If there was no gene pool then there were no genes. If that's the time you refer to then you're not talking DNA but RNA. The RNA World and Cairns-Smith hypotheses use RNA as their initial focus for replication.
They hypothesize RNA as the first self-catalyzing self-replicating chains and not very long or very complex ones at that. The hypotheses continue that as the reactions in RNA-based organisms became longer and more complex it became thermodynamically easier (something nature seems to take advantage of at every opportunity) to make use of the DNA structures to augment the RNA mechanisms.
For each step Taq is correct. Any chemical reaction that enhanced the processes got replicated and those that did not died out. In the slow processes of chemical evolution, trial and error in literally trillions of trials a day over 500+ million years, by the time we find the first fossils (cyanobacteria) DNA had apparently become the main structure of chemical inheritance. Further refinements in the chemical interplay led to what we know today as "the cell" with its highly complex chemistry.
No need for any code writer since there is no code. There is just the result of billions of years of chemical complexity that, to us humans, appears to mimic a code that we might devise.
Your "second code hiding in DNA" is hype. It is not real.
This additional layer of complexity, regulatory sequences (ie, promoter and enhancer sequences), has been known for decades. The UofW paper points out that the use of preserved pairs of nucleotides which double as transcription binding factors is more prevalent than first thought. That's it. An expansion of what we already knew.
No "second code". The "second code" hype was courtesy of UofW's public relations office (think marketing folks). As usual, the weak minded press jumped at the hype. Press people are a scourge to truth, just like creationist IDiots. You read/heard something that fit your preconceived BS and swallowed it all whole.
The sequences here are NOT some second code, some second language, that's been hidden in DNA all this time. They are standard functions of DNA that are nothing new or "stunning". Only the extent of their usage is new and not hardly "stunning" in the least.
so you think that we shouldn't listen to science reporting but we should listen to you instead.
No, not me. You might want to consider the sources, though. One of which has the actual abstract linked.
He confirms that 'additional layers of complexity' have been found, and that the UW scientists have added 'additional knowledge to this growing field'.
So your claim "there is no second code!" is all hype.
With your research methods and reading comprehension I'm not surprised you have missed the whole side of the barn. Yes, scientists have continued to find additional complex operations of the genome such as enhancers, promoters, HOX genes, as well as the transcription binding factors the UofW work was studying. None of these equate to any "second code hidden within the first (non-existent) DNA code".
What the UofW work did was not find any new levels of complexity, let alone any hogwash like a hidden second code, but did add new knowledge showing the breadth of use of the (already found and analysed) transcription binding factors.
[aside] Not that you would understand, but a lot of the rest of the folks here will; the significance of the UofW paper is that it will help track the transcription paths, especially the multi-gene paths, for a lot of proteins. This will impact proteomics to a great extent. [/aside]
So, in addition to there being no first code, in the sense you wish "code" to be defined, there now is no second code within the same DNA molecular structure. Who'd a thunk?
The release also contains gems such as The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. This sentence makes me sad...
Your smart-pants 'contributor' thinks she knows better than to use literary terms to describe the codon...
Wow. How damn dense can one human be and still function across the internet?
Her statement has nothing to do with using "literary terms." The statement she points to:
The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons.
is just plain wrong even given the literary analogy.
Do you understand why?
yet in the SAME PARAGRAPH, gloating after showing up a research scientist, she gets a little too 'wordy' for her own good (pardon the pun):
your second link writes:
...Some amino acids get more than one word to designate them.
... which is correct and you probably still do not know why. The only one screwed here is not Dr. Emily Willingham, Ph.D., Biology, U of Texas, Austin, the author of that second link, but (no surprise) you.
With the typical Missouri mule you have to take a 2x4 to their butt to get their attention. Here, you were walloped up 'long side the head and you still carried on, dumb as a stump, like nothing ever happened.
As for your message to Capt Stormfield for quoting from the actual study paper from the UofW, the actual paper which is now the (sub)topic of discussion in this thread:
You are throwing useless RED HERRINGS into the discussion in an attempt to harass me. Any more of this an I will be reporting this to the administrators.
Please consider my responses to your continued inanity as harassment of your poor, helpless, little self.