Second, separate language found in DNA code

Why remain a bystander when you have done your research? So there is a genetic and a regulatory code. And codons can take part in both functions. Does it say anything about the other 10 codes of DNA? No? Hmm, weird. AVS

Good one Q! You are just so good at seeming intelligent! It must be tough, but keep up the good work! AVS

The paper by Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos et al talks about Duons in exons. It was thought that genetic code and regulatory code worked independently. Now what has been discovered is that about 14% of codons in exons (which code for proteins) are duons -they specify both regulatory and amino acid information. They also show that human coding variants which are within duons directly affect overlaying transcription factor binding. How each of you interpret the paper is up to you all. I will remain a bystander :-) selvaRajan

Q.E.D. Querius

Yeah, definitely don't waste anytime on people with actual knowledge of biology. Good point Q! AVS

Mapou, TSErik, and bornagain77 . . . Thanks for your information and links. I'm always interested in learning more (I've recently been reading about the discordant data exposed by miRNA), and I'm amazed at some of the research going on. I wouldn't waste any time on AVS, who seems only to be able to offer pointless and irrational vituperation. Thanks for your contributions. -Q Querius

Oh yeah, rally the troops Poo! Come find me when BA proves me wrong. I won't hold my breath. AVS

bornagain77, AVS is just an insufferably pompous ass. Why continue to engage the asteroid orifice, huh? Stop being a wussy Christian and stop turning the other cheek. You are not Jesus and believe me, when Jesus comes back, he will not turn the other cheek. There is a time for everything. There is a time for cheek turning and there is a time for butt kicking. Soon, it will be butt-kicking time. Be a David or a Samson for a change. Mapou

So you copy/paste your favorite quotes and then hit the road when actually asked for details and original arguments? Yup, sounds like you. AVS

AVS, I'm REALLY not all that concerned with what you believe anymore. If you want to watch the video watch it, if you don't don't. I don't care! I have much better things to do with my time than engage in childish argumentation. bornagain77

That's it BA? Couldn't find a code that proves me wrong? Nothing but a Time article saying that there is now 2 codes? Something we've known for a while now, anyway. You have no idea what you are talking about. What a joke. Guess I'm not surprised though. AVS

Time mag: (Another) Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA -- Scientists have discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other. To get a sense of the breath-taking complexity this represents, watch this video of J.S. Bach's "Crab canon." It was composed to be played backwards and forwards at the same time, and then with one part flipped upside down on the music stand. http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/the_genius_of_js_bachs_crab_canon_visualized_on_a_mobius_strip.html bornagain77

Well since you've watched the video, why not name one of the codes that doesn't fit into expression regulation? Prove me wrong and I will admit that I am wrong. Or maybe even you haven't watched the video? AVS

Actually AVS, if you would watch the video instead of trying to condescendingly tell us what you think he is saying, you would see that you are wrong. But then again I strongly suspect that you don't have enough humility to admit when you are wrong. bornagain77

Yeah, that functionally important thing that they do is called regulation of gene expression. Go ahead, try to name one of his codes within the DNA sequence that doesn't function in regulation of expression besides the protein code. AVS

Actually each code in a given sequence conveys its own distinct 'meaning' as to doing something functionally important in the genome. To say that it is all part of the regulation code is to miss the very important point of the poly-functional elegance inherent in any given sequence. bornagain77

And as I said, you can get as many codes as you want out of the genome, depending on how you define the function of your code. All Trifinov is doing is breaking the regulation code down into it's individual functions. It is still all a part of the regulation code. AVS

At the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed, although the writing is too small to read bornagain77

Concluding powerpoint of the lecture:

"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010

At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov also states that the concept of the selfish gene, 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: bornagain77

No, I am saying that all Trifonov is doing is taking the regulation code and splitting it up into its constituents. They are the same thing, and yet people here tout his results as multiple (12+) separate codes. AVS

So your definition of "codes" is better than Trifonov's? TSErik

Oh Erik, nice of you to rejoin the conversation. Of course trifonov is a competent scientist, but his code-centric analysis of the genome is about as useful as a poopy-flavored lollipop. Like I said, of course a bioinformatics guy is going to see codes everywhere, he biased towards finding codes. Also as I said, anyone can go into the genome and pull out different codes, depending on how they define their code. Is this new code really useful in any way? Probably not. Like I've been saying, there is the protein code and their is the code-controlled regulation of gene expression. What Trifonov does is split the regulation code into finer and finer codes, all more useless than the last. You can either look at the big picture of gene expression or you can break it into smaller clumps, but it's all the same thing. AVS

LMAO! And what is your point, AVS? Are you saying there isn't many codes within DNA? That Trifonov is incompetent in his analysis? Then you go and cite him as an expert in the realm of abiogenesis? Is he a reliable source of information or not?

That’s 8, and some of them don’t even deal with the DNA sequence itself, rather histone modifications, or protein folding. Trifonov is a bioinformatics guy, of course he sees codes everywhere because that is what he is looking for. You can pull hundreds of different codes out of the DNA sequence depending on how you define the function of your code.

