Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

In article <657lo7F2e5vr4U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>"Alistair" <alistair@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:69c88c59-3e42-484a-8321-67452c60d5fd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:15:20 +0000, docdwarf wrote:
>>>
>>> > 'Technically' there is even less difference between what you cite
and
>>> > between A-negative and B-positive human blood... now I'd appreciate
it 
>>> > if you'd keep away from dealing with transfusions.
>>>
>>> Ditto. No more than one bit might separate a program that works
correctly
>>> and one that fails catastrophically. This is a relevant analogy,
because
>>> DNA is code.
>>
>> Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
>> discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
>> reason.
>
>I think you need to qualify that to "without rhyme or reason that we can 
>discern at this time."

I agree, Mr Dashwood... now, how often in my postings does one read 
*that*?  The 'junk DNA' stuff is something that strikes me as just plain 
odd; energy is required to create and maintain it.  A left-over here or 
there I can understand - the little toe or the vermiform appendix - but so

much... *stuff* in each and every cell?

It just doesn't make sense to me, now... but I will not say 'it will never

make sense to anyone, ever.'

DD