No need since the data used was manipulated. The conclusion is already invalid. Beside you could look up this yourself but will probably not bother.
I'm sure I could read the entire thing for myself and not draw the same conclusion you did which is why you need to provide a reference to the part you are assuming is relevant.
Same paper with the same manipulation of data to fit a numerology code. Do take note both journals are published by the same company.
Not the same paper. They do have more to say about their paper though;
The symmetrized code and the ideogram
So, the first thing to be found was the ideogram (as we call it) with all its symmetries and semiotics. The idea was simple: just separate whole and split codon families into two sets, sort contracted codon series according to their redundancy within those sets, and then arrange them using nucleon numbers of the amino acids that they encode. That’s all. As a result, you will get a structure with three strings composed of nucleotides from the same positions in codons. If you perform such systematization with the standard genetic code, you will find that this three-string structure is conspicuous in that its strings appear to be nearly symmetric. And you don’t have to be keenly observant to see that the symmetries are fully restored if TGA codon is reassigned from Stop to cysteine. In fact, you don’t even need to systematize the code like that – you can see that the degeneracy pattern of the standard code is nearly symmetric if you observe traditional tabular representation of the code as well, and the minimum action to restore the symmetry in degeneracy is the same reassignment of TGA from Stop to cysteine. After that, all symmetries in the ideogram become perfect. Even with this “symmetrization trick”, the reason for which was not clear at that moment yet, the ideogram with its symmetries, including the semantic structure of antonyms Stop→Stop→AAA→Start→Start in the middle string, appeared profound. And as it turned out, there was a slight
hint that occasionally (e.g., in guinea pig liver) TGA codon is indeed recognized by Cys-tRNA. The results of those early experiments were not quite certain, but they helped to publish
the description of the ideogram in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. And only three years later it was
established that the version with TGA coding Cys instead of Stop is used in the nuclei of euplotid ciliates.
Then it was noticed that, besides displaying the symmetries, codons in the two parts of the ideogram are neatly interconnected with a simple inversion rule T↔G, A↔C. A bit later it was found that this feature was discovered long before by Russian physicist Yuri Rumer just after the code was cracked by biochemists. It was also found that categorization of amino acids using their nucleon numbers
was introduced earlier by Hasegawa & Miyata. So, the procedure that uncovers the ideogram is nothing but a mere combination of the findings of Rumer and of Hasegawa & Miyata (it was much harder to trace all relevant publications, especially in the USSR, at the time when journals were published only on paper). The only extra additions were i) the assignment of zero nucleon number to stop-codons to treat them on equal footing with codons assigned to amino acids, and ii) consideration of contracted, or combined, codons (with ordinary codons you cannot get any unique structure, as there is a lot of ambiguity in positioning of synonymous codons; that’s not the case for the arithmetical part of the message, since codon positions are not important there).
Arithmetical patterns and the “protection key”
Nucleon numbers at that stage were used only for arranging the amino acids within redundancy sets to build the ideogram, not for adding them together to get nucleon sums. Besides, no distinction was made between standard blocks and side chains of amino acids, and therefore proline was considered “as is” (it is trivially checked that for the ideogram it makes no difference if a nucleon is transferred or not in proline).
The collection of canonical amino acids is quite diverse – all of them differ from each other physically and chemically. Nevertheless, they are all still alpha-amino acids. That implies, by definition, that they all have the same basic architecture comprising the standard block (universal for all amino acids) and side chains, or radicals (unique for each amino acid). Note that this distinction between universal and unique parts of molecules is purely formal and might be conceived of only by an intelligent “classifier”; natural processes treat given concrete molecule without ever “knowing” that this molecule belongs to some general class.
With this distinction in mind it was noticed that if nucleons are summed up separately for standard blocks and side chains in all amino acids, these sums appear precisely equal in the half of the ideogram with split codon families (1110 = 1110, see Fig. 7b in the paper), while the chain sum in the half with the whole families has 334 nucleons. However, performing the formal distinction between standard blocks and unique chains in all amino acids, you will notice that proline differs from the rest of them in that you have to “cross-cut” two bonds in it, rather than one (technically speaking, proline is not an amino acid, it is an imino acid, though this terminology seems to be obsolescent). That leaves its block with 73 nucleons, while in all other amino acids standard blocks have 74 nucleons. Strangely enough, if you “standardize” proline’s block by “transferring” one nucleon from its side chain (again, a purely formal operation), you get 333 nucleons in the whole half of the ideogram, in accordance with decimally distinctive balance in the other (split) half. Well, nothing special compared to the ideogram symmetries, though somewhat amusing and
worth a note in a journal.
Hey look at that they even noted the transference of the nucleon from proline's side chain but apparently its nothing special since the symmetries occur without performing the purely formal operation.
Later on, when another arrangement of the code based on the first nucleotide type (purine or pyrimidine) was analyzed, it was noticed that the half with pyrimidines in first positions has 813 nucleons in blocks and 815 nucleons in chains. And again – if you standardize proline in the same way, the nucleon sums become precisely equal: 814=814. This was the moment when proline fell under suspicion. That triggered analysis of nucleon sums in other arrangements – decomposed code (Fig. 6 in the paper), the arrangement in Fig. 8b and Gamow’s sorting which revealed a whole bunch of decimally distinctive sums (Fig. 5) – everywhere the formal standardization of proline worked faultlessly (it is remarkable that without the standardized proline not a single nucleon balance of free amino acids was found in the code).
http://gencodesignal.info/summary-of-the-research/
Yup that was worth a note for sure.
Shad said:
Go look up Elsevier's reputation. They have been caught publishing articles in a journal which was not an actually academic journal but a magazine, fake journals, paid to publish papers, paid to publish fake journals, pay walls for open access, etc.
Are these crap too?
.....the results collected in
Icarus paper were published sequentially in such biology-oriented periodicals as
Journal of Theoretical Biology,
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres,
BioSystems
http://gencodesignal.info/faq/#q19
How about Springer?
The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code
Physics and chemistry are indifferent to the internal syntax of numerical language of arithmetic and, in particular, to the number system that this language employs. All they require from arithmetic is quantitative data. Absence of a privileged numerical system inherent to an object must therefore be a necessary condition of its natural origin. Recent research, however, has found an exception. That object is the universal genetic code. The genetic code turns out to be a syntactic structure of arithmetic, the result of unique summations that have been carried out by some primordial abacus at least three and half billion years ago. The decimal place-value numerical system with a zero conception was used for that arithmetic. It turned out that the zero sign governed the genetic code not only as an integral part of the decimal system, but also directly as an acting arithmetical symbol. Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code. A new order in the genetic code hardly ever went through chemical evolution and, seemingly, originally appeared as pure information like arithmetic itself.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6340-4_7
