Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?

They're "hox" genes, not "HOAX" genes, and what about them do you think is unproven? The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs. There's apparently a small amount of "acquired" traits that can be passed on from a parent to an offspring via DNA methylation, but that's more akin to chemical signalling between individuals at a time when it's particularly convenient to do so than to Lamark's notion of the inheritance of acquired traits. Inherited methylation patterns typically don't continue past the first generation. It's "in DNA" the way the shape of a cake is encoded in the recipe for a cake. The morphology of any organism is a direct consequence of its DNA, but just like a recipe contains no homologue of a cake, DNA contains little in the way of any direct homologue to morphology.

Since hox genes are genes, the mechanism is the Central Dogma of biology. Hox genes work by expressing proteins, same as any other gene. And that causality has been proven. There is no such thing as an "electromagnetic template" that controls the morphology of organisms. This claim is not only pseudoscience, it's bizarre. "Phantom limb" syndrome is neurological, not "electromagnetic." It's caused by the persistence of motor control areas in the brain associated with the control of the missing limb.

Like nearly everything you've said in this thread, this is nonsense. Hox genes were never so declared and this was never representative scientific thought on the subject. It's just more of your pseudoscientific make-believe. At the level of biological knowledge you evince - none at all, basically - you could do worse than start with the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_geneSorry, no. There are no medical cases where any amputee has been able to sense actual contact with an amputated limb. The "continued perception" is solely an artifact of the persistent motorneural activity in the brain corresponding with the motor control of the amputated limb. Electromagnetic fields have not ever been involved and there's no "evidence-based element" in that regard. Since there's no such thing as the "anatomical chemical model" aside from your own invention, I highly doubt that any person actually said these words to you. Just one more thing you're making up, most likely.

No, it was not. This is make-believe, not something that really happened. And it's not how regeneration happens in lizards. "Oral tradition"? Surely you must be joking. Some senior doctor is having a laugh at your expense, or else somebody has tried to sell you something.The idea that a grown, adult person would take seriously scientific claims passed down by "oral tradition" is, perhaps, the funniest thing I've read all week. Thanks for providing a laugh, if not anything else of any merit. Completely wrong. Genes determine the primary sequence of proteins, which determines their structure. Structure of proteins determines functions. The fact that you can frequently supplement the body with "correct" proteins to overcome a genetic disease doesn't eliminate as causal the body's own defective genes. In fact it proves that genetic diseases are, in fact, caused by genes that encode mal-formed proteins.

You seem to be making two claims at once - the first, that there's all this unknown evidence for electromorphological fields that is completely lost to science; and two, that all this "lost" evidence isn't lost at all because you know all about it (but can't provide any of it.) Which is it? Well, but as you've just shown none of these are actually examples of "lost" scientific evidence surviving by oral tradition. Mendel's work survived in print, not by being passed down by oral tradition. Copernicus's work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium survives in manuscript form to this day. String theory has always been in print.Something is an "oral tradition" when it is passed verbally, in spoken form, between generational individuals (usually without being written down except, perhaps, towards the end.) In absolutely none of the three cases you've put forth was there an "oral tradition" of anything. The evidence that it is true is what causes me to make that leap. "Faith" has nothing to do with it, but faith is what is required to believe in electromorphological fields on no other basis but that a senior doctor told you they existed. There was no patient who demonstrated this "phenomena", was there?

Can he "forget" what has never, ever been seriously proposed or demonstrated?Again, the notion that "genes control electrical cues" is nonsense. You've just made it up. And observe as I solve it with ease: there's no such thing as an "electromagnetic template." You're a crank. Mystery solved!

That's not what "oral tradition" means, but at any rate it's likely that Mendel (for instance) didn't talk about his work while it was being ignored because he was dead.

There are plenty of takers for rational discussion, here. Anytime you'd like to be a part of it, you just have to stop making things up. So when are you going to listen or understand our arguments that contradict your personal experience? You asked for a source of information about hox genes. It was provided. Was that something you were going to respond to, or just pretend never happened?