield started his career as a convinced materialist and ended it as
a convinced dualist:
Penfield is one of those distinguished but elderly scientists whom
Clarke referred to. As for his ideas on consciousness, it is my >understanding that the dualist Cartesian theatre idea has been roundly >discredited by both philosophers and neurologists.
As for science not being able to say what consciousness is, that is a
message that I have repeated many times myself. How can you explain
something when you don't know what it is you're supposed to explain?
You seem to have the rather strange idea that we have to understand
something *before* we figure it out. Einstein had no understanding of
relativity when he started his investigations; the same with Darwin
and Natural Selection. In both cases, they only knew that *something*
was going on and set out to figure out that *something*.
"Hey you! Go figure out bleksnarg."
"What's bleksnarg?"
"I have no idea. But I bet you can't figure it out."
Does the above conversation not sound silly to you?
It does to me. And
yet it is essentially the position of people who say there is a
super-hard (i.e., forever undeterminable) problem of consciousness.
You are the one who is rejecting what scientists say. I have given you
a number of leading scientists in the fields of neurosurgery and
consciousness who say we are nowhere near figuring out consciousness.
Can you cite even one who disagrees?
I have not kept up with the field in the last decade.
I will note,
however, that your very mention of a number of leading scientists
working on the issue tells me that a number of leading scientists expect
the problem to be soluble.
Nobody wants to be told that
their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.
That sounds like projection.
No, it is experience on talk.origins.
No, it seems like you are so utterly convinced that the supernatural
is a figment of the imagination that you cannot even consider anything
that might undermine that conviction.
"Supernatural" is a label. Does it matter to you what that label gets >applied to? Why or why not?
I don't know what you're trying to get at there; you are the one that
is trying to change a level that everyone else is currently happy
with.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 20:58:16 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:28:29 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans >>>> came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:[more snipping]
On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[big snip]
From the book:
<quote>
It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position - >>>>>>> the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that >>>>>>> there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >>>>>>> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some >>>>>>> key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them >>>>>>> out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was >>>>>>> inert material.<blink>
So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our >>>>>>>>> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the >>>>>>>>> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than >>>>>>>>> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.
</quote>
And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position??? >>>>>>>
Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust >>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as >>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.
All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow. >>>>>> Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life >>>>>> into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...
Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor >>>>> the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to >>>>> do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument
you have to offer.
that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.
OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be
useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really
should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a
par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.
The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,
Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000
years ago.
yet you wanted to
claim here the opposite.
Really?
Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:
there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible >>>>>>> and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some >>>>>>> key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them >>>>>>> out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was >>>>>>> inert material.
So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms
points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?
No.
a) it's not what I said, b) you've failed to make a clear clase that that
science has vindicated some (or even any) biblical passages.
So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand
by?
Grasping at straws methinks.
[more snip]
I'm going to give up at this (lack of any) point.
That sounds like a good idea, though it would have been nice of you to
admit that you got it all wrong about me thinking that God created
Adam by blowing on a handful of dust.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
Let me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[..]
My guess
is that these documents and the later Papal involvement in the second
Galileo case are just covered up by claiming that these were not
official papal actions.
That's the heart of your problem; you ignore all the authoritative
sources and *guess* alternatives that fit your preconceptions.
[..]
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
Let me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
This is no different than what
the authors of the Bible did, and it is waffling to claim that this is
not "teaching" about the subject. If they believed that the Bible was
wrong about geocentrism, some of them would have clearly made that
claim. Just as Origen objected to young earth 6 day creationism and a
flat earth. They all wrote about the earth as round, and were all >considered to not be flat earth creationists even though some of them
never clearly rejected that Biblical notion.
You can't have things both ways. In order to maintain your denial about
a flat earth Biblical creationism you have to claim that the same
behavior doesn't mean the same thing about geocentrism. The church
fathers were providing their opinion. You can claim that this was not >teaching if you want, but who should care when they were all
geocentrists. Flat earth creationism was an issue in the early
Christian church. Parts of the New Testament were likely written by
flat earth creationists even though the Greeks had used physical >measurements to estimate the circumference of the earth a couple
centuries before Christ was born. The Authors of the Bible just wrote
about things as they understood them.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
Let me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes "teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
You like to castigate ID'ers because they fall for the "bait and
switch". That is exactly what you have done, fallen for a bait and
switch from the geocentrists who persuaded you that geocentrism was doctrine; they started off by making out that the Church Fathers
*taught* geocentrism and the quietly switched to the Fathers
*believing* in geocentrism, simply ignoring the fact that the most
they had was indirect comments by *some* Fathers, not *all*;
essentially their version of a "teach the controversy" type scam.
[1] https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers
This is no different than what
the authors of the Bible did, and it is waffling to claim that this is
not "teaching" about the subject. If they believed that the Bible was
wrong about geocentrism, some of them would have clearly made that
claim. Just as Origen objected to young earth 6 day creationism and a
flat earth. They all wrote about the earth as round, and were all
considered to not be flat earth creationists even though some of them
never clearly rejected that Biblical notion.
You can't have things both ways. In order to maintain your denial about
a flat earth Biblical creationism you have to claim that the same
behavior doesn't mean the same thing about geocentrism. The church
fathers were providing their opinion. You can claim that this was not
teaching if you want, but who should care when they were all
geocentrists. Flat earth creationism was an issue in the early
Christian church. Parts of the New Testament were likely written by
flat earth creationists even though the Greeks had used physical
measurements to estimate the circumference of the earth a couple
centuries before Christ was born. The Authors of the Bible just wrote
about things as they understood them.
Ron Okimoto
On 2/19/26 9:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathersLet me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out. >>>>
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes
"teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
One must ask why De Revolutionibus was put on the Index.
You like to castigate ID'ers because they fall for the "bait and
switch". That is exactly what you have done, fallen for a bait and
switch from the geocentrists who persuaded you that geocentrism was
doctrine; they started off by making out that the Church Fathers
*taught* geocentrism and the quietly switched to the Fathers
*believing* in geocentrism, simply ignoring the fact that the most
they had was indirect comments by *some* Fathers, not *all*;
essentially their version of a "teach the controversy" type scam.
Channeling Ron is counterproductive.
Did any of the church fathers make any reference to heliocentrism?
[1]
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers >>
This is no different than what
the authors of the Bible did, and it is waffling to claim that this is
not "teaching" about the subject. If they believed that the Bible was
wrong about geocentrism, some of them would have clearly made that
claim. Just as Origen objected to young earth 6 day creationism and a
flat earth. They all wrote about the earth as round, and were all
considered to not be flat earth creationists even though some of them
never clearly rejected that Biblical notion.
You can't have things both ways. In order to maintain your denial about >>> a flat earth Biblical creationism you have to claim that the same
behavior doesn't mean the same thing about geocentrism. The church
fathers were providing their opinion. You can claim that this was not
teaching if you want, but who should care when they were all
geocentrists. Flat earth creationism was an issue in the early
Christian church. Parts of the New Testament were likely written by
flat earth creationists even though the Greeks had used physical
measurements to estimate the circumference of the earth a couple
centuries before Christ was born. The Authors of the Bible just wrote
about things as they understood them.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
Let me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes "teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
You like to castigate ID'ers because they fall for the "bait and
switch". That is exactly what you have done, fallen for a bait and
switch from the geocentrists who persuaded you that geocentrism was doctrine; they started off by making out that the Church Fathers
*taught* geocentrism and the quietly switched to the Fathers
*believing* in geocentrism, simply ignoring the fact that the most
they had was indirect comments by *some* Fathers, not *all*;
essentially their version of a "teach the controversy" type scam.
[1] https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers
This is no different than what
the authors of the Bible did, and it is waffling to claim that this is
not "teaching" about the subject. If they believed that the Bible was
wrong about geocentrism, some of them would have clearly made that
claim. Just as Origen objected to young earth 6 day creationism and a
flat earth. They all wrote about the earth as round, and were all
considered to not be flat earth creationists even though some of them
never clearly rejected that Biblical notion.
You can't have things both ways. In order to maintain your denial about
a flat earth Biblical creationism you have to claim that the same
behavior doesn't mean the same thing about geocentrism. The church
fathers were providing their opinion. You can claim that this was not
teaching if you want, but who should care when they were all
geocentrists. Flat earth creationism was an issue in the early
Christian church. Parts of the New Testament were likely written by
flat earth creationists even though the Greeks had used physical
measurements to estimate the circumference of the earth a couple
centuries before Christ was born. The Authors of the Bible just wrote
about things as they understood them.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 09:54:46 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 9:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathersLet me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments; >>>>> do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out. >>>>>
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes
"teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
One must ask why De Revolutionibus was put on the Index.
One really must learn to do a bit of research before one posts
rhetorical questions that one thinks sound clever but only shows one's perseverance with myths that have long been exposed.
"On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the
Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these
corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric
system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or
changed."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm
It seems also that your memory is letting you down again; here is a
post from me on this topic back in 2018:
=================================================
In the discussions concerning the Catholic Church and heliocentrism
that occur here from time to time, the *banning* of Copernicus's work
'De Revolutionibus' regularly gets cited in support of the claims
about the Church opposition to heliocentrism.
This article tells a different story: https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link modified
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a
detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that
the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on
the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly
to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of heliocentrism.
The relevant corrections are detailed in the article linked to above
but there is a neat summary and discussion on Stack Exchange:
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7941/what-corrections-did-the-catholic-church-make-to-the-copernicus-work-de-revolut
or https://bit.ly/2NUw6LO
As one commentators sums it up: "It seems the essence of the theory
was not actually removed. The first removed paragraph is political,
the second correction states an evident fact, the third correction
simply makes the language more scientific rather than religious, only
the last change underlines it is just a hypothesis."
If I'm reading that summary correctly, it seems that being placed on
the Index "until correction" did not amount to any ban on the book
being printed, circulated or read - it was simply up to owners of
individual copies to strike out/amend the offending sentences.
Some posters - yes, I'm looking at you, John Harshman - have insisted
that Galileo's troubles were fuelled by heliocentrism being against
Church teaching.; if that is so, I'd be interested in an explanation
as to why they had clearly no issue with the main thrust of
Copernicus's conclusions.