How, exactly, does this illustrate your point that there aren't many codes within DNA? Your response appears as one big genetic fallacy. So you say Trifonov claims there are codes, yet you contend they are not? Let's add moving the goalposts fallacy to your list. First you cry for supported claims of many codes being wrapped in DNA. Then when sources are given to show the claim, you then state they aren't REALLY codes so it doesn't count. You engage in a cliched tactic of redefining the vocabulary when your argument is revealed to be total BS. You don't make any valid arguments as to why Trifonov is wrong and why you should be considered more reputable than he, nor do you give an argument that Trifonov's work is being misunderstood by those in the thread. Go back to your Yahoo! Answers profile, where the "science" is more your speed. TSErik

Oh please, what trifonov does is split hairs within the DNA sequence. He takes the linear sequence and breaks it down into codes based on whatever he wants. Anyways, here's the list of codes from your link: chromatin code (Trifonov 1980) RNA-to-protein translation code (triplet code) framing code (Trifonov 1987) translation pausing code (Makhoul & Trifonov 2002) protein folding code (Berezovsky, Grosberg & Trifonov 2000) fast adaptation codes (Trifonov 1989) binary code (Trifonov 2006) genome segmentation code (Kolker & Trifonov 1995) That's 8, and some of them don't even deal with the DNA sequence itself, rather histone modifications, or protein folding. Trifonov is a bioinformatics guy, of course he sees codes everywhere because that is what he is looking for. You can pull hundreds of different codes out of the DNA sequence depending on how you define the function of your code. Are you guys aware of Trifonov's other work on an abiogenic theory of the origin of life, and molecular evolution from single nucleotides and amino acids to present-day DNA and protein sequences? Oh right, you only pay attention to what you can twist into an argument for ID. AVS

bornagin77 @81, If so many different genetic codes have been found and they are all called "second genetic code", it appears that there is a faction within the field of biology who does not like the idea of there being more than two genetic codes. How could the researchers not be aware of the previous findings? Any idea as to why? Mapou

Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 bornagain77

One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Lecture http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01a_Trifonov.mp3 Q&A http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01b_Trifonov.mp3 bornagain77

Good chat. Next time learn a little about the topic you plan to run your mouth about. AVS

You can kiss miss my asteroid, AVS. Mapou

Then your phrase about "controlling gene expression in many places" makes no sense. In fact none of your example really makes any sense. Some genes are repeated hundreds of times actually. What exactly is your point? That the cell needs a high level of regulation of gene expression? No shit, and it has this. Hundreds of proteins take part in transcriptional regulation. Proteins that are needed at a specific time are upregulated and those that are not needed are downregulated. I'm glad you're so confident in your predictions about cell biology without having any knowledge of cell biology. Adios. AVS

Man, use some of those neurons between your ears, will you?Weren't we talking about the organization of the genome? I meant there is no need to repeat A, B, C and D in a bunch of places within the genome. Once is enough, although twice might be a good idea for the purpose of redundancy and fault correction. PS. I'm getting tired of this discussion. I've said what I needed to say. I'm highly confident in the correctness of my prediction. Hopefully, UD will keep this thread in the archives for future reference. See ya. Mapou

Oh of course, you don't need any knowledge about cellular biology to make predictions about future discoveries in cellular biology. Makes perfect sense. That's really all I needed to hear from you. AS for your example, your lack of knowledge in the field of biology makes you a little hard to follow. Why is a "liver protein" being expressed in "many places?" There is no need to repeat A,B, and C everywhere? But that's exactly what happens. All the cells in your body have the same genome. Non-liver cells contain liver genes and they must be repressed. I think you should try a simpler example, and try using biology lingo correctly if you want to make sense. AVS

No one needs to know anything about sub-cellular biology to predict that the genome is organized using a deep hierarchy. A hierarchy is always a logical consequence of intelligent design principles applied to the management and control of huge amounts of complex data and code. Like I said, it's Intelligent Design 101. A simple example could be the code for a complex liver protein that is expressed in many places. There is no need to repeat the code everywhere. One only needs needs a high level code to control the expression of the liver protein in many places. But let's say this particular liver protein consists of proteins A, B and C. Again, there is no need to repeat A, B, C and D everywhere. A single code can represent all four. So, in another sense, the hierarchy is also a representational mechanism that eliminates unneeded duplications. You can use it to represent all sorts of protein combinations. It's not rocket science. It's common sense design. It is commonly used in engineering and data/code management/compression. I posit it as a hypothesis for genomic code management. Of course, when it is found, Darwinists will waste no time in claiming that it was invented by natural selection and random mutations. But it's still intelligent design though. :) Mapou

Do you have any evidence that suggests a "deep hierarchy?" Can you name any biological function that does not fit into the two levels that I mentioned? Do you know anything about sub-cellular biology? This is why I do not bother with scientific arguments on here. AVS

Did I mention that a Nobel Prize awaits the first biologist or geneticist who discovers this hierarchy? Did I mention also that it is based on well-known intelligent design principles? I guess I did, eh? Sorry, but it bears repeating. Mapou

OK. And in the DNA sequence there is two codes. One is the code for protein, the other is the code for the regulation of expression. They are both controlled by protein interactions from the first level. It’s not much of a hierarchy…

Of course, it's not. Otherwise I would not venture a hypothesis. The genetic story is unfolding and still has a long ways to go. I predict a deep hierarchy will be found in the genomes of most complex animals. Mapou

As much as I'd like run experimental trials on you BA, I'm sure you and your mommy would not approve. AVS

OK. And in the DNA sequence there is two codes. One is the code for protein, the other is the code for the regulation of expression. They are both controlled by protein interactions from the first level. It's not much of a hierarchy... AVS

Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,, Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past: Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/ Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7906908 bornagain77

AVS:

And what are the different levels of your hierarchy?

