Most
DNA
sequences are poly-functional
and so must also be poly-constrained.
This means
that DNA
sequences have meaning on
several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning
limits
possible future change (poly-constrained). For example,
imagine a
sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with
an
equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let's suppose that it
also
has a third message when reading every other letter, and a forth
message when a
simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would
be
poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a
normal sentence
will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible.
However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot
be
improved. It can only
degenerate. Any misspellings which might possible improve
the normal sentence from will be disruptive to the other levels of
information... Trifonov (1989) has shown that
probably
all DNA
sequences in the genome encrypt multiple codes (up to 12). ~ John Sanford
S
A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S
Like
puns, palindromes, and other word puzzles, DNA contains poly-functional
letters, words, and phrases.
Such sequences can only arise by very careful design. Once they are created, they
cannot be “mutated” to make
them better. An excellent example is the painstakingly crafted
poly-functional Latin
phase shown above. This ancient word puzzle (dating back to 79 AD) has
a
translation something like, “THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF
THE
WHEELS.” It reads the same, four different ways: left to right, up to
down, and
starting at the lower right, down to up, right to left. Any single
letter
change in this system destroys all four messages simultaneously (all
four of
which happen to be the same in this example). Similarly, a simple
sentence
palindrome would be: ABLE WAS I
ERE I SAW ELBA, which reads the same forward or backwards. Any letter
change destroys
both messages. A simple example of a poly-functional word would be LIVE, which backwards is EVIL. To change LIVE to HIVE might be
desirable, but it turns EVIL which
has meaning, to EVIH, which is
meaningless. So this dual-meaning word, like the other examples above,
is
poly-constrained, precisely because it is poly-functional. ~ John Sanford
No, I save on final perusal
– a sure plan if no evasion.
[a spine]
Name no side in Eden, I’m mad! A maid I am, Adam mine;
denied is one man.
[seen mad]
Madam in Eden, I’m Adam
[amen]
It is a challenge to
find even single short words. There are some others -- can you find
them? The exercise gives an appreciation for the difficulty in finding
(let alone creating) overlapping code -- especially code that will
yeild a meaningful/coherent/complex/aesthetic result. It also
illustrates the constraints on mutations -- any letter changed will
cause confusion on more than just one level.
Name no side in Eden, I’m sad! A maid I am, Adam mine; denied is one
man.
Name no side in Eden, I’m
mad!
A maid I am, Adas mine;
denied is one man.
seen sad
In the example above
"mad" has an unusually high number of variations
that could "work" (11/25). It could also be "bad", "cad", "dad", "fad",
"had", "lad", "pad", "rad", "sad", "tad", or "wad". "Sad" is even
similar to "mad", but who is "Adas"? Even if it turns out
that "sad" is an acceptable substitute, is it a better substitute?
Remember: this is a best case scenario. It is easy to see how other
scenarios would not fare as well -- especially when multiple mutations
are introduced.
see
also:
Animation Haldane's
Dilemma
Intelligent
Design
Junk
DNA
Mendel's
Accountant Monkeys and
Shakespeare 2 3
Palindromes
2 3
Sudoku 2