================================
You won't find that one in your Sent Mail as you never responded to it
even though I named you in it. You can, however, get it here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WiNC5hwHE8A/m/yp51Qxy2BQAJ
You like to castigate ID'ers because they fall for the "bait and
switch". That is exactly what you have done, fallen for a bait and
switch from the geocentrists who persuaded you that geocentrism was
doctrine; they started off by making out that the Church Fathers
*taught* geocentrism and the quietly switched to the Fathers
*believing* in geocentrism, simply ignoring the fact that the most
they had was indirect comments by *some* Fathers, not *all*;
essentially their version of a "teach the controversy" type scam.
Channeling Ron is counterproductive.
Did any of the church fathers make any reference to heliocentrism?
[1]
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers >>>
This is no different than what
the authors of the Bible did, and it is waffling to claim that this is >>>> not "teaching" about the subject. If they believed that the Bible was >>>> wrong about geocentrism, some of them would have clearly made that
claim. Just as Origen objected to young earth 6 day creationism and a >>>> flat earth. They all wrote about the earth as round, and were all
considered to not be flat earth creationists even though some of them
never clearly rejected that Biblical notion.
You can't have things both ways. In order to maintain your denial about >>>> a flat earth Biblical creationism you have to claim that the same
behavior doesn't mean the same thing about geocentrism. The church
fathers were providing their opinion. You can claim that this was not >>>> teaching if you want, but who should care when they were all
geocentrists. Flat earth creationism was an issue in the early
Christian church. Parts of the New Testament were likely written by
flat earth creationists even though the Greeks had used physical
measurements to estimate the circumference of the earth a couple
centuries before Christ was born. The Authors of the Bible just wrote >>>> about things as they understood them.
Ron Okimoto
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathersLet me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out. >>>>
do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
This is bullshit.
Just like the authors of the Bible and New Testament
wrote about what they thought they understood so did the Church Fathers.
That was all the Inquisition and the Pope in 1616 needed to condemn
heliocentrism.
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes
"teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
In your dreams.
Why do you think that we still have flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth creationists?
Heliocentrism became heresy for the same reason why
geocentric and young earth creationists still exist.
The Catholic
Church eventually came around to another view point, but it took a while
and multiple failures for a majority of them to do it.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:53:53 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathersLet me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments; >>>>> do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out. >>>>>
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
This is bullshit.
Whether you regard it as bullshit or not, it *is* Catholic doctrine.
Just like the authors of the Bible and New Testament
wrote about what they thought they understood so did the Church Fathers.
That was all the Inquisition and the Pope in 1616 needed to condemn
heliocentrism.
That's the 'switch' that your geocentrist mentors did on you. They
started off by claiming the Church Fathers *taught* geocentrism, then switched to claiming the Council of Trent supported them. Here is
exactly what the Council of Trent said:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
<quote>
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year
MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,-considering that no small
utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out
of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is
to be held as authentic,-ordains and declares, that the said old and
vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has
been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations,
sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to
dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that
no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished
with the penalties by law established.
</quote>
Note "in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification
of Christian doctrine" and "the unanimous consent of the Fathers", the
two points I made above that you tried to dismiss as bullshit.
Also note the other bit in there:
"no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold".
Far from getting support from Trent, n rejecting the Church'
interpretation of Scripture, it is your geocentrist mentors themselves
who are infringing the Trent decree.
When you have a bait and switch like this pulled on you, your focus
should really be to get the hook out of your mouth instead of trying
to swallow it and just digging it in deeper.
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes
"teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
*some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
never a cause of heresy.
In your dreams.
Why do you think that we still have flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth creationists?
Because the world has plenty of idiots.
Heliocentrism became heresy for the same reason why
geocentric and young earth creationists still exist.
Except it was never a heresy. You seem totally incapable of grasping
that Galileo was tried on a trumped-up charge, that he was an innocent
man found guilty of something he didn't do.
The Catholic
Church eventually came around to another view point, but it took a while
and multiple failures for a majority of them to do it.
Nothing to do with a Catholic viewpoint; the Church has always gone
with the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted geocentrism when
that was the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted
heliocentrism when that became the scientific consensus of the day.
That is the total stupidity of your claims. You try to attack the
Church for rejecting science but geocentrism was the scientific
consensus at the time of Galileo - it wasn't the Church that refused
to accept his ideas, it was his fellow scientists.
[snip]
AIG does not speak for the Catholic Church; having to resort to it
just highlights how you have nothing from any reputable source to back
up your claims.
On 2/20/2026 10:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:It seems also that unanimous consent of the church fathers is a lower
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:53:53 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
<quote>You believe the switch run on you. Unanimous consent is not "taught"
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year
MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,-considering that no
small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known
which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the
sacred books, is to be held as authentic,-ordains and declares,
that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened
usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in
public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as
authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it
under any pretext whatever. >>
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that
no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished
with the penalties by law established.
</quote>
Note "in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the
edification of Christian doctrine" and "the unanimous consent of
the Fathers", the two points I made above that you tried to dismiss
as bullshit.
it is unanimous agreement, and not dismissal.
Also true in the "correction" of De Revolutionibus and its placement onAlso note the other bit in there:
"no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold".
You are the one that is misrepresenting what the Council of Trent
decided on. Why did the Pope side with the Inquisition in 1616? They
were using the Council of Trent to make heliocentrism into a formal
heresy charge, and the Pope agreed with them.
You believe the switch scam. Your interpretation is only ass covering
Far from getting support from Trent, n rejecting the Church'
interpretation of Scripture, it is your geocentrist mentors
themselves who are infringing the Trent decree. >
for why the Inquisition could have been wrong.
When you have a bait and switch like this pulled on you, your focus
should really be to get the hook out of your mouth instead of trying
to swallow it and just digging it in deeper.
You should self reflect on who is being scammed. It is you that want
to be lied to. That is the facts of this instance. Just like MarkE
and Sticks want to be lied to by the ID perps. >
In your dreams.
Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith
or Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what
constitutes "teaching", your admission that what you are
claiming only came from *some* Fathers means that it was never
Church doctrine and therefore never a cause of heresy. >>>
Why do you think that we still have flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth creationists?
Because the world has plenty of idiots.
Because one of them is you.
Why keep lying to yourself. Your own quote noted that it was called
Heliocentrism became heresy for the same reason why
geocentric and young earth creationists still exist.
Except it was never a heresy. You seem totally incapable of
grasping that Galileo was tried on a trumped-up charge, that he was
an innocent man found guilty of something he didn't do. >
a heresy in the sentencing of Galileo, and the heresy was clearly
defined.
whileThe Catholic
Church eventually came around to another view point, but it took a
and multiple failures for a majority of them to do it.
Nothing to do with a Catholic viewpoint; the Church has always gone
with the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted geocentrism when
that was the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted
heliocentrism when that became the scientific consensus of the day.
That is the total stupidity of your claims. You try to attack the
Church for rejecting science but geocentrism was the scientific
consensus at the time of Galileo - it wasn't the Church that refused
to accept his ideas, it was his fellow scientists.
So why keep lying to yourself about the issue? Geocentric Biblical creationists still exist for the same reason that the church fathers believed it. Some of the church fathers even used the same Bible verses used today to support the geocentric claims.
[snip]
AIG does not speak for the Catholic Church; having to resort to it
just highlights how you have nothing from any reputable source to back
up your claims.
Run from reality. You know that Biblical interpretation has always mattered, so why SNP and run? The AIG denial is due to Biblical interpretation, the denial about geocentrism was and still is due to Biblical interpretation for existing geocentric creationists that claim
that the Bible has never been shown to be wrong.
How can you not understand how you are being scammed by what you put up above. You are the one that wants to be lied to. What you put up does nothing to change what actually happened. Why do you think that the
Pope agreed with the Inquistion and condemned heliocentrism in 1616? You just look for excuses. It just keeps you in denial of the fact that the Bible is just wrong about a lot of things, so you can keep believing
what you snipped out and ran from. The Bible is not inerrant, and you
can't use it the way that the AIG and you still want to use it. What
you get out of the Bible should only reflect on your faith, you can't
expect any interpretation to be more than faith. The ID scam science
was never going to support Biblical interpretations. The Big Tent creationism was always a lie. There is only one nature for science to evaluate, and it has already been determined to not be Biblical.
Ron Okimoto
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link modified
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a
detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that
the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on
the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly
to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of
heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more
than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible
mandates geocentrism.
On 2/16/2026 6:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[..]
My guess
is that these documents and the later Papal involvement in the second
Galileo case are just covered up by claiming that these were not
official papal actions.
That's the heart of your problem; you ignore all the authoritative
sources and *guess* alternatives that fit your preconceptions.
[..]
Your sources have to lie about reality and get caught lying.
The Pope
did condemn heliocentrism in 1616, that was verified by the Jesuits
putting up the document that the Pope had ordered to be created. The >document was not created by the inquisition, but by the Papal offices.
The anti-geocentrists want to claim that the Pope publishing and >distributing the Galileo case throughout the church was not an offical
papal action because they do not want the Pope to have been involved in
any claims about geocentrism. So it is my guess that the 1616 papal
actions are considered to not have been an official papal act.
What do
you and your Catholic source that lied about heliocentrism never being >condemned other than by the inquisition think about that 1616 papal
action condemning heliocentrism?
It is your dishonest side of the issue
that has to do the waffling interpretation.
The Jesuits made no claim
as to whether it was an official papal action, they just stated what the >Pope did.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link modified
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a
detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that
the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on
the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly
to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of
heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more
than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit
like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible
mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot
identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis
about heliocentrism?
On 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link modified >>>> as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a
detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that
the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on
the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly
to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of
heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more
than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit
like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin.
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible
mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to
contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot
identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis
about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to >"this is a mathematical fiction".
On 2/20/26 3:43 PM, RonO wrote:
On 2/20/2026 10:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:53:53 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
It seems also that unanimous consent of the church fathers is a lower<quote>You believe the switch run on you.-a Unanimous consent is not "taught"
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year
MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,-considering that no
small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known
which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the
sacred books, is to be held as authentic,-ordains and declares,
that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened
usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in
public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as
authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it
under any pretext whatever. >>
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that
no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished
with the penalties by law established.
