Russell McMahon wrote: > Don't have references to hand. > But even you should strongly suspect summat's aglae when Humans report > in at around 30,000 genes and Mustrad Grass at about 25,000. > I suggest that if you are offended by the suggestion that the best > counter is to produce two or three good solid references that clearly > contradict it. > Something along the lines of "The results of the human genome project > have confirmed what has long been taken for granted - the > characteristics of every living thing are completely defined solely by > the contents of their DNA...". Would need to be originated post HGP. > Good luck. I don't understand what the heck you're trying to say here. If there was a mention of a mechanism that defines the physical makeup of an animal beyond its genome, I didn't see it. > Drivel, never made it to doggerel. Whatever that means... > How can I express it. > We could start with atg, and stop with a tag (not html) or taa, or tga > too. > It's all in the introns - or is it :-) > The centromere all seemed so clear. > What seemed like many appeared quite few, when Ventner gave a closer > view. > At 30,000 , give or take, we're not far off mere mustard grass. > (Arabidopsis thaliana if you wish, but me, I'll pass), > 20% less genes makes such a jump > Where one is you, the other grass. Huh? I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned scientific argument where the additional information for the physical makeup of an organism comes from other than its genome, let a lone a sufficiently strong case to justify the "for sure" rating of your statement. Really Russell, if I didn't know better from your many other posts, I'd conclude from this you were just a troll. ****************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist