Spread the love

On the subject of “junk DNA” Dr. Pellionisz believes these sections are caused by DNA being a “FractoGene” (Fractal DNA generating Fractal Organelles). I wouldn’t be surprised if DNA uses recursive mathematics for generating its complexity (plants do this for their structure at a macro level). As he explains it:

“[The] FractoGene approach to DNA, indeed, does not do away with “design”. While “genes” provide the “materials” (“building blocks” of nucleic acids for proteins, much like a building is built by bricks, concrete, steel, glass, wood, tiles, marble, etc.), the “architecture” of a building is *not* in its materials. THE ARCHITECTURE IS IN THE DESIGN. In case of the DNA and organs and organelles, FractoGene provides an *explanation* for the design; that “Junk DNA” provides auxiliary information for each (fractal) recursion how to build a hierarchy of protein structures. The explanation is algorithmic, i.e. it is given in hard terms of mathematics (fractal geometry), that is inherently “software and nanotechnology friendly”. Besides, FractoGene also put forward (quantitative) predictions that are experimentally verifiable or refutable. (Experimental support of the “Fugu prediction of FractoGene” was published in peer-reviewed science journal; see”

Dr. Pellionisz also briefly visited UD here:

He also has some very interesting news reports here:

In engineering such methods can be used to generate Procedural Textures, for Fractal Image Compression, Neural Networks, etc.

Then of course we have the good ‘ol natural snowflake (oh, and PLEASE do not regurgitate any of those dumb arguments related to a snowflake generating CSI…).

11 Replies to “FractoGene

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    The theory of intelligent design cannot explain the presence of nonfunctional pseudogenes unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasing millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily explain them as nothing more than failed experiments in a random process of gene duplicaitons that persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants.

    Ken Miller, 1996 criticizing Michael Behe
    see page 224, Darwin’s Black Box

    I think Miller is done wiping the egg off his face. :=)


  2. 2
    scordova says:


    I think Miller isn’t done wiping the egg off his face. :=)

  3. 3
    zapatero says:


    Miller’s comment refers to nonfunctional pseudogenes, not to junk DNA in general. As far as I can see, Dr. Pellionisz’s speculations do not attempt to explain nonfunctional pseudogenes.

    Where is the egg that Miller is supposedly wiping from his face?

  4. 4
    Smidlee says:

    Actually the pseudogenes was junk DNS IHO was against evolution. Why would NS keep pseudogenes (junk) around for millions of years unchanged while making major changes. Ex. Man and chimp has a lot identical pseudogenes yet the human brain made great advancements which mutations in this area can do a lot of damage.

  5. 5
    nightlight says:

    The biochemical reaction networks will automatically create fractal structure by virtue of internal modeling of their environment and self. That is the same phenomenon familiar from the networks of neurons, such as human brain, where we create internal model of our environment, which includes self-actor (model space counterpart of ‘self’) and of other networks (other humans, which have corresponding actors in the model space).

    After certain level of refinement of the the internal model via learning (which takes children 5-7 years to master), the actors at higher modeling resolution gain their own internal model (since that is a more accurate model of that actor than an unaware or random acting actor), which in turn contains all ‘smaller’ actors. Further refinements create a recursively nested structure similar to a ring of reflecting spheres, where each sphere has a small image of the entire ring and all other spheres, and within each of these little image spheres, there is an even smaller ring of spheres,…

    For more on this (and references) see couple posts:

    Biochemical networks & their algorithms

    Algorithmic formulation of ID & intelligent networks (links)

    In my view, ID will only become acceptable as a legitimate scientific
    theory if one can show how is this “intelligence” (or at least the
    relevant part of it), which is being offered as the explanation,
    _implemented_ in the realm of matter-energy (the realm of mind stuff
    is presently outside of natural science). Regarding the cellular
    biology, this implementation is given as a cellular biochemical
    network. The most immediate intelligence behind evolution
    is implemented in the matter-energy realm as the ecosystem network,
    which contains all numerous other networks (such as species, gene
    pools, organisms & cellular level networks) as subnetworks.

