Deoxyribonucleic Acid Argot Hypothesis

[Unity+]

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is one of the most important building blocks of the human body and many other living creatures that exist on planet Earth and maybe even outside of our own world we live in. For years, it has troubled scientist on how DNA is to be interpreted and how it really works to form such design such as the human body. However, this paper contains the hypothesis of how the syntax of DNA may really works. This paper goes out to explore the following piece of information provided by this hypothesis: structural importance of the double-helix found in DNA, the interpretations of the syntax of DNA, from Mathematical to biological interpretations of the syntax, and the models of the DNA syntax and the biological importance of location of proteins found in the DNA itself.

 

This is a paragraph from my latest manuscript of my new hypothesis. My hypothesis is dealing with the DNA language and the core of determining the interpretation of DNA. It goes out to explain how DNA is to be read in order to understand the language. This manuscript will go out to explain the hypothesis and how it is to be handled. I am open to debate, so I would love to have a healthy discussion about it. If you have any questions about the hypothesis, just let me now.Here are a few main points of the hypothesis:

 

- DNA is to be read not from straight forward reading the code the way it is, but needs to go through an algorithmic process to be processed easier and be read the way it is supposed to be read.

 

- The relation between this hypothesis and the new discovery that was released, where now scientists can easily determine DNA sequences using their Sudoku method. Source: Here

 

- How to carry out the algorithm with a DNA sequence.

 

Manuscript: Click here

 

 

 

I am all ears(or eyes in this case).

[ydoaPs]

FYI, we've been able to sequence DNA for ages now. We know what codons correspond to what acids and what acids make what proteins.

[Unity+]

FYI, we've been able to sequence DNA for ages now. We know what codons correspond to what acids and what acids make what proteins.

FYI, that isn't the point of this hypothesis if you even read the hypothesis in the first place. Thank you for not taking the time to read it. Edited November 20, 2012 by Unity+

[proximity1]

It seems to me that ydoaPs makes a pertinent point. in effect, the nucleotides, having been identified, are now susceptible to being "read" in the sense that strings of DNA/RNA may be compared and with that comparison, one can say whether or not two samples are more or less similar. But your uses of "reading" and of "syntax" in the context of DNA are not clear.

 

What possible sense can syntax have in this context? You don't make that point clear in your argument--as far as I have seen it. Nor is it clear what point or objective your theory targets--but I gather that the underlying objective is to arrive at an as-yet-impossible capacity to foresee, predict, what nucleotide chains should produce what consequences in cells, in tissue, in the organism as a whole. But there is nothing that I've seen in your argument which presents us with the general basic theory of why, once supposedly "unlocked," this elusive syntax of the DNA should provide that predictive capacity.

 

Let's take an analogy for example. We could select six Lego (construction toy) pieces and theorize that, in the make-up of the Lego constructions, there is some sort of underlying syntax which, when understood, makes the constructions reveal a certain sense or meaning and which could allow us to predict what various changes in the order of assembly would produce. These Lego pieces, when placed in the "natural environment" (in this case, e.g. in the presence of playful children) will result in a wide variety of constructive results. We could look at those results and attempt to find in them the syntactical inner meaning, supposing that we were not aware that their assembly by children implied that no such meaning was possible. We'd even be able to recognize, over a long observation, that very similar constructions were found to occur again and again in many different "environments"--that is because many children with the same or similar ages and experiences--social, psychological, etc.--will assemble the pieces in ways which are at times found to be remarkable in their similiarity. What should that suggest to us? Perhaps something about the children assembling the pieces but nothing really about the pieces themselves, their deeper "meaning" or pupose or syntax--because there is none.

 

As with nature's environmental conditions, the children present a random-assembly factor. The pieces fit together only in certain ways, the children always follow that, and their constructions are more or less the random consequences of their particular momentary bent--to assemble something "tall", "short," "wide", "narrow".

 

The upshot is that DNA's nucleotides are produced by the conjuncture of random circumstances which combine with environmental factors which weigh more or less on a certain utility or the lack of it in the chains produced. Those chains which are conducive of cell reproductions are by chance more likely to flourish. But "reading the elements" does not allow us to understand why one chain has some discernable set of influences or related consequences and another chain a different set of these. And, your exposition, so far as I have been able to see, doesn't offer us any explanation of why and how it could and should be otherwise. In other words, DNA is the result of random-generation mechanisms; the chains are relatively infinite in their potential arrangements. Thus, you seem to have the objective of finding the syntactical sense of outcomes which are inherently random. It's as though one took a box of nuts and bolts, all loose and detached, and imagined that because they are the elemental pieces found in various constructions, that there must be some syntactical meaning in the way that they are found to be put together--eventhough, behind their assembly are mechanisms that resemble, in effect, "shaking the box" as seeing how the pieces shake out, arrange themselves, as a reult.

 

I see no basis in theory for such an expectation in nuts-and-bolts, in Lego pieces, or in DNA nucleotides. If there is one, can you present it?

 

Whose work, I wonder, offers the precedents and bases of your views on DNA syntax? Where are the theoretical foundations on which you're building this hypothesis about syntax in the nucleotides?

Edited November 21, 2012 by proximity1