Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account? My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wi

Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account? My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wikipedia page before commenting. That article, like many articles on Wikipedia, provides a great overview of the topic. However, it isn't a substitute for an actual education in the field. I stand by my claim that being able to read Wikipedia puts you on about the same level as the average media correspondent. I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me. You and the other comment I replied to are clearly over-estimating your knowledge, especially regarding terminology. Nowhere did I simplify anything for clarity or readability. I deliberately chose not to use jargon for readability, however my comment would have been clear and unambiguous to another biologist. Both of your comments were based on a pedantic reading of my comment that a trained biologist never would have made. Yes, the parts that make the epigenome are coded in DNA. However, the epigenome is not part of the genome. If I say "epigentic code" I'm specifically referring to the part of gene expression controlled by the epigenome. I'm not referring to the bits that end up making the epigenome (such as histones, etc) that end up making the parts of the epigenome. You each chose an incorrect interpretation in each case, when the alternative was perfectly obvious and correct.