It's a control hierarchy, of course. One level has code sequences that control a number of other code sequences in the lower level. Hierarchical control has to do with the activation timing and the precise location of various proteins so as to form various cells and complex organs in the body. That is all I hypothesize. You need a hierarchy in order to promote as much reuse of low level codes as possible and avoid runaway and wasteful repetitions. It's Intelligent Design 101. Let me add that hierarchical structures are rampant in nature. Knowledge in the neo-cortex is also organized like a tree. In fact, I happen to know that there are two knowledge trees in each hemisphere, one for concurrent patterns and one for pattern sequences. Mapou

Ah yes BA, another individual with no clue what they are talking about. Everytime I come on here you paste the exact same articles into our responses. You are my favorite. I'll keep this simple. Do some research on yeast studies and tetrahymena and learn about the SWI/SNF complex and Histone acetylation and deacetylation. Now look at the same processes in humans, the similarities in protein functions and how much cancer research has benefited from the study of these processes in yeast. Now, why can we study these processes in yeast, and apply them to studies in higher eukaryotes and eventually to cancer therapy drugs? Because all higher eukaryotes have evolved from the same ancestor as yeast. We all share a large amount of the basic functions that are disregulated in cancer. The more you know. AVS

bornagain77, Thanks for the references---a breath of fresh air! The overlapping codes reduce the possibility of viable random changes in a genome by many orders of magnitude! Amazing! -Q Querius

In fact Darwinism has no mathematical demarcation criteria so as to separate it from being a pseudo-science: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor: Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/ ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such: "Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved." - Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this: Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA bornagain77

And what are the different levels of your hierarchy? AVS

as to: "You trying to tell biology that it doesn’t need evolution is like a kangaroo rat telling water it doesn’t need to be wet." Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ. "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988) At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature: Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181/ Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done - Cornelius Hunter - Sept. 2012 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/09/evolution-not-crucial-in-antibiotics.html Evolution Rarely the Basis of Research: Nature's "Evolutionary Gems" Just Narrative Gloss - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-20T17_33_56-07_00 Where are the Scientific Breakthroughs Due to Evolution? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSYoWHaBIwI Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 bornagain77

AVS, all I'm claiming (as a hypothesis) is that the genome is organized hierarchically. I'm not making up anything. If you come here with a smarter-than-thou, high-priestly, condescending attitude, you're going to get spit in your face. That is all. Mapou

Ah yes, conspiracy theory poo is at it again. One last time, you have no idea what you are talking about. You trying to tell biology that it doesn't need evolution is like a kangaroo rat telling water it doesn't need to be wet. You're a joke to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology. AVS

Yep. Predictable ad hominem attacks. I especially liked this hilarious statement:

The theory of evolution not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done.

The statement can of course be applied equally to any theory. As in - The theory of Phrenology not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done. - The theory of Racial Superiority not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done. - The theory of Geocentricity not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done. I'm sure I'll be the next recipient of gratuitous vituperation. Wait for it . . . LOL -Q Querius

Of Note SCordova, he states '13 codes' in the audio lecture bornagain77

here is a mp3 audio: One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01a_Trifonov.mp3 http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01b_Trifonov.mp3 bornagain77

Look Poo, you're not starting to make sense anymore. I said I don't have a full understanding, then you say I'm an ignoramus for not having a full understanding, and then you say nobody has a full understanding. I realize how much we know and how much I know. I can assure you it is more than how much you now on the topic. I also realize we don't understand a lot, but that doesn't mean you get to just make up whatever you want and assume it's true based on what we don't know. That may be how science is done on the ID side, but not over here. AVS

You moron, you think biology needs Darwinian evolution? There are probably hundreds of productive biologists out there who spit on Darwinism. They keep quiet about it because of the fascist atmosphere in the science. You asteroid orifices don't have a monopoly on science. You just think you do. It's a delusion of grandeur. Mapou

Multiple genetic codes Excerpt: Trifonov,, was also the first one to demonstrate[20] that there are multiple codes present in the DNA. He points out that even so called non-coding DNA has a function, i.e. contains codes, although different from the triplet code. Trifonov recognizes[19]:5–10 specific codes in the DNA, RNA and proteins: in DNA sequences chromatin code (Trifonov 1980) is a set of rules responsible for positioning of the nucleosomes. in RNA sequences RNA-to-protein translation code (triplet code) Every triplet in the RNA sequence corresponds (is translated) to a specific amino acid. splicing code is a code responsible for RNA splicing; still poorly identified. framing code (Trifonov 1987) The consensus sequence of the mRNA is (GCU)n which is complementary to (xxC)n in the ribosomes. It maintains the correct reading frame during mRNA translation. translation pausing code (Makhoul & Trifonov 2002) Clusters of rare codons are placed in the distance of 150 bp from each other. The translation time of these codons is longer than of their synonymous counterparts which slows down the translation process and thus provides time for the fresh-synthesized segment of a protein to fold properly. in protein sequences protein folding code (Berezovsky, Grosberg & Trifonov 2000) Proteins are composed of modules. The newly synthesized protein is folded a module by module, not as a whole. fast adaptation codes (Trifonov 1989) are present in all three types of biological sequences. They are represented by tandem repeats (AB...MN)n. The number of repetitions (n) can change in the cell genome as a response to stress which may (or may not) help the cell to adapt to the environmental pressure. codes of evolutionary past binary code (Trifonov 2006) The first ancient codons were GGC and GCC from which the other codons have been derived by series of point mutations. Nowadays, we can see it in modern genes as "mini-genes" containing a purine at the middle position in the codons alternating with segments having a pyrimidine in the middle nucleotides. genome segmentation code (Kolker & Trifonov 1995) Methionines tend to occur every 400 bps in the modern DNA sequences as a result of fusion of ancient independent sequences. The codes can overlap[19]:10 each other so that up to 4 different codes can be identified in one DNA sequence (specifically a sequence involved in a nucleosome). According to Trifonov, other codes are yet to be discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Trifonov#Multiple_genetic_codes citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Trifonov#Citations Seems some heavy hitters are citing this '12 code' guy as well, Zimmer, Koonin Szostak, etc.. bornagain77

If you don't understand how the genome is organized, you are an ignoramus, period. Your pompous, know-it-all attitude is insufferable. It's a sure bet that biologists have no clue about 99.99999...% of how genes work together to create a simple cell let alone a complex system like a human being. IOW, no matter how much you think you know, you're still talking out of your asteroid orifice. Mapou

Intelligent design engineering? Wow. Now there's quite a phrase. Careful, before you know it you'll have your own group of religious nuts following you. ID can do whatever the hell it wants because it has no scientific basis. Hence why it's not science. ID picks and chooses what facts to look at and what not to look at and twists around anything that proves it wrong until no one can recognize it. AVS

Lies? For a someone who claims to do research, you have quite a bias against research. Or is that only against evolutionary biology? Ah yes, you're one of those science conspiracy theorists; the evolutionary biologists are out to get you and your religious friends! Yup. Schizophrenia is manageable in this day and age Louis. Actually it's manageable because of research. AVS

Never claimed to have a full understanding of it. But I am pretty well versed on the topic. Enough to know when people are yapping about something they know nothing about. AVS

AVS:

The theory of evolution not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done.

