"JunkDNA" (98.7% of DNA in human) is not "Junk" - requiring a generalization of the "Gene concept". On http://www.junkdna.com website news items are posted (some of them reproduced here from http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html ) - to be discussed. My "two cents" is FractoGene (see similar website and upcoming book), a geometrization that has received now experimental support for its first prediction.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

New developments about "JunkDNA"

News items to be discussed here are compiled on http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html website.

This blog was created to discuss "news items" emerging in the exploding field of "JunkDNA". Hardly anybody believes that 98.7% of the (human) DNA is "Junk". The common wisdom at the moment is that it is "regulatory DNA". My "two cents" favor FractoGene, a geometrical generalization of the almost 100 year old "Gene concept". (See www.fractogene.com website, an upcoming book, experimental support of its first prediction - and a major shift in software industry for the "Post Gene Era").

Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz
http://www.usa-siliconvalley.com

posted by Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz at 10:10 PM

2 Comments:

Blogger bjflanagan said...

I would like to acknowledge my debt to Dr. Pellionisz, whose work guided my own in important ways.

If memory serves (an increasingly dubious proposition) I first encountered his work on Tensor Network Theory when I was in college, in Patricia Churchland's excellent introduction to 'Neurophilosophy.' I knew that tensors were important in relativity, but had not thought of them in relation to neural nets.

It was only years later that the significance of Pellionisz's ideas became clear to me. I knew that Maxwell, Weyl, Schrodinger and Feynman had characterized colors as vectors, but it was only in reading Schrodinger's little book on 'Space-time Structure,' and especially the part concerning the symmetries of vectors, that it all really came together for me.


http://wordassociation1.net/qcindex.htm

http://wordassociation1.net/FieldWork.html

8:53 AM

 
Blogger Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz said...

The debt is mutual. I owe much both to Pat Churchland (see relevant material at

http://usa-siliconvalley.com/inst/pellionisz/85_churchland/85_churchland.html )

and also to Brian Flanagan (and others) in the quest to be accomplished together. Simply put, it is the geometrization of science and technology that was formerly within the boundaries of physics (and mechanical, later electrical and nuclear engineering).

Brian masterfully quotes quantum mechanics as an example of laying down the mathematical foundation of an entirely new scientific-technological enterprise (nuclear physics as a new branch of science, and nuclear engineering as a new industry).

Mathematization of biology, especially of neurobiology and now of carrying "biophysics and biotech" beyond the first 100 years of "Genes" is a daunting challenge.

I extend my thanks (among others) to profs. Gielen and Zuylen who provided experimental evidence to support Tensor Network Theory, to prof. Jim Anderson for communicating the most difficult "core" concept with brilliant ease (see his lucid 2.5 page digest at http://usa-siliconvalley.com/inst/pellionisz/90_anderson/90_anderson.html ). Thanks are also due to Erhard Bieberich for the crucial linkage of my tensor and fractal concepts (see at http://cogprints.org/79/00/struc2.htm ).

Particular appreciation is expressed towards Malcolm J. Simons who is the lead author of a recently submitted peer-reviewed paper providing experimental support of the first prediction of FractoGene.

My apologies for those whom I can not name in this skimpy blog but will make all effort to give recognition to in my upcoming book "FractoGene: Not all is in the Genes".

AJP

1:08 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home