    The alternatives, such hinting at mind stuff, falls outside of the
    present natural science, hence no explanation resting on such
    speculative foundation can be acceptable to the natural science.
    The genuine model of mind stuff (which can answer, at least in principle,
    “what is it like to be such and such arrangement of atoms” that makes
    you) within natural science is much too far in the future to be useful
    as any kind of basis for ID as a legitimate discipline within the
    present natural science.

    In short, ID needs to walk first before running, and run first
    before flying. Its present (and transient) setbacks are due to
    trying to fly from the crawl.

  6. 6
    GilDodgen says:

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if DNA uses recursive mathematics for generating its complexity (plants do this for their structure at a macro level).”

    Recursion (self-referential algorithms and self-calling functions) is an extremely powerful tool in computer science. The AI (artificial intelligence) techniques used in chess- and checkers-playing computer programs are based upon this concept. This is the basis of what we call a “tree search.”

    The immune system apparently uses a search/trial-and-error technique in order to devise antibodies to pathogens. The immune system also maintains a database of previously-seen pathogenic agents and how to defeat them. This is what immunization is all about.

    As an ID research proposal I would suggest pursuing what we have learned from AI research to see if human-designed algorithms are reflected in biology, especially when it comes to the immune system:

    1) Iterative Deepening: Make initial, shallow, inexpensive searches, and increase the depth and expense of the searches iteratively.
    2) Investigative Ordering: Order results from 1) to waste as little time as possible during deeper searches.
    3) Maintain short-term memory to rapidly access solutions to the most-recently-seen problems. (We use RAM-based hash tables in chess and checkers programs for this purpose.)
    4) Maintain long-term memory for catastrophic themes that tend to recur on a regular basis. (We use non-volatile, disk-based endgame databases in chess and checkers programs for this purpose.)

    This is just a brief overview of the most basic techniques used in AI game-playing computer programs. There’s a whole lot more really cool stuff.

    Isn’t it amazing how random mutation and natural selection created chess-playing computer programs? 🙂

  7. 7
    saxe17 says:

    The lengths these people go through to deny the ovbious is quite stunning.


  8. 8
    johnnyb says:

    “the realm of mind stuff is presently outside of natural science”

    That’s the whole point of ID — to move “mind stuff” _into_ the natural science. Right now, natural science has to pretend that “mind” doesn’t exist in order to work. The genius of the ID program is to include mind in science without forcing a false reductionism to mind.

  9. 9
    bFast says:

    The bottom line is simple. ID theorists predicted that most DNA would have real function, whereas NDE has found value in the fact that there is significant discarded — without function — the waste product of the RM+NS process. As it is becoming clear that much (most?) the “non-coding” DNA (DNA which does not define proteins) does involve itself in the phenotype of an organism, so it is ID that clearly wins this point.

    Let me also just remind that (if I understand correctly) Gould was somewhat concerned to discover that some coding DNA coded for more than one protein. This, if I understand, concerned him deeply, I believe that he suggested that a significant amount of such discovery would be the death nell to RM+NS. I also understand that we now know that the average piece of coding DNA codes for 5 proteins. At this point I think that Gould is no longer a neo-Darwinist. How say ye? Is my understanding on this topic correct?

  10. 10
    nightlight says:

    > That’s the whole point of ID — to move “mind stuff” _into_ the
    > natural science. Right now, natural science has to pretend that
    > “mind” doesn’t exist in order to work. The genius of the ID
    > program is to include mind in science without forcing a false
    > reductionism to mind.