LOL. IOW, if the theory is falsified, just add more lies to it. What a joke. There is nothing the theory of evolution thinks it can explain that cannot be easily and better explained by intelligent design engineering. ID can do much better than that and go beyond living organisms. It can also explain the evolution of human designs over decades, centuries and millenia. Mapou

AVS, I'm sure you have a full understanding of genomic organization, of course. Not. Another scientist talking out of his asteroid orifice. Mapou

Ha oh boy. You are funny Poo. Just talking out of your ass. I'm not really surprised I guess. No shit your not a biologist, you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. Just another computer geek who thinks he's a scientist. AVS

Who said anything about blind and undirected forces? Is there a third or fourth? The theory of evolution not being able to explain something only means more research needs to be done. AVS

Now in your post above, can you give me an example of one of the meta-meta-codes within a cell?

I don't have to identify anything. I merely extrapolated from the hypothesis that the genome is organized hierarchically. If there are multiple levels in the hierarchy, it follows that there must be multiple meta codes. It's not rocket science; it's simple. So go find them yourself, you lazy asteroid. A Nobel Prize is waiting for the discoverer of the meta-meta-code, I'm sure. I never claimed to be a biologist. Mapou

AVS: There’s the protein coding sequence of DNA and there’s a regulation code that controls gene expression.

Obviously, you believe that those two codes can be explained by blind and undirected forces. But how about 3 codes? Or 4? At what number do you say: 'this cannot be explained by naturalism'? Box

Here we go scordova, citing the same "12 codes" guy again. Where on earth did you get that number from? This guy is just taking the different characteristics of the genome and calling them a "code." Just like in your other half-assed example where alternative splicing is an example of a code somehow...no it's not. There's the protein coding sequence of DNA and there's a regulation code that controls gene expression. AVS

Good for you Mr. poo. Now in your post above, can you give me an example of one of the meta-meta-codes within a cell? AVS

AVS, Thorton is a freaking moron. Maybe you are Thorton in disguise, eh? I love cheetos and beer. I also love weed and wine. :-D Mapou

On the subject of the number of genetic codes, it's obvious that every level of the genomic hierarchy will have a different type of code. At the bottom you'll find the protein-coding sequences and above that you find a layer of regulatory sequences which are themselves regulated by the layer above them. It's all about codes and meta-codes and meta-meta-codes, etc. Mapou

So you're the computer simulation guy that does what the biologists tell him to do? Right. You must be really good at arguing the whale/bat echolocation issue since you've been doing it (and losing )for years now Louis SavainMay 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM I predict that huge complex sequences of DNA responsible for echolocation will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales. This will bring an end to the theory of evolution because common descent, the main prediction of the TOE, will have been falsified. When that happens, and it will, ID will be triumphant. Darwin will spin like a top in his grave and evolutionists everywhere will cower in shame. Reply Replies ThortonMay 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM Louis Savain I predict that huge complex sequences of DNA responsible for echolocation will be found to be identical in both bats and echolocating whales. That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales. We covered this exact topic a few months ago, remember? Louis SavainMay 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM Thorton: That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales. So what? That's still a tiny fraction of echolocation. There is a hugely sophisticated program used to precisely time the outgoing signals and interpret the bounced signals so as to create a 3-D representation of the detected objects. Get a clue. ThortonMay 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM Louis Savain Thorton: That's already been falsified, as the means for generating the transmitted signals are completely different in bats and whales. So what? That's still a tiny fraction of echolocation. Having ay least 50% of the process be entirely different isn't a "tiny fraction". What happened to "Designers don't reinvent the wheel"? There is a hugely sophisticated program used to precisely time the outgoing signals and interpret the bounced signals so as to create a 3-D representation of the detected objects. Get a clue. So? All mammalian brains have the capability to locate objects from echoes to a degree, even humans. Ever walk across a darkened gymnasium with a hardwood floor while wearing hard soled shoes? You can tell when you're getting near the wall by the relative strength and timing of the echoes. Since you have two ears you can also determine the direction of objects by sounds, just like binocular vision gives you depth perception. Bats and whales have just highly refined the inherent signal processing available to all mammals. Can you at least change your go to "cheetos and beer" quote, it's getting old. AVS

AVS said: Your are bullshitting like always. There are two codes within DNA sequences, the code for protein and the code for regulation of gene expression. That is it. Scientists says:

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Sep;1267:35-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06589.x. Multiple levels of meaning in DNA sequences, and one more. Trifonov EN, Volkovich Z, Frenkel ZM. Source Genome Diversity Center, Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. trifonov@research.haifa.ac.il Abstract If we define a genetic code as a widespread DNA sequence pattern that carries a message with an impact on biology, then there are multiple genetic codes. Sequences involved in these codes overlap and, thus, both interact with and constrain each other, such as for the triplet code, the intron-splicing code, the code for amphipathic alpha helices, and the chromatin code.

and http://www.technologyreview.com/view/426330/biophysicists-discover-four-new-rules-of-dna-grammar/