</quote>
Note "in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the
edification of Christian doctrine" and "the unanimous consent of
the Fathers", the two points I made above that you tried to dismiss
as bullshit.
it is unanimous agreement, and not dismissal.
bar than the sense which holy mother church hath held and doth hold, and that the latter includes more than the former. The church can have
doctrines that the fathers were not unanimous on or held but did not
teach, and even those that some or all of them never expressed an
opinion on. Or such is the apparent meaning of the text.
How many of the church fathers ever mentioned geocentrissm?
Also note the other bit in there:
"no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold".
You are the one that is misrepresenting what the Council of Trent
decided on.-a Why did the Pope side with the Inquisition in 1616?-a They were using the Council of Trent to make heliocentrism into a formal
heresy charge, and the Pope agreed with them.
You believe the switch scam.-a Your interpretation is only ass covering for why the Inquisition could have been wrong.
Far from getting support from Trent, n rejecting the Church'
interpretation of Scripture, it is your geocentrist mentors
themselves who are infringing the Trent decree. >
When you have-a a bait and switch like this pulled on you, your focus
should really be to get the hook out of your mouth instead of trying
to swallow it and just digging it in deeper.
You should self reflect on who is being scammed.-a It is you that want
to be lied to.-a That is the facts of this instance.-a Just like MarkE
and Sticks want to be lied to by the ID perps. >
In your dreams.
Leaving aside that geocentrism-a has nothing to do with Faith
or Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what
constitutes "teaching", your admission that what you are
claiming only came from *some* Fathers means that it was never
Church doctrine and therefore never a cause of heresy. >>>
Why do you think that we still have flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth creationists?
Because the world has plenty of idiots.
Because one of them is you.
Also true in the "correction" of De Revolutionibus and its placement onWhy keep lying to yourself.-a Your own quote noted that it was called
Heliocentrism became heresy for the same reason why
geocentric and young earth creationists still exist.
Except it was never a heresy. You seem totally incapable of
grasping that Galileo was tried on a trumped-up charge, that he was
an innocent man found guilty of something he didn't do. >
a heresy in the sentencing of Galileo, and the heresy was clearly
defined.
the Index.
The Catholic
Church eventually came around to another view point, but it took a while
and multiple failures for a majority of them to do it.
Nothing to do with a Catholic viewpoint; the Church has always gone
with the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted geocentrism when
that was the scientific consensus of the day; it accepted
heliocentrism when that became the scientific consensus of the day.
That is the total stupidity of your claims. You try to attack the
Church for rejecting science but geocentrism was the scientific
consensus at the time of Galileo - it wasn't the Church that refused
to accept his ideas, it was his fellow scientists.
So why keep lying to yourself about the issue?-a Geocentric Biblical creationists still exist for the same reason that the church fathers believed it.-a Some of the church fathers even used the same Bible verses used today to support the geocentric claims.
-a-a [snip]
AIG does not speak for the Catholic Church; having to resort to it
just highlights how you have nothing from any reputable source to back
up your claims.
Run from reality.-a You know that Biblical interpretation has always mattered, so why SNP and run?-a The AIG denial is due to Biblical interpretation, the denial about geocentrism was and still is due to Biblical interpretation for existing geocentric creationists that claim that the Bible has never been shown to be wrong.
How can you not understand how you are being scammed by what you put up above.-a You are the one that wants to be lied to.-a What you put up does nothing to change what actually happened.-a Why do you think that the
Pope agreed with the Inquistion and condemned heliocentrism in 1616? You just look for excuses.-a It just keeps you in denial of the fact that the Bible is just wrong about a lot of things, so you can keep believing
what you snipped out and ran from.-a The Bible is not inerrant, and you can't use it the way that the AIG and you still want to use it.-a What
you get out of the Bible should only reflect on your faith, you can't expect any interpretation to be more than faith.-a The ID scam science
was never going to support Biblical interpretations.-a The Big Tent creationism was always a lie.-a There is only one nature for science to evaluate, and it has already been determined to not be Biblical.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:19:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[..]
My guess
is that these documents and the later Papal involvement in the second
Galileo case are just covered up by claiming that these were not
official papal actions.
That's the heart of your problem; you ignore all the authoritative
sources and *guess* alternatives that fit your preconceptions.
[..]
Your sources have to lie about reality and get caught lying.
Does it never strike you as a bit odd that you cannot cite a single
source to back up your assertions except idiots promoting geocentrism?
Just think about it; these guys claim that Galileo was wrong, the
Church was right to find him guilty of heresy and they were wrong to
revoke the guilty verdict. Is that really the sort of guys you want to
be basing your opinions on?
The Pope
did condemn heliocentrism in 1616, that was verified by the Jesuits
putting up the document that the Pope had ordered to be created. The
document was not created by the inquisition, but by the Papal offices.
The anti-geocentrists want to claim that the Pope publishing and
distributing the Galileo case throughout the church was not an offical
papal action because they do not want the Pope to have been involved in
any claims about geocentrism. So it is my guess that the 1616 papal
actions are considered to not have been an official papal act.
You have been told numerous times with cites from the Catholic Church
and independent researchers that that document did *not* constitute a declaration of heresy. Not quite sure why you can't grasp that.
Here yet again is what the Catholic Church says about it:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
<quote>
Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March
1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope
introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the
decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein
the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable
that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable
error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper
use of Scripture.
</quote>
Stating that "there is no doubt that he [the Pope] fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein
the matter was discussed and decided" is a rather peculiar way of
trying to hide the Pope's involvement.
What do
you and your Catholic source that lied about heliocentrism never being
condemned other than by the inquisition think about that 1616 papal
action condemning heliocentrism?
Who else condemned it?
It is your dishonest side of the issue
that has to do the waffling interpretation.
You insist that it was a declaration of heresy yet Cardinal
Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College at that
time, said:
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
First time I ever heard of a heresy that was declared open to be
changed by scientists.
The Jesuits made no claim
as to whether it was an official papal action, they just stated what the
Pope did.
Nothing at all to do with the Jesuits - they were actually Galileo's
biggest supporters which shows how little you actually know about it
all.
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:18:08 -0800, John Harshmanmodified
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a
detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that
the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on
the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly
to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of
heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more
than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
Not a particularly useful one when Galileo had physical evidence, but Copernicus had none - a point you seem anxious to avoid. Just as you
seem anxious to avoid the various inaccuracies that were in
Copernicus's original model; do you think that guy Kepler was making a
fuss about northing with those elliptical orbits that he yammered on
about?
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit
like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin.
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible
mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to
contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
From the article you referenced, the conclusions of a qualified,Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot
identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis
about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to
"this is a mathematical fiction".
So you haven't bothered to read them - dismissal with sight unseen.
You really should read them and see for yourself how stupid your claim
is.
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know what you
did. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition was not
the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was ordered by
the Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is >something that you should do because you will uncover all your other >evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your sources have >always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have >repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
On 2/21/26 7:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:18:08 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
modifiedOn 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a >>>>> detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that >>>>> the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on >>>>> the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly >>>>> to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of >>>>> heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more >>>> than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
Not a particularly useful one when Galileo had physical evidence, but Copernicus had none - a point you seem anxious to avoid. Just as you
seem anxious to avoid the various inaccuracies that were in
Copernicus's original model; do you think that guy Kepler was making a
fuss about northing with those elliptical orbits that he yammered on
about?
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an
issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the
neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit
like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin.
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible
mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable >>> scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to
contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot
identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis
about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to >> "this is a mathematical fiction".
So you haven't bothered to read them - dismissal with sight unseen.From the article you referenced, the conclusions of a qualified,
You really should read them and see for yourself how stupid your claim
is.
reputable scholar: "The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real >physical work."
How is that different from what I said?
On 2/20/2026 8:07 PM, John Harshman wrote:
How many of the church fathers ever mentioned geocentrissm?
As far as I know the
"Taught" change was only implemented after the
geocentric beliefs of the church fathers was found to be wanting. At
the time of Galileo the Inquisition was going with what the Council of
Trent had laid down.
Elsewhere I put up 4 of them that used Bible verses to support
geocentrism. The rest wrote about the creation as if it were geocentric
and did not dismiss the Biblical belief. Just like the authors of the
Bible and the New testament wrote about what they understood to be the
case. This is not considered "teaching" geocentrism by the wafflers.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know what you
did. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition was not
the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was ordered by
the Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your sources have
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 13:27:19 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 7:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:18:08 -0800, John Harshmanmodified
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a >>>>>>> detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that >>>>>>> the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on >>>>>>> the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly >>>>>>> to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of >>>>>>> heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more >>>>>> than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
Not a particularly useful one when Galileo had physical evidence, but
Copernicus had none - a point you seem anxious to avoid. Just as you
seem anxious to avoid the various inaccuracies that were in
Copernicus's original model; do you think that guy Kepler was making a
fuss about northing with those elliptical orbits that he yammered on
about?
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an
issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the
neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for
their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate
its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific
community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise
in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin.
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is >>>>> channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable >>>>> scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to
contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to
the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
From the article you referenced, the conclusions of a qualified,Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot >>>>> identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis
about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to >>>> "this is a mathematical fiction".
So you haven't bothered to read them - dismissal with sight unseen.
You really should read them and see for yourself how stupid your claim
is.
reputable scholar: "The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real
physical work."
How is that different from what I said?
Because you said
<quote>
the purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.
Scripture was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct.
</quote>
The article said none of that and none of the requested edits was to
do with contradiction of scripture.
Here are the main edits as summarised by Alverez. Please indicate
which of them seeks to eliminate any contradiction with Scripture or
in any way undermines Copernicus's core proposition of heliocentrism.
<quote>
In 1616, the Inquisition placed De revolutionibus on its Index until corrected -- Decree XIV. In 1620, in Decree XXI, the required
corrections were officially announced. This is an extraordinary
measure since for very few books did the Index specify the type of
changes to be made. The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real physical work. One may wonder why the Church took 77 years to react
against an astronomical treatise whose content seriously challenged
the traditionally accepted idea that placed a static earth in the
center of the universe. One of the reasons is that numerous scientists
only viewed the treatise as a useful manual to calculate planetary
positions for any conceivable time, emphasizing, however, the
hypothetical character of Copernicus' main thesis. Indeed, the first
edition of 1543 included the infamous anonymous foreword, in fact
written by Andreas Osiander, containing the following words: "these hypotheses need not to be true nor even probable."
