Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Alistair
<alistair@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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.
>>
>> > DD
>>
>> 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.

Orgel and Crick called it "Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite" in this
article:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/D/G/_/scbcdg.pdf

DNA does not make protein directly. It encodes mRNA, which goes to a
ribosome, where the
protein is actually made. Most DNA doesn't make only one mRNA, it is like
a macro that can
make many different RNAs depending on parameters. It often makes short
temporary RNA
(stRNA), which in turn makes more stRNA, which eventually makes 'real'
mRNA. There are
layers of abstraction and overloading much like programming languages. DNA
isn't a simple
protein template, it's a meta language.

Amoeba dubia have 200 times the DNA of humans. The marbled lungfish and a
plant named
Fritillaria assyriaca have 40 times as much. It is hard to believe the
excess contributes
to the host's survival or complexity. You could regard them as old
companies burdened with
parasitic unionized employees who cost and contribute little, or as
cultures with an
unusually complex grammar. Why is Mandarin and Russian so much more
complex than Spanish?
The message is the same. The answer is historic accident.