You are taking the exception that there are some overlapping open reading frames on the anti-sense DNA strand in a number of genes
What is really amusing here is that you granted the existence of something way more unusual than the garden variety situation and you don't even know it.
This is what we usually see:
5'-->-a-b->--->--3'
3'-->----->2-1>--5'
You say that this is impossible, yet you're granting that this happens:
5'-->-a-b->--3'
3'-->2----1>-5'
Overlapping orfs take place pretty frequently on the same strand, less commonly on the complementary strand because if you've got to make the sequence on one strand make a decent product, it's harder to make the complement make a decent product too because there's not a lot of flexibility in the possible sequence. These complementary overlapping orfs are seen most commonly in viruses since they need to cram so much information into such a short sequence. However, lucky you, I found an example in humans that you might find interesting.
So now we see that genes do occur on both strands by your own forced admission. I see that Ichneumon posted and find myself going OUCH! because of the fact that you got owned by Wikipedia. That's got to smart.
Given your disgruntled acceptance that both strands have genes and both are thus coding, given the fact that chemically there is nothing to distinguish one strand from the other, and given the fact that DNA can squiggle about from being linear to be supercoiled (an apparent earlier objection of your seems to be that DNA isn't flexible enough to be twisted around and joined up as it is), you have no rational reason to say that such rearrangments are impossible.
But you are still trying to say that although genes are on both strands, still (for some reason you are incapable of explaining) we can't flip a sequence and paste it back in. Unfortunately for you reality stands to testify against you. Inversions are quite common in our genomes. For instance, in just a single woman all of these variants were found:
We graphically mapped all sites with two or more discordant fosmids in the context of repeat, gap and duplication properties of each human chromosome (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Figs. 2,3, 4,5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13,14,15, 16,17,18, 19,20, 21, 22,23,24, 25 and Supplementary Table 1 online). After elimination of clonal propagation and other assembly artifacts (Supplementary Note online), we identified 297 sites of putative structural variation, corresponding to 139 insertions, 102 deletions and 56 inversion breakpoints (Fig. 2 and Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1 online). Seventy-five percent (228 of 297) of these sites of putative structural variation also showed spanning fosmids consistent with the human genome reference sequence, in addition to two or more discordant fosmid pairs. This indicates that the diploid individual from whom the fosmid library was constructed is probably heterozygous with respect to these structural variants, and they probably do not represent genome assembly errors. We estimate that most of these putative structural rearrangements ranged in size from 8 to 40 kb. Deletions and inversions as large as 329 kb and 1.9 Mb, respectively, were also predicted (Supplementary Note online).
("Fine-scale structural variation of the human genome." Tuzun, E., et. al. Nature Genetics. 2005, 37, 727-732.)
This healthy woman has considerable segments of her genome reversed, yet she has no ill effects and all of her genes continue working correctly. The only case in which an inversion causes problems is when the inversion breakpoint hits the middle of an orf. If it is between genes, the ribosomes are perfectly happy to continue transcribing. After all, they can't tell one DNA strand from another anyway, so why would they care?
In one case a very long inversion is spreading through the population in northern Europe. Women with this inversion statistically have more children than the general population, indicating some reproductive benefit to the inversion. The human genome project has discovered multiple variants in our genomes in healthy individuals, with inversions, deletions, and multiple copies of genes being common.
Even worse, chromosomal rearrangements of this type and others commonly occur in mice. There are mice of the same species running around with as few as 22 chromosomes or as many as 40. Heck, I also ran across this page that lists a number of observed chromosomal remodelling events, including inversions.
It really would have been so easy for you if you had just checked on this when wyattearp called you on it initially instead of insulting him. Even if you had backed down when I posted explaining it wouldn't have been so bad. But you continued digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I'm pretty darn sure you haven't got a degree in biology, so why did you think you know better than those who do have such degrees? I would think that would give you pause. I also noticed that I've never seen this particular argument used before, which makes me think that either you probably made it up yourself or you stumbled across it in some source that even other YEC groups think is suspect. Did you think that you were the sole person in the world to realize this dilemma? If you find something to be a monstrous huge deal and obviously completely wrong yet nobody else agrees, odds are you're mistaken!
For a small fee I will share with you the secret of squaring the circle.
The goalpost is back at human chromosome 2, where it's always been.
The people moving the goalposts are the ones looking for 'flipped' chromosomes or evidence of coding structures on the anti-sense strand everywhere but at human chromosome 2 where it should be.
A key prediction of evolution has failed.