We are going to show some examples of how the recommendations of the Inquisition were faithfully applied in this second edition of the
treatise. Passages from the specific recommendations of Decree XXI are provided in translation and in italics. After each recommendation, one
can observe how it was reflected in the text itself.
Therefore, with these recommendations, let those who have some
diligence approach the judgment of this emendation, which is as
follows:
In the preface near the end:
Delete everything from "perhaps" (Si fortasse) to the words, "my work"
(hi nostri labores) and adjust it thus, "my work and those of others" (ceterum).
Here we include Professor Edward Rosen's translation of this deleted
passage from Copernicus' preface -- a dedication to Pope Paul III:
"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy
although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of
despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer,
speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those
who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars
need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem,
unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at
the head of which Your Holiness now stands."
In chapter 5 of Book I, folio 3:
From "Nevertheless, if we examine more carefully," correct it to "Nevertheless, if we were to examine the matter more carefully, it
makes no difference whether the earth exists in the middle of the
universe, or away from the middle, as long as we judge that the
appearances of the heavenly motions are saved. (Si tamen attentius rem cosideremus, nihil refert terram in medio mundi, vel extra medium
existere, quoad salvandas caelestium motuum apparentias existimemus).
Here we include the original sentence that has been deleted:
(videbitur haec quaestio nondum absoluta, & id circo minime
contemnenda): "it will be apparent that this problem has not been
solved, and it is by no means to be disregarded."
On folio 10, at the end of the chapter, delete these last words: "So
vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most
excellent Almighty" (Tanta nimirum est divina haec Opt. Max. Fabrica). Certainly, the Inquisition thought that this passage clearly
identified the design of the Creator with the heliocentric system,
which is graphically described in the famous woodcut inserted in the
previous page of the treatise.
In chapter 11:
The title of the chapter (De triplici motu telluris demonstratio: On
the explication of the three-fold Motion of the Earth) should be
adapted in this manner, "On the Hypothesis of the Three-fold Motion of
the Earth and its Explication." (De hypothesi triplicis motus telluris eiusque demonstratione). The inscription circa telluris axem is
probably a stylistic suggestion to replace the printed version circa
axem telluris. Stylistically, a genitive such as telluris is normally
placed between the preposition and the noun. Furthermore, we also note
that the first edition includes a comma after telluris. One may wonder whether the reader of our copy wished to emphasize, and clarify, that telluris should only modify axem.
</quote>
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know what you
did. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition was not >>> the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was ordered by >>> the Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your sources have >>> always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the >document?
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
That is what your side was lying
about.
It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and >supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the >matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned >heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be >heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change reality.
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of >Trent had decided.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and >condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of >banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and >anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and >distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be >misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was >faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic >episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 2/22/26 8:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 13:27:19 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 7:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:18:08 -0800, John Harshmanmodified
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a >>>>>>>> detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that >>>>>>>> the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on >>>>>>>> the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly >>>>>>>> to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of >>>>>>>> heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more >>>>>>> than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
Not a particularly useful one when Galileo had physical evidence, but
Copernicus had none - a point you seem anxious to avoid. Just as you
seem anxious to avoid the various inaccuracies that were in
Copernicus's original model; do you think that guy Kepler was making a >>>> fuss about northing with those elliptical orbits that he yammered on
about?
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an
issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the
neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for
their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible. >>
its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated
interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific
community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise
in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even
if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
but no need to be science police either.
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning >Bruno?
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never
actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is >>>>>> channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable >>>>>> scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to
the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.
From the article you referenced, the conclusions of a qualified,Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot >>>>>> identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis >>>>>> about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to >>>>> "this is a mathematical fiction".
So you haven't bothered to read them - dismissal with sight unseen.
You really should read them and see for yourself how stupid your claim >>>> is.
reputable scholar: "The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real
physical work."
How is that different from what I said?
Because you said
<quote>
the purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.
Scripture was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct.
</quote>
The article said none of that and none of the requested edits was to
do with contradiction of scripture.
So the reasons that Copernicus's work had to appear hypothetical had
nothing to do with interpretation of scripture? Is that indeed your >position?
Here are the main edits as summarised by Alverez. Please indicate
which of them seeks to eliminate any contradiction with Scripture or
in any way undermines Copernicus's core proposition of heliocentrism.
Did you even read the sentence I quoted from Alverez? It seems to have >slipped right by, though you repeat it below. It was a one-sentence
summary of the emendations, and it explained their point. And it's what
I've been saying.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present >heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth.
Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >geocentrism?
<quote>
In 1616, the Inquisition placed De revolutionibus on its Index until
corrected -- Decree XIV. In 1620, in Decree XXI, the required
corrections were officially announced. This is an extraordinary
measure since for very few books did the Index specify the type of
changes to be made. The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real
physical work. One may wonder why the Church took 77 years to react
against an astronomical treatise whose content seriously challenged
the traditionally accepted idea that placed a static earth in the
center of the universe. One of the reasons is that numerous scientists
only viewed the treatise as a useful manual to calculate planetary
positions for any conceivable time, emphasizing, however, the
hypothetical character of Copernicus' main thesis. Indeed, the first
edition of 1543 included the infamous anonymous foreword, in fact
written by Andreas Osiander, containing the following words: "these
hypotheses need not to be true nor even probable."
We are going to show some examples of how the recommendations of the
Inquisition were faithfully applied in this second edition of the
treatise. Passages from the specific recommendations of Decree XXI are
provided in translation and in italics. After each recommendation, one
can observe how it was reflected in the text itself.
Therefore, with these recommendations, let those who have some
diligence approach the judgment of this emendation, which is as
follows:
In the preface near the end:
Delete everything from "perhaps" (Si fortasse) to the words, "my work"
(hi nostri labores) and adjust it thus, "my work and those of others"
(ceterum).
Here we include Professor Edward Rosen's translation of this deleted
passage from Copernicus' preface -- a dedication to Pope Paul III:
"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy
although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some
passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my
undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of
despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that
Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer,
speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those
who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars
need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me.
Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem,
unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at
the head of which Your Holiness now stands."
In chapter 5 of Book I, folio 3:
From "Nevertheless, if we examine more carefully," correct it to
"Nevertheless, if we were to examine the matter more carefully, it
makes no difference whether the earth exists in the middle of the
universe, or away from the middle, as long as we judge that the
appearances of the heavenly motions are saved. (Si tamen attentius rem
cosideremus, nihil refert terram in medio mundi, vel extra medium
existere, quoad salvandas caelestium motuum apparentias existimemus).
Here we include the original sentence that has been deleted:
(videbitur haec quaestio nondum absoluta, & id circo minime
contemnenda): "it will be apparent that this problem has not been
solved, and it is by no means to be disregarded."
On folio 10, at the end of the chapter, delete these last words: "So
vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most
excellent Almighty" (Tanta nimirum est divina haec Opt. Max. Fabrica).
Certainly, the Inquisition thought that this passage clearly
identified the design of the Creator with the heliocentric system,
which is graphically described in the famous woodcut inserted in the
previous page of the treatise.
In chapter 11:
The title of the chapter (De triplici motu telluris demonstratio: On
the explication of the three-fold Motion of the Earth) should be
adapted in this manner, "On the Hypothesis of the Three-fold Motion of
the Earth and its Explication." (De hypothesi triplicis motus telluris
eiusque demonstratione). The inscription circa telluris axem is
probably a stylistic suggestion to replace the printed version circa
axem telluris. Stylistically, a genitive such as telluris is normally
placed between the preposition and the noun. Furthermore, we also note
that the first edition includes a comma after telluris. One may wonder
whether the reader of our copy wished to emphasize, and clarify, that
telluris should only modify axem.
</quote>
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/22/26 8:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 13:27:19 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 7:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 06:18:08 -0800, John Harshmanmodified
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/26 2:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:55:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
This article tells a different story:
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus [link
as original URL no longer works].
De Revolutionibus is one of the very few texts for which we have a >>>>>>>>> detailed account of the Inquisition's decision and it turns out that >>>>>>>>> the work was not *banned* permanently, the Inquisition placed it on >>>>>>>>> the Index *until correction* and the required corrections were mostly >>>>>>>>> to do with presentation, nothing to do with the core proposition of >>>>>>>>> heliocentrism.
Not true. The offending sentences were about heliocentrism being more >>>>>>>> than a mathematical convenience, i.e. "e pur si muove".
You confusing Copernicus and Galileo?
No. It was an illustrative phrase.
Not a particularly useful one when Galileo had physical evidence, but >>>>> Copernicus had none - a point you seem anxious to avoid. Just as you >>>>> seem anxious to avoid the various inaccuracies that were in
Copernicus's original model; do you think that guy Kepler was making a >>>>> fuss about northing with those elliptical orbits that he yammered on >>>>> about?
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an
issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the
neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >>>> their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible. >>>
its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated
interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific
community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise
in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed
science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even
if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years.
The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change
its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its priests say.
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have
always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and
go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you
at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to
base your claim on?
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning
Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno
was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is >>>>>>> channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable >>>>>>> scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your
intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to
the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
From the article you referenced, the conclusions of a qualified,Have you even bothered to read the edits? If so, how come you cannot >>>>>>> identify any of them that contradicts Copernicus's core hypothesis >>>>>>> about heliocentrism?
It's not about contradicting. It's about changing from "this is true" to >>>>>> "this is a mathematical fiction".
So you haven't bothered to read them - dismissal with sight unseen.
You really should read them and see for yourself how stupid your claim >>>>> is.
reputable scholar: "The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real >>>> physical work."
How is that different from what I said?
Because you said
<quote>
the purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.
Scripture was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct.
</quote>
The article said none of that and none of the requested edits was to
do with contradiction of scripture.
So the reasons that Copernicus's work had to appear hypothetical had
nothing to do with interpretation of scripture? Is that indeed your
position?
Here are the main edits as summarised by Alverez. Please indicate
which of them seeks to eliminate any contradiction with Scripture or
in any way undermines Copernicus's core proposition of heliocentrism.
Did you even read the sentence I quoted from Alverez? It seems to have
slipped right by, though you repeat it below. It was a one-sentence
summary of the emendations, and it explained their point. And it's what
I've been saying.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present
heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth.
Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support
geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a
small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged
himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
<quote>
In 1616, the Inquisition placed De revolutionibus on its Index until
corrected -- Decree XIV. In 1620, in Decree XXI, the required
corrections were officially announced. This is an extraordinary
measure since for very few books did the Index specify the type of
changes to be made. The ten emendations were designed to make
Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description of a real
physical work. One may wonder why the Church took 77 years to react
against an astronomical treatise whose content seriously challenged
the traditionally accepted idea that placed a static earth in the
center of the universe. One of the reasons is that numerous scientists
only viewed the treatise as a useful manual to calculate planetary
positions for any conceivable time, emphasizing, however, the
hypothetical character of Copernicus' main thesis. Indeed, the first
edition of 1543 included the infamous anonymous foreword, in fact
written by Andreas Osiander, containing the following words: "these
hypotheses need not to be true nor even probable."
We are going to show some examples of how the recommendations of the
Inquisition were faithfully applied in this second edition of the
treatise. Passages from the specific recommendations of Decree XXI are
provided in translation and in italics. After each recommendation, one
can observe how it was reflected in the text itself.
Therefore, with these recommendations, let those who have some
diligence approach the judgment of this emendation, which is as
follows:
In the preface near the end:
Delete everything from "perhaps" (Si fortasse) to the words, "my work"
(hi nostri labores) and adjust it thus, "my work and those of others"
(ceterum).
Here we include Professor Edward Rosen's translation of this deleted
passage from Copernicus' preface -- a dedication to Pope Paul III:
"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy
although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some
passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my
undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of
despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that
Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer,
speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those
who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars
need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me.
Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem,
unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at
the head of which Your Holiness now stands."
In chapter 5 of Book I, folio 3:
From "Nevertheless, if we examine more carefully," correct it to
"Nevertheless, if we were to examine the matter more carefully, it
makes no difference whether the earth exists in the middle of the
universe, or away from the middle, as long as we judge that the
appearances of the heavenly motions are saved. (Si tamen attentius rem
cosideremus, nihil refert terram in medio mundi, vel extra medium
existere, quoad salvandas caelestium motuum apparentias existimemus).
Here we include the original sentence that has been deleted:
(videbitur haec quaestio nondum absoluta, & id circo minime
contemnenda): "it will be apparent that this problem has not been
solved, and it is by no means to be disregarded."
On folio 10, at the end of the chapter, delete these last words: "So
vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most
excellent Almighty" (Tanta nimirum est divina haec Opt. Max. Fabrica).
Certainly, the Inquisition thought that this passage clearly
identified the design of the Creator with the heliocentric system,
which is graphically described in the famous woodcut inserted in the
previous page of the treatise.
In chapter 11:
The title of the chapter (De triplici motu telluris demonstratio: On
the explication of the three-fold Motion of the Earth) should be
adapted in this manner, "On the Hypothesis of the Three-fold Motion of
the Earth and its Explication." (De hypothesi triplicis motus telluris
eiusque demonstratione). The inscription circa telluris axem is
probably a stylistic suggestion to replace the printed version circa
axem telluris. Stylistically, a genitive such as telluris is normally
placed between the preposition and the noun. Furthermore, we also note
that the first edition includes a comma after telluris. One may wonder
whether the reader of our copy wished to emphasize, and clarify, that
telluris should only modify axem.
</quote>
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits >>>>> put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know what you >>>> did. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned >>>> by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition was not >>>> the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was ordered by >>>> the Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your sources have >>>> always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have >>>> repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change reality. >>
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly clear.
On 23/02/2026 15:00, John Harshman wrote:
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the
smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems
fairly clear.
Add the phases of Mercury and Venus to the list.
rOn Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:08:02 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/3/26 7:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:24:22 -0800, Mark Isaak
[...]
A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature", >>>>>> with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the
supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition >>>>>> is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."
You don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam >>>>> Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost >>>>> identical Cambridge Dictionary definition
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
- things that cannot be explained by science
Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell >>>> people what they are.
A definition is useless unless people accept with the definition. Can
you cite any source that supports the definition you give above?
The etymology of the word "supernatural."
Absence of any attempt at a cite noted.
The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including >>>> dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.
And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that
your idea of "supernatural"?
No, there is a distinct difference between not having an answer at
present but good reason to think that we will get one in the future
compared to not being able to see where we might even start to look
for an answer - cf for example the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
I seriously doubt that anyone in the mid-1400s would have good reason to
think that we would, in the future, have a good reason to expect to have
an explanation of why the sun shines, much less of schizophrenia.
But let's accept your definition for now. How do you determine whether
there is good reason to expect that we will understand something in the
future? Do you say that abiogenesis is supernatural? Mark E certainly
expects us never to understand it. How about schizophrenia? Before you
answer, consider that understanding schizophrenia will probably entail
understanding consciousness.
Finally, consider Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly
scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly
right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very
probably wrong."
And someone else said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results." Also reputed to come from a distinguished scientist called Einstein though that has not been
verified. Neurology has failed time and time again to produce a result
in this regard so it really is time that they started taking a
different approach.
Before you ask, I can think of two areas where results might possibly
be achieved. One is the work thta is going on in AI (I mean the
development, not the application of it) which is trying to understand
the nature of consciousness rather than just the processes that enable
it; the other is panpsychism but it seems to me that that is rejected
simply because it might open the door to some kind of dualism.
[rCa]
Wilder Penfield was one of the leaning neuroscientists of the 20th
century; he was regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and
developed the process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients
which allowed him to observe and record the effect of stimulating
various parts of the brain. He found he was able to stimulate various
muscular reactions as well as inducing dream-like states but he never
ever encountered anything that could be considered to be reasoning or
abstract thought or evoke anything that resembled 'things seen or felt
in ordinary experience'. [1]
Penfield started his career as a convinced materialist and ended it as
a convinced dualist:
[rCa]
Penfield is one of those distinguished but elderly scientists whom
Clarke referred to. As for his ideas on consciousness, it is my
understanding that the dualist Cartesian theatre idea has been roundly
discredited by both philosophers and neurologists.
Not quite sure how that relates to what we are discussing here but I
would be interested to hear what neurologists discredited it.
As for science not being able to say what consciousness is, that is a
message that I have repeated many times myself. How can you explain
something when you don't know what it is you're supposed to explain?
You seem to have the rather strange idea that we have to understand
something *before* we figure it out. Einstein had no understanding of
relativity when he started his investigations; the same with Darwin
and Natural Selection. In both cases, they only knew that *something*
was going on and set out to figure out that *something*.
"Hey you! Go figure out bleksnarg."
"What's bleksnarg?"
"I have no idea. But I bet you can't figure it out."
Does the above conversation not sound silly to you?
No sillier than "I have no idea what it is but I'm going to continue
trying to figure it out anyway."
It does to me. And
yet it is essentially the position of people who say there is a
super-hard (i.e., forever undeterminable) problem of consciousness.
[rCa]
You are the one who is rejecting what scientists say. I have given you
a number of leading scientists in the fields of neurosurgery and
consciousness who say we are nowhere near figuring out consciousness.
Can you cite even one who disagrees?
I have not kept up with the field in the last decade.
In other words, you cannot.
Did you read the article I linked to in Scientific American? Have you
any reason to think it is not a fair summary of the current state of
play in the field?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:53:53 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>I grew up with a saying that is sorely needed these days especially:
wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathersLet me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments; >>>>> do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out. >>>>>
geocentricism?
[...]
Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
"teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
That is where your argument completely falls apart.
In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
Church Fathers [1]
This is bullshit.
Whether you regard it as bullshit or not, it *is* Catholic doctrine.
Just like the authors of the Bible and New Testament
wrote about what they thought they understood so did the Church Fathers.
That was all the Inquisition and the Pope in 1616 needed to condemn
heliocentrism.
That's the 'switch' that your geocentrist mentors did on you. They
started off by claiming the Church Fathers *taught* geocentrism, then switched to claiming the Council of Trent supported them. Here is
exactly what the Council of Trent said:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
<quote>
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year
MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,-considering that no small
utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out
of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is
to be held as authentic,-ordains and declares, that the said old and
vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has
been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations,
sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to
dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that
no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished
with the penalties by law established.
</quote>
Note "in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification
of Christian doctrine" and "the unanimous consent of the Fathers", the
two points I made above that you tried to dismiss as bullshit.
Also note the other bit in there:
"no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, -wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother
Church,-whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the holy Scriptures,-hath held and doth hold".
Far from getting support from Trent, n rejecting the Church'
interpretation of Scripture, it is your geocentrist mentors themselves
who are infringing the Trent decree.
When you have a bait and switch like this pulled on you, your focus
should really be to get the hook out of your mouth instead of trying
to swallow it and just digging it in deeper.
On 23/02/2026 15:00, John Harshman wrote:
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the
smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly
clear.
Add the phases of Mercury and Venus to the list.
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an >>>>> issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't theBecause the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate >>>> its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >>>>> their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible. >>>>
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated >>>> interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific
community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise
in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >>> science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even >>> if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
So you reject the conclusion and summary by Alverez?
The suppressed
science is the hypothesis of actual heliocentrism.
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years.
The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change
its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
And why should that result in confrontation?
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of >Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the >smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly >clear.
At any rate, why is that any business of the church?
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that
Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its
priests say.
Why? Or perhaps you would be happy to leave that aside. After all,
Galileo wasn't a priest.
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have
always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and
go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you
at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to
base your claim on?
There are more recent incidents. After all, De Revolutionibus was on the >Index until 1758. One could mention Buffon; apparently the age of the
earth was an issue as well as its motion.
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning
Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno
was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Why should that matter?
Is it OK to burn people for their philosophical
beliefs too?
And one element of his heresy was his claim that the stars
were other suns, which does strike me as a scientific hypothesis.
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
I would claim that it had something to do with it.
But I mentioned that
example only to note the church's attempts to control thought.
The
distinction between science, philosophy, and even theology was slow to >develop.
P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is >>>>>>>> channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable >>>>>>>> scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your >>>>>>>> intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to
the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
At this point I'm basing it on Alverez's analysis.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present
heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth.
Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >>> geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a
small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged
himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
Is that not a natural and inevitable consequence if heliocentrism is
true? And why should Galileo's scientific conclusion be suppressed, even
if the evidence was not sufficient to convince people in authority?