    That may be fine for a long term objective. But ID doesn’t have
    a _scientific model_ of the “mind stuff” either. Until such
    model exists (which can predict something that makes empirical
    difference), postulating “mind” as designer is counter-productive
    to ID acceptance as a legitimate scientific theory. The best
    ID can do at present is to offer a model of a hardware & software
    implementation of the “intelligent agency”. The only plausible
    candidate (which already has mathematical models and empirical
    basis) is the implementation through adaptable/itelligent networks,
    from cellular biochemical reaction network up to social and
    ecosystem networks.

    Biochemical networks & their algorithms

    Algorithmic formulation of ID & intelligent networks (links)

    Trying to push “mind” as the designer long before it is ready
    as a scientific & mathematical model is precisely the reason ID
    is being rejected by the natural science. Much more productive
    approach is to offer the model of the “intelligent agency” in
    terms of the _present_ natural science. Once that is accepted,
    the intelligently guided, purposeful evolution and origin of
    life become perfectly plausible and acceptable theory for the
    present natural science, obsoleting the neo-Darwinist random,
    aimless and pointless evolution. The “mind stuff” aspect would
    remain temporarily within the philosophical and theological
    implications of ID. Insisting on passing these aspects, which
    no one really understands, anyway, as a science at this stage
    is the key impediment to ID’s acceptance as a legitimate
    _present-day_ theory. We all understand, of course, that
    ID is more harmonious with the “mind stuff” being eventually
    part of natural science than neo-Darwinism or 19th century
    materialism. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the present
    natural science of matter-energy indicating ‘what is it like
    to be such and such arrangement of atoms & fields’ that make
    up you. There isn’t even a hint that anything of the sort is
    needed, let alone any model where “mind stuff” makes any
    empirical difference.

  11. 11
    Pellionisz says:

    I have a specific and a general comment to make:

    “As far as I can see, Dr. Pellionisz’s speculations do not attempt to explain nonfunctional pseudogenes”

    “Nonfunctional pseudogenes” are a nonsense that *DOES* need to be explained, by algorithmic and quantitatively predictive scientific theory, where the predictions can be experimentally supported or refuted. Therefore, they certainly fall into the domain of theoretical (and then, experimental) investigation. (“Pseudogene” is defined as a non-functional *gene*. However, while not (apparently) “protein coding” how can anyone be sure that they can not have some (albeit perhaps not yet fully understood) function?

    Rigoutsos’ “pyknon”-s (see are, similarly all over the DNA, in the human the found 128,000 short repetitive sequences are not at all restrained to either the “protein coding” or “non-coding” regions.

    The apparent fractality of the DNA, since fractals are absolutely deterministic, inevitably calls for explanation. Yes, recursive fractal algorithms are both extremely powerful and extremely common in Nature – it is outright foolhardy to continue to ignore “Junk” DNA anymore (these days, hardly anyone ignores this exploding subject, anyway).

    My general comment is, that ID definitely scored big by correctly predicting (for the right reasons or not) that “Junk” DNA had a function – while most Darwinists (with few exceptions) stuck with the untenable (frankly, quite ridiculous) notion that 98.7% of human DNA was “Junk”.

    Having worked with NASA, I find it (not at all 🙂 difficult to comprehend that on one hand they are probing Mars (clearly, Extra Terrestrial) for “signs of life”, yet on the other they have problems accepting that e.g. a fractal compression of hereditary information passed from ET to our planet is scientifically impossible to exclude as a possibility. (NASA missed the Mars TWICE by confusing metric and non-metric distance measurements…)

    The debate, however, should not be fought in the turf of belief, IMHO. Since anyone believes whatever he/she wants to believe – thus the debate might be endless.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of millions are dying with “non-coding DNA diseases” (see – while “Junk” DNA is not getting (outside of PostGenetics, the “priority number one” that it deserves.

    ID scored big on “Junk” DNA – “don’t negotiate past the deal”.

    There will be no debate by anyone diagnosed with any of the potentially up to 150,000 “junk DNA diseases”. “How much is needed, how to make up quickest for decades lost???”

    Dr. Pellionisz

Leave a Reply