Non-biologist here. It would seem to reason that since non-coding DNA has a role in RNA manufacturing, it would be susceptible to resonance from specific energy signals that would invoke its expression, effectively appending new information to RNA. Once propagated that information made be difficult to subdue. Maybe an analogy is an unexpected object being written to a pubsub topic. Each consumer may have different si…
This is what my thesis is about (I titled it "Rehabilitating Junk DNA"). It isn't that complicated. Your resonance comment is gibberish, sorry. The DNA is a giant tape in base 4 (ATGC). There are programs written at random places on the tape that in a 64 bit encoding (i.e. triplets of quaternary bits). This is "coding sequence", about 1% of the genome (itself 3 gigabases, so 30 Mbases of coding sequence). A tape head (polymerase) comes and reads these out into RNA. The RNA is like a flash copy that is sent to a compiler (ribosome) that translates it into a working protein molecule (a sequence of 20 amino acids with the mapping encoded in base 64, see "genetic code"). There are control sequences proximal (~within 30k bases) to each program that tell the tape head when and how much to read each program into flash (i.e., transcribe RNA). These control sequences are in the 99% non-coding part of the genome. In my thesis i estimated about another 1% is actual control sequence. The rest may be random noise, we'll see.