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:07 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an >>>>>> issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the >>>>>> neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >>>>>> their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate >>>>> its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated >>>>> interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific
community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise >>>>> in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >>>> science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even >>>> if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
So you reject the conclusion and summary by Alverez?
Yes, I do accept his summary that "The ten emendations were designed
to make Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description
of a real physical work."
I do NOT accept the bit that you added to his summary viz " the
purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.Scripture
was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct."
The suppressed
science is the hypothesis of actual heliocentrism.
It really beats me how treating as hypothetical a work that declares
itself to be hypothetical somehow becomes suppression of science. The
only explanation I can come up with is your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church.
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
Galileo thought different.
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years.
The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change
its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
And why should that result in confrontation?
Because the church reserved its right to interpret Scripture.
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the
smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly
clear.
Why then the scientists of the time not accept Copernicus's
conclusions? Seems to me that in your determination to find
*something* to attack the Church that you have resorted to attacking
them for going along with the scientific consensus of the time.
At any rate, why is that any business of the church?
What part did you not understand of "the confrontation with Galileo
only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved."
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that
Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its
priests say.
Why? Or perhaps you would be happy to leave that aside. After all,
Galileo wasn't a priest.
Now you are again channelling RonO. How many times do I have to
explain that it kicked off when he insisted that the Church needed to reinterpret Scripture?
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have
always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and
go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you
at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to
base your claim on?
There are more recent incidents. After all, De Revolutionibus was on the
Index until 1758. One could mention Buffon; apparently the age of the
earth was an issue as well as its motion.
As I told you the last time you brought him up, the only Church people
he seemed to have any problems with were a particular group of unruly priests. Here is what the Church says in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
"Lamarck was, therefore, a vitalist, not a materialist; he was also
neither an atheist, nor irreligious, nor an opponent of the
Scriptures. On the contrary, in regard to the creation of man he
frankly placed the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas.
At least there is no valid reason for regarding his words relative to
this as hypocritical, as many Lamarckians do."
That doesn't sound as if the Vatican had any issues with him. (Note
that that encyclopedia was published in 1913 so it's summary of
Lamarck's ideas was in the context of biological knowledge at that
time.)
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning >>>> Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno
was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Why should that matter?
Because you brought it up in a discussion about Copernicus.
Is it OK to burn people for their philosophical
beliefs too?
What part did you not understand when I wrote: "To answer your
question, NO, there was no justification for burning Bruno or anyone
else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it."
And one element of his heresy was his claim that the stars
were other suns, which does strike me as a scientific hypothesis.
Nothing to do with him being burnt so why mention it?
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
I would claim that it had something to do with it.
Seeing that you can't actually identify anything specific to do with
it, you just reinforce my impression of your determination to find something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church
But I mentioned that
example only to note the church's attempts to control thought.
How do you reconcile that idea withthe way the Church from its very beginnings has actively encouraged scientific exploration as well as
other avenues like philosophy?
The
distinction between science, philosophy, and even theology was slow to
develop.
Seriously? You don't think that Augustine in the 4th century, for
example, distinguished between them and saw all them as important?
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is >>>>>>>>> channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your >>>>>>>>> intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to >>>>> the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church. >>>>
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
At this point I'm basing it on Alverez's analysis.
But you haven't identified a single thing in his analysis that would
qualify as suppressing science.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present >>>> heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth.
Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >>>> geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a
small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged
himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
Is that not a natural and inevitable consequence if heliocentrism is
true? And why should Galileo's scientific conclusion be suppressed, even
if the evidence was not sufficient to convince people in authority?
Once again you are channelling RonO and his apparent belief that
simply ignoring an explanation already given multiple times will
somehow make it go away.
On 2/28/26 6:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:07 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an >>>>>>> issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the >>>>>>> neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >>>>>>> their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate >>>>>> its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated >>>>>> interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific >>>>>> community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise >>>>>> in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >>>>> science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even >>>>> if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
So you reject the conclusion and summary by Alverez?
Yes, I do accept his summary that "The ten emendations were designed
to make Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description
of a real physical work."
I do NOT accept the bit that you added to his summary viz " the
purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.Scripture
was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct."
Why do you think the book had to appear hypothetical?
The suppressed
science is the hypothesis of actual heliocentrism.
It really beats me how treating as hypothetical a work that declares
itself to be hypothetical somehow becomes suppression of science. The
only explanation I can come up with is your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church.
The book declares itself to be hypothetical because of the emendations
that cause it to do so, so you have that backwards. It's pretty clear
from the statements around placing it on the Index that the reason is so
it wouldn't conflict with revealed truth, and would not advocate the
false doctrine of heliocentrism. Why else?
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
Galileo thought different.
Sure, because he thought it was settled. And anyone without prior bias >should have agreed.
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years.
The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change >>>> its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
And why should that result in confrontation?
Because the church reserved its right to interpret Scripture.
And yet he wasn't forbidden to interpret scripture but to advocate >heliocentrism.
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far >>>from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the
smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly >>> clear.
Why then the scientists of the time not accept Copernicus's
conclusions? Seems to me that in your determination to find
*something* to attack the Church that you have resorted to attacking
them for going along with the scientific consensus of the time.
Of course some of the scientists of the time did accept his conclusions.
I might speculate that some scientists were reluctant to disagree with >scripture.
At any rate, why is that any business of the church?
What part did you not understand of "the confrontation with Galileo
only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved."
I understand it. I just reject much of it. Again, I ask why the
scientific controversy is any business of the church. Of course he
didn't have to propose a change of doctrine in order to be a problem. He >only had to affirm the truth of heliocentrism, and given that, the
choice is accepting that scripture is mistaken or changing its >interpretation. No need to point that out. He was suggesting a fix.
And there are unresolved issues with many things we accept as true.
That's no reason to reject the conclusion.
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that
Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its >>>> priests say.
Why? Or perhaps you would be happy to leave that aside. After all,
Galileo wasn't a priest.
Now you are again channelling RonO. How many times do I have to
explain that it kicked off when he insisted that the Church needed to
reinterpret Scripture?
Given his acceptance of heliocentrism, what would you propose he should
have done instead? Note that he wasn't censured for the proposal of >reinterpretation but for advocating heliocentrism at true. Why?
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have
always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and
go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you >>>> at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to >>>> base your claim on?
There are more recent incidents. After all, De Revolutionibus was on the >>> Index until 1758. One could mention Buffon; apparently the age of the
earth was an issue as well as its motion.
As I told you the last time you brought him up, the only Church people
he seemed to have any problems with were a particular group of unruly
priests. Here is what the Church says in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
"Lamarck was, therefore, a vitalist, not a materialist; he was also
neither an atheist, nor irreligious, nor an opponent of the
Scriptures. On the contrary, in regard to the creation of man he
frankly placed the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas.
At least there is no valid reason for regarding his words relative to
this as hypocritical, as many Lamarckians do."
That doesn't sound as if the Vatican had any issues with him. (Note
that that encyclopedia was published in 1913 so it's summary of
Lamarck's ideas was in the context of biological knowledge at that
time.)
What does Lamarck have to do with Buffon?
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning >>>>> Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno
was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Why should that matter?
Because you brought it up in a discussion about Copernicus.
Is it OK to burn people for their philosophical
beliefs too?
What part did you not understand when I wrote: "To answer your
question, NO, there was no justification for burning Bruno or anyone
else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it."
And one element of his heresy was his claim that the stars
were other suns, which does strike me as a scientific hypothesis.
Nothing to do with him being burnt so why mention it?
Nothing? It appears that he was willing to abjure everything else, and
this was his only sticking point. According to Wikipedia:
"Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted
the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his >cosmological views. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the >plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial
was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full >recantation, which Bruno eventually refused."
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
I would claim that it had something to do with it.
Seeing that you can't actually identify anything specific to do with
it, you just reinforce my impression of your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church
My claim is that the plurality of worlds has something to do with science.
But I mentioned that
example only to note the church's attempts to control thought.
How do you reconcile that idea withthe way the Church from its very
beginnings has actively encouraged scientific exploration as well as
other avenues like philosophy?
Ah, but it's scientific exploration as long as there is no perceived >conflict with scripture. As you quoted about Lamarck, "he frankly placed
the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas", just the sort of >thinking that guides creationists to this day. You can explore within
the building as long as you don't look out the window.
The
distinction between science, philosophy, and even theology was slow to
develop.
Seriously? You don't think that Augustine in the 4th century, for
example, distinguished between them and saw all them as important?
I'm not acquainted with that. But his distinction must have been ignored
if so. What else does "natural philosophy" mean?
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your >>>>>>>>>> intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to >>>>>> the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church. >>>>>
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
At this point I'm basing it on Alverez's analysis.
But you haven't identified a single thing in his analysis that would
qualify as suppressing science.
It's suppressing science to forbid the opinion that heliocentrism is a >reflection of truth. I suppose we disagree on that.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present >>>>> heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth. >>>>> Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >>>>> geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a
small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will >>>> be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged
himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when >>>> he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues >>>> in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
Is that not a natural and inevitable consequence if heliocentrism is
true? And why should Galileo's scientific conclusion be suppressed, even >>> if the evidence was not sufficient to convince people in authority?
Once again you are channelling RonO and his apparent belief that
simply ignoring an explanation already given multiple times will
somehow make it go away.
If your explanation were correct, it would have been enough to forbid >Galileo to suggest an interpretation of scripture rather than forbidding
him to advocate heliocentrism. So why go the extra mile? Why, in fact,
put De Revolutionibus on the index, when Copernicus never said anything >about reinterpreting scripture? Your story doesn't hold up.
On 2/28/26 6:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:07 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an >>>>>>> issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the >>>>>>> neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for >>>>>>> their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate >>>>>> its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated >>>>>> interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had
recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific >>>>>> community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise >>>>>> in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >>>>> science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even >>>>> if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
So you reject the conclusion and summary by Alverez?
Yes, I do accept his summary that "The ten emendations were designed
to make Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description
of a real physical work."
I do NOT accept the bit that you added to his summary viz " the
purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.Scripture
was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct."
Why do you think the book had to appear hypothetical?
The suppressed
science is the hypothesis of actual heliocentrism.