For 60 years, biologists have known of only two grammar-like rules that govern the language of DNA. Now they’ve found four more ... But in the 60 years since Chargaff discovered his invariant patterns, no others have emerged. Until now. Today, Michel Yamagishi at the Applied Bioinformatics Laboratory in Brazil and Roberto Herai at Unicamp in Sao Paulo, say they’ve discovered several new patterns that significantly broaden the grammar of DNA. Their approach is straightforward. These guys use set theory to show that Chargaff’s existing rules imply the existence of other, higher order patterns. Here’s how. One way to think about the patterns in DNA is to divide up a DNA sequence into words of specific length, k. Chargaff’s rules apply to words where k=1, in other words, to single nucleotides. But what of words with k=2 (eg AA, AC, AG, AT and so on) or k=3 (AAA, AAG, AAC, AAT and so on)? Biochemists call these words oligonucleotides. Set theory implies that the entire sets of these k-words must also obey certain fractal-like patterns. Yamagishi and Herai distil them into four equations. Of course, it’s only possible to see these patterns in huge DNA datasets. Sure enough, Yamagishi and Herai have number-crunched the DNA sequences of 32 species looking for these new fractal patterns. And they’ve found them. They say the patterns show up with great precision in 30 of these species, including humans, e coli and the plant arabidopsis. Only human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Xylella fastidiosa 9a5c, a bug that attacks peaches, do not conform. “These new rules show for the first time that oligonucleotide frequencies do have invariant properties across a large set of genomes,” they say. That could turn out to be extremely useful for assessing the performance of new technologies for sequencing entire genomes at high speed. One problem with these techniques is knowing how accurately they work. Yamagishi and Herai suggest that a simple test would be to check whether the newly sequenced genomes contain these invariant patterns. If not, then that’s a sign the technology may be introducing some kind of bias. This is a bit like a checksum test for spotting accidental errors in blocks of data and a neat piece of science to boot.

A grammar rule is an encoding rule, and that counts as code.

scordova

Querius, LOL. I have no credentials. I am a crackpot and a lunatic. That's what's going to make it all the more enjoyable. Mapou

C'mon, AVS. You're not going to let Mapou score are you? Maybe you could challenge Mapou on his credentials. Better yet, call him names. Do something! ;-) Got room on your couch, Mapou? I'll bring extra beer. And chips. -Q Querius

Don't thank me. You'll be shaking in your boots, alright. Computational genetics has already shown the lie of common descent: multiple identical and highly complex genetic sequences have been found to have "evolved" independently in two species (echolocating bats and whales), millions of years after they hopped onto different branches of the tree of life. Imagine that, hundreds of identical code sequences miraculously evolved twice via random mutations and natural selection. Darwinian magic is powerful indeed. Not. More surprises are in the works. And yes, I do have an excellent familiarity with computational neuroscience and AI. I write pulsed neural network computer simulations in my research. This is why I have such a high confidence about it and why I can predict that upcoming new developments in the field will astound many. Mapou

Thanks for the warning Mapou, I'm really shaking in my boots here. I'm sure you are extremely familiar with all the fields of computational genetics, physics and computational neuroscience/AI, as well as evolutionary biology...not. AVS

Ah yes you both say there's "about 12." And yet the best evidence you can provide is a webpage from the panda's thumb which gives a brief overview of alternative splicing...and that's it. The paper BA cited gives three types of "codes" one of them having to do with more than just the DNA sequence, and the other having to do with RNA (which is not DNA last I checked. Your are bullshitting like always. There are two codes within DNA sequences, the code for protein and the code for regulation of gene expression. That is it. AVS

AVS @30, LOL. Don't say I did not warn you but soon, new developments in computational genetics, physics and computational neuroscience/AI will send panic in the ranks of the Darwinists. There shall be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. I'll be watching the whole thing unfold with a grin on my face, a bag of cheetos in one hand and a beer in the other. :-D Mapou

How bout those 12 languages of DNA, scordova?

For starters in 2007: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/konstantin-b-ze.html and then as BA77 noted:

Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. http://link.springer.com/artic.....0081#close

Whether you agree or not AVS is up to you, but don't say it wasn't advocated by someone in peer reviewed literature. scordova

Of course you think it's a perfectly sensible argument. "I'm too stupid to understand its so why bother trying...god did it...and the peasants rejoiced...yayyyy...." You wouldn't know a sensible argument if it slapped you across the face. AVS

Oh yes! They used the word "design," therefore they must be talking about god's intelligent design of life! The stupidity on here knows no bounds. AVS

AVS:

Oh yeah, that guy is good… “cells are complex, therefore god made them.”

As much as you want to make it appear otherwise, I think it is a perfectly sensible and powerful argument. Darwinists hate it and jump up every time it is used because it has the same effect on them as holy water on a vampire. It hits them where it hurts. LOL. Mapou

Dr. Robert Carter apparently. He's a funny guy. AVS

Boragain77, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439753 I like the pubmed link because it corroborates what I've been saying about the hierarchical organization of the genome. Here's the abstract (emphasis added):

Abstract The genome has often been called the operating system (OS) for a living organism. A computer OS is described by a regulatory control network termed the call graph, which is analogous to the transcriptional regulatory network in a cell. To apply our firsthand knowledge of the architecture of software systems to understand cellular design principles, we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology and evolution. We show that both networks have a fundamentally hierarchical layout, but there is a key difference: The transcriptional regulatory network possesses a few global regulators at the top and many targets at the bottom; conversely, the call graph has many regulators controlling a small set of generic functions. This top-heavy organization leads to highly overlapping functional modules in the call graph, in contrast to the relatively independent modules in the regulatory network. We further develop a way to measure evolutionary rates comparably between the two networks and explain this difference in terms of network evolution. The process of biological evolution via random mutation and subsequent selection tightly constrains the evolution of regulatory network hubs. The call graph, however, exhibits rapid evolution of its highly connected generic components, made possible by designers' continual fine-tuning. These findings stem from the design principles of the two systems: robustness for biological systems and cost effectiveness (reuse) for software systems.

