No, the confusion is in the attempt to confuse.
This is a board dedicated to the discussion of DNAG by investors. It is not a forum for the use of idiosyncratic dialog between pretentious know-it alls.
You are quite welcome to use any 'convention' you like when talking to equally 'conventional' colleagues, but to try to confuse laymen by suggesting that those parts of the DNA associated with the creation of a protein, those parts, essential for the correct fabrication of the protein, those parts without which the protein would not exist, those parts which actively participate in the 'coding' process, those parts whose specific participation is via the 'code' that they contain, are really not part of the code, and, in fact, exist in a non-coding' region, is a disservice to the board.
The thread began with the 'claim' that an unrelated 'junk DNA' SNP, on it's own, caused a specific variance in a physiological characteristic. The thread has evolved, due to the intervention of those with an ax to grind, into a discussion of archaic naming conventions. Conventions used to try to evade the basic point of contention, conventions used by those who have stepped in it, to avoid 'fessing up'.
Obviously you are here now to help clarify the situation and I am sure you will do your best. Perhaps then you will be so kind as to explain to those who are trying to understand the issue, how a SNP in a 'junk DNA' region can affect the formation of a protein without having its 'coded' information extracted by the protein building process in some way.
Feel free to use whatever semantics you wish to avoid the admission that there is any 'coding' going on, and try to avoid letting on that the existence of a pertinent piece of the protein building apparatus in a 'region' automatically revokes the 'junk DNA' label.
We are all looking forward to your response.
Best wishes,
frog
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