It really beats me how treating as hypothetical a work that declares
itself to be hypothetical somehow becomes suppression of science. The
only explanation I can come up with is your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church.
The book declares itself to be hypothetical because of the emendations
that cause it to do so, so you have that backwards.
It's pretty clear
from the statements around placing it on the Index that the reason is so
it wouldn't conflict with revealed truth, and would not advocate the
false doctrine of heliocentrism. Why else?
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all
settled,
Galileo thought different.
Sure, because he thought it was settled. And anyone without prior bias >should have agreed.
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years.
The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change >>>> its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
And why should that result in confrontation?
Because the church reserved its right to interpret Scripture.
And yet he wasn't forbidden to interpret scripture but to advocate >heliocentrism.
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far >>>from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the
smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and
that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly >>> clear.
Why then the scientists of the time not accept Copernicus's
conclusions? Seems to me that in your determination to find
*something* to attack the Church that you have resorted to attacking
them for going along with the scientific consensus of the time.
Of course some of the scientists of the time did accept his conclusions.
I might speculate that some scientists were reluctant to disagree with >scripture.
At any rate, why is that any business of the church?
What part did you not understand of "the confrontation with Galileo
only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved."
I understand it. I just reject much of it.
Again, I ask why the
scientific controversy is any business of the church. Of course he
didn't have to propose a change of doctrine in order to be a problem. He >only had to affirm the truth of heliocentrism, and given that, the
choice is accepting that scripture is mistaken or changing its >interpretation.
No need to point that out. He was suggesting a fix.
And there are unresolved issues with many things we accept as true.
That's no reason to reject the conclusion.
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that
Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its >>>> priests say.
Why? Or perhaps you would be happy to leave that aside. After all,
Galileo wasn't a priest.
Now you are again channelling RonO. How many times do I have to
explain that it kicked off when he insisted that the Church needed to
reinterpret Scripture?
Given his acceptance of heliocentrism, what would you propose he should
have done instead?
Note that he wasn't censured for the proposal of
reinterpretation but for advocating heliocentrism at true. Why?
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have
always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and
go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you >>>> at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to >>>> base your claim on?
There are more recent incidents. After all, De Revolutionibus was on the >>> Index until 1758. One could mention Buffon; apparently the age of the
earth was an issue as well as its motion.
As I told you the last time you brought him up, the only Church people
he seemed to have any problems with were a particular group of unruly
priests. Here is what the Church says in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
"Lamarck was, therefore, a vitalist, not a materialist; he was also
neither an atheist, nor irreligious, nor an opponent of the
Scriptures. On the contrary, in regard to the creation of man he
frankly placed the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas.
At least there is no valid reason for regarding his words relative to
this as hypocritical, as many Lamarckians do."
That doesn't sound as if the Vatican had any issues with him. (Note
that that encyclopedia was published in 1913 so it's summary of
Lamarck's ideas was in the context of biological knowledge at that
time.)
What does Lamarck have to do with Buffon?
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning >>>>> Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno
was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Why should that matter?
Because you brought it up in a discussion about Copernicus.
Is it OK to burn people for their philosophical
beliefs too?
What part did you not understand when I wrote: "To answer your
question, NO, there was no justification for burning Bruno or anyone
else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it."
And one element of his heresy was his claim that the stars
were other suns, which does strike me as a scientific hypothesis.
Nothing to do with him being burnt so why mention it?
Nothing? It appears that he was willing to abjure everything else, and
this was his only sticking point. According to Wikipedia:
"Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted
the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his >cosmological views. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the >plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial
was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full >recantation, which Bruno eventually refused."
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
I would claim that it had something to do with it.
Seeing that you can't actually identify anything specific to do with
it, you just reinforce my impression of your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church
My claim is that the plurality of worlds has something to do with science.
But I mentioned that
example only to note the church's attempts to control thought.
How do you reconcile that idea withthe way the Church from its very
beginnings has actively encouraged scientific exploration as well as
other avenues like philosophy?
Ah, but it's scientific exploration as long as there is no perceived >conflict with scripture.
As you quoted about Lamarck, "he frankly placed
the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas", just the sort of >thinking that guides creationists to this day. You can explore within
the building as long as you don't look out the window.
The
distinction between science, philosophy, and even theology was slow to
develop.
Seriously? You don't think that Augustine in the 4th century, for
example, distinguished between them and saw all them as important?
I'm not acquainted with that. But his distinction must have been ignored
if so. What else does "natural philosophy" mean?
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit >>>>>>>>>> like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your >>>>>>>>>> intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to >>>>>> the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those
reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church. >>>>>
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
At this point I'm basing it on Alverez's analysis.
But you haven't identified a single thing in his analysis that would
qualify as suppressing science.
It's suppressing science to forbid the opinion that heliocentrism is a >reflection of truth. I suppose we disagree on that.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present >>>>> heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth. >>>>> Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >>>>> geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a
small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will >>>> be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged
himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when >>>> he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues >>>> in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
Is that not a natural and inevitable consequence if heliocentrism is
true? And why should Galileo's scientific conclusion be suppressed, even >>> if the evidence was not sufficient to convince people in authority?
Once again you are channelling RonO and his apparent belief that
simply ignoring an explanation already given multiple times will
somehow make it go away.
If your explanation were correct, it would have been enough to forbid >Galileo to suggest an interpretation of scripture rather than forbidding
him to advocate heliocentrism.
So why go the extra mile? Why, in fact,
put De Revolutionibus on the index, when Copernicus never said anything >about reinterpreting scripture? Your story doesn't hold up.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 06:50:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:07 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Don't see the relevance of any of this. Would any of that even be an >>>>>>>> issue unless it contradicted church teaching? The church wasn't the >>>>>>>> neutral science police, just making sure that everyone had evidence for
their claims. Just for stuff that contradicts their reading of the bible.
Because the Church has always taken the stance that it will reevaluate >>>>>>> its interpretation of any Bible passage that is contradicted by
science. You seem to trying to argue that they should have reevaluated >>>>>>> interpretation on the basis of a scientific proposition that had >>>>>>> recognised inaccuracies and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific >>>>>>> community at the time - see the Introduction to Copernicus's treatise >>>>>>> in the section belwo from the article by Alverez.
No, that's not my stance. I'm saying that they shouldn't have suppressed >>>>>> science that contradicts their current interpretation of scripture, even >>>>>> if the evidence was not yet overwhelming.
What *science* did they supress? You haven't been able to identify
even one of the required edits to Revolutions that contradicts
heliocentrism.
So you reject the conclusion and summary by Alverez?
Yes, I do accept his summary that "The ten emendations were designed
to make Copernicus' book appear hypothetical and not the description
of a real physical work."
I do NOT accept the bit that you added to his summary viz " the
purpose of the latter being to avoid conflict with scripture.Scripture
was of course interpreted as geocentric and necessarily
correct."
Why do you think the book had to appear hypothetical?
Maybe something to do with the Introduction to the book saying "these hypotheses need not to be true nor even probable."
How many times do I have to explain this to you?
The suppressed
science is the hypothesis of actual heliocentrism.
It really beats me how treating as hypothetical a work that declares
itself to be hypothetical somehow becomes suppression of science. The
only explanation I can come up with is your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church.
The book declares itself to be hypothetical because of the emendations
that cause it to do so, so you have that backwards.
No, it's you that have it backwards - that declaration of the book
being hypothetical appears in the first edition of 1543 - that would
have been a neat trick, reacting to the emendations 77 years before
they were issued.
It's pretty clear
from the statements around placing it on the Index that the reason is so
it wouldn't conflict with revealed truth, and would not advocate the
false doctrine of heliocentrism. Why else?
They should just have let
science take its course. No need to change doctrine until it's all >>>>>> settled,
Galileo thought different.
Sure, because he thought it was settled. And anyone without prior bias
should have agreed.
Pity nobody told his fellow scientists that.
The Church said nothing about Copernicus's proposition for 77 years. >>>>> The confrontation started when Galileo called for the Church to change >>>>> its interpretation of Scripture to reflect heliocentrism when the
science was far from settled.
And why should that result in confrontation?
Because the church reserved its right to interpret Scripture.
And yet he wasn't forbidden to interpret scripture but to advocate
heliocentrism.
It was his call for the Church to reinterpret Scripture that gave his opponents grounds for having him put on trial, leading him to be found
guilty of a trumped-up charge.
Now, I would say that there are many bits of evidence that, to an
unbiased observer, would suggest heliocentrism even in the absence of
Kepler's model. There's the fact that Mercury and Venus never get far
from the sun, the observation that elsewhere in the solar system, the >>>> smaller body goes around the larger, as with earth's and Jupiter's
moons, the observation that the fixed stars resemble faraway suns, and >>>> that their diurnal "motion" seems quite different from the annual and
longer patterns of the sun and planets, etc. Even in the absence of
Newton and a theory of how gravity operates, the conclusion seems fairly >>>> clear.
Why then the scientists of the time not accept Copernicus's
conclusions? Seems to me that in your determination to find
*something* to attack the Church that you have resorted to attacking
them for going along with the scientific consensus of the time.
Of course some of the scientists of the time did accept his conclusions.
Wow, RonO logic where "some" equates to some kind of consensus. Can
you even identify some of your some?
I might speculate that some scientists were reluctant to disagree with
scripture.
You can speculate all you want but I prefer dealing with known facts.
At any rate, why is that any business of the church?
What part did you not understand of "the confrontation with Galileo
only started when
he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues
in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved."
I understand it. I just reject much of it.
That's fair enough - acceptance of Catholic Church teachings is not obligatory for non-Catholics.
Again, I ask why the
scientific controversy is any business of the church. Of course he
didn't have to propose a change of doctrine in order to be a problem. He
only had to affirm the truth of heliocentrism, and given that, the
choice is accepting that scripture is mistaken or changing its
interpretation.
Which Cardinal Bellarmine said would happen.
No need to point that out. He was suggesting a fix.
He was a scientist not a theologian; he should have stuck to the
science instead of trying to interfere with theology.
And there are unresolved issues with many things we accept as true.
That's no reason to reject the conclusion.
There is a difference between withholding judgement and rejecting. But
you already know that; science does not accept hypotheses unless they
are supported by evidence and have no major gaps - you're just
ignoring standard scientific practice in a feeble attempt to support
your claims.
but no need to be science police either.