Isn't it funny how the authors see no contradiction in using "evolution via random mutations and selection" and "design principles" in the same abstract? It boggles the mind. But at least, they acknowledge that evolution via fine tuning can also be the result of intelligent design. Mapou

Oh yeah, that guy is good… “cells are complex, therefore god made them.” Nice

To whom are you referring? TSErik

Oh yeah, that guy is good... "cells are complex, therefore god made them." Nice AVS

What Is The Genome? It’s Certainly Not Junk! – Dr. Robert Carter – video – (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Comparing genomes to computer operating systems – Van – May 2010 Excerpt: we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439753 bornagain77

boarnagain77 @21, Most of the quotes and references you provided above are really evidence that the genome is organized hierarchically like a tree. The genome is really an extreme form of data compression, not unlike what would result from a computer compression algorithm. Low level sequences are simply reused over and over by high level control codes. For example, after compressing a string of text, a single substring such as "the", "about" or "and" needs to appear only once in the genome. With the use of single pointers, a code can be reused in many different high level phrases and sentences without having to be repeated in every sentence. Needless to say, a mutation occurring high in the hierarchy can result in catastrophic consequences. As an aside, I believe this is the real tree of life that is metaphorically referred to in the book of Genesis. A thorough understanding of the tree of life will reveal the secret of physical immortality. After all, it's just a code. Humans are once more on the verge of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree of life. Brave new world. Mapou

@ post 4

Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02460081#close 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. Apart from the classical RNA-protein translation code, the genomic DNA sequences carry many other, nontriplet codes of different nature. Those of them which are at least partly deciphered are discussed in this review in the order of their estimated occupancy in the eukaryotic genome. Each of the codes is degenerate, like the triplet code. This is the basis for their coexistence in one and the same sequence, so that the same base often (if not always) belongs to several different overlapping sequence patterns. The genomic DNA sequence is, therefore, an unusual example of natural sequence compression where, apparently, each single symbol not only is not wasted, but is also used simultaneously in many superimposed messages. Codes of biosequences - E. N. Trifonov - 2007 http://is.muni.cz/el/1431/jaro2007/Bi_IB8/Codes_of_biosequences.pdf Multiple levels of meaning in DNA sequences, and one more. Trifonov EN, Volkovich Z, Frenkel ZM. - 2012 Abstract: If we define a genetic code as a widespread DNA sequence pattern that carries a message with an impact on biology, then there are multiple genetic codes. Sequences involved in these codes overlap and, thus, both interact with and constrain each other, such as for the triplet code, the intron-splicing code, the code for amphipathic alpha helices, and the chromatin code. Nucleosomes preferentially are located at the ends of exons, thus protecting splice junctions, with the N9 positions of guanines of the GT and AG junctions oriented toward the histones. Analysis of protein-coding sequences reveals numerous traces of tandem repeats, apparently formed by triplet expansion, which in effect is a genome inflation ``code''. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that expansion of simple tandem repetition of certain aggressive triplets has been a characteristic of life from its emergence. Such expanding triplets appear to be the major factor underlying observed codon usage biases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22954214 DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011 Excerpt: Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm Ends and Means: More on Meyer and Nelson in BIO-Complexity - September 2011 Excerpt: According to Garrett and Grisham's Biochemistry, the aminoacyl tRNA snythetase is a "second genetic code" because it must discriminate among each of the twenty amino acids and then call out the proper tRNA for that amino acid: "Although the primary genetic code is key to understanding the central dogma of molecular biology on how DNA encodes proteins, the second genetic code is just as crucial to the fidelity of information transfer." per ENV The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences Shalev Itzkovitz and Uri Alon Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes.... the present findings support the view that protein-coding regions can carry abundant parallel codes. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/405.full DNA as Poetry: Multiple Messages in a Single Sequence - James Shapiro - 2012 Excerpt: Another question is harder to answer: How do multiple messages come to be inscribed in a single sequence in the course of evolution? This is an evolutionary mystery, especially when the second message has a complex structure. My own particular intellectual headache comes from structures called "shufflons" found in some bacteria that use them to diversify extracellular protein structures. Variability in surface proteins is advantageous in extending the range of specific cell-cell attachments for transfer of DNA and other macromolecules. In a shufflon, the coding sequence contains two or more copies of the intricate signals required for a DNA rearrangement process known as "site-specific recombination." When a coding region carrying two or more recombination sites undergoes an inversion, the protein sequence changes because there is now a new string of triplet codons between the recombining sites. Some shufflons have up to seven different recombination sites embedded in the coding sequence. These structures are theoretically capable of generating over 100 different protein-coding DNA sequences (33 of which have actually been isolated from one shufflon). Such remarkable protein diversifying systems in bacterial genomes pose a mystery. How do the recombination sites evolve within sequences encoding functional proteins? It does not make sense to argue that each one evolved by selection operating a few nucleotides at a time; there is no benefit until at least two complete recombination signals are present. Moreover, known mechanisms for duplicating and inserting copies of a complex DNA signal at multiple locations generally disrupt coding capacity. Further, as in mammalian dual-coding regions, we do not understand how both strands evolve simultaneously to encode functional protein segments. At a time when we pride ourselves for being able to read DNA sequences with increasing speed, it is salutary to keep in mind that we are still far from knowing how to interpret the complex overlapping meanings contained in the genomic texts we store in our databases. DNA, like poetry, often has to be read in several ways. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/dna-as-poetry-multiple-me_b_1229190.html "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010

Besides multiple layers of 'classical information' embedded in overlapping layers throughout the DNA, as astonishing as that is, there has now been discovered another layer of 'quantum information' embedded throughout the DNA "holding the DNA together":

Quantum Information In DNA - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

Of related note:

DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - Science Magazine, August-16-2012 Excerpt: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. per Science Daily

bornagain77

How bout those 12 languages of DNA, scordova? AVS

Wow, 12 languages for DNA? What are they? I've never heard of stuff like that. AVS

The fact that UPI now apparently knows it makes it doubly known. I was just surprised to see something like that moving down a conventional news wire along with the news from Mandela’s funeral and the Christmas shopping frenzy. O’Leary for News

I suspect because elements of the media are beginning to become sympathetic to ID. That's not to say there will be wholescale turning, but like CNBC and FoxNews emerging, there will be dissension from the party line. But what is bad is there are already 12 or so known languages for DNA. This only 1 more. Why wasn't the media around to report on those other languages? scordova

Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) - Sept. 2012 http://bcove.me/26vjjl5a Quote from preceding video: “It's just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, ‘I bet it's going to be complicated', and then you are faced with it and you are like 'My God, that is mind blowing.'” Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE bornagain77

A few more 'random' notes :) on the almost incomprehensible levels of poly-functional complexity being found in biological life:

"There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005 DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4614519 Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. Per Creation dot com Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. per science daily The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ "Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level." (DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn April 28, 2013) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dna-at-60-still-much-to-learn Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8 Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048 What Is The Genome? It's Certainly Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Comparing genomes to computer operating systems - Van - May 2010 Excerpt: we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439753

Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even Theistic Evolutionists is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.

S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Sator Square http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square

Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center). This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! As to Theistic Evolutionists, who believe God guides evolution incrementally, all I ask you to consider is do you think that it would be easier for God to incrementally change a polyfunctional genome of any organism, maintaining functionality all the time, in a bottom up manner or do you think it would be easier for Him to design each kind of organism in a top down manner? Verse and Music:

John 1:3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. Trans Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Eve/ Sarajevo [Timeless Version] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHioIlbnS_A&ob=av2e

bornagain77

Then Darwin’s mob arrives and drags the discussion south, demanding that we “define” “language.”

As is the tactic of the weak minded when an argument is lost. When the position can no longer be defended, move to an argument of semantics in order to obscure the topic. TSErik

Dick:

Is behavior simply the consequence of a particular structure? Could there be a series of overlapping or nested languages coded by DNA, some of which program for structure and others which program for behavior? Has any of this been worked out yet?

In most species, such as insects, behavior is mostly hardwired, that is to say, the wiring of their brain's neural network is specified by the genome and differs very little from one individual to the next. In other species, e.g., humans, birds, mammals, etc., the brain is both pre-wired and designed for learning. Neurons, especially in the sensory and motor cortices, are programmed for plasticity, i.e., they can search and make new connections with other neurons based on experience with the environment. Learning, however, is made possible by a complex and specified architecture that could not have evolved. The sensory cortex is organized hierarchically: there is a hierarchy for patterns and another for sequences: these are the two trees of knowledge. The structure of the cortex is certainly specified by the genome but the wiring is mostly determined by sensory experience. It is obvious to me that all of this complexity cannot reside in just a few thousand protein-coding genes. There must be a vast and extremely complex genetic blueprint that guides the formation and expression of proteins at the right time and at their correct specified locations. Given the above, it would not surprise me that the genomes of certain animals are more complex than that of humans. This is because a huge part of most animals' brains are prewired whereas humans must learn almost everything they know. The whole thing is so complex that no single human being could ever understand it all, in my opinion. It's not much but, basically, that is my understanding of it. Mapou

Eric noted:

. . . but it has actually become a hindrance to our understanding of what goes on inside the cell.

Bingo! -Q Querius

Dick @3:

The traditional view holds that DNA programs for proteins, but I’ve always wondered what it is that programs for behavior. Perhaps the answer to this has already been elucidated and I’m just behind the curve . . .

Well, I can't speak as to whether you're behind the curve generally. :) But on this particular point, you probably aren't. The answer is that no-one has the faintest idea how it works. What we can say for certain is that it doesn't "just happen." This realization allows us to pose a sharply pointed question to the materialist creation story: on what basis can we claim that a process that is not fully specified has produced a system that is not well understood? The intellectually responsible answer to that question is that no-one has decent evidence to believe that it could. The related idea that once proteins get built then chemistry just takes over is one of the most preposterous -- and unfortunately widespread -- myths that has helped to prop up the materialist creation story. The old dogma: DNA-makes-protein-makes-us, is so incomplete as to be not only unhelpful, but it has actually become a hindrance to our understanding of what goes on inside the cell. Eric Anderson

lifepsy, you may appreciate this: Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-09T17_31_28-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-11T15_59_50-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-13T16_47_09-08_00 bornagain77

This is funny. Would make a good post. Evolutionists comically trying to deal with the problem that organisms carry multiple potential phenotype states (triggered by environmental stress that a population may not encounter for many generations), in total defiance of the dogma of neo-darwinian natural selection. This is actually the antithesis to neo-darwinian "environmental niche" evolution. Do they realize this?

Rapid Evolution of Novel Forms: Environmental Change Triggers Inborn Capacity for Adaptation ....Eye loss in these fish is considered to be a demonstration of an evolutionary concept known as "standing genetic variation," which argues that pools of genetic mutations -- some potentially helpful -- exist in a given population but are normally kept silent. The manifestations of these mutations, that is, their impact on observable phenotypes, don't emerge until the population encounters stressful conditions. But what exactly keeps those mutations at bay?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141938.htm lifepsy

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.

