Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA

Discovery deepens our understanding of the human genome

  • Share
  • Read Later
Daniel Acker / Bloomberg via Getty Images

A model of human DNA is silhouetted against a window in the Sackler Educational Laboratory for Comparative Genomics and Human Origins during the media preview of the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2007.

Scientists have marveled at the ingenuity of the DNA code since it was first deciphered in the early sixties, but now it appears that there is much more to it than previously known.

A research team at the University of Washington has discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other.

“Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture,” said team leader Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos.

Whereas the first code describes how proteins are made, this second language instructs the cell on how genes are to be controlled. The discovery, published in Science on Friday, will enable improved diagnoses and treatments of disease.

[University of Washington]


i sachin! 14 years old dmd boy from tamil nadu, india. congrats!! please information to me muscular dystrophy patient can keep a life time? If your invention


Another example of Time writing a headline and zero substance. At least make a feeble attempt at providing information on a subject.

BabuG.Ranganathan. Seriously! It's a sad day when a seemingly intelligent person tries to prove an opinion with zero imperial evidence while completely ignoring what evidence does exists. Don't justify your faith by a foolish attempt to explain it to others.

On a side note: A truly pathetic attempt at self-promotion.


NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It takes an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life.

Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)


* I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities


Test... I am either double posting or the internet gods ate my posts.


"Now we know"

One study and "Now we Know?  I don't think that is how science works there doctor...


“Now we know "

One study and "Now we know"?  I don't think that is how science works there Doctor.  


@BabuG.Ranganathan  Your writings are not "true" just because you write in capitals. This is the thing that is wrong with all you religious zealots. You just think that when you shout it makes everything true. You can write what ever you like but it's sill not necessarily true just because you wrote it (or shout it).

When you mix theology with biology everything starts to go wrong. Other is made up "science" invented by man and second one is the reality that makes plants grow and ecosystem to work. 

If your only "facts" here are your own logical thinking you are really walking on thin ice. Logical thinking is something that evolves thru time, again it's not fact. It is more like an opinion that you have.

To be completely honest, it would be more logical to NOT believe in god. Your own logical thinking doesn't make god "true" either. It's just your own opinion.

Oh I forgot: