"The estimated number of genes in the human genome has been repeatedly revised downward since the completion of the Human Genome Project; current estimates place the human genome at just under 3 billion base pairs and about 20,000–25,000 genes. A recent Science article gives a final number of 20,488, with perhaps 100 more yet to be discovered." (Wiki)
"Broadly, the science of functional genomics has developed widely accepted techniques to characterize protein-coding genes, RNA genes, and regulatory regions. In the genomes of most plants and animals, however, these together constitute only a small percentage of genomic DNA (less than 2% in the case of humans). The function, if any, of the remainder remains under investigation. Most of it can be identified as repetitive elements that have no known biological function for their host (although they are useful to geneticists for analyzing lineage and phylogeny). Still, a large amount of sequence in these genomes falls under no existing classification other than 'junk'." (Wiki)
"Nuclear genome sizes are well known to vary enormously among eukaryotic species. In animals they range more than 3,300-fold, and in land plants they differ by a factor of about 1,000." (Wiki)
"In order to store the entire human genome on a computer without compression would require around 3,000,000,000 / 4 = 750,000,000 bytes of storage or 750 megabytes. The human genome requires 750 megabytes of storage compared to 1,500 megabytes of storage for Windows XP. Microsoft’s latest operating system requires twice the storage space than the genetic blueprint of the human species. This does not imply that Windows XP is more advanced or complex than the human genome, in fact, there is little correlation between the complexity of an organism and the length of its DNA sequence. A simple creature known as amoeba dubia has a genome that is over 200 times larger than the human genome." ('Man vs. Windows XP', tmsoft.com)
The belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, (mostly repetitive) junk DNA represents information concerning the human body, instinctive behaviour, intelligence and consciousness is comparable to the belief in logically impossible miracles. Thus the concept 'functional DNA' ("less than 2% in the case of humans") is the relevant genetic information of a human. Even without compression it turns out to be less than 15 megabyte (i.e. less than one percent of Windows XP). This is less than 1 kilobyte per gene.
Maybe even more than in the case of software, there is a lot of evidence of inefficient use of this genetic information. Yet there is not even the slightest hint of how additional information concerning a human being could arise out of these 20,000 genes during ontogenesis.
If it is true that out of these 20,000 genes "we probably make at least 10 times that number of different proteins", then the genetic information per protein reduces to less than 100 bytes. One can dispute whether 100 or 1,000 bytes are enough to determine folding and behaviour of proteins, but we can be sure that this information is not enough to describe in a halfway complete way a protein capable of carrying out several tasks.
"For an enzyme to develop in a cell, various specific tasks (e.g. the complex transcription initiation) have to be carried out. If every task required a specific enzyme type, every enzyme type would require several other types, something that is logically impossible. One concludes that many enzymes are able to carry out several tasks. This hardly can be explained by reductionist causal laws, as even one task depends on various conditions, such as e.g. 'allosteric' changes in the enzyme form." ('The Psychon Theory', 'Arguments against Reductionism')
So if we cannot even be sure that there is enough genetic information in order to determine all the proteins working in our body, then it becomes (sorry for the expression) completely absurd to assume that there is enough genetic information for the human body with all its anatomical features, let alone for human intelligence and consciousness.
Therefore, neo-Darwinism is refuted inasfar as it excludes non-material information. There remain however at least these three logically viable hypotheses:
1) The missing information comes from God
2) The missing information comes from morphic fields (Rupert Sheldrake)
3) The missing information comes from psychons (the 'units' of evolution)
The psychon hypothesis leads to the most and the most precise predictions (e.g. demographic saturation).
Cheers, Wolfgang
