On The Origin Of A Genetic Constant - 5

Calculate this!

I. Where Did The ~(32/35/25/6) Originate?

That is a fair question, so this post will answer the question and will provide the updated exact values and where "~(32/35/25/6)" originated.

Let's start with the nucleotide, atom, and their quantities that are in BOTH DNA and RNA:

Nucleotides(ACG), atoms, and counts in both DNA and RNA:

A: (Adenine) 15 atoms (5 carbon, 5 hydrogen, 5 nitrogen, 0 oxygen)

C: (Cytocine) 13 atoms (4 carbon, 5 hydrogen, 3 nitrogen, 1 oxygen)

G: (Guanine) 16 atoms (5 carbon, 5 hydrogen, 5 nitrogen, 1 oxygen)

44 total atoms (14 carbon, 15 hydrogen, 13 nitrogen, 2 oxygen)

Percentages:
(carbon 31.8181, hydrogen 34.0909, nitrogen 29.5455, oxygen 4.5455)

---

Now let's add the missing ingredient ("T") needed to make the nucleotide group complete for DNA:

Additional nucleotide(T), atoms, and count (only in DNA):

T: (Thymine) 15 atoms, (5 carbon, 6 hydrogen, 2 nitrogen, 2 oxygen)
59 total atoms (19 carbon, 21 hydrogen, 15 nitrogen, 4 oxygen)

Percentages:
(carbon 32.2034, hydrogen 35.5932, nitrogen 25.4237, oxygen 6.7797)

That is the source for the DNA (ACGT) ~(32/35/25/6) genetic constant.

It is 19, 21, 15, and 4 divided by 59 (x 100.0) which determines those percentages of those atoms in the genomes of DNA.

---

II. Calculation Partially Changed

In the previous posts in this series and others I calculated the variations from the ~(32,35,25,6) constant by subtracting ONLY the 32,35,25, and 6 values without the decimal values (.2034, .5932, .4237, and .7797) in them.

I changed the software so it would calculate the variations using the full natural values (i.e. including the decimals; ergo 32.2034, hydrogen 35.5932, nitrogen 25.4237, oxygen 6.7797).

As a result, the variations obviously changed, but not to the detriment of the hypothesis.

The new calculation has a more accurate foundation which actually further supports the hypothesis about genomes.

Here are the results of the software now that it has been improved:

GenBank Flat Files Genome Analysis Report:

after processing 100,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 394,219
variation count @ <2.0% = 5,337
variation count @ <3.0% = 345
variation count @ <4.0% = 96
variation count @ >=4.0% = 1

after processing 200,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 779,819
variation count @ <2.0% = 16,466
variation count @ <3.0% = 3,508
variation count @ <4.0% = 189
variation count @ >=4.0% = 9

after processing 300,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 1,170,895
variation count @ <2.0% = 24,378
variation count @ <3.0% = 4,461
variation count @ <4.0% = 239
variation count @ >=4.0% = 13

after processing 400,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 1,563,636
variation count @ <2.0% = 31,006
variation count @ <3.0% = 4,842
variation count @ <4.0% = 484
variation count @ >=4.0% = 15

after processing 500,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 1,961,111
variation count @ <2.0% = 33,418
variation count @ <3.0% = 4,937
variation count @ <4.0% = 499
variation count @ >=4.0% = 16

after processing 600,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 2,358,280
variation count @ <2.0% = 36,205
variation count @ <3.0% = 4,978
variation count @ <4.0% = 500
variation count @ >=4.0% = 18

after processing 700,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 2,739,424
variation count @ <2.0% = 53,245
variation count @ <3.0% = 6,559
variation count @ <4.0% = 697
variation count @ >=4.0% = 53

after processing 800,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 3,136,523
variation count @ <2.0% = 56,056
variation count @ <3.0% = 6,639
variation count @ <4.0% = 704
variation count @ >=4.0% = 55

after processing 900,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 3,531,585
variation count @ <2.0% = 60,814
variation count @ <3.0% = 6,814
variation count @ <4.0% = 704
variation count @ >=4.0% = 56

after processing 1,000,000 genomes:

variation count @ <1.0% = 3,930,305
variation count @ <2.0% = 62,013
variation count @ <3.0% = 6,872
variation count @ <4.0% = 722
variation count @ >=4.0% = 60

Total processed 1,052,789 genomes!

variation count @ <1.0% = 4,139,865 (98.3078%)
variation count @ <2.0% = 63,494 (1.5078%)
variation count @ <3.0% = 6,960 (0.1653%)
variation count @ <4.0% = 743 (0.0176%)
variation count @ >=4.0% = 62 (0.0015%)

---

III. Closing Comment

As you can see, the less-than one percent value increased from "92.6949%" to 98.3078%, so the hypothesis is looking good:

(combined 98.3078% + 1.5078% = 99.8156%).

But rather than bloviate about how that DNA genetic constant got there, let's just say "we don't know" as the professor suggests in the video below. 

UPDATE: The RNA constant is brought up in a new series (On The Origin Of Another Genetic Constant).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

---