How do blind and undirected processes produce double-layered code? What are the odds? I cannot begin to imagine how these facts will impact probability calculations ... Box

Querius, :) bornagain77

In fact, not only does ‘form’ presage morphological development, but ‘form’ also dictates how the developing cells/molecules are used even if there is a perturbation to the developing cells of an embryo:

What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012 Excerpt: The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

To reiterate,

It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.

neo-Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the ‘bottom up’ materialistic processes of neo-Darwinism can generate radically new body plans:

Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

Verse and Music:

Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Oh Come, Emmanuel – Lindsey Stirling & Kuha’o Case – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozVmO5LHJ2k

As to the belief that 'Behavior' is completely reducible to Genetic coding (as was assumed in post 3), that is shown to be false by the fact that 'mental states' can have and effect on genes:

Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life - July 12, 2012 Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants. If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes. http://crev.info/2012/07/anxiety-may-shorten-your-cell-life/ Genie In Your Genes - video http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html main website excerpt: There are over 100 genes in your body that are activated by your thoughts, feelings and experiences http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ Upgrade Your Brain Excerpt: The Research; In his book The Genie in Your Genes (Elite Books, 2009), researcher Dawson Church, PhD, explains the relationship between thought and belief patterns and the expression of healing- or disease-related genes. “Your body reads your mind,” Church says. “Science is discovering that while we may have a fixed set of genes in our chromosomes, which of those genes is active has a great deal to do with our subjective experiences, and how we process them.” One recent study conducted at Ohio University demonstrates vividly the effect of mental stress on healing. Researchers gave married couples small suction blisters on their skin, after which they were instructed to discuss either a neutral topic or a topic of dispute for half an hour. Researchers then monitored the production of three wound-repair proteins in the subjects’ bodies for the next several weeks, and found that the blisters healed 40 percent slower in those who’d had especially sarcastic, argumentative conversations than those who’d had neutral ones. http://experiencelife.com/article/upgrade-your-brain/

bornagain77

bornagain77, Expect a strong move among Darwinists toward a "maybe it was junk after all" position. lol -Q Querius

Yes, Dick. Scientists have studied these connections thoroughly, publishing innumerable papers in peer-reviewed journals, and they really do have it all worked out. Except for a few tiny details. Such as the behavior part. But that will be coming out any day now! ;-) -Q Querius

A few notes:

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

Moreover this poly-functional information of the DNA is irreducibly complex:

Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity - October 2, 2013 Excerpt: This paper published online this summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.,, ,,,First, the digital information of individual genes (semantics) is dependent on the the intergenic regions (as we know) which is like analog information (syntax). Both types of information are co-dependent and self-referential but you can’t get syntax from semantics. As the authors state, “thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”. In short, the linear DNA sequence contains both types of information. Second, the paper links local DNA structure, to domains, to the overall chromosome configuration as a dynamic system keying off the metabolic signals of the cell. This implies that the position and organization of genes on the chromosome is not arbitrary,,, http://www.christianscientific.org/refereed-scientific-article-on-dna-argues-for-irreducibly-complexity/

Moreover, contrary to the central dogma of the modern synthesis neo-Darwinism, (DNA makes RNA makes Protein), the information that is necessary for building the 'body plan' any particular organism is not reducible to DNA alone:

Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information - Jonathan Wells - published online May 2013 Conclusion:,, Recent discoveries of multiple overlapping functions in non-protein-coding DNA show that the biological information in the genome far exceeds that in the protein-coding regions alone. Yet biological information is not limited to the genome. Even at the level of gene expression - transcription and translation — the cell must access information that is not encoded in DNA. Many different RNAs can be generated from a single piece of DNA by alternative splicing, and although some splicing codes occur in intronic DNA there is no empirical justification for assuming that all of the information for tissue- and developmental-stage-specific alternative splicing resides in DNA.,, even after RNA has specified the amino acid sequence of a protein, additional information is needed: Protein function depends on three-dimensional shape, and the same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently to produce proteins with different three-dimensional shapes [144–147]. Conversely, proteins with different amino acid sequences can be folded to produce similar shapes and functions [148,149]. Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism - the genotype-phenotype mapping - cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152]. So non-protein-coding regions of DNA that some previously regarded as “junk” turn out to encode biological information that greatly increases the known information-carrying capacity of DNA. At the same time, DNA as a whole turns out to encode only part of the biological information needed for life. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0009

The inability of 'body plans' of an organism to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by experiments in Cortical Inheritance.

Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism – Arthur Jones – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488

Moreover, there are other lines of evidence clearly indicating that the genetic reductionism model (modern synthesis) of neo-Darwinism is false:

In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA – Jonathan Wells – May 2012 Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/in_embryo_devel060031.html “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems – 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340 “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences http://musicoflife.co.uk/ also see J. Shapiro

As well there is this intriguing piece of evidence:

Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields – Jonathan Wells – December 2011 Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels — which determines the form of the endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html

This is crushing for neo-Darwinism (genetic reductionism) because these ‘Embryonic Electric Fields’ presage the morphological development of an embryo:

An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1Qn306IUU ,,,a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,, I would never have predicted anything like it. It’s a jaw dropper.”,,,

bornagain77

The traditional view holds that DNA programs for proteins, but I've always wondered what it is that programs for behavior. Perhaps the answer to this has already been elucidated and I'm just behind the curve, but how does the production of particular proteins tell a cat to fixate on a point of laser light, a spider to construct a web with a specific architecture, or a caterpillar to construct a chrysalis? Is behavior simply the consequence of a particular structure? Could there be a series of overlapping or nested languages coded by DNA, some of which program for structure and others which program for behavior? Has any of this been worked out yet? Dick

The fact that UPI now apparently knows it makes it doubly known. I was just surprised to see something like that moving down a conventional news wire along with the news from Mandela's funeral and the Christmas shopping frenzy. O'Leary for News News

Somehow, I was under the impression that this was already known. At least, some of us knew that most of genome was involved in regulation (not junk DNA as the clueless Darwinists insisted for decades). As an aside, I predict that the entire genome will be found to be organized hierarchically, as in a tree of life, with the protein coding genes being the leaves. I also predict that a dedicated part of the brain will be found to have the ability to rewrite or modify portions of the genome (epigenetics). Mapou