Perhaps it's memory issues again but you seem to have forgotten that >>>>> Copernicus was a priest - the Church will "police" everything that its >>>>> priests say.
Why? Or perhaps you would be happy to leave that aside. After all,
Galileo wasn't a priest.
Now you are again channelling RonO. How many times do I have to
explain that it kicked off when he insisted that the Church needed to
reinterpret Scripture?
Given his acceptance of heliocentrism, what would you propose he should
have done instead?
As already explained above, he should have stuck to the science. You
ignore the fact that heliocentrism was first condemned by the
Inquisition in 1616 but Galileo continued to work on it for the next
16 years without anyone from the Church bothering him. The Pope even commissioned him to write a book giving the arguments for and against heliocentrism without coming down on either side.
Unfortunately,
Galileo chose to present the Pope's own ideas in a way that they were
widely seen as those of a simpleton. That, unsurprisingly, pissed off
the Pope and creted the opp[rtunity for Galileo's opponents to go
after him as mentioned above.
Note that he wasn't censured for the proposal of
reinterpretation but for advocating heliocentrism at true. Why?
Answered above.
Leaving that aside, they never have been "science" police, they have >>>>> always let the chips fall where they fall as far as science goes and >>>>> go back to the theological drawing board if science seemed to
contradict anything in Church teaching. Does it not sink home with you >>>>> at all that you have to go back 400 years to find just one incident to >>>>> base your claim on?
There are more recent incidents. After all, De Revolutionibus was on the >>>> Index until 1758. One could mention Buffon; apparently the age of the
earth was an issue as well as its motion.
As I told you the last time you brought him up, the only Church people
he seemed to have any problems with were a particular group of unruly
priests. Here is what the Church says in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
"Lamarck was, therefore, a vitalist, not a materialist; he was also
neither an atheist, nor irreligious, nor an opponent of the
Scriptures. On the contrary, in regard to the creation of man he
frankly placed the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas.
At least there is no valid reason for regarding his words relative to
this as hypocritical, as many Lamarckians do."
That doesn't sound as if the Vatican had any issues with him. (Note
that that encyclopedia was published in 1913 so it's summary of
Lamarck's ideas was in the context of biological knowledge at that
time.)
What does Lamarck have to do with Buffon?
Sorry, my bad - I got confused between Leclerc and Lamarck. I tried
Googling to find out what problems Buffon had with Church and the best
I could find was that article but I misread it and didn't realise it
only mentioned Buffon in passing as an acquaintance of Leclerc.
That is the only reference to Buffon that I can find in Church
documents which suggests that Vatican authorities had no issue with
him or his ideas. Wikipedia is usually pretty good but the article on
him makes no reference to issues with the Church. Can you point me to
a source with a bit more detail than your vague mutterings?
And really, this ought
to extend to other notions too. Was there any justification for burning >>>>>> Bruno?
FFS, please don't tell me that you still buy into the myth that Bruno >>>>> was burnt for his scientific beliefs.
Why should that matter?
Because you brought it up in a discussion about Copernicus.
Is it OK to burn people for their philosophical
beliefs too?
What part did you not understand when I wrote: "To answer your
question, NO, there was no justification for burning Bruno or anyone
else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will
agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it."
And one element of his heresy was his claim that the stars
were other suns, which does strike me as a scientific hypothesis.
Nothing to do with him being burnt so why mention it?
Nothing? It appears that he was willing to abjure everything else, and
this was his only sticking point. According to Wikipedia:
"Bruno defended himself as he had in Venice, insisting that he accepted
the Church's dogmatic teachings, but trying to preserve the basis of his
cosmological views. In particular, he held firm to his belief in the
plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial
was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full
recantation, which Bruno eventually refused."
That's a bit naught, John, quoting that paragraph without the one
leading to it; that comes rather close to quote mining. Here is what
the preceding paragraph says:
<quote>
The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well
as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and
heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo speculates the
charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition were:[55]
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against
it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, the
deity of Christ, and the Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as
the Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the
virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both
Transubstantiation and the Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human
soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.
</quote>
The plurality of worlds *and them being eternal* was only one of the
charges and a relatively minor one as indicated in the bit that you
did quote - he was only *admonished* for that particular charge. The
verdict of guilty of heresy and execution was for the other charges
which were directly and seriously in opposition to *dogma* - things
like the deity of Christ , the virgin birth and transubstantiation.
Those are the dogmas that he tried to claim he accepted but refused to
make a full recantation.
To avoid you making further innuendos about me, I will state once
again that whatever the degree of heresy, I unreservedly condemn the
Church burning him as I unreservedly condemn the execution of anyone
for any reason. You might like to note that in holding those views I
am totally in line with modern Church teaching - the Church has moved
on since those days. Youi still don't seem to have garsped the irony
of you having to go back 400 years to find something to attack the
Church with as far as ceince goes.
Even RonO, after arguing for a
long time that Bruno was burnt for heliocentric heresy, had to
eventually admit that whatever about Galileo, heliocentrism was not
heresy at the time of Bruno.
To answer your question, NO, there was no justification for burning
Bruno or anyone else. Attack the Church for burning people and I will >>>>> agree with you 100% but don't try to wrap science around it when it
had nothing to do with it.
I would claim that it had something to do with it.
Seeing that you can't actually identify anything specific to do with
it, you just reinforce my impression of your determination to find
something, anything really, with which you can attack the Catholic
Church
My claim is that the plurality of worlds has something to do with science.
But it wasn't the reason for his execution.
But I mentioned that
example only to note the church's attempts to control thought.
How do you reconcile that idea withthe way the Church from its very
beginnings has actively encouraged scientific exploration as well as
other avenues like philosophy?
Ah, but it's scientific exploration as long as there is no perceived
conflict with scripture.
<sigh> Do I really have to repeat yet again Augustine's warning all of
1600 years ago about people rejecting science because of conflict with scripture or Pope Leo XIII saying the same thing in an encyclical in
1893?
As you quoted about Lamarck, "he frankly placed
the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas", just the sort of
thinking that guides creationists to this day. You can explore within
the building as long as you don't look out the window.
The
distinction between science, philosophy, and even theology was slow to >>>> develop.
Seriously? You don't think that Augustine in the 4th century, for
example, distinguished between them and saw all them as important?
I'm not acquainted with that. But his distinction must have been ignored
if so. What else does "natural philosophy" mean?
Your other words have nothing to do with my words.P.S. There is no evidence of Galileo even having said it; it's a bit
like those movies quotes that everybody remembers but were never >>>>>>>>>>> actually said.
Doesn't matter. It's the thought that counts. Play it again, Martin. >>>>>>>>>>
And it's all
about the Church's (more or less justified) believe that the bible >>>>>>>>>>>> mandates geocentrism.
You accused me earlier of channelling RonO - *you* are the one who is
channelling him by rejecting the conclusions of a qualified, reputable
scholar who has studied the subject in depth but offered nothing to >>>>>>>>>>> contradict it except your own unqualified opinion based on your >>>>>>>>>>> intense dislike of the Catholic Church.
That's not what my unqualified opinion is based on.
So why don't you tell what it is based on?
It's based on what the church did and what they said.
In other words, you are dismissing it because of reasons unrelated to >>>>>>> the analysis done by Alverez. Perhaps you could explain how those >>>>>>> reasons do not equate to your intense dislike of the Catholic Church. >>>>>>
Your denial is less than convincing when you are so reticent about
explaining what your opinion was based upon.
At this point I'm basing it on Alverez's analysis.
But you haven't identified a single thing in his analysis that would
qualify as suppressing science.
It's suppressing science to forbid the opinion that heliocentrism is a
reflection of truth. I suppose we disagree on that.
Hard for me to agree when you cannot identify a single one of the
emndations that in any way supresses science. The only argument you
have put up is that the Church was somehow anti-science by accepting
the scientific consensus of the time.
Now ask yourself why the church would be concerned that nobody present >>>>>> heliocentrism as anything other than a hypothesis unrelated to truth. >>>>>> Would they have cared at all if the bible were not considered to support >>>>>> geocentrism?
The Church's default position on the Bible has been to accept
something literally unless there is good reason not to. There were a >>>>> small number of passages where heliocentrism would appear to
contradict a literal interpretation e.g. the sun standing still in
Joshua. Having to reinterpret these passages was not a particular
problem; as Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the
Sacred College at the time of Galileo time, said:
</quote>
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will >>>>> be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be >>>>> false which is demonstrated."
</quote>
He said that in relation to Galileo whose conclusions also had
shortcomings even though he had physical evidence compared to the
purely mathematical model put forward by Copernicus who acknowledged >>>>> himself that the proposition was hypothetical and had unresolved
issues.
As alreday mentioned, the confrontation with Galileo only started when >>>>> he insisted that the Church should change its interpretation of
Scripture to comply with his conclusions despite the unresolved issues >>>>> in them and the scientific community's refusal to fully accept
heliocentrism until those issues were resolved.
Is that not a natural and inevitable consequence if heliocentrism is
true? And why should Galileo's scientific conclusion be suppressed, even >>>> if the evidence was not sufficient to convince people in authority?
Once again you are channelling RonO and his apparent belief that
simply ignoring an explanation already given multiple times will
somehow make it go away.
If your explanation were correct, it would have been enough to forbid
Galileo to suggest an interpretation of scripture rather than forbidding
him to advocate heliocentrism.
When people are annoyed they tend to overreact and Galileo pissed off
the wrong people. Galileo was a brilliant scientist but he was also an extremely arrogant person who pissed off a *lot* of people. That's not
a defence of their over-reaction, just an observation on human nature.
So why go the extra mile? Why, in fact,
put De Revolutionibus on the index, when Copernicus never said anything
about reinterpreting scripture? Your story doesn't hold up.
Nah, *your* rejection of Alvarez's article doesn't hold up - you
haven't identified a single required edit that in any way undermined
science or indeed was unwarranted for any reason.
All you have to offer is criticism of the Church for treating his work
as hypothetical when his own book states it is hypothetical and that
was the way it was treated by his fellow scientists.
On 3/2/26 6:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 06:50:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/26 6:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:00:07 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/26 6:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:37:21 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
[]
Then why did it have to be amended? What was the purpose of the
emendations? Did Alvarez happen to say?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 16:24:31 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,384 |
