"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:x2jQd.215697$w62.103794 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| I've not Verified it, yet, but my view is
| that "the genome" is not like a "book of
| instructions". It's more like a "hologram",
| and it's activation is always unitary, across
| the =whole= "genome".
| [...]
And I'm =not= "throwing out" anything that's
in the standard Genetics texts. I'm just saying
that what's in the standard Genetics texts is
missing some important stuff -- some stuff
that's =really= Fundamental to the function-
ing of "the genome".
I've been working on this Problem for more
than two 'decades'. Way back when it was
the "fashion" to call stuff in "the genome"
"junk", I saw that, on the basis of the need
for Precision within the 3-D energydynamics
on the basis of the need for molecular-'level'
"TD E/I-minimization" -- molecular-'level'
WDB2T-"climbing" -- there could be no
commonly-occurring "junk DNA" within
"the genome". And after 'years' of fighting
that "fight", I read of folks saying, ~"Hey!
What we thought was junk DNA isn't."
And it isn't. What the seemingly "repetitive",
or otherwise "nonsensical" stuff is is some of
what underpins genomic "functional multi-
plexing".
Think about it. It's said that we share 99+%
of our "genome" with the great apes. So, if
"the genome" were linearly-encoded via a
one-to-one mapping of "genetic instructions"
to biological-products, then all of the dif-
ferences between Humans and the great
apes would have to be "located" in less than
1% of such a one-to-one map.
Such doesn't compute. Apes don't engineer,
build, and use Saturn V rockets and Gemini
capsules, they have no literature, they build
no cities, have no comerce traversing the
seas and the air, etc.
And these differences, themselves, are not
linear. Each capability enhancement con-
stitutes a whole "encyclopedia" of enhance-
ment. I mean, each new capability is fairly
'boundless' in the ways it can be behaviorally-
expressed. And remember, it's absolutely-
necessary to maintain relatively-rigorous
cross-correlation between internal 3-D
energydynamics and external experiential
3-D energydynamics, else the organism
will not be able to Survive within its ex-
ternal experiential environment.
All of that would have to fit into less than
1% of "the genome".
But, if the difference between the Ape
"genome" and the Human "genome" is
due to the "fact" that the Human "genome"
is greatly-advanced in terms of its "stand-
ing-wave genetics", what appears to be a
"1%" difference is probably much more
than that, but such hasn't been observed
because the "difference" is itself "tucked-
in" in a "functionally-multiplexed" way,
with tiny tweaks disbursed throughout
"the genome" all imbuing "the genome"
with capabilities that are inordinate to
the size of the "small tweaks", because
they are all in the realm of extreme "func-
tional multiplexing".
Get it?
Looking at "the genome" from the per-
spective of a puzzle analogue again, but
this 'time' taking the form of evolutionary
dynamics being the "puzzle solver", with
the "puzzle" being optimizing the "climbing"
of WDB2T, then the difference between
the Ape "genome" and the Human "gen-
ome" is like the difference between forc-
ing the fit of the puzzle's pieces and achiev-
ing a 'state' in which all of the "pieces"
just slide together [I'm actually thinking
of one of those twisted-nail puzzles as
I write this.]
The "difference" is one of =optimization=,
and such optimization would =necessarily=
be achievable via small tweaks that are
distributed throughout the Human "genome".
Like the difference between the distributions
of chisel-strokes in a sculpture at various
'stages' of completion -- they get finer and
finer, and are distributed throughout the
sculpture.
And, using the 'same' analogy in another
way, the difference is like the difference
between the work of an Artisan who
carves figurines for the weekend tourist
market, and the work of Michaelangelo's
"David".
'same' general idea, but the latter instance
is spectacularly-more than the former --
and the difference is in the precision of
the overall execution =everywhere= with-
in the sculpture.
Only in the case of "the genome", the way
to achieve the analogous 'perfection' is to,
mostly, enhance what's already in-there
in an analogously distributed-throughout-
it way, adding "new" capabilities by 'per-
fecting' what was already in the great
Ape's "genomes".
And the =only= way this could occur is
through embuing "the genome" with robust
"functional multiplexing" capabilities -- else
it woulodn't appear that the great Ape's
"genomes are 99+%" of the Human
"genome".
There's a =lot= more that I've not yet
discussed [with respect to candidate
"functional multiplexing" mechanisms,
but, after turning my PC off earlier, I
"groaned" when I realized that, if folks
haven't read =everything= that I've
posted, they would probably "assume",
from what I wrote in my earlier post,
that I'm 'throwing-out' "standard" Gen-
etics.
I'm =NOT= doing that. I'm just looking-
beyond it -- doing the fine-detailed
"sculpting" that builds-upon it, having
seen that the standard view is insuffic-
ient.
The distributed-"tweaking" of the DNA
that I wrote of above is definitely involved.
And the endoplasmic reticulum, as I've
been discussing it with respect to its being
"the engram" probably works in ways
that're closely-coupled within "standing-
wave genetics", which is why I write "the
genome" in quotes -- it's not only the DNA.
Without 3-D energydynamics that tune it,
the DNA is not a functional entity.
I've not yet considered whether the func-
tioning of the RNA and mRNA is tuned
by the 3-D energydynamics. These are both
good sites be-cause they occur 'away-from'
the DNA, and, therefore, are more-free to
be "tuned". IF it's so, the ER is still involved.
But presently, I've no plans to get into that
unless something "breaks-through". [I don't
have enough 'time' left to "get fancy". All I'm
doing, here, is "opening the door" that leads
to a fuller understanding of "the genome"
because that "door" opened to me while I
was developing NDT and TH.]
[The "standing-wave genetics" nomencla-
ture, BTW, refers to an activation-reson-
ance between "the genome" and 3-D en-
ergydynamics.]
[And, BTW-too, if anyone cares to know,
I like solving "functional multiplexing" Prob-
lems.
k. p. collins
