Talk:1605: DNA - Revision history

Brycemw: Forgot my signature

2024-04-23T16:13:48Z

Forgot my signature

Brycemw at 16:13, 23 April 2024

2024-04-23T16:13:28Z

172.71.98.193: 'source' code

2022-06-27T13:29:43Z

'source' code

R0hrshach at 22:37, 23 November 2015

2015-11-23T22:37:34Z

R0hrshach at 22:31, 23 November 2015

2015-11-23T22:31:53Z

R0hrshach at 22:23, 23 November 2015

2015-11-23T22:23:40Z

These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For: Added observation

2015-11-23T00:12:02Z

Added observation

199.27.129.155: Explanation should include archived copy of google homepage, so joke still makes sense even if Google changes it.

2015-11-21T20:54:01Z

Explanation should include archived copy of google homepage, so joke still makes sense even if Google changes it.

Hkmaly at 13:34, 20 November 2015

2015-11-20T13:34:35Z

Hkmaly at 13:34, 20 November 2015

2015-11-20T13:34:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 23 April 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:
	I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193\|172.71.98.193]] 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)		I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193\|172.71.98.193]] 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

−	Being a programmer (and especially one that works with hardware a lot), I love to try to make analogies of biology to computers. Of course that really really only goes so far. Having done the briefest amount of research into DNA, it's definitely not "source code". It's machine code for the worst ISA in the world that has no documentation and the code uses every single quirk to its extreme. Talk about self-modifying code, this is a self-modifying processor! Multiple "instructions" seem to code for the same thing except they actually impact the "performance" significantly. The interactions between every part of the system is so wild and sensitive that not only is the outcome different "run to run" but even when replicating the code exactly, environmental conditions make the outcome possibly very different. Not to mention that every single "processor" is slightly different and will run the same thing differently! The fact that we can be sure about almost anything is wild to me but clearly we know way less about complex organisms than simple ones. IIRC, we've managed to "compile" a simple bacterium gnome and get it to work at least somewhat, but not as well as the original!	+	Being a programmer (and especially one that works with hardware a lot), I love to try to make analogies of biology to computers. Of course that really really only goes so far. Having done the briefest amount of research into DNA, it's definitely not "source code". It's machine code for the worst ISA in the world that has no documentation and the code uses every single quirk to its extreme. Talk about self-modifying code, this is a self-modifying processor! Multiple "instructions" seem to code for the same thing except they actually impact the "performance" significantly. The interactions between every part of the system is so wild and sensitive that not only is the outcome different "run to run" but even when replicating the code exactly, environmental conditions make the outcome possibly very different. Not to mention that every single "processor" is slightly different and will run the same thing differently! The fact that we can be sure about almost anything is wild to me but clearly we know way less about complex organisms than simple ones. IIRC, we've managed to "compile" a simple bacterium gnome and get it to work at least somewhat, but not as well as the original! [[User:Brycemw\|Brycemw]] ([[User talk:Brycemw\|talk]]) 16:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 23 April 2024
Line 52:		Line 52:

	I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193\|172.71.98.193]] 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)		I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193\|172.71.98.193]] 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Being a programmer (and especially one that works with hardware a lot), I love to try to make analogies of biology to computers. Of course that really really only goes so far. Having done the briefest amount of research into DNA, it's definitely not "source code". It's machine code for the worst ISA in the world that has no documentation and the code uses every single quirk to its extreme. Talk about self-modifying code, this is a self-modifying processor! Multiple "instructions" seem to code for the same thing except they actually impact the "performance" significantly. The interactions between every part of the system is so wild and sensitive that not only is the outcome different "run to run" but even when replicating the code exactly, environmental conditions make the outcome possibly very different. Not to mention that every single "processor" is slightly different and will run the same thing differently! The fact that we can be sure about almost anything is wild to me but clearly we know way less about complex organisms than simple ones. IIRC, we've managed to "compile" a simple bacterium gnome and get it to work at least somewhat, but not as well as the original!

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 27 June 2022
Line 50:		Line 50:

	I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minification_(programming)], itself contained minified code. [[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)		I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minification_(programming)], itself contained minified code. [[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193\|172.71.98.193]] 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :::Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes is a classic example of convergent evolution, therefore eye structure proves evolution not intelligent design. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Eye structure disproves intelligent design BECAUSE no intelligent designer would use two things which are so similar and yet so different. Disproving intelligent design is easy. The real content is between evolution and STUPID design. Or, well ... Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes looks EXACTLY like something which would happen if {{w|Polytheism|two designers}} try to compete without directly copying from each other. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 :With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the {{w|Appendix (anatomy)|Appendix}} or our {{w|tailbone}}) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94567/I-feel-great-President-Bush-declares-pretzel-incident.html even if you are the president of the US] ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 ::Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 :::Without a pretzel-choking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents?
 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.215|162.158.180.215]] 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 23 November 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:

	I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155\|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)		I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155\|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minification_(programming)], itself contained minified code. [[User:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, 21 November 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:

	So much for Gattaca then... [[User:Martin\|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin\|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)		So much for Gattaca then... [[User:Martin\|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin\|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I wasn't quite sure what was meant by a comprehensive language in this line:
		+	"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language"
		+	Whether it meant that the language of DNA is incomplete in some way (e.g. relies on other linguistic components), or what. I changed it to:
		+	"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand"
		+	Which I think is clearer, and I hope captures the intended meaning. If not, please clarify. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155\|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	To maintain historical context, it would be prudent to add links to the current version of the Google homepage, both as it appears in a web browser, and Google's current code for the page (e.g. via the Wayback machine). Google could change the page to make it visually more complex, or change the code to make it simpler. Preserving samples of both would futureproof this explanation.
		+	Here is a link to the archive for the Google homepage on the day this comic was posted [[https://web.archive.org/web/20151118000129/http://www.google.com/ Archive of www.google.com homepage, on 18 Nov 2015]]
		+
		+	I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155\|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)