sense

Back

How much progress has actually been made since the human genome (and now many others) were mapped at the turn of the century?

At various times it has been claimed that the genome's of a cabbage or potato were more complex than that of a human; and not so long ago it was even believed that 98% of human DNA was ‘junk’ (redundant or non-coding). Analysing genetic sequences for rhythms and patterns to extrapolate predictive information is simply not going to work when they are missing so much of the primary function information. C/W’s molecules themselves are in roughly the correct positions but their orientation and hence the atomic positions are certainly not. The evaluation of ‘sequences' without understanding the related '3-dimensional atomic positions' of those sequences within the helix I’m afraid will not lead much further.

The onset of synthetic structures in the 1970’s has created many variant forms - Z, T, D, C etc have all made appearances (Bansal, M.)(2003)Current Science, vol85, 1556-1563). I don’t believe such structures would necessarily exist had synthetic construction, developed in the 1970’s, not been predisposed to the C/W 3D nucleotide specifications; the imaging of such structures is by no means proof of their authenticity in nature. Chemists are able to synthesise all manner of plastics that do not occur in nature. That proof imagery can be gained from ‘in vitro’ synthetic DNA but not ‘in vivio’ organic DNA should have been flagged up long ago. I have always maintained that I would hold my arms up in surrender if they could take a sample of my own DNA and show me C/W’s pairing - but they cannot. And yet they claim DNA is DNA whatever organism it codes for and whether it be their synthetic design or natures own. It is my belief that the reason for this anomaly is that ‘in vivio’ DNA is held together in entirety by hydrogen bonds thereby rendering it less stable for imaging than the partly covalent bonded synthetic structures they have been playing with since the 1970’s.