Oh boy....
It's not defined by chemistry alone, but that does not mean that it is not defined naturalistically.
Nope, it is not defined by chemistry at all.
Absolutely. I ask for the tenth time: If these processes are not just chemistry, what else are they?
Yawn, god you are obtuse, how many times and how many links does it take? So please explain proof reading for me and provide proof.
For the 1000th time. Information is not chemistry! Sheesh! You have serious issues Paul see a doctor about your memory problem.
There is no direct chemical connection between a codon and it's amino acid. Purely chemical theories have been proposed for the origin of the code as in stereo chemical theories and templating. These are purely chemical and are an attempt to explain the code. Why? because It most certainly is not what life uses, even in the first hyperthetical cell. Can you explain why a purely chemical system is required to explain another purely chemical system? That makes no sense Paul. I am baffled by your inability to recognize this.
I'm not sure where you got the opposite direction thing, but (a) this is not new news, and (b) it's not really a second code.
My mistake I was confusing an RNA antisense code that runs opposite. (Yet more problems for you and yet more code) I have been studying too many papers at once.
The news is that "Duons" are much more prevalent in the protein coding regions than previously thought. Yes the dual use has been known for a while but not to the extent as first thought in exons. As for being a second code that depends on definition.
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22954214
Also... Actually Trifanov describes at least 12 codes a nucleotide can contribute to.
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].
What analog code? The fact that the same sequence can encode multiple proteins is very old news.
Never said it was new, in fact I remember explaining it to you once.
What analog code? Glad you asked. It is described as "irreducible organization".
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1
So as far as I can see all your post is really saying is that it is all chemical. Wrong because code and information are not chemistry. Wrong because code has no place in a purely chemical system. Wrong because there is no direct chemical connection between codon and amino acid. Wrong because stereo chemical theories are an attempt to explain codon mapping and is most certainly is not what happens in real biological systems. It also begs the question because enzymes are required that are defined by sequences of DNA that are not determined by chemistry.
The code exploits chemistry. Information, genetic information runs the show. Not chemical reactions, this is basic Paul I am not arguing design here but basic cellular biology. You can't acknowledge the code and claim it is all chemical at the same time! What is not chemical? The code!
Take it or leave it, arguing biology with you is a complete waste of time. Don't expect anymore.